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

-------
Thursday
June 29, 1995
Part iI
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 110, et at.
FederaL Regulatory Review; Final uies

-------
33928 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 I Rules and RegulatIou
586.1105-87 (Amendedj
196. In §86.1105—87, paragraphs (b)
and (c)(1) are removed and reserved.
IFR Dec. 95-15029 Flied 8-28-95; &45 ami
coes I6IO4 P
40 CFR Parts 35, 122,123,124,125,
140, 141, 144, 148, 148, 403,405,406,
407,408,409, 411,412, 417,418,424,
428,427. 428, 432,435,438,443,448,
447, 454j 455, 457, 458,460
(FRL- 22 -4J
NatIon IPoIlutant Discharge-
EliminatiOn System and PTe eabnent
Programs; State and Local Assistance
Programs; Effluent Umltatione
Guidelines and Standards; Public
Water Su ly and Underground
injection COntrol Programs: Removal
of Legally Obsolete or Redundant
Rules
AG CT, Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTeOn Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (E ) is today removing from
the Codeof Federal Regulations (CFR) a
number of re*ulatlons pertaining to its
water programs that are obsolete or
redundant. Deleting the obsolete
regulatioiis from the R will clarify tha
legal status of these regulations for both
the regulated community and the.
public E A is lso deleting from the
CFR the maximum COflt minant levels
goal ( “MQ . .G”) and maxlmum
contiuiiin . ’nt level (“Ma..”) for mcke1 ,
which ,have,been vacated by a court. In
adItion,EP? Is making one correction
due td a typogruphical error.
EFFECTIVE 0 TE: This final rule takes
efl ct on June 29, 1995.
FOfl fUfl INFORMATION CONTACT
(ynthla Pusker. Policy and Resources
Management Office (4102), U.s.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St. SW, Washington. D.C. 2046O
(202) 260—8532.
SUPPlEMENTARY tNFORMAT1ON
L Introduction
On March 4. 1995 the President
directed all Federal agencies and -
departments to conduct a
comprehensive review of the regulations
they administer and, by June 1. 1995 to
identify those rules that are obsolete or
unduly burdensome. EPA has
conducted a review of allof its rules,
including rules issued under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (“FWPCA”) (33 U.S.C. 1158
and 1251 at seq.) (also cited below as
the Clean Water Act or “CWA”), the
Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) (42
U.S.C. 300f at seq.). and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (also known as the Ocean Dumping
Act or “ODA”) (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
Based on this review, EPA Is today
deleting a number of FWPCA and -
SDWA rules from the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below. These
rules are being deleted either because
they are obsolete or because they are
redundant with other statutory or
regulatory provisions. The rules deemed
to be obsolete have expired by their own
terms or by the terms of the statute or
have been made obsolete by the
completion of the grant projects to
which they applied. In the case of the
maximum contaminAnt level goal
(“MCLG”) and maximum ConthmlnAnt
level (“MCL”) for nickel, EPA is
removing those regulations from the
CFR because they have been vacated
(i.e., declared void and of no effect)by
a court. Today’s action does not make
any legally substantive changes to the
regulatory programs at Issue.
Today’s removal of rules from the
CFR Is not intended to affect the status
of any civil or iminnI actions that were
Initiated prior to June 29, 1995 or which
may be Initiated In the future to redress
violations of the rules that occurred
prior to today’s action.
In addition to the regulations
addressed In today’s action. EPA’s
Office of Water has identified a number
of other regulatory provisions that may
provide opportunities for further - -
streamlining beyond the deletion of -
obsolete and redundant regulations
being accomplished today. The Agency
intends to address those matters in
future actions. -
IL Obsolete Rules
A. Federal Water Pollution Control Ad
Ru!es-
e ubpart C tUlaUOnsapp 1 j ...
the time the grant was awai j “
40 CFR Part 35. Subpart D-
Reimbursement Grunts, EPA Is d ‘
Part 35, Subpart D, which
regulations promulgated undey -
208 of the CWA, as amended,
208 authorized EPA to award grants -
municipalities for reimbursemant
stateorlocalfundsusedforpub
sewage treatment works proJect ott -
which construction was initiated aft
June 30, 1956, but before July 1, 197i -
and for which a grant was awarcf f ‘
under Section 8 of Public Law
Subpart D was made obsolete by
completion of reimbursements to th -
eligible projects. In the unliksly evea .
a question regarding a section 208
reimbursement project, the Subpey o -
regulations in effect when the grnn w
awarded should be consulted.
Section 122.1(g). This provision
simply recites portions of the Clean
Water Act that give EPA authority ovey
NPDES-related matters. This language t
superfluous and Is therefore deleted by
today’s rulemaking.
Sections 122.21(m)(31 and (n)(2) and
40 C ’R Part 125 Subpart I—Extension,
of Deadlines for Meeting Treatment
Requirements. CWA sections 301(11(1)
and (2) allowed parties to seek
extensions through permit Issuance or
modification of the statutory deadlines
for meeting certain treatment
requirements. EPA Implemented these-
provisions In sections 122.21(n)(2) and
(m)(3) of the regulations. Section
122.21(n)(2) allowed publicly owned
treatment works (“PO’rNs”) that were
experiencing delays in construction to
seek extensions of the compliance
deadlines Section 122.21(nX2) set a
deadline of August 3, 1987 for POTWS;
to apply for an extension. Section -
122.21(mX3J allowed point source
dlschargers to seek their own extensions
40 0’R Part 35. Subpart C—Grunts for of treatment requirement deadlines in
Construction of Wastewater Treatment the event the POTW Into which the -
Worke. EPA Is deleting Part 35, Subpart soui was to discharge was
C, which comprises regulations experiencing delays In construction.
promulgated under SectIon 8 of the - Section 122.21(m)(3) set a deadline of
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. as ‘January 30 1988 for point source
amended. Section 8 authorized EPA te. dlschazgers to apply for these
award grants to municipalities for the - extensions. Because both of these dates.
construction of treatment works to have passed. these two regulatory
prevent the discharge of untreated or - provisions are obsolete and are deleted
tiiadequately treated sewage or other by today’s rule.
waste into any waters. Subpart C was -. In addition, 40 G’R Part 125 Subpart
made obsolete by passage of the CWA J (consisting of sectIons 125.90 through
and its Implementing regulations at 40 125.97) sets forth the criteria for Issuing
CFR Part 35, Subparts E. I and J. as well these CWA section 301(1) extensions of
as completion of most of the projects time to POTWa and point source
funded by Subpart C grants, which date discharger,. Because these extensions
to the period prior to the passage of the are no longer available, this provision
CWA in 1972. Any remairung active too Is obsolete and is deleted by today’s
grants will continue to be governed by rule.

-------
/ Vol. 60, No. 125 I Thursday, June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33927
and Part 125.
For fnnovctiVe
deleting Part 125.
s regulations
301(k) of the
the Clean Water
allowed EPA to
extensions to any
ibject to a NPDES.
installed innovative
date to WhiCh
be extended under
eMarch 31. 1991. The
rCbllenged in court
84 1500 (D.C. dr.)).
ration of the statutory
the couit dismissed
red EPA to vacate the
court order dated June
122.21(m)(4). which is.
ed. Is a corresponding
the time for
submitted for section
of
cit8tiOfl in section
July 1. 1984 as a statutory
Is no longer
been revised by the
Act. This date Is
deleted from section 122.46(d).
.J 5 zenceto a specific date is
— 1n that provision.
‘ 122.52(CX ) ’ 122.82(a%17).
3(j)—CaUses for Pennit
L* Jon. Section 122.52(a)(14) lists
for permit modification the
ssnfomi to changes to sections
.g1Jc) end (d) that EPA made
t a udIdal settlement
____dated November 16, 1981 In
fI I with I4RDC v. EPA. No. 80--
•.Sstl 122.82(a)(17) lists as a
rpermit modification the need:
, lraffi to certain other regulatory
sthat EPAüiade in connection
. i tImn. nt agreement. Section
d17) also sets a deadline of
24,1985 for the permittee to
iy t modification. Also. section-
*O allows minor permit
to be made without the
Psn 124 proceedIngs In order to -
• the permit to certain regulatory
that were Issued on September-
k iotthesethreecaseg over ftv.
be,. passed since the relevant
y changes that would be the-
a & apennit modification. Thus,
that would have needed a.
to incorporate these
IflI7 changes have expired, and all
Pesmts are already subject to
‘S’tsed regulatory conditions and
temod flc tj (Although
,ofthc.. expired Permits may not
, reIssued but may currently be
WiW5tratjve extension, EPA
does not modify such permits; see
sections 122.6 and 122.46(b)). Moreover.
the deadline in section 122.62(a)(17) In
particular to apply for permit -
modifications under that provision
expired In 1985. AccordIngly, these
three provisions are obsolete and are
deleted today.
Sections 123.43(b) and 124.58—
Copies of Drnft Permits. Section
123.43(b) Is a requirement for State
agencies that administer NPDES permit
programs to snqTnit a second copy of
draft general or proposed permits to
personnel at EPA Headquarters (under
section 123.4 3(a)(2), the State must
provide the first copy to the Regional
Administrator). Similnrly. In the case of
certain EPA-issued general permits.
section 124.58 directs the Regional
Administrators to send copies of the
draft general permits to the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Water
Enforcement at EPA Headquarters and
gives that official an opportunity to
object to the draft permits. The EPA
Regional Office has primary
responsibility in both of these cases. -
EPA believes that both of these
requirements to notify the relevant
Headquarters office in every case of.a
draft or proposed permit are
unnecessary. (In addition, because of.
reorganization, the two Headquarters. -
positions referred to in these provisions
no longer exist In any event.) Therefore
EPA Is removing these regulatory
requirements (although the
should consult with Headquarters on
draft permits on an as needed basis).
These provisions relate only to EPA’s-
Internal operating ocedures. and
therefore they are removed today
without notice and comment pursuant
to section 553(b)(3)(A) of the
Administrative Procedure Act.
Section 140.3(h)—Mo.rlfle Sanitation
De’4ces . This section Is no longer
necessary, since it was designed to.
clarify which of the datesdesa ibed in
the rule between 1975 and 1980 were-
the “effective dates” for purposes of
CWA section 312(g)(1). Since all dates-
desaibed In the rule have passed. there.
can be no ambiguity as to whether the-
rule Is effective for purposes of section
312(gX l).
40 CFR Part 403—Pretreatment
Regulations.
Section 403.1(c) (deadlines for
submission of category determination
requests and reports). This provision
extended certain deadlines for the
submission of requests by Industrial
users (requests to determine whether
they were covered under various
pretreatment standards, variance
requests. and applications for net/gross
adjustments) and for certain baseline
reporting requirements on the part of
industrial users. The deadlines and
these extensions have long since lapsed.
and so this provision Is being deleted.
Section 403.5(f) (deadlines for
compliance with national pretreatment
standards). This provision Is obsolete
because the compliance deadlines it seiz
have long since lapsed.
Section 403.8(c). (d). & (fJ(1)(vi)b4 )
(P07W pretreatment requirements). The
last sentence of §403.8(f)(1)(vi)(A) s t
deadlines for POTWs to submit requests
for approvals of modified pretreatment
programs. Because these deadlines h Jec-
lapsed, this sentence is obsolete and Is
removed today. In addition, in
§ 403.8(c), EPA Is removing an obsolqte
aoss. reference to pretreatment program
requirements in § 403.10(d) (also ieing -,.
deleted today) for permits Issued to -
POTWs In States not authorized to act. c
as the approval authority. Finally.
§ 403.8(d) . which authorizes compliance
schedules in permita to allow time for
POTWs to develop pretreatment
programs once determined necessary. W
obsolete by its terms, and so is remoyq
and. reserved. EPA intends to invite
comment on appropriate compliancé,
schedules in a future nilemaklng.
Section 403.10(b), (c) and (d) -:
(deadlines for modifi cations). Section
403.10(b) is obsolete because it Uow e4
for an extension of time for States to
modify their NPDES programs.
consistent with the 1977 aznendmenih to.
t) e Clean Water Act. The 1977
amendments to the Clean Water Act ..
required modification of any previ6i
approved State NPDES program witlilli
one year (or two years if legal authori
needed to be enacted) to include a State
pretreatment program. The wueii id
has. lapsed. Section 403.10(d) provi4ed ,
for POTW permit modiflcatlou after
approval of State program mothflcätio
for pretreatment Any permits that-S
wouldbe affected by section 403.10(d)
have long since been issued and
expired, thus. modification Is
unnecessary. Section 403.10(c)
previously provided that failure of a
State to seek approval of a State
Pretreatment Program as provided in
403.10(b) and the failure of an approved
State to administer its State
Pretreatment Program in accordance
with requirements of section 403.10
constituted grounds for withdrawal of
NPDES program approval under Clean
Water Act section 402(c)(3). Section
403.10(c) is also revised In today’s rule
simply by deleting the reference to
obsolete § 403.10(b) and retaining the
provision that failure to comply with
the 1977 CWA NPDES program
modification obligation is a ground for

-------
33928 Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday. june 2 , 1995 / Rules and Regu1erio ,.
withdrawal of the State’s NPDES
403.22(b) (baseline reporting
requirements for industhal users). The
second sentence of sectIon 403.12(b)
allowed an Industrial User of a PO1
to forego resubmisslon of baseline
monitoring reports where reports had
been submitted previously according to
a now-defunct reporting regulation. This
regulatory provision had allowed for
transition to new reporting
requirements. The sentence is now
obsolete because the time for any such
reporting required under section 403.12.
has lapsed and, in the event any new
pretreatment standards are established
in the future. Industrial Users would not
be able to use this provision because
they would not have been required to
submit the earlier reports.
Section 403.13(gJ(2)(i) (deadlines for
variances from pretreatment standards).
Section 403.13(g)(2)(i) is obsolete
because It established a July 3, 1989.
deadline for submission of requests for
variances from categorical Pretreatment
Standards Issued by EPA prior to
February 4.1987. That deadline has
now lapsed.
Part 403. Appendix B (list of priority
pollutants). Appendix B lists the 65
priority pollutants developed pursuant
to the Consent Decree In Natural
Resou .rves Defense Council. Inc. v.
Costle. This list is now redundant with
the List of priority pollutants published
at 40 CFR §401.15. Regulations In Part
403 do not otherwise refer to Appendix
B.
Part 403 AppendIx C (list of Industrial
categories). Appendix C Lists ths-
industrial categories subject to national
categorical pretreatment standards
pursuant to the Consent Decree In
Natural Resources Defense Council, Enc
v. Costle. The list Is incomplete and
obsolete because EPA has now
published national effluent guidelines.-
and pretreatment standards for other
industrial categories. Regulations in Part
403 do not otherwise refer to Appendix-
C.
Parts 405 To 460—Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards.
1. FDF Vanances. An industrial
discharger subject to effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated
by EPA under the Clean Water Act may-
qualify for a “fundamentally-different
factors” (“FDF’J variance that would
allow alternative limitations to those
imposed in the effluent guidelines.
Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 125 contaIns
the criteria and standards for FDF
variances. including the procedures for
applying to EPA for such variances.
However,.the BF1’ (best practicable
technology) provisions of a large
number of effluent guidelines
themselves (contained in 40 CFR Parts
405 to 460) also discuss the availability
of FDF variances and the procedures for
applying for thorn (see, e.g., the first
paragraph of section 405.12). 1)1 these
particular effluent guidelines, this
lengthy discussion of FDF variances
generally is repeated in the BPT
provision for each separate subcategory.
Thus, this virtually identical discussion
of FDF variances occurs several times
within a particular effluent guideline In
many cases and a very large number of
times over the entire set of effluent
guidelines. All of this language In the
effluent guidelines is superfluous and
redundant with the criteria and
standards for FDF variances contained
in Part 125, Subpart D. Therefore, this --
language Is deleted today from each
place that It occurs in the effluent
guidelines. In Its place in each affected
provision, EPA has added a cross
reference to Part 125, Subpart D.
2. Pretreatment Requirements. EPA Is
similarly deleting today obsolete
language concerning pretreatment
requirements that currently e,dsts in a
Large number of individual effluent
guidelines provisions. In the 1970’s,
when many of the earlier effluent
guidelines were promulgated, the
general pretreatment requirements for
dlschargers to publicly owned treatment
works (“ FWs”) were contained In 40
R Part 128. In 1978, EPA promulgated
a revised set of comprehensive
pretreatment regulations In 40 CFR ParV
403. whIch superseded the Part 128--
regulations. Therefore, EPA deleted Part
128 from the Code of Federal-
Regulations. See 42 Fed. Reg. 8476 (Fe
2.1977) and 43 Fed. Rag. 27736 (June.
26. 1978). However, many of the-
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (“PSES”) and pretmatment-
standards for new sources (“PSNS”) br
the earlier effluent guidelines contain --
cross-references to the Part 128 -
p utreatment regulations. To date, those
cross-references have not been updated-
to reflect the replacement of Purt128 by
Part 403. EPA Is accompIf h4ng this.-
update today.
Typically, the PSES provisions In
these effluent guidelines indicate first.
that the Part 128 pretreatment standards
apply, which would Include the specific
pretreatment prohibitions In section
128.131 (prohibitIng wastes that would
interfere with POT’vV performance by
causing fires, corrosion. etc.). See, e.g.,
40 CFR § 405.14. These specific
prohibitions are now contained in Part
403 (see section 403.5). so the reference
to section 128.13 1 is obsolete. Next,
these PSES provisions typically set out
a table of pretreatment standards that
p -
standards for”Incom
Accordingly, In the F
these effluent -
retaining the table o )SES
but Is removing all referen ,
128 regulations as obsolete. r
adding language that simply
references the requirements 0
The PSNS provisions In these .
guidelines also reference the
prohibitions In sectIon 128.131
replace the Part 128 pretreat
standards for “incompatible”
with specific standards. See, e.g.,
CFR § 405.16. Generally, howesert
replacement standards consist of
references to provisions that do na’,
contain any liimtatlons for
“Incompatible” pollutants as de5
former Part 128. Therefore, to
parallel, updated language, the
today to these PSNS standards s1nip . -
cross-reference the Part 403
requirements and contain no other
limitations.
As with the other Items in today’s,
notice, these revisions simply conc ’:
obsolete or redundant language and.
effect no substantive changes to the
variance provisions or the PSES and.’
PSNS provisions In Parts 405 through.:
46.
B. Safe Drinking Water Act Rules i
Public Water Systems
Section 141.11—MCLs For Inorgankt
Contaminants. Pursuant to section l4tV
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA s&t
maximum conthmin*nt levels (“MQ .s
In sectIon 141.11(b) of the regulations .r
for a list of eight Inorganic
con I11I Rnt5 Subse jently, in two
1991 nilaninfrIng (58 FR 3526. January
30, 1991 and 58 FR 30266, July 1, 199l
EPA revised the MCLs for six of these-
contnmin*nt. ...cadinIuin, chromium, -
mercury, nitrate, selenium, and banw
The 1991 rulenlAkings placed the
revisedMCLsin section 141.62(b) and
made them-effective 18 months after
promulgation. The 1991 nilemiikings
also established these effective dates kr
the new regulations as the dates beyond
which the original MCI.s in section
141.11(b) farthesesixcontaminante -
would no longer be effectIve (January 1;
1993 for barium and July 30. 1992 for
the others). Because these dates have
passed. the MCLs for these six
cont minAnts in 141.11(b) are obsolete
and are deleted today. The Language of
sectIons 141.11(a) and (b) is revised to
reflect these changes.
Section 141.11(c). which contains the
MCL for fluoride, is deleted today
apply to the particular
de hat these standarij t

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 1 Thursday, June 29,1995 / Rules and Regulations
33929
is redundant with the MCL
uoride that is now contained In
011 14l.82(b). Section 141.11(d),
ji add1 S an lnmeased MCL for
1 t 0 that may be allowed at the
.cijon of the State. Is unchanged by
y’S action and remAins in effect.
,o. EPA revised its regulations for
11 June 7. 1991 (56 FR 26460) and
it rulemaking established
inber 7, 1992 as the date beyond
b the existing MCL for lead In
n 141.11(b) would no longer be
two. Because that date has passed.
4CL for lead In 141.11(b) is obsolete
today.
to MC I - for arsenic in section
ii(b) Is unaffected by today’s
naking and remsins in full force
effect
‘ctiOflS 141.51(b), 141.62(b)(24),
2 3(a)(4)(i)(TabIe), and
32(e)(56)—NiCkel Drinking Water
slations. By today’s notice. EPA l s
ing the public that the Agency has
ested and received a court order
ting and remanding the MCL and
£ (maximum contAminAnt level
for nickeL The remand has already
a effect; today’s action simply
the nickel MCLG and MCL
ithe Code of Federal Regulations.
a July 17. 1992. EPA promulgated
fCI.C of 0.1 inglL for nickel under
Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”).
R 3177D. The MCLG isa non-
)rceable health goal that is set at a
I at which “no known or anticipated
erse effects on the health of persons
ur and which allows an adequate
in of safety” (SDWA section
2(b)(4)). In the same miemAking.
also promulgated.a nationaL
nary drinking water regulation
PDWR”) for nickel. consisting of an
I. of 0.1 mgIL. associated monltor1ng
lytical testing, and public notice -
ulrements, and Identification of best
ilable treatment technologies for
keL The MCI. is an enforceable limit’
is set as close to the MCI-C as Is
sible (SDWA section 1412(b)(4)).
o September. 1992. the Nickel -
velopment Institute (a nickel trade
odatlon) and other industry parties
a petition for review in the US.
urt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
illenging the MCL.C and MCL for
±eL Nickel Development Ins tituW , et
V. EPA (No. 92—1407) and Specialty
‘el Industiy of the United Slates v.
owner (No. 92—1410). The petitioners
sad objections over EPA’S
ithodology for determining the MCLG
nickeL Specifically, they raised
e 1o concerning the derivation of
e relative source contributlosi (‘RSC”)
Cto r and the need for a 3-fold
iceitainly factor that EPA applied due
to the lack of adequate data on the
effects of nickel ingestion on
reproductive systems. Because the MCI-
for nickel was based directly on the
MCLG. the petitioners also challenged
the nickel MCL.
EPA and the petitioners entered Into
discussions in an attempt to settle this
litigation but could not agree on the
merits of the petitioners’ challenges.
Nevertheless, EPA has agreed that it did
not fully address in the public record
the petitioner’s comments on the
proposed methodology for deriving the
MCLG for nickel Therefore, It is in the-
public interest to conduct further
rulemaking to obtain a full public airing
of those issue s . Accordingly. EPA has
agreed to take a remand of the MCI-C
and MCI.. for nickeL
The Agency notes that as of the 1992
rulemaking, projections from available
data estimated that only seven public
drinking water systems nationwide were
expected to have nickel levels exceeding
the MCI- of 0.1 mg/L Therefore, this
remand of the nickel MCL Is not
expected to have a significant effect
nationwide on the levels of nickel in
public water systems.
Terms of the remand order.
Accordingly, on February 9; 1995, EPA
and the nickel Industry petitioners filed
a joint motion for a voluntary remand of
the nickel MCI. and MCLG. By orders of
February 23, 1995 and March 6. 1995.
the court granted this motion and.
vacated and remanded the following
regulations (and dismissed the lawsultl:
1. The MCIG for nickel listed In 40
CFR I41.51(b); -
2. The MCL for nickel listed In 40
FR 141.82(b)(14) and
141.23(a)(4)(l)(Table): and
3. 40 CFR 141.3 2(e)(56).
All other portions of 40 CFR 141.51(b).
and 141.23(a)(4)(i)(Table) are not
affected by the court’5 order.
The MCI-Ga for conterninsnts other
than nickel listed in § 141.51(b) rsm nn, .
of course. In full force and effect. -
Simlliirly. as-to the Table In
§ 141.23(a)(4)(l), the court vacated only
the MC I. for nickel, leaving the
sampling methodologies and detection
limits for nickel (as well as the M C . ,.
sampling methodologies and detection
limits for the other contsnlinants) In full
force and effect, since they were not at
issue In the litigation. At EPA’s request.:
the court also vacated the public notice
language In § 141.32(e)(56) for nickel
because It mentioned the nickel MCI...
and public notice language is not
necessary until the Agency reestablishes
an MC.. for nickel. No other aspects of
the national primary drinking water
regulations for nickel were vacated.
including monitoring requirements and
identification of best available
technologies for nickeL EPA emphasizes
that monitoring and analytical testing
requirements for nickel remain in full
force and effect.
The nickel MU G and MCI. should be
considered vacated and not in effect as
of February 23.1995, the date of the
court’s original remand order. Today s
actiop merely formally removes these
regulations from the Code of Federal
Regulations. Under the Adnnmstrative
Procedure Act. EPA finds that public
comment on today’s action is
unnecessary, since this remand has been
orderedby the court. See5 U.S.C.
§ 553(b). Therefore. EPA is Issuing
today’s action as a final rule rather than
as a proposed rule for comment -
Health Advisorjon Nickel. EPA does
not currently have a schedule for
reestablishing an MCI-C and MCL for
nickeL EPA has initiated an effort to ‘
prioritize all its drinking water -
regulatory development activities in
order to maximize risk reduction
potential. The priority of the nickel
reproposal is being considered as part of
that effort. To provide guidance for the -
period prior to new regulations for
nickel, the Office of Water has recently
issued an updated Health Advisory for
nickel. A copy of the Health Advisory
can be obtained by contacting the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline, whose toll freer
number is 1—800-426—4791. For further -
Information on Health Advisories, -
contact Barbara Corcoran, Health -
Advisory Project Manager at (202) 26O-
1332.
One of the primary Issues raised by
the petitioners, as noted, concerned
EPA’s-derivation of the RSC factor used -
In establishing the nickel MCLG. Since -‘
the litigation was filed. EPA’s Office of
Water has formed a cross-Agency
workginup to reexamine its RSC/human
exposure apportionment policy, as
noted at the front of the Health
Advisory. The charge of the workgroup
has since expanded to focus on the
development of a consistent Agency-
wide approach for assessing total
human exposure to a contaminant and.
where appropriate, allocating the
Reference Doss (RID) among the media
of concerm This workgroup has or will
be seeking Input from EPA’s Science
Advisory Board, Science Policy Council
and Risk Assessment Forum. EPA
expects to publish proposed revisions to
this policy in the Federal Register for
public comment with the revision to the
human health methodology for
determining water quality criteria.
Subsequent to this remand, further
rulemaking on nickel will allow the’
Agency to encompass its ongoing efforts
on the RSC Issues and will allow a full

-------
33930 FederaL Register / VoL 60. No; 125. / Thursdayc June. 29, i995 / Rules and Regulations —
public airing of this and all other Issues Section 146.52—ClaSs V Inventory
.nrimiing the methodology for and Assessment. SectIon 146.52
deriving the MCLG for nickel. including - required the Director to submit a report
any new information or analysis that to EPA regarding the inventory and
may e.idst as to the cai inogenlC assessment of Class V wells 1 a State
potential of Ingested nickel COfliPOUfldS. within three years of the approval of the
In future rulemaking on nickel, EPA state mc program. The Inventory and
will consider any flew information that assessment of Class V wells has been
has become available since EPA completed. Accordingly. EPA is
established the MCLG and MCL for removing section i z.
Section l41.23(k)—TechfliCal Section 148.1 (c)(4)—Scope and
Correction to Inorganic Chemical AppliCabilitY. Section 148.1
Sompling and Analytical Requirements. (promulgated pursuant to authority
EPA is uiso making one technical under sectIon 3004 of the ResourceS
correction of a typographical error Conservation and Recovery ! ct)
today. In section 141.23(k)(3)(il) , the identifies haz.ardouawaSteethlit are
analytical acceptance limit for antimony iestjicted from disposal in Class I
is listed as “6#30 at 0.008 mgJl . ‘ - hazardous waste Injection wells by the
was a typographical error—as indicated land dlsposalretriCtio1 of the
in the Federal Register issuance of thiS Hazardous and Solid Waste
rule, the lim l should have been listed. Amendments (HSWA) and defines those
± 30at’O.OO6m8/V’(58e57 . cimu tancesunderwh ic Wut0.
31801. July 17. 1992). Today’s rule . . o h ise prohibited from injection.
makes this correction. Notice and may be injected. Section 148.1(c)(4)
comment on this minor technical -
crrectlcm are unnecessary (see section pm e 5 that conts n ir Med soil and
debris from CERCLA and RCRA cleanup
553(b)(3) of the Administrative
Procedure Act). actions may continue to be injected
Section 141.3 4—P’U bile Notice until November 8. 1988. EPA is
Requirements for Lead. 40 CFR section removing section 148.1(C)(4) because. -
141.34 required public water systems w- this date has pused and the rule is.
proytde. by June 19, 1988, a one-time .. therefore. obsolete.
notice to users that may be affected by
lead In drinking water. Since the _____
deadline for providing this notice’
passed about seven years ago. and the. The Administrative Procedure Act
Agency subsequently promulgated - smlly requires agencies to provide
comprehensive lead public education’, prior notice and opportunity for public.
provisions in its national imaiy - comment before issuing a final nile. 5
drinking water regulations for lead (see u.s.c § 553(b). Rules are exempt from.
40 QR § 141.85). the Agency Is deletin this requirement if the issuing agency
section 141.34 as obsolete. - finds for good cause that notice and—, -
Underground Iniection Control m nt are unn ceSSary. 5 U.S.C.-
section l44.15 _AssessmentofCI 5 .553(b)(3RB).
V wells. Section 144.15 required the- EPA has determined that provldIng
Director to submit a report and prior notice and opportunity for
ommendatlofl3 to EPA regarding tbsP comment on the deletion of these rules.,
Inventory and assessment of Class V . from the CFR Is unnecessary. For the
wells in the State within thies.yearSo reasons discussed above these rules are
the approval of the State mc P obsolete or are redundant with other.
The assessment of Class V wells statutory or regulatory requirements., or
now been completed. Accordingly. EPA ply codify couit-ordered remand&
is removing section 144.15. - Thus. withdrawing them from the CFR.
Section 144.23(b)(21 losuze of Class
IV wells. Section 144.23(b)(2) required’ has no legal impact and merely codifies.
their current legal status in the case o1 . -.
theownerorOpeT8t0to’ theobsoleteanddod
to submit tothe Regional Administrator small niber of cases above, EPA haa- .
for approval a plan for plugging or
otherwise dosing and abandoning the. provided Independent reasons for & ‘
well. These plans wore required to be.. good cau ° finding that n0t and’ - .
submitted within 60 days after Comment are unnecessary.)
promulgation of the mc program in the
State. Because all State programs have-
now been established (in most cases this
was accomplished by May or November
of 1985), section 144.23(b)(2) Is now
obsolete and is being removed.
IV. Analyses under .Qr . 128
Unfunded Mandates Reform
Because today’s action sünpl( -
withdraws rules from the _-... tbat ’
obsolete or that have already be
vacated by a court, or removes
regulatory language that is redun
with other statutory or regulatory
provisions, this action has no regtila
impact and is not a “significant”
regulatory action within the meanI of -
E.O. 12886. It also does not impose an,
Federal mandate on State. local or i j -
governments or the private sector
the meaning of the Unfunded Manda
Reform Act of 1995. For the same
reasons. pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I certify that this action
would not have a significant economic
Impact ona substantial number of smajj
entities. Finally., deletion of these rules
from the R does not affect
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 35
Grant progrnms_.eflViIOflmental
protection. Waste Treatment and
Disposal. Water Pollution. ControL
4OCFR ’PaTtS122, 123 and 124
Administrative practice and
procedure. Water pollution controL
40 cFR Part 125-
Waterpollutlon control.
40 CFR Part 140 -
Sewage disposal. Vessels. -
4oa’R!art i4l -.
Coei h nIs. , Water supply.
40 a7tPWI 144 and 146’
-. Hazardous wastei Reporting and
mcordkeeping requirwnents. Water
supply.. ‘.. -
4OfFRPWt ’148
HadOU&W at& ..’
40 R -PQZt 403’
Re ortlng and recdrdkeeping.
requirements. Water pollution control.
40 RPaIt405 -. -
Dairy products. Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution controL
40 CFR Part 406..:” -
Grains. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution controL
40 CFR Part 40?
Fruits. Vegetables. Waste treatment
and disposal. WaterL pollution controL
Ili. Good Cause Exemption from Notices
and-Comment Ruli m k i1Ig Pmcedures-
For the same reasons. EPA believes’
there Is good cause for making the
removal of these rules from the CFR
immediately effective. See 5 U.S.C.
§553(d).

-------
F@jraLReEi1t / VoL 60;NO. 125./ Thursday.June .29, . .1995 1 Rules andRegulatiôns 33931
40 CFR Part 454 • 1 .2 (Amended)..
tetreatmeni and Chemicals, Waste treatment and 3 122.21(iii)(3) . (m)(4) and
lA pollUtiOU controL disposaL Water pollution control. (11)(2) are removed and reserved..
40 CFR Part 455 *lfl.4& (Amsndsd) v
treatment and disposal. . Chemicals, Pesticides and pests. - § 122.46(d). the words “(July 1.
‘ uouc ° 1 Waste treatment and disposal. Water 84 fl1OVBd.
pollution control. § in.sa (Amsndedl -
Waste treatment and 40 CFR Part 457 5. Sections 122.62(a)(14) and
t , 0 llution control. Explosives, Waste treatment d 122.62(a)(17) are removed and reserved.
- disposal. Water pollution controL • in.e (Amendedi
‘i yestóck. Waste treatment- 40 CFR Part 458 .. 6. Section 122.63(f) is removed and.
water pollution control Carbon industry. Waste treatment and. . . -
disposal. Water pollution controL : PART. 123—STATE PROGRAM -
deterS 11t industry. Waste. 40 CFR Part 460 REQ WREMENTS
‘ j&sposaLWateriollution Hospitals. Waste treatment and; . 1. Théauthcritycitatton for part 123
disposal, Water pollution control. - continues to read as follovis: - -.
Dateéjunee. 1995.- - Authu tpCleanWaterAct,33 U.S.C. 1251
1! tratment and Rebert Percfasepei - at seq.. ..
__ pollution control. . tAd1s 0 f0t WQtar.... .
- . - . . For the reasons set out in the . 123.43(b)-Is removed and
- -. preamble. Chapter I of Title 40 of the reserve-
Waste treatment and . Code of Federal Regulations is amended-
Water pollution controL as follows: . - PART 124—PROCEDURES FOR
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL ..
glass products. Waste . ASSISTANCE . 1. The authority cltation.for part 124
4d i sposaL-Water4 olIution 1. me authority citation for part a ton 4 as follows:
- continues to read as follows: - A dr i1yT Re 5 ircaC0nZerVaüOn.and
- R v y A . 42-U.S.C. 6901.et seq. Safe
Authority: Sacs. 105 and 301(a) of the DrfnkfngWatar Act. 42 U.S.C. 3O0 fl at seq.;
____Wasti treatment and Clean Air Act, as aniended.(42 U.S.C. 74O5. - Clean WaterA . 33.LL&C. 1251 at seq.;
Wster nollutlon control.- and 76O1(aD Secs. 106. 205(g). 205W. 208. . .- QeanAlrAct..42 U.S.C 740! at seq.
:- . . 319. 501(a). and 518 of the Clean Water Act,,. - .
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1258. 1285(g ). 1285(0,. . 124.5E. (Removedand rsesrvsdt ’
j,and rubber products. Thee : 2. Sectlon-124;5& ’is removed.and -
tnstment and disposal. Wateti.. U.S.C. 30O -2. 300j-9 and 300}-11); sacs.. reservedf:. , ‘
mconfroL . . 2002(a ) and 3011 of the Solid Waste-Disposal.’ PARr-125-CRrTERIA AND-
; R .Ret 432 . .. ConservatIon and Lvery Act of 1976(42 STANDARDS FOR.ThE NA1IONAL.
W S 5 -. ‘ 6912(a). 6931.6947. and 6949); and POWJTANTDISCHARGE.
and disposal. Water pollutioni.. sacs. 4.23. and 25(a) of the Federal ELIMINATION SYSTEM .
InseCtiCidL Fungicide and Rodanticid.
- aa.mt ndad(7 U.S.C. 136(b). 136(u) and. 1..wauuty iuauon Part 123
J 1Etst 435’. -. . -. - 138w(a))o- ., -- : condnuestn read as follower-
lmUeXplOrathm..Wast e ___ Cto Pan 35 emoved and -Authority: U -.Water -A tuaznended by
and disposal, Water pollulion -• - .... .
2. Subpart C is removed and reserved. - . - . . . , ‘— .
I t43t. . 5u p .c Pal 125- ( Removed and
- -- SubpalDtoPart35 [ Removedand . . . .
uu Waste treatment and disposal, 2. Subpart C Is removed and reserved.
r. . . .uoU controL 3 Subpart 1) Is removed and reserved
Subpe tJ tgPort 125’ (Removedand
- PART lfl—EPA ADMINISTERED rewvsdf ’ -
!fld roofing materials, Waste PERM1 PROGRAMS: ThE. NATIONAL •. L Sub tJ eovdd&hd réser ,ed.
and disPosal. Water pollution- - POLLUTANT DISCHARGE •- . - .
-. - . ELIMINATION SYSTEM - - PARTMO—MARINE SANrrATION-
1 The authority citation for Part i DEVICE STANDARD
“abtdustpy; waste treatmen3 and’ . continues to read as follows: r. The authority citation for part 140
!atm polluUoucontrol. Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C continuesto-isad áfollows:-.
- - . - 1251 at seq - Authority: Sec. 312. as added Oct 18.
. . 1972. Pub. L. 92—500; sec. 2; 86 Stat. 871.
“ ‘7 . Waste treatment and § 1 1- (Amendedi Interpret or apply sec. 312(b)(1). 33 U.S.C.
- Water pollution control. 2. Section 122.1(g) is removed. 1322(b)(1 ) . . .

-------
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULAI1ONS
1. The authority citation for part 14t
continues to read as follows:
Authorfty 42 U.S.C 300f. 300g-1. 300g-2,
300g—3, 30 0 g—4, 300g—5. 300g—6. 300j-.4, and
30O 9.
2. In § 141.11, paragraphs (a) and (b)
are revised (the table in paragraph
(b) is removed) to read as follows, and
paragraph (c) is removed and reserved:
PART 148—UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42
U.S.C. 3001 et seq.; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C 6901 at seq.
33932 Federal Register I Vol. 60.No.. 125 1 Thursday, June 29, 1995 t Rules and .
§144.23 (Amended} - ... if the POTW Is located in a;
3. Sectian 144.23(b)(2).is removed and doee not have an approved
reserved. program under section 402
the POTW’s NPDES Permit
reissued or modified by the
State or EPA, respectively; I
incorporate the approved
conditions as enforceable
1. The authority citation for the Permit. The modification of
continues to read as follows: p(yrw’s NPDES permit for the
of incorporating a POTW
Program approved in ácct
the procedures in §403.11 shall 1
a - deemed a minor Permit modl&
subject to the procedures in
122.63.
(d) Incorpoiation of compiiáp .
schedules in permits. [ Reserve fl
_____ PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE... . .. . *
INJECT iON RESTRICTIONS -
§403.8 (Amended)
1. The authority citation for part 148 4(a). The last sentence of
continues to read as foilowmT .. 4o3.8U)(lRvi)tAI is removed.-
____ Authority: Sacs. 3004. Resource 5. Section 403.10 is amended
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U S.C-.. removing and.reserving paragraph nJ
6901 at seq. and (d) and fevising paragraph (c) t j
- read as follows: -
(Removedi..
§ 141.11 MaxImum contaminant levels for - 2. Section 148.52 is removed.
Inorganic chemicals.
(a) The ma dmum contaminant level
for arsenic applies only to community
water systems. Compliance witit the-
MCL for arsenic is calculated pursuant
to § 141.23.
(b) The maximum contaminant level
for arsenic is 0.05 milligrams per liter.
(C) [ Reserved)
* * a, *
§ 141.23 (Amended)
3. in § 141.23(a)(4)(i), the entry for
nickel in the Table is amended by. -
removing-and reserving the listed ”MC .
(mg/lr for nickel; all other parts of the:
entry for ñickelin thóTableremain’ ’
unchanged. -
4. In § 141.23 (k)(.3)(ii), th Acceptance
Limit for Antimony in the Table is
revised to read as.follows: “±30 at .,
0.006 mg/i”. — -
§141.32 (Amended)
5. Section. 141.32(e)(56) is removeó
andreserved. ..
§141.34 (Amendedi.
6. Section 141.34 is removed and..
reserved..
§14&t ’ (Removed)
2. Section 148.1(c)(4) is removed. ‘ §403.10 Development and subm s
PART 403—GENERAL NPDES Stats pretreatment pmgren..
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOW-’ * a * *
EXISTING,AND NEW SOURCESOP.. .‘ . -
pou.Lrno l1- (c) Failure to request approvok
Failure of an NPDES State with a
1. The authority citation für part:4O2. program approved under section iji
continues-to read asfollnwer : . . -. the Act prior to December 27, 197
Authority ec. .S4CcX2jöftheClêan - seek approval of a State Pretreatmm
Act of 1977, (Pub: L 95—217) .• . Program and failure of an approve
2o4(b)(1)(C). 2o8(b)(2)(C )uul. 301(b)(1XA)(U).. State to adminicter its State
301(b)(2)(A)(li), 3o1(b)(2)(C). 301(h)(SL Pretreatment Program in accordan
301(i)(2), 304(e),. 304(g), 307,308, 309 ‘. with the-requirements-of this sectlo
402(b), 405 and 501(a) of the FedOlal Water. constitutes grounds for.withdra
Pollution Control Act (Pub L 92-500)ax - . NPDES nrnoram annroval u
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 402( )(3 -0 e Act.
the Water Quality Act of 1 7(Pub.:Z ...10O . — ‘- ‘ ‘ -
4). . ‘‘‘ - - . ,I. - --
* 5 ’ ,. •-
§403 . (Amended)t . .-‘- ... . .. ... -
2. Section 403.1(t) Is removód ’ §403.12 (Amended)’- -
§ 144.51 (Amended)- .- . . ..: •. 6. The second sentence aftei
7 In § 141 51(h) the line In the Tab1a . §403.5 (Amended ).. heading of §403 12(b) mtmdmt
hating the contaminant ‘Nickel” and.. 3 Section 403 5( 1) Is reuoveds .s . a , Is tSflIOVSd.
the-MCLG for nickel Is rimoved. 4. Section 403.8(c Is revised and th. ..- 7. Section 403.13 is amen*
- te of paragraph (d).is.removed d- - . s1 para ph (2)tareat
§141.62 (Amended) ‘- reservedtoreadas -follör .: .‘ ‘ fOiloW&. .
8. In § 141.62(b), entry (14) inthe ;. . 3.virom a t aqw
Table is removed, and reserved.. _____
PART 144—UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM :
1. The authority citation for part 144 —
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act. 42
U.S.C. 3001 at seq; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C 6901 et seq.-
§ 144.15 (Removed and.reservedj.
2. Section 144.15 is removed and
reserved.
§ 403.8 Pretreatment Pmgrans.: __________
RequIr.ment Development and
nplsmentadenb POtW.
(c) Incorporation of apprnved
programs in permits. A POTW ma
develop an appropriate POTW ‘ -
pretleatment program any time befori-
the time limit set forth in paragraph (b)-’ ’
of this section. If the POTW is located-
in a State which has an approved State-
permit program under section 402 of the’
Act and an approved State pretreatment
program in accordance with § 403.10, or -• * . a
dIflsrsntfa Wrs..
‘.*. . * a’ a *-
(g) Application deadline
(2) In order to be onsidered.
for a variance must be submitte&
later.than 180-days after the.d8ls
which a categorical Pretreatni!M
Standard is published in thaFe
Registe -.-
.(3)a a a
§ 140.3 (Amended)
2. Sectlon.140.3(h) Is removed.

-------
Federal Register / Vol: 60, No.. 125 I Thursday. June 29 1995 1 Rules and. Regulations 33933
and r.asrvedj - - § 406.22 Effluent IlmitaSons guideline.. § 405.34 Pretreaunent standards for-
#Idi fldiX B is removed and roprseendng the degree of effluent- exisUng sources..
reducifon attWabls by the pllcetfenot
best Any existing source subject to this
c iovsd end reserved ) currendy avelhabis. subpart that Introduces process
d lx C Is removed and Except as provided In § 125.3G wast water pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
through 125.32, any wdsting point with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
4AMENDED]
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent following pretreatment standard
limitations representing the deg of establishes the quantity or quality of
Zt:uthonty citation for part 405 effluent reduction attainable by pollutants or pollutant properties
read as follows application of the best practicable controlled by this section which may be
Sacs. 301. 304 (b) and(c). 3Ø control technology currently available duarged to a publicly owned.
treatment works by a point source
‘ (cJ and 307(cLof the Federal Watez (BPT); - . subject to the provisions of this subpart.
Con irol Act, as amended (the Act): • ‘ . * *
i * a a a
f0 , 251. 1311. 13 14(b) and (C). 131& , 6. Section 405.24 la-amended by
(c). and 1317(c); 88 Stat. 816, et revising the text above the table (the 10. Section 405.36 is revised to read
92-50ft 91 Stat. 1587. Pub. L 95- .217. table remains unchanged) t i- as follows: —
g ctjon 405.12 is amended by follows:, , - §4o Pre eatment standards for new
the Introductory text to read ______
§406.24 Pretreatment stand ids for- 5Oce
existing 5OUFCe.. Any new source subject to this
12 Muent limitatfone guidelines
the degree of effluent Any existing source subject to thIa. subpart that Introduces process
attainable by the application . subpart that introduces procese wastewater pollutants into a publicly
.lxacticabIs control technology wastewater pollutants into a puklidy owned treatment works must comply
avallabis. owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403.
aaprovWed In § 12.5.30 with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the 11. sec 405.42 Is amended by
125.32, any existing point - following pretreatment StO.fldeld - ‘- revising the introductory text to read as
subject to this subpart shall establishes the quantity or quality oiu follows:
bjave the following effluent pollutants or pollutant properties
itions representing the degree of controlled by this section.which may be §406.42. Efftuantflmttnttona guidelines -
j reduction attninnhle by the........ discharged to a publicly owned -. ... P 111ti11g the degree of effluent
of the best practicable- - treatment works by a p our . r.ductf on atWnabS . by the application of
, GJ technology currently available subject to the provisions of th1 subpait -’ beat praclicabi. contr Ol technology
ou,runtiyaveflabl s .-
-. . ... . -. -. a *- a- •a ‘ s ). -• - -
5 - . - - a- a a- • 7. Section 405.25 f.crevfsed oread ae - Except as provided In § 125.30
. SectIon 405.14 Is amended by J follows ,: . through .l253Z.. any existing point
ng the text above the table (thm - source subject to this subpart shall
sremalna unchanged) to i-cad as §40t2 . .tetanda,d fuwnvW ’ ach1ev eth o ’followi ngeffluent
-. -: sources.- - ‘ limitations representing the degree of
‘ Any new sourt subjecto - effluent reduction atthinj ’hle by the
I 14 aUnwt stand ds for - subpart that Introduces .- application of the best practicable
i” ‘ wastewater pollutantaJnto,a pnh1IrJ. control technology currently available
Asy existing source ‘ owned treatment works coi p y (BPTh. .. ‘
ipot that Introduces process.,
e.aterpollutantsIntoapublir’ With40CFRpart403i. 1 . ‘
..d tmatment works must comply - . 8. SectIon 405.32 Ia amendeèbya 12.. SectIon 405.44 Is amended by
40 R part 403. In addition. thd ” revising the Iniroducto yt xt sad-eat. tovlsing the text above the table (the
thgpretrcatment.standard - -. , fOll )W5t - - ‘1 ’- tablerentsin&imr henged) to read as
‘ s the ndry”arq iality of : §406.32 EfflUent Iimttefl na follows; . - .
or pollutant propertIe tiñg the degre . of sflTu.nf
e.olledby this section whIch mayl reduction attalnabls by the ap &o §406.44 ‘ IoUIJTIen 1 standards for
hbzged to a publicly owned - - - th. best practi ls controf nOlog - - -- . -
n t works by a point source eedlab4& - - - . . - - .. . - A tgsource subject to this
$st to the provisions of this subpart . Except as provided lii §S 125.3 subpart that introduces process.
- ‘ through 125.32, any existing point - - wastewaterpollutants Into a publicly
1on 405.16 Is revised-to i-eagLes source subject to this subpart shal? owned treatment works must comply
- ,, - •. achieve the followingeffluent 40 -QR part 403. In addition, the
limitations representing thede ese j: following pretreatment standard
effluent reduction attainable by the -i estthl est1ie quantity oi- quality of
‘YfldWthurcesubjecttoth ls -. - applicatIonofthebestpzct1cab1s, , 7 , ,, , pOl1’Ithnf ’OrpOl1utantproperties
Utthat Introduces - - control technology currently availabl., controllediiytlthi’sectlon which may be
‘Ilter pollutants into a publicly,’ (BPT):. discharged to a publicly owned
- • a a , . treatmentworks by a point source
treatment works must comply:,,,, -
part 403. 9. SectIon 405.34 Is amended by- - , subject to the provisions of this subpart
a a- a - a- a
405.22 Is amended by revising the text above the table (the
th. introductory text to read as table remains unchanged) to read as 13. Sectfon.406.4& Is revised to read
- . . - - follows: ‘ •‘‘ as follows:- — , -

-------
33934 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and
406.41 PruU im.nt s nd t new
Any now source subject to this-
• — that introduces process
westewatar pollutants into a pub idy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
14. SectIon 405.52 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
• 406.52 Effluent limitations guld.lInes
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction at n ls by the application of
th. beat practic oon et tathnology .
ounentiy . -
Except as provided In §$ 125.30
througb 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shalF
achieve the foilowlng effluent
limitations representing the degree oL.
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable. - -
control technology currently available ’-
(BF )
* * a * a
15. SectIon 405.54 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains tint-hnngecl) to read as’ -
follows: -
•406.36 - Pv ,Oa.Unm , .* 4 f$ f -
existhig eaurcss..- -‘.. —. - -
Any existing sour eubjectto Lh1W ’
subpart that introduce, p cesa ‘ f’-
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned. beatment works mud a mpLy
wIth 40 G’R part 403. InaddlUon thar.,
following pretreatment standard’.
establishes the quantity. or quality oi .
pollutants or pollutant propeitlest..
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned .’:
freat, w ,t works by a point sva ’
subject to the provisions of this subparts
• a * • a ‘ • , , _,
18. Section 405.56 l&zevlendto read.
as follows:
• 406.58 Pretis , .t S Id rII r
sowee& .
A.ny new so subject to thIc . .-
subpart that Introduces proceea.- . . -
wastewater pollutants Into a publfclr
owned treatment works mustcemply.:
with 40 CFRpait4O3 . -
17. SectIon 405.62 Ia amended bycr’
revising the Introductory te, toreacka.
foilowi • - . . -
4406.12 Efthasnt Umita ogi?ru ,.
rep,.snting the dg,as at imuens -
reduction attaln le by the spp”cutlon Of ’
the best practic l. conuel tschno gy.
cisifengy aU -.
Except as provided in §5 125.30 ’
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent.
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available -
(BFfl
* a * a *
18. SectIon 405.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remain , unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 406.64 Pretreatment etind ds for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this -
subpart that introduces process
wastewatar pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 GR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity-or quality of-
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be-
discharged to a publicly owned.,,.
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
19. Section 405.66 is revlsød to read
as follows:
discharged to apublic
treatment works by a pot
subject to the. pmvlslona 1
• a • *
22. Section4OS.781á 1
as follows:
1406.76 Pretreemiem
Any new source
subpart that introduces 1
wastewater pollutants into,
owned treatment work
with40CFRpa r t.to
23. Section 405.82 ha
revising the Introdu ,
follows:
1406.82 Effluent UmftaJenj
i pi.u ,u.Ung till degree
reduction attainabl, by th. i
the best precticeblsco
cwrsntiy 1’S ... ,
Except as provided in
through 125.32, any e -
source subject to this
§406.68 ts idd sfo nsw-
sources. . effluent reduction attajxlat)l,
Any new source subject to thlr’ application of the best pra
subpart that introduces P ° ’ ’ - , - control technology currentr, 1
wastewater pollutants into a publicly- (BFr)
owned treatment works must comply s ’-. • - .— - * • -
wIth 40 Q R part 403. -. .1 • - . • . .. --
20. Section 408.72 Is amended by- - 24. Section 405.84 Is
revising the Introductory text to read as- revising the text above the tabb
follows: - table remainannhnng, d)i
____ -followa ’ . . u’-.
•40672 Effluent U ..JlallonsguIdsllns - - -
rep(ea..4lung the de e. of stfluunt - . - . •40n 4 -
reduction attainable by the appd stion of ’ . ing sources.
thebe a tp rec lnt r cfls c hn e togy . - - , ,..
cwrsndy - - .. . — .. Any existing a -
• Except as provided In 128.30 ” subpartthstlntroduce, preen
through 125.32, any existlntpo4nt -- vater ’ poztants Ii
source subject to this subpart shali . . owned treatment works muii c
achieve the following effluenv. ’ . with 40 part 403. In additi
limitations representing the de seoi” - following pretteannent atan
effluent reduction attiiiuahle by that,’ estSbHshe,4h 51 q autIt
application of the best pre at tblej pO1 1ut 1 1t 05 P
itechnolo
* * * * • 4 . .. . .,, -J trO tm’ t works-by. polaie
21. Section 405.74 *mimtis j subject to the provisi
revising the text above the table (ths. - ,- -. - - - . -
table rnmain undiirngocj) to reed as- 40558 Ia
follows: ‘ ‘i c ”r. —: a s. IZawonj ;. -
4406.74 Pr5Ue.Ufl it 5 fOp )
exlathigsourcs.. - -
Any existing source subject to tM -
subpart that introduces prOcess”
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must compI r - - -
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of.
pollutants or pollutant properties -
controlled by this section which may be
- . - 1
4406.88 PrsUe 1%ent . ‘—
ouieas .- -
• Any new source sub jest tz
subpart that -introduces pro
wastowater pollutants IDIOt
owned treatment woxkssni
wtth40CFRpazt403 -.
26. Section 4O5.gZ I!
revising the.intrr ductoly tat
follows:

-------
yedaral E gister / Vol. 6G, Na.. I25 / Thursday, June 29, 1996..! Rules and Regulations 33935 -
llmIte ons guidelines . § 405.104 Pre esensnt atandudsfoi § 405.114 Pretreatment stendards I or new-
degres of ifffuent• existing scuma souress. .-
by the application A - aouzce subject to this.
contml technology - 4ULY u w1j 5011100 iuueCt to suipart that introduces pocess
______ w part ULUI I nuwUces process
I - wastewatorpoflutantslntoa publicly ‘P° P ’Y
provided § 125.30 owned treatment works must comply owned tr tment works must comply
afly e ast1flg point with 40 CFR nart 403 In addition. With 40 CFR.part 403..
to this subpart shall following pre reat1nent st fl 35. Section 405.122 Ia amended by
‘ foliowifl8 effluent establishe,the quantity or quality of revising the introductory text to read as
rep1eSa!itIfl the degree of pollutants or pollutant properties
ucuon , 1 10 controlled by this SeCtIOfl which may be §406.122 Emu.ntllmltetfons guidelines
don 01 the uo tp discharged to a publicly owned - representing the degre. of effluent
oIogy curren Y a treatment works bya point source. reduction attaln 4s by the applicelloft of.
subject to the provisions of this subpart 11* best praC C IS conDol technology
.,. * * * b • * - . c yaR ls. . -.
n 405.9415 amended by . Except as provided In §S125.30
above the table (the 31. SectIon 405.106 iS mvised tø d 12.3.32, any existing polnf
ns unchanged) to read aa - as follows:. . . sourc subject to this subpart shall
• 405 .lOt p , , achieve the following effluent
_______ limitaticsrepresentingthe degree of -
p4saSIwflt effluent reduction atuthuible by the
, Iscss.. Any new source subject to ; h4* - application of the best practicable
55 jging SOUTCO subjeCttO thI subpart that intrOdUCeS Process control technology currently available
introduces process - wastewaterpollutants into a publicly y - - - -
,j pallutants Into a publicly owned.treatinentworks must comply. * ••- . ;.•; . ;
iman1works.must comY’. with 40 CPR Part 403. - 36. SectIon 405.124 Is amended by
part 403. In addition, the 31 SectIon 405.112 Is amended by revising the text above the table (the
. g pretreatment standard revising the Introductory text to read as. table remains unchanged to read as
et the quantity or quality of follower- - - - ‘- followsu • , -,
st or pollutant properties-. -
jI dby this section which may be §405.112 Effluent Umftallons guld.Unsa.. - 405.124 Pretrasinwel stendardu-for
— a publicly owned’ - ‘ -pie ‘iting the d.gr. . of effluent — edeg iou ss. -
a point ; , mducflos attelnabis by the application of exi tin source subject to this
tto the provisions-of this subpa tJ tsChfloIo Y :. subpartt roce - -
• - * •..-• - . • . .. -, - - ,.,.; wastewater pollutants mba publicly -
40598 is revised toresd - as-provided In §S i25.3D - . - ownad.treetmenLworka-must comply
; , , . . thiough ..12&32 , a y existing point ‘ . wILli4O R art403 lnaddit1on, the
- - smi subject to this subpart shall ‘:. , following pretreatment standard
s sdaats fornsw achieve the following effluent -. - - - ... bushes th&quanhity or quality of
• . . ,- ..— limitatlpmwrspresenting the degree of pOllhItiITii* or pollutant properties
t t s-• . •- effluent reduction attainable by the- . controlledby this section which may be
jntrodncespri .e . appIlcatIonofthebestpracticabIe discharged to-a publicly owned
lhi ant nto puhliciy.: cenuolfechnologjc currently available - tretm r works-by a paint eouxve
O-’ ,vt works- must compIy (BFtT ç ,.. - - :: s 1 thje to the provisions of this subpart *
- — - .. ‘ - - *. - rr. .. -
fixP405.1OZfs amended by ” - . -C 33 ctfon4OS.114 - read.
thaIntrochwtory text to readast revtsingthatext aboi e thetabla (the. OUOWV . . - .
- ‘ - ‘ - — tab aripmn. unchanged) to read as. 05.124 PWLs ida,dsfornies
. _m’it limItations guJdsIbie . ” - - . soul . - .-. -
the dig ..IOf sffluent - §4 f s4rea .nt standards I o ’ A 1Ite it te .thiL!. ..
____by the application ofr, - . - - O P 5i .
Ps.$u 1sconv o f-t ecnno loigy i - • . . . - . W6StSWS*OT pOIIU2RTIt. into a.publicly
::el Any existing source subject to this — - owned treatmestworks must comply
á thjed j •- ‘ - subpart that introduces procem with pfl .. r . - -
125 .3Z any existing point’ wastetratápoilutants into a publicly-’ - - - - - -.--. -,
ItO this subpart shalL owned treatment works must comply PART 4O6 (AMENDEDf ” ’ . -.
thsfollowing effluanb -q with O R part 403 In addition. th
teprm5enUng the degree of folloWing pruth3atmeflt staiid&d - for past 4oe .’
eibxtten attainable by the -. sh hHthe. tho quantity or quality of - -
o1ths best - ,ollu1ant or pollutant properties - - -, -
currently availabf t contmlled by this se onwhih may be
- - discharged apub y - Pollution LAct .aa *ii .u,df ,d 33 U.S.C
S -. - treatment WOrsa oy a point source 1251 131}, 5 1314(b) and(c)i 1310(b) and (c)
4O5 104li amended - sub j O c t to the prqvlsions of this subpart 13l7(c 81s- s Pub. I. 92-600
I*5bOVs.th table (th. — . - . * * 91 5 1*1. 1547:Pub. L95—217 ,
‘ n.changed) ta read as-a. 34 SectIon 405.116 is revised to read 2. Section. 405.ltlsamended by -
-. .. . - . . - . as folisws . - - removing paragraph (&). redesignating
- -- - -

-------
33936 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 I Rules and Reg1a .
paragraph (b) as new paragraph (a).
redesignating paragraph (c) as new
paragraph (b), and revising the text
above the table (the table remains
unchanged) in the newly redesignated
paragraph (a). The text in the newly
redesignated paragraph (b) Is amended
by removing the words “paragraph (b)”
and inserting in their place the words
“paragraph (a)”. The revised text reads
as follows:
9406.12 Effluent flmftatl one guidelines
representing 5* degree of effluent
reduction atte lnabl. by ta. application of
the best practicable contml technology
currently avollable.
(a) Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions n paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction atthinAble by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPTV
* a * * *
3. SectIon 408.14 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4406.14 Pretreatment s d tis for
—
Any existing source subject to this -
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point sourca
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
* a a a a -
4. Section 406.16 is amended by
revising the introductory text (the table
and paragraph (a) are irnrhnnged) to
read as follows:
4406.16 Pretreatment standds for new
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
provisions set forth in paragraph (a) of
this section apply, as well as the
following pretreatment standard which
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to publicly owned treatment
works by a new source subject to the-
provisions of this subpart
5. Section 408.22 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remaln* unchanged) to read as
follows:
4 406.fl Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currentiy avallabls.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a * *
a
6. SectIon 408.24 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4406.24 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatmei t works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the—
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
7. Section 406.28 Is revised to read as
follows:
9406.25 Pretreatment stendds for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly.
owned treatment works must comply’ -
with 40 CFR part 403.
8. Section 406.32 Is revised to read as
follower
9406.32 Effluent Umttations guideline.
repreeentlng a. degree of effluent
reduction attainable by th. application oL
th best practicable control technology
currendy avndabls.
Except as provided in §9125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water ’
navigable waters.
9. Section 408.34 isi
revising the text above
table remsilna unchanged)
follower
4406.34 PreUea1m.
existing sources.
Any existing source subj
subpart that introdu
wastewater pollutants u
owned treatment works
with 40 CFR part 4 03 . l a
following pretreatment st
establishes the quantity or
pollutahts or pollutant pr
controlled by this sect1o
discharged to a publicly owns
treatment works by a point so
subject to the provisions of th u 1
a a a • a
§ 406.36 Pretreatment
sources.
Any new source subject to
subpart that introduces procese
wastewater pollutants Into a p
owned treatment works mu
with 40 CFR part 403.
11. Section 406.42 is
revising the text above thai
table rAn’A1nI unchanged)
follows:-
4406.42 Effluent limitations
representing thi degree of
reduction attainable by thai
the beat practicable control
currently available.
Except as provided in §9:
through 125.32, any existing i
source subject to this
achieve the following
limitations representing the
effluent reduction attainablei
application of the best practic
control technology currently i
(BPT);
• * * • *
12. SectIon 406.44 Is I
revising the text above the
table remains unchanged) to
follows:
4406.44 Pretreatment i
existing sources . -
Any existing source subject .
subpart that introduces procesi
wastewater pollutants into a p1
owned treatment works must
with 40 CFR part 403. In i
following pretreatment st
establishes the quantity or
pollutants or pollutant prol
controlled by this section which’
discharged to a publicly 0 wned
10. Section 406.36 Is revised
as follows:

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33937
the provisions of this subpart.
tjon 406.46 is revised to read
. . .IloWS
48 pvebsetiTleflt standards for new
11 GW source subject to this
• that introduces process
‘ vater pollutants into a publicly
‘ d treatment works must comply
Ø CFR part 403.
‘ 7 5 ction 406.52 Is revised to read
. glfluentUmttatlon*guldeflfl .s
l ,tjnq the degree of effluent
j a1n l. by the application of
;;; practicable control technology
— —s.
• pt as provided In §6125.30
125.32, any existing point
subject to this subpart shall
.. .ime the following effluent
gtions representing the degree of
reduction attainable by the
on of the best practicable
technology currently available
There shall be no discharge of
waste water pollutants tn
• watars.
Sn406 54isafl1endedb)’
p sgthe text abovethe table (the
es *ins enrhnnged to read as -
141154 PretrisUflent s ideids for
Asy existing source subject to this
çsit that Introduces process.
water pollutants into a publicly
tteetment works must comply.. -
4OCFRpart 403. In addition, the.
ow1ng pretreatment standard
illi} . the quantity or quality of
• ) uli or pollutant properties
!eiisdby this section which maybe
hrgsd to a publicly owned
.aworka by a point sourcs
to the provisions of this subparL
I a. a .
406.56 Is revised to read
5 ds for flSW ’
Al tewso 1 0 subject to this.
that process
Pollutants into a publicly
works must comply
part 403,
406.62 Is amended by
text above the table (the
‘Uncbanged) to read as
* 406.62 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by Uis application of
th best practicable control technology
atrrently available.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32. any e dstIng point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a * •
18. Section 406.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§406.64 Prelrsalment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source sub ject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source.
subject to the provisions of this subpart
19. Section 406.66 Is revised to read
as follows:
§406.68 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. -
20. SectIon 406.72 Is revised to read
as follows:
§ 406.72 Effluent limitations guldefins. ‘ .
representing the degre, of effluent
reduction attainable by th application o
ths best practicable control tschnolog
atrrsttiy availabls.
Except s provided in §5 125.30r.
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent—
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available--
(BFfl: There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
21. SectIon 406.76 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
* 406.78 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section, which may be
discharged toa publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
22. SectIon 40882 Is revised to read
as follows:
§406.82 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by th. application of
th. beet practicable control technology
currentiy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
-limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HF!’): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
23. Section 406.86 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 406.86. Pretreatment standards for new
sources. - - -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged tea publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
a- a. a a a
24. Section 40&92 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unrhangod) to read as
follows:
§406.92 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
di. best practicable control technology
curren’iy availabIs.
Except as provided In §6125 30
through 125.32, any wasting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the

-------
33938 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regülation
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a * * a *
25. Section 406.98 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the-
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 406.96 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality’of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section, which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the previsions of this subpart.
26. SectIon 408.102 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows
§406.102 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by th application of.
the best practicable cone-el technology
currently available.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point’
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the-
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPTJ:
a * a a *
27. SectIon 408.106 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the:
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 406.106 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process. - -
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply-
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of -
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section, which may be
discharged to a publicly owned’
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
PART 407 -.--(AMENDEDJ
In Part 407:
1. The authority citation for part 407
continues to read as follows:
Authonty Sea. 301. 304 (b) and (C). 308
(b) and (c), 307(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended 33 U.S.C.
1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and Cc), 1316(b) and (C).
1317(c); 88 Stat. 816 et seq., Pub. L. 92—500
91 Slat. 1587. Pub. 1.. 95—217.
2. Section 407.12 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§407.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
air rentiyaval lab i s.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable,
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a a * a
3. Section 407.14 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows;
§407.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly wned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
4. SectIon 407.16 Is revised to read as
fbllowa:
§407.16 Pvetreatrneuit standards for nsw
Any new source- sub ject to this’.---.
subpart that Introduces procass . - -
wastewater pollutants into a publicly. -‘
owned treatment works must comply..
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. Section 407.22 is’amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 407.22 Effluent limitations guidelines-
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attaInable by the application of
th. best practicable control technology
currently avaIlable.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the
effluent reduction attainable by
application of the best
control technology currently av
(BPT):
a. * * a a
6. SectIon 407.24 is amended b ’
revising the text above the table (
table remains unchanged) to
follows: -
§ 407.24 Pretreatment standa
existing sources.
Any existing source sub ject to
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a put, - ,
owned treatment works rnu camp
with 40 CFR part 403. In addftj
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or qua y-
pollutants or pollutant prope?tia
controlled by this section whit ) , ;
discharged to a publicly owned ;
treatment works by a point sou.
subject to the provisions of this
a a a a a
7. Section 407.26 is revised to
follows: -
§407.28 Pretreatment Standards far
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process ..
wastewater pollutants into a pubft t
owned treatment works must connj
wIth 40 R part 403.- -
8. Section 407.32 is amended byv .
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read g
follows: -
§ 407.32 Effluent limitations guWaim,
representing the degree of effluent -
reduction attainable by th. appllcstl
the best practicable control technclo
— aviflab
Exceptaspmv1dedln 4izs
through 125.32, any existing ‘ -
source subject to this subpart
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the d
effluent reduction attainable by
application of the best p
control technology currently e -
(BPT):
a - a a a a - ,
9. Section 407.34 is amended
revising the text above the Labia
table remains unchanged) to reed
follows:
§ 407.34 Prelre.ffiusnt
existhlgacurces.
Any existing source subject to
subpart that Introduces procesS
wastewater pollutants into a p
owned treatment works must
with 40 CFR part 403. In addid
following pretreatment standas .
establishes the quantity or quAll

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33939
or pollutant properdes
‘ oUed by this section which may be
uged to a publicly owned
nt works by a point source
to the provisions of this subpart.
I I I
o. Section 407.36 Is revised to read
0 Uows:
Pretreatment standards for new
aew source subject to this
that introduces process
, 1 ewater pollutants into a publicly
j treatment works must comply
b40 P 403
. SectIon 407.42 is amended by
sing the text above the table (the
remains unchanged) to read as
0w 5
jl.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
entIng the degree of effluent
ction attainable by the applicatlonot
beet practicable control technology
- 1 tiy availabl&
.xcept as provided in 55125.30
ugh 125.32, any eidstingpoint
Ice sub;ect to this subpart shall
jove the following effluent
itations representing the degree of
uent reduction attainable by the
,lication of the best practicable
ol technology currently available
“fl:
• I I *
2. Section 407.44 Is amended by
•tslng the text above the table (the
b remn1i unchanged) to read as
lows:
7.44 PretrseVnent standards for
fling sources.
ny oidsting source subject to this
)part that Introduces process
stewater pollutants Into a publicly
nod treatment works must cemply
th 40 (7R part 403. In addition, the
lowing pretreatment standard
abllshes the quantity or quality of- -
Uuiants or pollutant properties
strolled by this section which may b
chazged to a publicly owned
utelent works by a point source
bject to the provisions of this subpart
13. Section 407.40 is revised to read.
follows:
0746 Prebeatment standards for new.
u e
Any new source subject to this
bpart that introduces process
utewater pollutants into a publicly
Yned treatment works must comply
ltW4O CFR part 403.
It SectIon 407.52 is amended by
Vt lng the text above the table (the
Ie remains unrhsrnged) to read as
• 407.52 Effluent lImitatIons guldellnss
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application ot
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• * * * I
15. Section 407.54 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows:
4407.54 Pretreatment stand ds for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
16. Section 407.56 Is revised to read.
as follows:
* 407.58 Pretr 1ment stend s for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly- -
owned treatment works must. comply
with 4 OCFR part403.
17. Section 407.62 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4407.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
. . p...awUng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application at
the beet practicable conboi technology
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall-
achieve the following effluent
limitntinnx representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• • S I I
18. Section 407.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
9407.64 Pretreabnent standards for-
existing sources.
Any eidsting source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR past 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by any existing point
source subject to the provisions of this
1* 1 1 1
19. Section 407.56 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains imd ’inn god) to read as
follows:
§ 407.66 Pretreatment standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
- 20. Section 407.72 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4407.72 Effluent limitations guidelines -
representing the degree of effluent
reduction at nable by th application of
the best practicable co lr technology
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32 any existing point
source subject to this.subpart shall
achIeve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attninsthle by the
application of the best pTactlcable
control technology currently available
• I ‘* I” I
zi; Section 407.74 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remnin U eiinnged} to read as
follows:
§ 407.74 Preveaurierfl standards to .-
existing caurces.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
S

-------
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by any existing point -
source subject to the provisiOns of this
subpart.
a a a a *
22. Section 407.76 Is amendedby
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4407.76 p,trea0fleflt standards for new
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the.
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
23. Section 407.82 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4407.82 Effluent llmttatlofi$ guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reductiOn attainable by ths application at
the beat precticabis con 0l technolOgY-
cur entiY a vaIlabIs.
Except as provided in S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point’
source subject to this subpart shall.
achieve the fol’owing effluent
hmitations representing the degree of. -
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable -
control technology currently available
(BFfl: -
a. • a S
24. Section 407.84 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the .
table remains unchanged) to read.ae.
follows: - -
§ 407.84 Pr — eununt st iduldI for
•xlstlng sources.
Any existing source subject to thLs
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publiclY’
owned treatment works must comply.
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties-
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by any existing point
source subject to the provisions of this.
subpart.
25. Section 407.86 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows:
§ 407.8S PveUe 5 tmItit etandards for nsw
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces procesS
wastewater pollutants into a publicly -
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart..
PART 408_4AMENDEDI
In Part 408:
1. The authority citation for part 408
continues to read as follows:
Authority Sacs. 301,304(b) and (c), 308
(b) and (c), 307(C). of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, asamended 33 U.S.C.
1251.1311. 1314 (b) and Ic), 1316(b) and (c),
13 17(C); 88 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub. I.. 92—5OO
91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L 95—217. -
z. SectIon 408.12 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the -
table remains unchanged) to read as’
follows: -
4408.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applic.tlefl at
the best practicabis control technolOgy...
curi tiy asallabis.
Except as provided in §4 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shalL
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of -
effluent reduction attainable by the-.
application of the best practicable-
control technology currently available
(BFfl;
* a a a ‘a
3. Section 408.14 is amended by . -
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
foUows i
§408.14 Pr ’aO5siaI. t standards for
existing sources.
- Any e,asting source sub jeçt to this;
subpart that introduces process- - -
wastewater pollutants into apublicir
owned treatment works must comply’
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard-
establishes the quantity or quality of-
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
4. Section 40&16 Is
foliowas
Any new source subject to
subpart that Introduces n,a.__
wastewater pollutants int Z
owned treatment works mu ’’
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. SectIon 408.22 Is amande j
revising the text above the tabie
table remains unchanged) t
foilowsi.
§ 408.22 Effluent limItations ( 5Il .4a1.. .
repi euntIi1g the degree of
reduction attainable by the eppllc sj ’i
the best practi cable control tcm ;t
currently available.
Except as provided in 12S.3g
through 125.32. any existing poIstY
sour subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degrss
effluent reduction atlainable by
application of the best prectlcable’ .
control technology currently evañaè
(BPT) - -
* ,. a. * a
6. SectIon 408.24 Ia amended by.
revising the text above the table (t
table remains unchanged) to read
follows:— .. -
§408.24 P tN UUhI’t
existing sources. -
My existing source subject to th
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publld
owned treatment works must cnjil
with 40 CFR part 403. In addltioLt
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity orqualIty
pollutants or pollutant pmperdeu ’
controlled. by this sectinn whishm
discharged. to a publiclT owned.
treatment works bya poldi sauz
subject tathe eftbia
• a...,. a .— i... a. -‘ _ ,
7. SectIon 4O8.2043re
follows: - - -
4408.26 PreliSSVflS(tt
sources.,, .,
Any new source subject to
subpart that introduces prOCa51
wastewates pollutants into a
owned treatment works must COX 5P 11
th.40CFRP a rt 403 . ...
8. Section 408.32 is am nded bT
revising the text above the table (tioF
table remains unchange(11t0 fU( .
follows:
33940 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 125 I Thursday. June 29.. 1995 / Rules and Ragu1atio ,

-------
339’
rupvu1 9 th degree of effluent
,,duCtlOfl etthIJisbIS by the application of
the bent precticaffi. coneot technology
Except as provided In § 125.30
uough 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
unutations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
ntroI technology currently available
(8FF):
• * * . S
g. SectIon 408.34 is amended by
vis1ng the text above the table (the
table 111Ring unchanged) to read as
follows:
4ca34 Pretreatment standards for
uistlflg
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
• controlled by this section which may be
dllscharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
• * S •* •
10. SectIon 408.36 Is revised to rea&
as follows:
. §448.36 Pretreatment standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a. publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 aR part 403.
11.. SectIon 408.42 is amended b ,
revising the textabove the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.42 Effiu.nt limitations guicellns. .
FIflIeIuiiUnq the digres of effluent.
reduction atta1n ls by tl* application rn
ths best precticabis control technology,: - -
Cutmrtiy a liabls.
Except as provided in § 125.3a -
through 125.32, any existing point
Soutco subject to this subpart shalL.
achieve the following effluent.
Llmltations.representing the degree of -
effluent reduction atiain ihle by the . .
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available-
(BP’fl:
a-. • • * S
12. Section 408.44 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.44 Pretrsaun.nt standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
a * * * *
13. SectIon 408.46 is revised to read
as follows:
§408.48 Pretreabnent standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
14. Section 408.52 Is revised to rea4
as follows:
§ 408.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by ths application of
th, best practicabi. control technology
cur renuyavw lab ls.
Except as providedin § 125.30
through 125.32. any e,dsting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent .
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): No pollutants may be discharged
which exceed 1.27 (0.5.inch) In any
dimension.
§408.54 Pretreatment standards for -.‘ --
existing sources. .
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastawater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of.-,
pollutants or pollutant properties - .
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
16. Section 408.56 is revised to read
as follows:
§408.58 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
17. Section 408.62 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attalnablo by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currentiy avel
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
S S S S S
18. Section 408.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.84 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following prutruatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may b
discharged toa publidy owned
• treatment works by a point source
Subject to the provisions of this subpart
19. Section 408.66 is revised to read
as follows:...
§408.56 PreUu.uiisnt standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a pub hcly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
20 Section 408.72 is revised to read
asfollow-
§ 408.72 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
th. beet practicable control technology
currendy available,
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 -1 Rules and Regulations
15. Section 408.54 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:

-------
33942 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
effluent reduction attainnblo by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl: No pollutants may be discharged
which exceed 1.27 (0.5 inch) in any
dimension.
21. Section 408.74 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 40874 Pretreatment standards for
existhig sourCes.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
22. Section 408.78 is revised to read
as follows:
§408.76 PielrsaUniflt standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewatur pollutants into a publicly’ - -
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. -
23. Section 408.32 Is amended b
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.82 Effluent Ilmitatlons guidelines
repeesendng the d.gme of effluent
reduCtlon attainable by the application of -
the best practicable control hnoIOgy
currently available.
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall-
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of .
effluent reduction attainable by the -.
application of the best practlr hle -
control technology currently available
(BPT):
* a a a •
24. Section 408.84 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows:
§ 408.U Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply’
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
25. Section 408.88 is revised to read -
as follows:
§ 408.88 Pretreatment standards fer new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. -
28. Section 408.92 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:.
§ 408.92 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application oOi
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shail.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attaiw ble by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avaIlabIà
(BFr):
a * * • a,
27. SectIon 408.94 is aixionded by -
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to reed
follows:
§408.84 Prefr 4 iUneflt s dards foe
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process’
wastowater pollutants into a publicly, -
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the’
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality or
pollutants or pollutant propert1es..
controlled by this section which maybe
dlsa4mrged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
sub 1 ect to the provisions of this subpart.
28. Section 408.95 is revised to reacL
as follows:
§ 408.96 Prelreatlmflt standards foe r
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process..
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
29. Section 408.102 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 408.1 Effluent lImItatIons guldeOnss,
reprea.iith g th. degree of effluent’
reduction attainable by the application
the best rac1kabls control technology.
currently available.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall -
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the-
app lication of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): No pollutants may be dischar ’
which exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any
dimension.
30. Section 408.104 Is amended by -.
revising the text above the table (the -
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.104 Pretreatment standards fo
existing sources.
Any existing soe subject to this.
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply -
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may he-.
d ischargedtoapublidy owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the prays one of this subpaxt
31. Section 408.105 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 408.108 Pretreatment standards for niwsi
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that intrOd! 1Ces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly:
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
32. Section 408.11213 amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remainA tr.rhnnged) to read as
follows:
§408.112 Effluent limItations guldelkuic’
representing me dsgrss of effluent
reduction attaInable by the application of
the best practicable control technolOgy
— available.
Except as provided’ln § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(8FF):
* *
* a •
33. Section 408 114 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the -
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60 , No. 125 / Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
3394
i14 PrsUeatmentetandsrds for
y existing source subject to this
that IntrOdUCes process
ewater pollutants Into a publicly
treatment works must comply
. o CFR part 403. In addition, the
, owng pretreatment standard
bushes the quantity or quality of
ollutaflts or pollutant properties
trolled by this section which may be
jj ci iarged to a publicly owned
atment works by a point source
a jOCttO the provisions of this subpart.
a * * a
4. SectIon 408.116 is revised to read
follows:
f 408.116 Pretreabnent standards for new•
4 kny new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
artewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
35. Section 408.122 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
40&1fl Effluent limitations guidelines
representing th. degree of effluent
reduction attalnabis by the application of
the best practicable con ol technology -
currently available.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shelF
achieve the following effluent
llimtatlons representing the degree of.
effluent reduction attAinahie by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
• a a . a
36. Section 408.124 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the—
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows: -
4408.124 PreDeatjn.. 1 t s ndards fer ’ -
existing sources.
Any existing source sub ject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
With 40 CFRpart4O3Jnadd ltfon 4 the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• * • a a
37. Section 408.126 Is revised to read
U follows:
§ 408.120 Prstreaenent standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
38. SectIon 408.132 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4408.132 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the -
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): -
a a a a a
39. Section 408.134 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.134 Pretreabnent standards for.
existing sources.
Any existing source sub ject to this
subpart that introduces process -
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In - addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to adpublicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject ta the provisions of this subpart..
40. Section 408.136 Is revised to read -
as follows:
* 408.135 Pretreatment standards for new -
sources.
Any new source subject to thie . -.
subpart that Introduces process.--
wastewater pollutants into a publicly’.
owned treatment works must comply..
with 40 CFR part 403. -
41. SectIon 408.142 is amended by.
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read. as
follows:
4408.142 Effluent limitations guidelines.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable conbel technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(Br!’):
* a * a a
42. SectIon 408.144 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.144 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subiect to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this sub pa
43. Section 408.146 is revised to re
as follows:-
§408.146 Pretreatment standards for ne
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
44. Section 408.15 2 Is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redesignating
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (bUt
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (hI.
respectively revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
-section to read as set forth below: and
removing in redesignated paragraph (1
thewords”5408.152(b)(1)” and addin
In theirplacethowords “5408.152(a)
§408.152 Effluent limitations guidelines
reprasenting the degree of effluent
reduction attabiabis by ths application of
th. best praUI .abls conttol technology
CWTI.idy available. -
Except as provided in §5125 30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to-this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT)
a a a a a
45. Section 408.154 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table renislini unchanged) to read as
follows:

-------
33944 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No.. 125 / Thursday, June 2 1995 I Rules and Regulations
§408.154 Pr.lreaunsnt standards for
.zlstlflg sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants ulto a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
46. Section 408.156 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.158 Pretreatment standards for new
sourceL
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may bs
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
47. Section 408.18213 amended by
removing paragraph (a) ..redesignating
paragraphs (bi introductory text. (b)(1
and (b)(2) as Introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b),..
respectively; revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set forth below and.
in newly redesignated paragraph (b), th. .
words “5 408.162(b)(1)” axe removed.
and the words “ 5408.182(a)” axe
inserted intheirplacetoraada
follows:
5 408.1OZ EfflUent IIm*tadcns guldulInes ’
represendng the degrSs of effluent- . .
reductmfl attainable bV the apØlestlonel ‘-
t e best practicable coneol taclinologp
curreiitiy available.
Except as provided Ifl §5125.30. -
through 125.32. any wdstlng point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable -
control technology currently availabLe
(BPT):
a * • * a
48. Section 408.164 is amended by
revising the text above the table to read
as follows:
5 408.184 Pretreatment standards for
.,dstIng sources.
Any existing source subject to this
- subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addItions the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart..
49. Section 408.168 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.188 Pr5tr lmInt standards lot new
sources.-
Any new source subject to this -
subpart that introduces process
wastawater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
• a a a a
50. SectIon 408.172 Is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redesignatlng..
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)L1)
and (b112) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (bJ.
respectively; revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set fort below in
newly redesignated paragraph (b) the -
words “S 408.172(b)(1) ” are remoired.
and the words “5 408.172(a)” are
inserted in their place to read as -
foilowr.
§408.177 Effluent limitations guidelines.’
1 pr8Sfldt.g the degree of effluent
reduction affaineblebyth.ePø ew0 ’
the best practicable control tacInoloq . ::
currentiy av.Mabls.
Except as provided In §5125.30 - .
through 125.32. any existing point - - -
source subject to this subpart shall-
achieve the following effluent -
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
SI. Section 408.174 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows:
§ 408.174 Pretreatment standards lot
existing source*.
Any existIng source subject to this .ç’
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply-..
with4 OCFRpart4 O3.Inad&tiOfl.the
following preireatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may b-
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.,-
52. Section 408.176 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
tab’le rernsins unchanged) to read as
foilocvs
§ 408.178 PreijeaUnefit standards for new-
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
dIst4 rged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject..,
to the provisions of this subpart:
53. Section- 408.182 is amended by.
revising the text above the table (tha
table r ma1n niwhnnged) to read as
follow a
§4o&1 ’ Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of sift ucnt-
reduction attainable by th application of--
th. best racticabfscontrOl tacimology
currentiy avallth4e.
Except as provided in 55125.30
through 125.32. any existing point -
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the followuig effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attninRble by the
application of the-best practicable
control technology currently avaiIab1e
( , - .
a a • *
54. Soctloa4O8.184is amended by -.
revising th. text above the table (theL
table remains , unchanged) to read a -. -
follows: -
§408.184- Pretjeabflent standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this’
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
• following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday.. rune 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33945
- ollutantsor pollutant properties
ontrolled by this section which may be
jj charged to a publicly owned
aunent works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
a • * * *
55. Section 408.186 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.186 PTO1IIaIIT)eflt standards for new
sQU Ce&
Any new’source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
waste water pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part4O3. In adth t ion the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
• a a a a
56. SectIon 408.192 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.192 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing th degre. of effluent
reduction attainabl, by the application of
the beet precticabi. con oI technology
ainendy aval
Except as provided In if 125.30
through 125.32, any existing polnt
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attAlnnhla.by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BP’fl:
a a a * *
57. Section 408.194 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.194 Pretretmsifl standards for
existing sourcee.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater ollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the prov sions of this subpart.
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.195 standards for now’
sourcee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
59. SectIon 408.202 is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redesignating
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)(i)
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively: revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set forth below; iii
newly redesignated paragraph (b) the
words “ 408.202(b)(1)” are removed
and the words “g408.202(a)” are
inserted in their place to read as
follows:
§ 408.202 Effluem limitations guidelines
representing th degree at effluent
reduction attainable by th. application of
the beet practicable conbol technology-
curreetty available.
Except as provided In if 125.30
through 125.32, any eidstlng point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFF):
a a a a
60. Section 408.204 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remaijis unchanged} to read as--
follows:
§ 408.204 Pretreatment standards for”
existing sownes. -
Any existing source subject to this.
subpart that introduces procom-
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must cowply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment stanilard
establishes thequanuty or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
table remains unchanged) to read as
followsi.
§ 408.20t Pr ni t s idards for new
eoureee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may b
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subjec
to the provisions of this subpart:
62. Section 408.212 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.212 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable conbol technology
curTe ndy available.
Except as provided in if 125.30
through 125 32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl
* a a * a
63. Section 408.214 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.214 Pretreatment standards for
existing eowtes.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes.the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
64. Section 408.216 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remnina unchanged) to read as
follows: -
§408.211’ Pretreatment standards for new
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
58. Section 408.196 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
61. Section 408.206 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the

-------
33940 Federal Registert Vol. 60, Nb. 125 1 Thursday, June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regu1at ons
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
65. Section 408. 222 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows
§408 “ Effluent limitatians guidelines’
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of.
the belt practIcable ccntrcl technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the.
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a I I
88. Section 408.224 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
3408234 Preb’e.lmint standar for -
existing sourese.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard.
establishes the quantity or quality o1 . . -
pollutants or pollutant properties - -
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned -
treatment works by a point sour
subject to the provisions of this subpart..
67. Section 408.226 Is amended by
reviang the text above the table (the..
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
3408.236 Pretreaenent standards for new
sources-
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. lnaddilion. the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
68. SectIon 408.232 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unir hi nged) to read as
foilown
§ 40&23 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as proiided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of -
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
* * I I I
69. Section 408.234 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
* 408.234 pretreaanaitt standards Ice
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastowater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CER part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard-
cltabllshes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned.
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart..
• a a S.
• 70. Section 408.236 Is amended by-
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows: . -
40&234 P,etreatruerit e d&d for new—
eouree
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastowater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must complY ’. -
- with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard-
establishes the quantity or quality oL
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions oEths subparti
• a a * a
71. Section 408.242 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408242 Efltusnt lbnltat lone guidelines’
representing th. degree of effluent
reduction attalnableby di. application ott.
the best practicable control technology-
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the -
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT ):
a • * a a
72. Section 408.244 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.244 Pretreatment standards for
—
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewatar pollutants into a publicly -
owned treatment-works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be-
disch rged to a publidy owned
treatmentworka bya point source -‘
subject to the provsons of this subpiit
73. SectIon 408.248 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unrh n ed to readaa :
foUows , -
§ 408.244 Pretreatment standards for
sources- . - -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process -
wastewateT pollutants into a publld
owned treatment works must comp1y
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment stanr 4 rd --
establishes the quantity or quality ot. ii
pollitnnt or pollutant properties--
controlled by this section which may beat
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source
to the provisions of this subpart
a a. a a a
74. SectIon 408.252 Is ndedby’
revising the text above the table (the.
-‘
table reI aa n unchanged to reau —
follows - -
§40&2’2 Effluent limitations gu1delIMm
representing the degree of eflIusflt
reduction attainable by thO appllcatlQflO ’
the best practicable control tecl%nQlO9I .:
currentiy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shell
achieve die following effluent
lizmtations representing the degise aL .

-------
Federal Register. / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday , June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
3394
uent reduction attainable by the
3 npUC8t 1 0 of the best practicable
ntrol t hnology currently available
75. SectIon 408.254 Is amended by
y sing the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
Ilows:
*408.254 Pretreatment standards for
lsth g sources.
y existing source subject to this
part that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a * a a
76. SectIon 408.256 is amended by
rev s’ng the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4408.256 Pretreatment standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly -
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 ( R part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of -
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a now sourceaubje .-
to the provisions of this subpart
77. Section 408.282 Is amended bj’
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unrhimged) to read as.
follows: . -. . -
4400.282 Effluent Ureltadons guJduIins..
repressnffng the degre . of effluent
reducdon at Inabfoby ths p1icetIon cO
the best prscffca js ontroI tscbnolog
Cunenffy aUfe.
Except as provided in § 125.30.. -
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shalL
achieve the following effluent
limitation., representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFF):
a • • • a
78. SectIon 408.284 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
foUo w
4400.284 Pretreatment atmidards for
exisdag sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard’
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
79. Section 408.266 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
tabLe remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.266 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this. subpart -
80. Section 408.272 Is amended br’
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unchanged} to read as ,-- -
follows:
§ 408.272 Effluent limItations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction ettaIn ls by th. epp$Icatlwiol-
ths best p fo
earrsntiy esaffabts:
Except as provided In § 125.30;
through 125.32. any existing point’
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent-
limitations representing the degres af
effluent reduction attainable by the - --
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
-(BFfl:
* a * *
81. Section 408.274 is amended by-
revising the text above the table (thor
table remains unchanged) to read as -
follows:
4400.274 Pretreatment standards fey
exIsting eourves.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a pubLIcly ’-
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 C R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpar
a a * * a
82. Section 408.278 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4408.276 Pretreatment standards for ne
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subje
to the provisions of this subpart:
83. Section 408.282 is amended by
removing paragraph (a): redesignatmg
paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)( i)
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b).
respectively; revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set forth below; in
newly redesignated paragraph (b), the
words “ 408.282(bli l)” are removed
and the words “ 408.282(a)”
Inserted In their place to read as.
follows:
4408282 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reductia attainabl, by the application of
ths psucticabi. control technology
aizrentiy eveltebte.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
FTh
* * a. a a
84. Section 408.284 is amended by
revl4ng the text above the table (the
table renhsins.unchsnged) to read as
follows: -
4480.284- Pretrsalm nt stmdarda for
—
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of

-------
33948 Federal Register I VoL 60, No. 125 / Thursday,- June 29, 1995 1 Rules and Regulations
pollutants os pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
dlschargetho a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
85. Section 408.286 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. in addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be-
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart;
86. Section 408.292 is amended by
removing paragraph (a) redesignatlng -
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)(lr
and (b112) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively: revising the newly
designated introductory text to the—
section to read as set forth below in-
newly redesignated paragraph (b) the’’
words “5 408.292(b)(1)” and adding in
their place the words “S 408.292(8) ” a ir
Inserted in their place to read as
follows: - -
§ 408.292 Effluent limitations guidelines’ -
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attaIn by th. appIIcs i-ot ”’
th. best pracucablscona’oI tectinology *
currently available. -
Except as provided in §5 125.3b -
through 125.32. any existing poin ” ’
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent- --‘ “
limitations representing the degreti of
effluent reduction atfalnithte by th& ’
application of the best-practicabi.- -‘.
control technology curTently ’ available’-;
(BPT):
. . * * *
87. SectIon 408.294 is amstsdedby -
revising the text above the-tablb (the-
table rem*ina unchanged) to read ass”
follows:
5i10t294 Pretre..tment standards fo ‘
.xlstlng sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewatea pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the’
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be’
dlschaigedtoapubliclyowned ,“
treatment works by a point source -
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
88. Section 408.298 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of-,-,
pollutants or pollutant propertiee -.
controlled by this section which maybe
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provl ions of this subpart.
8g. Section 408.302 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rerns inQ unchanged) to read as. -
follows: -
*408.302 Effluent limitations guidsllass - -
reprea.ntlngth.degieaof effluent
reduction attalnabisby th ØkalIan-od - -‘
the best practicable coiWol tachnology -
cuirantlyavallable.. . - -
Except as provided in §5 125.3U - -
through 125.32. any existing point’
source subject to this subpart shaW’
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degreao .
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best.pr hin...--
control technology cur entIyavailab1eu
(BPT): ..
• •. - . ‘‘ .
90. Section 408.304 Is amended.b . s1
revising the text above the table (the - . ‘
table remAins unchanged) to r..dasi-’
follow&
table remains imrh inged) to read as
follows: -
*408.306 Prstreatm.nt standards f , n
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality ot
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may bi
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subj c
to the provisions of this subpart:
92. Section 408.312 is amended by,
removing paragraph (a): redesignating-’
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)(i)
and (b)(2) as Introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b),
respdcdvely revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set forth below; in
newly redesignated paragraph (b) the
words “5408.312(b)(1)” are removed
and the words “5408.312(a) ” are
inserted lntheir place to read as
follows.
408.312 Effluent limitations guldeIinsv.-
rsprseuiting the degre. of effluent
reduction attalnabis by the application of
d i. best practicable control tectinolog”
currently available. -
Except as provided in §5125.30
thiuughi2.5.32.. any existing point-.
source subject to this subpart shall -
achieve the. following effluent -
limitationa representing the degree cf4
effluent reduction attnmsahle by the . -j
application of the best practicable -
control technology currently availabIei
(BFT ’ .. . . —
•. _• , _• * *
93 Sectlon —408 .314 Is amended bp41
revising the te above the table (th.
table milirnt unchanged to read as
folløv ”?’ 4 ’-i “ - - - -
- .
* 408.286 Pretreatatent standards for new- § 408.296 Pretreatment s ldards for new
sources. sources.-
4406304 Pretreatment s dd&fea r , 4408.3W PrV ...Ww. .tstaiKheda
existing sources. souroesi- - . - -
Any existing source subject to this Any-existing source subject to thi
subpart that introduces process -. subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly -. wastewater pollutants Into a pub - .
owned treatment works must compl) .i owned treatment works must comply-
with 40 CFR part 403. In additioa.th .,. wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition. -
following pretreatment standard following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality oF” establishes the quantity or quality
pollutants or pollutant propeties’- ’ pollutants or pollutant properties ;
controlled by this section which maybe- controlled by this section which may, -
discharged to a publicly owned. - - discharged to a publicly owned D
treatment works by a point source - treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart - subloctto the provisions of this sub.
91. Section 408.306 is amended by 94. SectIon 408.316 is amended
revising the text above the table (the revising the text above the table (th.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33949
wl,!elemains unchanged) to read as -
Pretreatment s idards for.new
new source subject to this
j part that Introduces process
wasto vet pollutants into a publicly
,wned treatment works must comply
th 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
f 0 llowing pretreatment standard
*tablishes the quantity or quality of
flutants or pollutant properties
,iitrolled by thip section may
jjscharged to a publicly owned
eatnient works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
I • • * *
95. Section 408.322 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
oam Effluent limitation. guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicabl, control technology
wrently available.
Except as provideä in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
affluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable-.
control technology currently available.
(BP’fl:
• a a . a
96. Section 408.32413 amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.324 Pretrealment s darda for
eidetJng sources.
Any existing source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process
wastewator pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard - -
ntablishes the quantity or quality of.
pollutants or pollutant properties’
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source-
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• • a . a
97. Section 408.326. Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the-
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows;
§408.321 Pietreathient standards fdP new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
Wastewater pollutants into a publicly.
Owned treatment works must comply
With 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
98. Section 408.332 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.332 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currentiy available.
Except as provided in if 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
99. Section 408 334 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.334 Pretseatment standards for
existing ecurces. . -
Any existing source subject to this. -
subpart that Introduces pmcess
wastdwater pollutants Into a publicly.
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard.
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be.
discharged to a publicly owned-
treatment works by a point source
subject to the prov sions of this subpart.-
100. Section 408.336 is amended by-
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:-
§ 408.338 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new sour subject to this-
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of-.
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart;
PART 409—(AMENOED]
In Part 409:
1. The authority citation for part 409
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sacs. 301. 304 (b) and Ic). 306
(b) and (c), 307(c) and (d). and 316(b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended: 33 U.S.C 1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and
Ic). 1316(b) and ( Cl, 1317 (C), and 1326(c),
86 Stat. 816 et seq.. Pub. L 92—500: 91 Stat.
1567. Pub. L 95—217.
2. Section 409.14 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows-
§448.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
3. Section 409.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§409.18 Pretreatment standards for new
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
4. Section 409.22 is amended by-
removing paragraph (a); redesignating
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)(i)
and (b)(2las introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b).
respectIvely and revising the newly
designated Introductory text to the
section to read as follows;
§409.22.. Effluent lImitations guIdelines
represeffling the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appilcatloirof
the beet practicable control technology
currentiy available.
Exceptas provided in if 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a a *
5. Section 409.24 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:

-------
33950 Federal Register I VoL 60. t Io. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 1 Rules and Regulations
§40924 Prsueauninf steedards for
e3deth g so.uc.s.
Any existing source- subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
6. Section 409.28 is revised to read as
follows:
§409.29 Pretreatment standards for new
sourcee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastawater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
7. SectIon 409.32 Is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redesignating
paragraphs (b) introductory text, (bXl)
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b).
respectively; and revising the newly
designated Introductory tei to the
section to read as follows:
§ 409.32 Effluent Umltatlons guldaline.
representing thn degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of -
the best precticabi. control teshnology_
currently available..
Except as provided in 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction atthin bla by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
(BPT):
* a a a a
8. Section 409.34 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows: -
§ 409.34 Pretreatment stendards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wa tewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may b
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point Source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
9. Section 409.36 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 40938 Pretrestment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process.
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
10. Section 409.42 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§409.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
repreeenthig the degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by thi application of
th. best practicable controt technology
currently available.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT);
a a * a *
11. Section 409.52 Is amended by
revising the introductory text.to read as
follows:
440952 Effluent limitation, guideline.
repisnenhing the degree of effluent
riducilon attainable by the application of
th. best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, any wasting point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the -
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
• a a *
12. Section 409.82 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remAln* unchanged) to read as.
foUows
§409.92 Effluent limitations guidelines.
representing the degree ot effluent
reduction attainable by the application of.,
the best practicable control technology -
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available-.
(BPT]:
• a a * a
13.Sectlon 400.72 Is amended hr -
revising the-Introductory text- to read
follows:
§ 409.72 Effluent limitations guldelInss -.
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this.
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the.
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attziiniihle by the applicat1
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
There shall be no discharge of proce a
waste water pollutants to navigable
waters.
a * * a a
14. Section 409.82 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read a s
follows: -.
4409.92 Effluent limitations guidelines
reprse.ntlng the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by tie application
the best practicable control technology
currently availatils.
- E wept as provided In 55125.30
through 125.32, any existing point -
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attjth ,Rhle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
(BPT):-
a
• a a a
PART 411—{AMENOEDJ - -
‘laPart4ll:. -
1. The authority atatlon for part 4 Uv
continues to read as follows:
Autberityr Sec.. 301.301(b) sad (c i. 301
(bi and (c)j and 307(c) of the Fedeni WE5
Pollution Cones! Act. as amended; 33 LLSA-
1251. 131 1,1314(b)end(c ), 1316(b)sthLái.
and 1317(c); 88 Stat. 815 at seq.. Pub. 1.
500:91 Slat. IS?. Pub. L. 95—217. -
2. SectIon 411.12 lsamended by
revising the text above the table (thi -
table r, m na unchanged) to read is
follows:
§411.12 Effluent limitations guldelb1 -
representing the degresof effluent
reduction attainable by the
the best practlcabl. control t.clifl0lO -
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30.
through 125.32. any existing pouli
source subject to this subpart shall

-------
Federal_Register I Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995- I Rules and Regulations
33951
LOVO the following effluent
WtAUOnS representing the degree of
‘ jnt reduction attainable by the
j auon of the best practicable
ro1 technology currently available
3 ction 411.14 is amended by
s jag the text above the table (the
le remains unchanged) to read as
ft,1 10w 9
i i1.14 Pretreatrneeit for
dngs0U1 ’ S .
ny existing source subject to this
5 bpart that introduces process
wastes ta i ’ pollutants into a publicly
0 wned treatment works must comply
. ,q t’i 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
followuig pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
ntrolled by this section which may be
charged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
* a a a
4. Section 411.16 is revised to read a&
follows:
3411.18 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process-
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. Section 411.22 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows
3411.fl Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent -
reduction attainable by the application at
th. beet predicable contini technology
ntiyaval lab ls.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart abalk -
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree a -
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable -
control technology currently available
(BPT);
• a a I a
6. Section 411.24 is amended by’
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read ae -
follows:
3411.24 Pretreatment standards for-
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
Owned treatment works must comply
With 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the prov slons of this subpart.
7. Section 411.26 Is revised to read as
follows:
§ 411.26 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
‘with 40 CFR part 4Q3.
8. Section 411.32 Is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) (the table remains’
unchanged) to read as follows:
§ 411.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
cwrendy available.
(a) Except as provided in 125.30-
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (hi of this
section, any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application.
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) -,
a * a a
9. SectIon 411.34 is amended by- -
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as-
follows:
§411.34 Pretreatment standards fee
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addfflon , the -
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of- -
pollutants or pollutant properties -
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned-
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
10. SectIon 411.36 Is revised to read
as follows:
§411.38 Pretreatmentstanda,dsfornew
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
PART 41 2.—jAMENDEDJ
In Part 412:
1. The authority citation for part 412
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secx. 30 1,304(b) and (ci, 306
(bland (C). and 307(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended; 33 US C.
1251, 1311. 1314(b) and (ci, 1316(b) and (c)
and 1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 et seq , Pub L 92—
500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L 95—217
2. Section 412.12 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows
§412.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currendy available.
(a) Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section, any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPTF
There shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants to navigable
waters.
• * a * a
3. SectIon 412.14 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 412.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process.
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
- owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
- pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
d1scharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
4. Secthrn 412.16 is revised to read as
follows:— -
4412.18- Pretreatment standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. Section 412.22 is amended by
removing the Introductory text and
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:

-------
33952 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 1 Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
§412. Effluent Ilmitadons guideline.
repisueffling th degree 01 effluent
reducUcn attainable by the appIIns on 01
the beat pracdcabis con oI technology
currenfly *Iabls.
(a) Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125. 2, any wdstlng point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BF’fl:
a a • a a
PART 417—(AMENDEDI -
In Part 417:
1. The authority citation for part 417
continues to read as follows:
AILtborlty Sacs. 301. 304(b) and (c). 306-
(b)and (ci. and 307(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amanded. (the Act):
33 U.S.C. 2252. 1311. 1314 (b) and (ci. 1316
(b) and (ci and 2317(c). 88 Stat. 818 at seq.,.,
Pub 5 L. 92-500.
2. Section 417.12 Is amended by-
revising the text above the table (the
table remain.s unchanged) to read se
follows:
§ 411.12 ESlhz.nt Umitabone guidelines-
roçiienentlng th. degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the ppücsdofl at
the best practicable con Vol technology
cw eiidy svellabls- -
Except as provided in S 125.3g.
through 125.32. any existing point
source SUb j8Ct to this subpart shall
achieve the following affluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attminnble by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFF):
a a a a .*
3. Section 417.14 is amended by. . -.
revising the text above the table (th -
table remains un thi.nged) to read ae’• —-
follows.
§417.14 Pr Ve.UUent ndard$ foe -
existing sowe -
Any existIng source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR past 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be.
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
4. Section 41.7.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§417.16 Petreetawtt s i dsIornew
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
westewater poUutant into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFP. part 403.
5. Section 417.22 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 417.fl Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
— avaliabls.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
6. Section 417.24 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.24 , o 0 tmont standerds for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to tbla ’
subpart that Introduces process:
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard’
establishes the quantity or quality of.
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a puhlicly owned
treatment works by a point source -
subject to the provsons of this subpart .
7. Section 417.26 Is revised to read as
follows:
*417.28 Pre*reaUl4lfl 5tefldUrd*f0, nSee
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces procesa
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. -
8. SectIon 417.32 Is amended by.
revising the text above the table (the..
table remains unchanged) to read as
- follows: -
* 417.32 Effluent limitations guidelines.-
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shalt
achieve the following effluent
Limitations representing the degr, .
effluent reduction attainable by the- .
application of the best practicable- — -
control technology currently avag ,i_ . .
(SF1 ’) . -
a a a a a
9. SectIon 417.34 tsamendedby
revising the text above the table (dir
table remains unchanged) to reed - -
follows.
§417.34 Pretreatment standatdaf
existing sources
Any existing source subject to t j 5 ..
subpart that introduces process -.
wastewater pollutants into a pub 1 4
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. n add tion,
following pretreatment standard - -
establishes the. quantity or quality of - z
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section whIch may
dischargedtoapubliclyowned - -
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpa
a s a a a
10. Section 417.36 is revised oy 4
as follows:
§417.36 Pretreatment standarde for
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process )
wastewutar pollutants into a publicly..
owned treatment works must ceniplv
with 4OGRpast403 .
It. SectIon 417.42 is amended by
revising the. text above the table (the
table romaine. un . h mgod) to read eei
follows.
I
§417.42 Effluent limitations guldeMnss c
. pre.entIng the degree of effluent - .
reduction attainable by the epp1Ics
the best practicable control technofo
currently available.-,
Except as provided In 5 228 .3a - ?%
thmugh. 125.32. any existing point-..
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent .‘-. -
limitations representing the dsgreee
effluent reduction attaicablsby tth4.
application of the-best
control technology currently- &vails
a 1 ec isaurnndadb
revising.the text above the table (
table un,4u nged} to teed
followsr - - .
§ 417.44 Pretreatment standardS Ior
existing sources. -
Any existing source subject tOth
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pallutants into a pubui
owned treatment works must Q3WP
with 40 CFR past 403. In addjt10 5*
following pretreatment standfl -
establishes the quantity or qua 1 -
-i

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33953
ilutants or pollutant properties
ntxolled by this section whIch may be
jschazged to a publicly owned
aUnent works by a point source
to the provisions of this subpart.
a a * •
13. Section 417.46 is revised to read
follows:
§417.48 Pretreatmeirt standards for new
5 owuOL
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
14. Section 417.52 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read
follows:
§417.52 Effluent Umitadons guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reductiOfl attainable by the application at
mebestp I. control technology
curTefltiY avaliable.
Except as provided in § 125.30
throUgh 125.32. any existing point
souZce subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
• a a a a
15. Section 417.54 Is amended by”:
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) ta read as
follows:
§417.54 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addltion the’ . -
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties - -
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly’ owned
toatn ient works by a point source.
subject to the provisions of this subpart
a • a a .
16. Section 417.58 Is revised t
as follows:
§417.55 Pretreijme,t atandeids for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
OWiled treatment works must. comply
wflh40 CFR part 403.
17. Section 417.62 ‘s amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read
follows:
§ 417.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application at
the best practicable contrul technology
currendy avallabis.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
18. SectIon 417.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.64 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this..
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must.comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the previsions of this subpart
19. Section 417.66 Is revised to read
as follows:
§ 417.83 Pretreatment standards for new
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process -
wastowater pollutants into a publlcly
owned treatment works must comply-
wIth 40 CFR part 403. -
20. SectIon 417.72 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows:
§417.72 Effluent limItallons guidelines..
rep .a.ur ting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by th. application at
the best practicable control technology..
currendy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
Limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
(BPT):
a a a a
21. Section 417.74 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.74 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
22. Section 417.78 is revised to read
as follows:
§417.76 Pretreatnient standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
23. Section 417.82 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417. Effluent llmflatlons guidelines
reprsse t1ng the degree of effluent
reduction attalnabls by the application of
the best practicable control technology
cunenuy av.flab .
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPTJ:
a • a *
24. Sectloff 417.84 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the-
table remMna unchanged) to read as
follows:-
§ 417.34 Pvetrs tm d standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastawater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFRpart 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
- establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the previsions of this subpart.
25. Section 417.88 is revised to read
as follows:

-------
33954 Federal Register I VoL
60, No. 125 / Thursday. June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
§417.86 Pretre lmeflt standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastawater pollutants into a publicly.
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403.
26. SectIon 417.92 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.92 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently Wiabis.
Except as provided in 55125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source sub ject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• • * * a
27. Section 417.94 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to d as
follows:
§417.94 pretreatment stand rd3 for
existing sowC$$..
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFK part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
28. SectIon 417.9615 revised to read
as follows:
§ 417.96 PFSUSoWl< standards for nsw-
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
29. SectIon 417.102 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.102 Effluent limitations guidelInes
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a • a a a
30. Section 417.104 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.104 pretreatment standards for
- existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
31. Section 417.106 is revised to read
as follows
§417.106 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
32. SectIon 417.112 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the -
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.112 Effluent limitations guidelines-
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any e dsting point
source subject to this subpart shall.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable.
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• * a • a
33. SectIon 417.114 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.114 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources..
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewator pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of 4
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subp
34. Section 417.11615 revised to
as follows:
§ 417.116 Prieatiieflt standards for r .
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly ‘
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. -
35. Section 417.122 is amended by -
revising the text above the table (the -
table remains unchanged) to read as
followm
§417.1 Effluent limitations guldellnes
representing th. degree of efflueni
reduction attainable by the application
the best practicable control technologg
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently availahe
(BPT):
• * a a •
36. Section 417.124 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows
§ 417.124 P trsatment standards for
existing ourcee.
Any existing source subject to thu.
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comp1y
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, thee
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which xnay
discharged to a publicly owned -
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subp
• * a a •
37. Section 417.128 is revised to
as follows
§417.126 pretreatment standards t I’
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces procesS -
wastewater pollutants into a publid?
owned treatment works must cOfl1P
with 40 CFR part 403.
38. Section 417.132 is amended
revising the text above the tablet

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33955
is unchanged) to read
I 1 U Ow S ’
4132 Effluent limItatIons guidelines
I..Ildng the degre. of effluent
lIP_ 1 Ø 11 Bttah1 b by the appi tion o
practIc iI contiol technology
dø_,. 11 y a Ilob S .
xcept as provided in §5125.30
. ugli 125.32, any existing point
UM subject to this subpart shall
hieve the following effluent
‘tioU9 representing the degree of
ieflt reduction attainable by the
iication of the best practicable
trol technology currently available
rn. a a I
39. Section 417.134 Is amended by
j. ing the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
i7.134 Pretreatment standards for
SourCes.
My existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
westewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR pelt 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
ntrolled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a • • a
40. Section 417.136 Is revised to read
as follows:
417.138 Pretreatment standards for new
Any new source subjecttn this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
41. Section 417.142 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the-.-
table m ina unchanged) to read as..
follows:
417.142 Effluent limitations guidelines
re p reeenllng the degresof effluent
reductIon attaInable by th epplicadenef
ths best prm cable COntrOl technology-
yavallable.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
I * a * a
42. Section 417.144 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4417.144 Pretreatment standards for
exloting sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
43. Section 417.146 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 417.148 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR past 403.
44. Section 417.152 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4417.152 Effluent limitations guidelines
rs,. .resendng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
*
* * a *
45. Section 417.156 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read av
follows:
4417 166 Pretreatment standards for new’
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standards
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart.
a a a a a
46. Section 417.162 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§417.162 Effluent lImItatIons guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicabl, control technology
currently available. -
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
* I I I I
47. Section 417.166 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§417.165 Pretreatment standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quahty of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section, which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart.
48. Section 417.172 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4417.172 Effluent Imitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attaInable by the application of
the beet practicabl, control technology
currently avaIlable.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): -
a a- . a •
49. Section 417.176 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4417.178 Pretreatment standards for new
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standards
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned

-------
33956 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thurtiday, June 29, 1995 .1 Rules and Regulations
treatment works by a new source sub ct
to the provisions of this subpart.
50. SectIon 417.182 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.182 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology.
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shalL
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
* a * a a
51. Section 417.186 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§417.186 PiSUSuthiOflt standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standards
establishes the quantIty or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties..
controlled by this section, which may.be
discharged to a publicly owned
- treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpaxt ’
• a • • *-
52. SectIon 417.192 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows: - -
§ 417.192 Effluent nmttsdoiwgUIdIUfle4
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control teclinologp
currently available.
Except as provided In §S l25.3O
through 125.32, any existing point-
source subject to this subpart shall -
achieve the following effluent -
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a a a
53. Section 417.194 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as’
follows:
§417.194. Pvtjeatnwnt standards fo
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces pmcess
wastewater pollutants into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
54. Section 417.196 is revised to read
as follows:
§417.196 Pretrealnlent standards for new
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
PART 418-.-(AMEIIDEOJ
§418.12 Effluent Ibnitatione guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application 0 1
the best practicable control technology. -
currently available.
3. Section 418.22 Is-amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unrhanged) to read as
follows:
§418.22 Effluent llm$tatione.guIdSIlfleS-
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by th application of—
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology Currently a
(BPT):
a • a a a
4. SectIon 418.32 Is amended ,
revising the Introductory text to
follows:
§418.32 Effluent llmltatløns gu
representing the degree of eltju .
reduction attainable by the appi ’
the best practicable control teciinni, , ,.. ’ 2
currently available.
Except as provided in §5 12536.
through 125.32, any existing
source subject to this subparts
achieve the following effluent
Limitations representing the d
effluent reduction attainable by tha
application of the best practicabi,,
control technology currently availgi
(BFT): -
• • a * *
5. Section 418.42 is amended by’
revising the text above the table (tM
table remains unchanged) to read a, A
follows:
§418.42 Effluent limItations guldab
, presentIng the degree of effluent-
reduction attainable by the applIcadcn
th. best practicable control technoIo
currently available.
Except as provided in 55 125.3Q: . ’
through 125.32, any wasting point.
source subject to this subpart shalk
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degres
effluent reduction attainable by ths l
application of the best precticabla
control technology currently avai1thi
(BPT): ]
*_ a a a •
0. Section 418.52 is amended by . ’
revising the introductory text to
follows:
§418.52 Effluent limitations guIdeIitI
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appllcatIosøs
the best practicable contvi tech
currently available.
Except as provided In §5 125.3Ot
through 125.32, any wasting poinri
source subject to this subpart
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degren
effluent reduction attainable by ths
application of the best practicable.
controL technology currently a
(BFfl
a - a- • •
7. SectIon 418.62 is revised to reull
follows:
§418.82 Effluent limitations gUled 1
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appilCa 5O’
the best practicable control t 0 cIlflQl0
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30’
thioug)i 125.3k, any existing pou .1
In Part 418:
1. The authority citation for part 418
continues to read as follows:
Authority 33 U.S.C 1251 et seq..
2. SectIon 418.12 is amended by- -- - ,
revising the introductory text to read as’
follows:
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent-
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable.’
control technology currently available”’
(BPT): . -. - - -
a • a a * -

-------
I,
this subpart shall
the following effluent
gbl6 0 5 representing the degree of
U 1 ’ eductloi1 attAinable by the
of the best practicable
P 7 cbnoIogy currently available
There shall be no discharge of
yaste water pollutants to
“ ble waters.
.a;1c 5 tion 418.72 is revised to read as
oUows -
Effluent limitations guidelines
the degree of effluent
ttainab4e by the application of
, t practicable con ol technology
available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
ough 125.32. any existing point
subject to this subpart shall
chieve the following effluent
1 itatlouS representing the degree of
uent reduction attainable by the
npliCfltl on of the best practicable
nuol technology currently available
apT): There shall be no discharge of
se waste water pollutants to
avigable waters.
‘ART 424.—(AMENDED]
In Part 424:
i. The authority citation for part 424
ontinues to read as follows:
AutbOrIJy Sacs. 301. 304 (b) and (c). 306
,) and (c). 307(c) of the Federal Water
‘ollutlon Control Act, as amended;
251. 1311. 1314(b) and (C). 1316(b) and (C),
317(c): 88 Stat. 816 et seq.. Pub. 1.. 92—500:
1 Stat. 1587, Pub. L 95—217.
2. Section 424.12 Is amended by
evising the text above the table (the
able remains unchanged) to read as
ollows
424.12 Effluent limitations guidelines-
ipres.nting the degre . of effluent
efuction attainable by th. application of-.
i. best practicable conbol technology
*urantiy avadable .
Except as provided in 55125.30
hiough 125.32, and subject to the
,rovisions of paragraph (a) of this
.ectlon, any existing point souz
ubject to this subpart shall achieve the
ollowing effluent limitations
epresenting the degree of effluent
eduction attainiihle by the application
f the best practicable control
echnology currently available (BPT):
3. Section 424.16 Is revised to read as
ollows:
424.16 Preosaijna..t s idwUs for new
Any new source subject to this
ubpazt that introduces process
Mastewater pollutants Into a publicly
)WUed treatment works must comply
Mith 40 CFR part 403.
4. SectIon 424.22 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remnina unchanged) to read as
follows:
4424. Emuent mitations guideline,
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable contiof technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BP ’T):
a a a a a
5. Section 424.26 is revised to read as
follows:
424.26 Pretreatment atenderde for new
eourcee. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
6. Section 424.32 s amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
424.32 Effluent flmltatloee -guld&nss
representing ths degree 01 effluent -
reduction attainable by the application ci.
the best pracU bl . conbel technology. -
— avel e.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
applicatIon of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFr)
a a a *
7. Section 424.36 Is revised to read as
follow,:
4424.36 Pret,e.w*.t stendards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 Q ’R part 403.
8. Section 424.42 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
33957
4424.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre, of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable cenfrol technology
currently available.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BFfl:
9. Section 424.52 is revised to read as
follows:
4424.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
repreeentlng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currendy avaIlable.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, and subiect to the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainahle by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
There shall be no dic harge.of process
waste water pollutants to navigable
waters.
10. SectIon 424.62 Is amended by
revising the Introductory text to read as
follows:
§424.62 Effluent Hmttatioais guidelines
representing th. degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best pr cflcabl , control technology
— avedab
Except as provided in §5123.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
Ilmthilions representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the boot practicable
• control technology currently available
(BPT):
.. a a- a a
11. Se on 424.72 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains tinrhanged) to read as
follows:
§424.72 Effluent limitations guidelines
the d of effluent
reduction atminabls by the application of
the best practicable Cøuitol technology
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

-------
33958 Federal Register I VoL 60. No . 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BP ’fl:
0 * 0 * *
PART 426 (AMENDED)
In part 426:
1. The authority citation for part 426
continues to read as follows:
Authorlty Secs. 301. 304 (b) and (C). 308
(b) and Cc), 307(c). and 316(b) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended 33
U.S.C. 1251. 1311. 1314. 1316(b) and (c)
1317(b); 88 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub. L 92—500:
91 Stat. 1587. Pub. L 95—217.
2. Section 426.16 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (b)
and adding introductory text to read as
follows:
4421.16 Pretreatment s idords for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
3. Section 428.22 is revised to read as
follows:
442tfl Effiuset limitations guideline.
representing the d.gres of effluent
reduction attainable by ml application of
the best practicabi. control technology -
currenfly available.
Except as provided In §S125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shalls
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degroeoL
effluent reduction attninithie by tha
application of the best practicable - -
control technology currently avajbihln
(BPT): There shall be no discharge-of
process waste water pollutants to .
navigable waters.
4. SectIon 428.24 Is amended by,
revising the text above the table (tha-
table remrnna unchanged ) to read as’
follows:
§421.24 Pretreaunent standards for
existing sources.
Any aiustlng source subject to this
subpart that Introduce. process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply’
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties -
controlled by this section which may be’
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source-
subject to the provsons of this subpart
5. Section 428.26 Is revised to read as
follows:
§426.26 Pretreatment standards for nsw
sources.
Any new source sublect to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
6. Section 426.32 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 426.32 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing th. degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicabi. control technology
currendyava llabi..
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of-
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
7. Section 426.34 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§421.34 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly- -
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the-
following pretreatment standard -.
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart..
8. Section 428.36 is revised to read as
follows: -
4426.36 Pretreennim standards for n
sourcee. .
Any new source subject to this -
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply.
with 40 CFR part 403.
9. Section 426.42 is amended by
revising the text above the tableithe-
table remains unchanged) to read as”
follows: -
4421.42 Effluent Iimi tIone guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by th. application of
ml best practicable control technology
currentiy available.
Except as provided ui § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
—
source subject to this subpart sj 4
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the d te
application of the best praCI1Cab ’
effluent reduction attainable by
control technology currently avaf
(BPT):
* * 0 * *
10. Section 428.44 is amended
revising th text above the table , ,
table remains unchanged) to read as. -
follows:
§426.44 Pretreatment standardsf 0 , :
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to thi 0
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a PUbUdy
owned treatment works must Comp
with 40 CFR part 403. In add.jtjo 0 ,
following pretreatment standar J
establishes the quantity or quality ofi f
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which m1ay
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this suJ p . 1
a a a a * -
ii. SectIon 426.48 is revised to rent
as follows: - ‘
§426.46 Pretreatment standards tar
sow,css. . - 5 _
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process -
wastewater pollutants into a pubI1c1y
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
12. Section 426.52 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the - 1
table remnins unchanged) to read es
follows: -
§421.52 Elflusnt fimitatlons guise
reprswlting ml degree of effluent
reduction attalnabi. by ml appilcst1en .s
th. best practicable contrpl tech
a rrentiy aveHable.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32, any existing point ‘
source subject to this subpart shall -
achieve the.following effluent
limitations representing the degree c *i
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable .‘
control technology currently aviii1ah i
(BFI ’) :
* a a a
13. Section 428.50 Is revised to
as follows:
4426.58 Pretrealinont standards for flU
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publiclY
owned treatment works must complY
with4 OCFRpart4O3.
14. Section 428.62 is amended by- .
revising the text above the table (thr

-------
Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 125 I Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33959
j in hnnged) to read as
limitations guldefins.
the degree of effluent
nabls by the application of
ø ’ practicable control technology
- .- dY
as provided In § 125.30
125.32. any existing point
subject to this subpart shall
‘eve the following effluent
taU0115 representing the degree of
reduction attainable by the
‘ •• ucat ’ of the best practicable
!tIVL technology currently available
aa
i5. Section 428.64 is amended by
visifl8 the text above the table (the
le remainS unchanged) to read as
.42164 Pretreethient e ds for
ng 5OU CeL
y existing source subject to this
eibpart that introduces process
5 stewater pollutants Into a publicly
øwned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
llowIng pretreatment standard
ublishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
asntrolled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
gublect to the provisions of this subpart.
• a S * S
18. Section 428.66 Is revised to read
follows:
42168 Pretreatment etmWards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly -
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403.
17. SectIon 426.72 Is amended by.
revising the text above the table (the
table remAin. ’ unrirnngecj) to read as..
follows:
f 428.72 Effluent limitations guldsllnss
ripreasnung the degree of effluent
reduction attalnabis by the application of
the best practicable control technology
Cwrendy svai
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
efliuent reduction attnin.’hle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
S • a * •
18. Section 426.78 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 428.78 Pretreatment sue dards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
19. Section 428.82 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 426.82 Emuent limitations guidelines
representing die degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
20. Section 426.86 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remAin. ’ unchanged) to read as
follows:
• 428.88 Pretreatment etan ds for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
fIi.Whllrged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisipus of this subpart.
Because of the recognition that animal
and vegetable oils can be adequately
removed in a publicly owned treatment
works, whereas mineral oil may not be
readily removed and may pass through
untreated, two separate limitations are
established
a a a a a
21. Section 428.102 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the-
table rom.’in. ’ unchanged) to read as
follows:
•428.1 Effluent limitations guidsIkien
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by th eppl .
the beet practicable control technology
— available.
Except as provided In §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the.best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a * a a a
22. Section 426.108 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§426.106 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
23. SectIon 428.112 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§428.112 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing th degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT). (The fluoride and lead
limitations are applicable to the abrasive
poliching and acid polishing waste
water streams while the TSS, oil, and
pH limitations are applicable to the
entire process waste water stream):
• . S * S
24. Section 426.116 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remninc unchanged) to read as
follows:
* 426.116 Pre4rs.tment standards for new
-.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works-must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provlslnns of this subpart.
Because of the recognition that nnimiil

-------
33980 FederaL Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday, June 29! 1995/ Rules and Regulations
and vegetable oil. can be adequately
removed in a publicly owned treatment
works, whereas mineral oil may not be
readily removed and may pass through
untreated, two separate limitations are
established.
a * a a a
25. Section 426.122 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
426.122 ElItuent limitations guidelines
representing thi degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applIcation of
th. best practicabi. control tethnology
curientiy available.
Except as provided in § 12530
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a *
26. Section 426.126 is amended by
revistng the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 426126 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this -
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply --
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the’
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of-.
pollutants or pollutant propertiec
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source.
subject to the provislo9s of this subpart..
Because of the recognition that *nimal
and vegetable oils can be adequately
removed in a publicly owned treatment”
work., whereas mineral oil may not be
readily removed and may pass through -
untreated, two separate limitation, are- -
established.
a a a • _*
27. SectIon 426.132 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4426.132 Effluent limitations qiddsllslus -
rep. aendng the degree of slflusnt
reduction attainable by the application ol
th. best practicable control tschnoio r..
airrendy available.
Except as provided in S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations zepresenting the degree of
affluent reduction attsiin .hLe by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
28. Section 426.1361. amended by-
revising the text above the table (the
table renialYjIa imr . -hangecl ) to read as
follows:
§426.138 Pretreatment s idids for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with4 OCFRpart4O3.Inaddition.tho -
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
PART 427—(AMENDED]
In Part 427:
1. The authority citation for part 427
continues to read as follows:
Authority Sec .. 301. 304(b) end (c), 300
(bJ and (c i, 307(c), Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. ne amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251,
1311. 1314 (b) and (c). 1316(b) and (ci,
1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 at aeq.. Pub. L 92-500.
2. Section 427.12 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 427.12 Efflu.nt limitations guld&ns.-
representing the degre. of .fflusnt
reduction atminabi. by th. applkauan o4 -
the best practicable conb’ol technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point.
source subject to thfs subpart shall
achieve the following affluent
limitations representing the degree of -
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): - -
a a a a
a
3. Section 427.14 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§427.14 Pretreatment standards fee . ,. -
existing sources. -
Any wasting source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process.. . -,
wastawater pollutants into a publicly.
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned,
treatment works by a point
subject to the provisions of this
a a a a a
4. Section 427.18 is revised to
follower - .
§427.16 Pretreatment standard .
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a pub [ j 4
owned treatment works must compl, . . , P
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. Section 427.22 is amended by. -
revising the text above the table (the’
table remaina unchanged) to read -
follows:
§427.22 Effluent limitations guIdel ‘
repi-seenting the degree of effluent .
reduction attainable by the applicauo
the best practicable control technology
— avai er
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent -
limitations representing the degree oL .z-
effluent reduction attainable by the -4 . ,- -
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avallabi, - -
* a * a a
0. Section 427.24 Is amended by-
revising the text above the table (the. -
table remalna unchanged) to read as--
followsr
• 427.24 Pretreetmint standards for
—
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process -
wastewater pollutants Into a publIcly’*
- owned treatment works must complye
- wlth4OCFRpart 403. lnaddltion.t e
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality o(
pollutant. or pollutant properties- .-
controlled by this section which may
discharged to a publicly owned ‘ .
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subp
a a. a a a -
7. SectIon 427.28 is revised to resd J
follows:
§427.28 Pretru.lmiet s ida ’ds for
Any new source subject to this *
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publid #
owned treatment works must p 1 t
with 4 OCFRpart4 O3.
8. SectIon 427.32 is amended by
revising the text above the table (tb( t .
table remains unchanged) to read asi J
follows:

-------
Federal Rag ster / Vol. 60, No. 125 I Thursday, June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33961
gffluent limitations guideline.
the degree of effluent
atmiutabis by the application of
t piectic conhel technology
esdy
as provided in §5125.30
125.32. any existing point
‘ ce subject to this subpart shall
hielfO the following effluent
‘ tjons representing the degree of
‘ nt reduction attainable by the
jj alIon of the best practicable
tro1 technology currently available
g. Section 427.34 is amended by
the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4421.34’ Pretreahilent standards for
- g d ag sources.
ny existing source subject to this
.shpart that Introduces process-
tewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the.
following pretreatment standard
tablishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
aubject to the provisions of this subpart.
a • • a
10. SectIon 427.38 is revised to read
ufollows:
4427.36 PTebeatrTISnt standards for n.w
Any new source subject to this
uubpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
11. Section 427.42 Ii amended by’. -
revising the text above the table (the.
table rem ina unchanged) to read
follows: -
4427.42 Effluent limitations guIdsWies .,
rsv ..soatingth.d.ga.ofefftusnt’ -
mdact on attainable by the plkatI .
ths best practicable control technology
• Exmpta aprovidedin 55 l25.30
through 125.32, any codstlng point .‘
uource subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree oft
effluent reduction astRinablo by ibm -
application of the best practicable.
control technology currently available ’
(BFfl:
a a • • *
12. Section 427.44 Is amended by
revising the text above the table4the -
table remains unchangedl to read ea-
follows: -
§ 427.44 PveU’e5lment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
* a a a a
13. SectIon 427.46 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 427.46 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
14. Section 427.52 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 427.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by th application of
the best practicable control t.chnology
currendy available.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the.
application of the best practicable
control technology-currently available
(BPTJ: There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
15. Section 427.54 Is amended by.
revising the text above the table the
table remains unchanged to read as-.
follows: -
§427.54 Pvebeatm.nl 5 idutis fur. - -
existing sourc -,
• Any e dstlng source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, ths- ’
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality-of’
pollutants or pollutant propertlee.
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart:
• a a a *
16. Section 427.58 is revised to read
as follows:
§477.56 Pretreaunent standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
17. Section 427.62 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to road as
follows:
§ 477.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicabl, control technology
currentiy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPTJ:
a a a a a
18. Section 427 64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 427.64 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
19. Section 427.66 Is revised to read
as follows:. -
§427.I6 PratreiIni# t s idatds for new
-
Any new souzce subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewafer pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wltfr4OG’R part 403.
20. Section 427.72 is amended by
revislngtho test above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows: , -
§ 427.72 Effluent Ilniltatlons guidelines
reprswtlngths degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently e. II Ie .
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall

-------
33962. Federal Register / VoL 60. No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
* a a a a
21. Section 427.74 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 427.74 PT eablleflt standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
22. Section 427.76 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 427.70 Prelreathient standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403.
23. SectIon 427.8213 revised to read
as follows:
§427.82 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the t pplicadOe of
th. best practicable control technology
CurTelitly available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any eidstlng point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of-
effluent reduction attainable by the-.
application of the best practicable a
control technology currently available
(BFF): There shall be no discharge of -
process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
24. Section 427.8618 amended by
revising the text above the table (the-
table remn-in unrhanged) to read as-. -
follows:
§ 427.86 Pretreatment stuidarda for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewator pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section. which maybe
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
a a * * *
25. Section 427.92 15 amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 427.92 Effluent limitations guidelines
representhig the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology-
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30 -
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
a a a a a
28. SectIon 427.98 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 427.98 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this- - - -
subpart that introduces process
wastowater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of -.
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned-p
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provis ens of this subpart
27. Section 427.102 Is vised to read
as follows:
§427.1 Effluent limitations guld lfles J
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the eppilcitlOn of.”’
the best practicable control technolOgp
ajzrentiy available. -
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point., -
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent - .. .‘. -
limitations representing the degree of.
effluent reduction attrnnsihle by the,
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl: There shall be no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
28. Section 427.108 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as...
follows:
§427.106 Pv e.Unmnt stends.
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a p
owned treatment works must
with 40 CFR part 403. In addit
following pretreatment standa j
establishes the quantity or quality
pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section. which , . .
discharged to a publicly owned ‘
treatment works by a new point so j
subject to the provisions of this
* * * a *
29. Section 427.11213 amended by ”
revising the text above the table (th, --- 4r
table remains unchanged) to read as-
follows: -
§427.112 Effluent limItatiOns
representing the degree of effluent -
reduction attainable Dy the application
the best practicable control technology ..
curTintly available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point -.
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of..
effluent reduction attAinAble by the
application of the best practicable -. ..
control technology currently avai1abI. ’
30. SectIon 42;.116 amended by L
revising the text above the table (tha-
table rem inA unchanged) to read as
follows:
§427.116 PVlrSuUliaflt stuidards for
sources.
Any new source subject to this -.
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a
owned treatment works must complr
with 4OCFR part403. In addition. th. .e4
following pratreatmentatan fard
establishes the quantity or qballty oL
pollutants or pollutant properties. “
controlled by this section. whidi
• d1schax ged to a publicly owned
treatment works by anew point
subject to the provisions of this
PART 428.4AMENDEDI
InPart 428i- ‘‘ -
1. The aithorityc(fA?iOfl for part
continues to read as follows;
Autharily Sec 3 01.304(b) asd (cI. 3
(b) and (c). 307(c). Federal Water PdUu ,
Control Act, as emended 33U.SC1 ’
1311. 1314 (b) and (c). 1318 (b) and (C).
1317 c), 86 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub. L. gZ1
2. SectIon 428.12 Is amended bT
removing the Introductory text
revising the text above the table (tis

-------
unchanged) in paragraph
, ad as follows;
2 EffliJent fimitetlona guideline.
I 1 dng ths degree ot effluent
s , attainable by th. application of.-
f ’ j ecdcable control technology
indV m,aI
e cept as provided In § 125.30
ugh 125.32. any existing point
subject to this subpart shall
‘ .ievO the following effluent
¶ tjtions representing the degree of
reduction attainable by the
Ucatl0fl of the best practicable
trol technology currently available
3. Section 428.16 is revised to read as
flowS —
Pretreatment standarda for new
new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process -
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
4. Section 428.22 Is amended by
vlsmg the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows.
Effluent limitations guidelines’
ruiilS$Ifltifl9 U* degre. of effluent
,.dijcilolt attainable by the application of
till b i P CtiC8b 1 COntrOl technology
Except as provided In §S 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
3ouZce subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of.
effluent reduction attAinable by the
application of the best practicable
control technolegy currently available
(flFfl:
a .a a a * -
5. Section 428.32 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.:
table r mnina unchanged) to read an
follows:
$42128 Effluent limitations guld.IIne*
repre....tlng ths degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of- -
the best prectlcnblcontrol tadmelogy
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
rource subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
technology currently available.
6. SectIon 428.42 Is amended by.
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows
§423.42 Effluent limitation. guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT)
a a a a *
7. Section 428.46 is revised to read as
follows;
§428.46 Pretreatment standards for now
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
8. Section 428.52 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows;
§428.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
cuyavailable.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent-
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
* a a a *
9. Section 428.58 Is amended by
revising the introductory text as follows:
4428.56 Pretreatment s ds:ds for new’ -
Any new source subject to this; - -
subpart that I ntroduces process. -
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403, in addition tothe
limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this se tEon.
a a * a -
10. SectIon 428.62 Is amended b 7
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4428.62 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applicatIon of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
33963
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attninahle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
11. Section 428.66 is amended by
revising the introductory text as follows:
§ 428.66 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403, in addition to the
limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
• a a * a
12. Section 428.72 Is amended by
revising the Introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 428.72 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available..
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achiev, the following effluent
limltatlons’representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFr):
* * a * a
13. SectIon 428.76 is amended by
revising the introductory text as follows
§428.70 PrvU athient standards for now
source..-
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewator pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. in addition to the
limitations set forth In paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
a • a, a- a
14. Section 428.82 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rnmaini . unchanged) to read as
follows:
§428. Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
cun uiy vailablea
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achiev, the following effl ent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

-------
33964 Federal Register / Vol. 60 , No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
control technology currently available
a a * a a
15. Section 428.86 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
42S.86 Preueateent s ndards for new
eource&
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section. whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned -
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
18. SectIon 428.92 is amended by
revising the introductory text. to read as
follöw s :
428J2 Effluent flmlta Ofl$ guidelines -
, 5 pra.eiIlIng th degra.Of effluent
reduc on at 1nabls by the applicadon at
the best p,actlcabls conUol tschnolO
aitrenffy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.3Z. any existing point:
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of-
effluent reduction attMnAhle by the.
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
. a a S S
2. Section 432.12 Is amended by .
revising the introductory text to read
foliows:
-.1,
g432.12 E l f asnt WnIt.&IIS iIdslh _ j;
rep. . .a ....llng the d xi at efTh snt;..
rsducfion et nabls by the applIcsflon .
een chno
Exceptasprovidedin §6125.30-
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree t3
effluent reduction attl%inable by tbe j
application of the best practicable
control technology currently availsi 4, ¼
(UPT):
a. a. a a
3. Section 432.14 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rninains ijjirthanged) to read g -,j
follows:
* 432.14 Pretri’alifleflt $ Ndants ft
—
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process -
wastewater pollutants into a publ1cfy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. t
following pretreatment standard-
establishes the quantity or quality cit
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may
dIs’4 nrged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of thIs
a a a a .-
3432.16 Pretre lmant
sowees .-
Any new source subject tel
— that introduces prow
wastewater pollutants into a
owned treatment workauiust
with 40 part 403
5. Sectlon-432.22 1 1
revising the lntrod’
follow --
, s deg the —
re dllfl . by I
cwTuntiy syllable.- -:
Except es prvtded SfUI
through 125.32 any enIad -
os:ibjecttothbP 1
achieve the following effl
limitations representing the C
effluent reduction attalnahi’ It ’
applicatfim of the bed p ’
controL technology currently
(BFfl
a 6.SeCtion43L24isa
revlsifl$,th.teJdab0Tst L
application of the best practicable-
control technology currently available-
(BFI ’):
• a • a a
19. SectIon 428.106 Is amended by
revising the introductory text as follows:
§ 428.106 PMisaUnifll stendwds fat new
aourcs&
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403, in addition to the
limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
a a a a a
20. Section 428.112 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (tbe
table rem in unchanged) to react as
follows:
1428.112 Effluent IlmItellons guidelines
refxellntifl9 the degree at effluent
rduction a lnablS by the appilcaden at
the best practidabic conti’ol technology
currsntiy available.
Except as provided In §6125.30’
through 125.32. any existing point.
source subject to this subpa4 shall.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree oU-
effluent reduction attnlnahle by the
application of the best practlt hle-
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
• a a * * .
21. Section 428.116 is amended by
revising the text above the table (th. -. - -
table yu ’ m% ina unchanged) to read a
follows: -
Any new source subject to this-
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly - -
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. th. .
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or q.ialityof-
pollutants or pollutant propertleer.-’
controlled by this section. whIch .meyiec
dIscharged to a publicly owned-
treatment works by a new point. sauI
subject to the pro sions of this subpart
PART 432—(Arn ’’.—— .-j
In Part 432:
1. The authority citation for part 432
continues to read as follows:
AWhorlty Sacs. 301.304(b) and (C). 300
(b) and (C). and 307(c) of the Federal Water•
Pollution Control Act, as amended; u.s.c
1251, 1311. 1314 (hI and (C). 1318 (b)end (c).
1317(c): 88 Stat. 818 et seq.. Pub. L 92—SOO
91 Stat. 1587. Pub. L 95—217.
17. Section 428.96 Is amended by g 2 8flS for new
revising the Introductory text as follows: rc. -
4. Section 432.1818 revised to
follows: . -
3428.96 P,strs.Wi.sat steadeide for new
Any new source subject to this - -.
subpart that introduces process
wastewater poUutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply.’
with 40 CFR part 403, In additlonto the
limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
and (b)ofthissectlofl. -
• a S S
18. Section 428.102 ii amended y.. ..
revising the Introductory text to read as’
follows:
§ 428.102 Effluent limitetioni guldelioee--”
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attelnable by the application at -
the best practicable conbol technology
currentiy available.
Except as provided in SS 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attrnn le by the-

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday, Juno 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33965
tab1 remains unchanged) to read as
0 1Jow 5:
;432.24 Pretreatment s nderda for
sources
existing source subject to this
subP that introdUCes )iOCOS5
astewatet pollutants into a publicly
od treatment works must comply
40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
foaowmg pretreatment standard
jjshes the quantity or quality of
cllutants or pollutant properties
0 tmlled by this section which may be
& charged to a publicly owned
atnieflt Works by a point source
ect to the provisions of this subpart.
a * a a
7. Section 432.26 is revised to read as
fo!1ows:
p432.28 Pretreatment standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403.
8. Section 432.32 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows: -
4432.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
1 p,esentIng th degres of effluent
ruduclion attainable by tire application of
ths best practicable control tathno4o
currendy avaflablS.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
emuent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
ceutrol technology currently available
(BFfl:
• a . a •
9. Section 432.34 Is amendedby’
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
1432.34 Pretrnstiment e idds fee
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
westewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
ntabllshes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
Controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
Ileatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• • • • a
§432.38 Pretreatment standarda for new
source&
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewatep pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
11. Section 432.42 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§432.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currentiy ava1
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a —
12. Section 432.44 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 432.44 Pretreatment standards for
existing sourceL
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
13. Section 432.46 Is revised to read
as follows:
4432.41 Pretreatne ,.t s idds for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly:
owned treatment works must comply,
with 40 CFR part 403
14. Section 432.52 is amended y
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§432.52 Effluent fimitatlons guidelines
representing the degreeof effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
auv,ntiy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
rij :
a a * a a
15. Section 432.56 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 432.56 Pretreatment standards for new
sourcee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
10. SectIon 432.62 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§432.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing thi degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by the application of
thbest practicable control technology
currently available,
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFI ’):
* a a a a
17. Section 432.66 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remain , unchanged) to read as
follows:
§432.68 Pretreaunarit standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewator pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 GR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment stsr.dard’
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
10. Section 432.36 Is revised to read
tafollow*
18. Section 432.72 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the

-------
3396 Federal Register / Vol.
60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 199$, / Rules and Regu1atio
table romAine unchanged) to read as
follows:
j432.72 Effluent UmItations guidelines
repø ’essntlrg Ills dsgres c i effluent
reduction attainable by di i application of
the beat practicable con Vol t.chnoiogy
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source sublect to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a S S •
19. Section 432.76 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows: -
* 432.76 Preveetment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatnient standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controUed by this section which asai be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
20. Section 432.82 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (ths:
tabLe remains unchenged) to read as. -
fol]ows-
§ 432.82 E?flu.nt Umitaflons guidelines..
representing th. degree of effluent
reduclion attainable by d i. application at
d i. beet practicable conVol tecllnology’
currenfly available.
Except as provided in § l25.3O
through 125.32. any existing pointl
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree oL
effluent reduction attAinAble by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(SPT):
* a * I
21. SectIon 432.86 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
foLlows
§432.86 PreUubneflt sten d$ lot new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process-
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the
*
a
fcillowing pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
poliutarts or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
22. SectIon 432.92 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows
§432.92 Effluent lImItations guidelines
representing the degre . of effluent
reduction attainabl, by the application of
die best practicable conVol teclinology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BP ’fl:
I a a •. S
23. SectIon 432.96 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
• 432.96 Pretreatment s idwds for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly. ..
owned treatment works must comply-
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard-
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant propertles
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned -
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subparts ,
24. Section 432.102 Is amended by
removing the introductory text and..:
revising the text above the table (th.i. c’
table remains unrhainged) in paragraph
(a)toreadasfollows: - - e. --
3432.102 Effluent lImitations gu1dsIlnsS -
, ea.ntlfl9 th degre.ot effluent
reduction attainable by d i i application of
The best practicable con Vol tedhnoIOgp
currently available.
Except as provided in §S iZZiOt -:
through 125.32. and subject to the-. -.
previsions of paragraph (b) of this.
section. any existing point source -
• subject to this subpart shall achieve the -
following effluent limitations
• representing the degree of effluen&
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology cuneutly available (BFfl:
25. Section 432. 106 ii
revising the text above the table I
table remAifl I unchanged) to r
follows:
3432.106 PisO’.iUnsnl
sources. —
Any new source subject to thi,
subpart that introduces prm
wastewater pollutants into a p
owned treatment works must
with 40 CFR part 403. In
following pretreatment sti
establishes the quantity cr c
pollutants or pollutant prof
controlled by this section which 1
discharged to a publicly own -.
treatment works by a new
to the provisions of this
* * I S S
PART 435—{AMENOED1
In part 435
1. The authority citation for p
continues to read as follown ‘ ‘ . -
Authority 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314.
1317, 1313, and 1361.
2. Section 435.32 is revised to
follows:
3435.32 Effluent limitations
representing dii degree cl i
reduction attainable by thai
the best practicable conVol I
currently available. - .
Except as provided in §Si
through 125.32. any existing
source subject to this
achieve the following
limitations representing the
effluent reduction atteinshiat
application of the best
control technology cnn
(BFfl:thëresh ailbeno
waste water pollutants- intoi
waters benz any source c e o
production. field exploration.
well completion, or well
produced water. drilling I
cuttings. and produced
3. Section 435.42 Ia
— the text above thai
table reTTIRin a i nrhenged} ,tQi
foIlows . -
3436.42 Effluent lIml c-
rs,..a ;thl9 the degree of
reduction attainable by tita
the best prsctlcabIecQflV° 1 L
@tiyaveUab le.
Except as provided in S i J
through 125.32 any
source subject to this 5 ubpatt’
achieve the foilowi g efflu
- limitations representin8 the
effluent reduction attainsbh1
application of the best pr8 ’c

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 I Thursday, June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33967
currently available
a • a
rtiOfl 435.52 is amended by
the Introductory text;
t °. tjng paragraphs (a)
ø tory text. (a)(1) and (a)(2) as
uCtOryt t0 the section, (a) and
‘ apectivelY and revising the newly
‘ .nated introductory text to the
to read as follows:
Effluent limitations guidelines
iting the degree of effluent
3 ttalnable by the application of
psecticabi. control technology
as provided in §5125.30
i..v .ugh 125.32, any existing point
, ect to this subpart shall
.A ,iev 5 the following effluent
tions representing the degree of
ent reduction attainable by the
nliCatlOflOfthe best practicable
uol technology currently available
?n.a..
436—(AMENDEDJ
in oart 436:
i. t’he authority citation for part 436
uitinues to read as follows:
gtb arity Sacs. 301. 304 (b) and (c),
y enl Water Pollution Control Act. aa.
cinded (33 U.S.C. 1251. 1311, 1314 (b) and
86 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub. 1.. 92-500) (the
2. Section 436.22 Is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the introductory text in
patagraph (a) to read as follows:
43& Effluent Ilmttallone guidelines
..,..santing the degre. of effluent
ratiiction attainabl, by the application of
fnbee* practicabi. control technology
twrentiy available.
Except as provided In §5125.30 -
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (b) and (C) oL
this section. any existing point source
aibject to this subpart shall achieve the’
llow1ng effluent limitations
repreeentlng the degree of effluent
reduction RttJ inRhlo by the application
of the beet practicable contro’
tathnology currently available (BPT):
* * a a a
3. SectIon 436.32 Is amendeciby
rarovIng the introductory text and
revising the introductory text in
Peagraph (a) to read as follows:
143t32 Etfhrent IlmItallons guideline.
tUCrIS5II5 g th. degre, of effluent
lti cUon attaln l, by the applIcation Of
1S bss* c ie control technology
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of thebest practicable control
technology currently available (SPT):
4. SectIon 436.42 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the introductory text in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:.
5438.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
ropresentlng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
curTenhly available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section. any existing point source
subject to t.h.ls subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
5. SectIon 436.52 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
* 438.52 Effluent limitations guidelines.
rep.-eeendng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applIcation of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainahle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available’.
(BFfl:
a a a a a
6. Section 436.62 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
*436.82 Effluent limitations guideline..
re4kuIsnting the degree oteffluant
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
— available.
except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFT):
• • a a a
7. SectIon 436.72 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
5438.72 Effluent lImitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by tho application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
8. Section 436.102 is revised to read
as follows:
5436.102 Effluent imitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): For operations not employing
wet processes or flotation processes
there shall be no discharge of process
generated waste water pollutants into
navigable waters.
9. Section 436.112 is revised to read
as follows
§438.112 Effluent limitations guidelines
repveesndng the degre . of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
- - currently evelleble -
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the f6liowuig effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPTJ: For operations not employing
heavy media separation or flotation
processes there shall be no discharge of
process generated waste water
pollutants into navigable waters.
10. Section 436.122 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the text in paragraph (a) to read
as follows:

-------
33968 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29. 1995/ Rules and Regulations
§ 438.122 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application ot
the best pr.cdcabf. conbul technology
currently available.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to th:s subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (8PT):
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters.
a S S S S
11. Section 436.132 Is amended by.
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 438.132 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. ol effluent
reduction atta nabA. by thu applIcation of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section, any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters.
* * * a a
12. SuctIon 438.142 Is amended by
removing the introductory text and -
revising paragraph (a) to reed as follows:
§438.142 Effluent limitations guldsIinss .
representing the degre.oI ifflusnt
reduction attainable by the application a l ”
the best practicable control tschnologT
cwrently available.
xcept as provided In §S 125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (hI of this
section, any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BFT): -
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters.
a S • S
S
13. Section 436.152 Is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 438.152 Effluint Umitatlons guidelines
representing lbs degree 01 effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet precllcabl. control technology
currently available.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the’
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section, any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent -
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters,
• a a a a
14. Section 438.182 Is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the introductory text in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§438.182 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing lbs degree of effluent
reduction attaInable by the application of
the best practicabi. control technology
currently avellabis.
Except as provided in § 125. 0
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (hi of this
section, any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achiev. the-
following effluent limitations - - -
representing the degree of effluenl .
reduction attainable by the application.
of the beat practicable control -
technology currently available (BF
• • S S *
15. SectIon 436.192 Is amended by. -
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to rued as follows:
§438.192 Effluent limitation. guidsilass.
represendngthed.gre.ofeffhaeni -
reduction attainable byth application c$
lb. best precticebi. control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (h) of this
section for operations mining anhydrite
deposits, any existing point saux e
subject to this subpart shall achieve the.
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters.
a a a a a
16. Section 436.222 is revised to read
as follows:
•43& Effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appllcatj
th. best practicabl, control technoIog
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30.
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree 0
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avaija .
(BPThThere shall be no discharge oL
process generated waste water
pollutants into navigable watere.
17. SectIon 436.232 Is amendeciby
removing the introductory text and ‘
revising paxagra h (a) to read as fofto
§ 438.232 Effluent limitations guicei
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application .
th. best practicabl, control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section, any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve tL
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of efflu .
reduction attainable by the apphcau..
o(thg best practicable control
technology currently available (BFI
there shall be no discharge of proceas
generated waste water pollutants nr’-
navigable waters.
18. Section 436 242 Is amended br.
removing the introductory text and ,.
revising paragraph (a to read as foUe
§ 438.242 Effluent limitation. guldslkvai
representIng lbs degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by th. applicaben
the beat practicable con ’ol technology
—
Except as provided Lu§5 125.30r
through 125.32-i and subject to the sI
provisions of paragraph (hi of this
section, any existing point source -
subject to this subpart shall achiera
following effluent limitations —
representing the degree ofezenL
reduction attainable by the applial
of the beat practicable control -
technology currently available (BFT
there shall be no discharge of proI 1S
generated waste water pollutants 11111!
navigable waterm.
S * * * a
19. Section 436.252 is amended b1
removing the introductory text
revising paragraph (a) to read as fQ1l j!

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, Juno 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33969
Ilmitaff one guidelines
Ui. degree of effluent
gttalnabls by the application of
t _ rec1lcabIS control technology
ø • liable.
as provided in §5125.30
°“h 125.32. and subject to the
of paragraph (b) of this
P0 . , any existing point source
to this subpart shall achieve the
g effluent limitations
“ anting the degree of effluent
!! c1ion attainable by the application
Jie best practicable control
° hnOl05Y currently available (BPT):
‘ shall be no dlschaige of process
, ted waste water pollutants into
able waters.
a * a
p. Section 436.262 is amended by
ijioving the introductory text and
_j g paragraph (a) to read as follows:
43 6.2st Effluent limitations guidelines
eefldng the degree of effluent
attainable by the application of
‘ beSt practicable control technology
available.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
xcugh 125.32. and subject to the
ptovislons of paragraph (b) of this
on. any existing point source
to this subpart shall achieve the
(allowing effluent limitations
tepzesefltlflg the degree of effluent
eduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
there shall be no discharge of process
generated waste water pollutants into
navigable waters.
• • a a a
21. SectIon 43 6.322 Is revised to read
ufollows:
43&3fl Effluent limitations guidelines
t isss..dng th• degree of effluent
reduction attalnabl• by the application et
tibsstpracticsbli control technology-
airintly available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
nurse subject to this subpart shall
echieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
e uent reduction attainable by the
Ippilcafton of the best practicable
mattel technology currently available
(EFF): For operations not employing
Wet processes there shall be no.
U5cAargo of process generated waste
Water pollutants into navigable waters.
22. Section 438.382 Is amended by
Ovtng the introductory text and
netting the text above the table (the
le remains unchanged) in paragraph
‘ ) to read as follows:
§438.382 Effluent limitations guIdelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
PART 443—(A MENDED]
In part 443:
1. the authority citation for part 443
continues to read as follows:
Autborlty Secs. 301. 304 (b) and (c). 306
(b) and (c) and 307(c), Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (the Act);
33 U.S.C. 1251. 1311. 1314 (b) and (c). 1316-
(b) and (c i. 1317(c), 86 Stat. 816 at seq.; Pub.
L. 92—500.
2. Section 443.12 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avaIlabLe .
(BPT):
a a a a *
3. Section 443.18 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the -
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.1G Pretreatment standards for new
ea rcse.
- Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces procese
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
4. SectIon 443.22 is revised to read as
follows:
§443. Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
5. Section 443.26 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.26 Pretreatment standards for
sourees.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
6. SectIon 443.32 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.32 Effluent limItations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the applIcation of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subj to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction aitarnithiaby the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFr):
* a a a *
7. SectIon 443.36 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rernaina unchanged) to read as
follows:
4443.38 Pretreatment standards for new
sourcee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of

-------
33970 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 1 Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
8. Section 443.42 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
ta. best practicable con ol technology
currentiy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 12532. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• . . * a
9. SectIon 443.46 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4443.48 PvstrsstiflSflt tandaiti$ for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned tieatment works must comply
with 40 CFP. part 403.. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be-
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
PART 448 - AMENDEDI
In part 446:
1. The authority citation for part 448
continues to read as follower
Authority: Sea. 302, 304 (b)and (cJ. 306
(bI and (c) and 307(c). Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (the Act)
33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311.1314 (b) and Cc ). 1328
(b) and (c) and 1317(c); 86 Stat. 818 etseq.;
Pub. I.. 92-500. - -
2. Section 446.12 is revised to read as.
follows:
4446.12 Effluent limitations guldelIniS ’
representing m. deg,eeot effluent
r ductlofl attainabls by the appilcellon of
the beet precdcable conbel technology
cwTifltty ivilI lS .
Except as ptovided In §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject tothis subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best pmcticable
control technology currently available
(BP1I: There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
3. Section 446.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§446.18 Pretreatment standaids for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this,
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart There
shall be no discharge of process water
pollutants to a publicly owned
treatment works.
PART 447 —4AMENDEDI
In part 447:
1. The authority citation for part 447
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sea. 301. 304 (b)snd Ic). 300
(b) and Cc) and 307(c ). Federal WataL.
Pollution Control Act, as amended (the Act);
33 U.S.C. 1251.1311. 1314 (b) and Cc). 1310
(b) and (c) end 131 7(c ); 88 Stat. 820 et seq.;
Pub. L 92—500.
2. SectIon 447.12 Is revised to read as.
follows:
4447.12 Effluent timilations guldsIlfls$
representing the degree of effluent —
redu dOfl attaiflabls by the application of
the beet practicable control t.clmology
curreit1i available.
Except as provided In §S 125.30 -
- through 125.32. any existitg point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent..
limitations representing the degree ol.’.
effluent reduction attainable by the-
application of the best practicable.
control technology currently availablu
(BFfl: There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to.
navig*ble watery.
3. Section 447.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§441.18 Pretreauftifit ta d ds for new -
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastawater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properti ,
controlled by this section wbi 1
discharged to a publicly ownmj
treatment works by a new
to the provisions of this cii
shall be no discharge oIprocess
pollutants to a publicly owned.
treatment works.
PART 454—(A MENDED)
In part 454:
1. The authority citation for pare
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sacs. 301. 304 (bland
306(b), 307(b) end Cc). Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U
1251, 1311.1314(b) and (c). 1318(b)
1317(b) and(c); 88 Stat. 816 et seq. Pr
92—500) (the Act).
2. Section 454.12 is amended by
revising the introductory text to
follows: -
§454.12 Effluent limitations
,epreaenting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the apptlcz
th. beet practlcabl• control technolog ’ ,
curTSntiy va1Iable.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point - -
souxce subject to this subpart shall -
achieve the following effluent
limitationa representing the d
effluent reduction attainable by thr
application of the best practlcabls
control technology currently’
- ,
• . *‘.. a a a
3. SectIon 454.22 is amended by
revising the Introductory teat to i
follows:
§464fl Effluent Imitations i
.peemintiflg the degree of
reduction ettainabll by the
th. best pracdábls control
— avbl
Except as provided In
through 125.32. any existing]
source subject to this subpart
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the
effluent reduction attainable I
_. appilc”& ” of the best practic
control technology currently
(BPT):..
* . . a a
4. Section 454.32 is amended .
revising tha introductory text t0
foIIows
445432 Effluent limttation*’
rs tesinting th. degree of etflusI’I-
reduction attainable by the eppllC1 ’
th. best practicable control te° ° k
currently available.
Except as provided in §S i2.5.30
through 125.32, any existing P°’9
source subject to this subpart 5fl5 ,

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33971
ouo gernuenT
i ons repreS8flnflS the degree of
ø reductlofl attnlnRhle by the
on of the best practicable
j echno1ogY currently available
Sect LoU 454.42 Is amended by
the introductory text to read as
Effluent limitations guidelines
I arintIng the degree of effluent
attainable by the application of
practicable conbot technology
• — qabie.
g, cept as provided in §5125.30
125.32. any existing point
irca subject to this subpart shall
‘ ø,e the following effluent
tatjons representing the degree of
reduction attainable by the
npliCati0’1 of the best practicable
t ol technology currently available
Fr) - * *
5. SectiOll 454.52 is amended by
vjsing the introductory text to read as
llows:
p454.52 Effluent limitation, guideline.
.preeenting the degree of effluent
,,ducticn attainable by the application of
, best practicable control technoIog
aaTentiY8VULlab l .
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
sowee subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attninsihle by the
application of the best practicable..
matrol technology currently available
Ffl:
• a a a a
8. Section 454.62 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
44K62 Effluent limitations guidelines
reprue. .Ung th degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the applicatlen of 1
th beet PTaCtiCabI. control technology
currently avaliable
Except as proylded in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
technology currently available
PART 455—(AMENDEDJ
In Part 455:
1. The authority citation for part 455
COfltlflues to read as follows:
Author itT Seca. 301. 304. 300. 307, and
501, Pub. L 92—500,86 Stat. 616, Pub. 1.95-.
217, 91 Stat. 156, and Pub. L 100-4 (33
U.S.C 1311, 1314. 1318, 1317, and 1361).
2. Section 455.22 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 455.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT). The following limitations
establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph which may
be discharged from the manufacture of
organic active Ingredient:
3. Section 455.32 is revised to read as
follows:
9455.32 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best pmct1 ls control technology-
currently available.
Except as provided In §5125.30 - .
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart. shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.--.
(BPT). The following limitations
establish the quantity or quality of.-
pollutants or pollutant properties -
controlled by this paragraph which may
be discharged from the manufacture of..
metallo-organlc active ingredient: There’
shall be no discharge of process waste-’-
water pollutants to navigable waters.
4. Section 455.42 Is revised to read as
follows:
9455.42 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application at
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart, shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT). The following limitations
establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph which may
be discharged from the formulation and
packaging of pesticides: There shall be
no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters.
PART 457—(AMENDED]
In Part 457:
1. The authority citatioti for part 457
continues to read as follows:
Authortty2 Sec. ,. 301, 304 (b) and (c).
306(b), 307 (b) and (c), Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C
1251. 1311, 1314 (b) and (C). 1316(b) and
1317 (b) and (ci. 86 Stat. 816 et seq.. Pub. 1..
92—500)(the Act).
2. Section 457.12 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§457.12 Effluent limItations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appiication of
the best practicabI. control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125 30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart, shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
conflul technology currently available
(BPT): -
* a a * *
3. Section 457.32 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§457.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing th. degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart, shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
efflue6t reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
• a a • a
PART 458—CAMENOEDI
In Part 458:
1. The authority citation for part 458
continues to read as follows:
Authorltr Secs. 301. 304(b) and (C). 306(b
307 (b) and (C), Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C 1251.
1311. 1314 (b) and (c) , 1316(b) and 1317 (b)
and Cc), 88 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L 92—
500)(the Act).
2. Section 458.16 is revised to read as
follows:

-------
33972 Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Ragulatjo
§488.18 Pm e.nn.m standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property-Oil
and grease.
Pretreatment standard-lOOm g/llter.
3. SectIon 458.22 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 458. Effluent Uinltsdena guidelines
representing th. degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
th best practicable control technology
curTendy avallabi..
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart, shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attninRhle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants into
navigable waters.
4. SectIon 458.26 Is revised to read as
follows:
§ 458.26 Pretreaunem standards for new.
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 (J R part 403. In addition. di
following pretreatment sthn hrd
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be-.
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source sub ject
to the provisions of this suhpazt.
Pollutant or pollutant property-Oil
and grease.
Pretreatment standard-lOOmg/liter.
5. Section 458.32 Is revised to read as
follows:
§ 458.32 Efftu.nt limitations guidelines
re43rsssndng th. degree of effluent
reductien attainable by the application of
the best practicabi. control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart, shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFI’J: There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants Into
navigable waters.
6. Section 458.36 Is revised to read as
follows:
§ 458.36 PMr .olment standards for new
sownes.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject.
to the provisions of this subpartr
Pollutant or pollutant property-Oil
and grease.
Pretreatment standard-iOOmgIliter.
7. Section 458.42 is revised to road as
follows:
§458.42 Effluent limitations guideline.
. piu$.i1tlflg the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
th. best practicable control tschnologr
currendy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart. shaU
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water poUut 5 1
navigable waters.
8. Section
follows:
§458.46 Prstre.Wi..i
sourcss.
Any new source subject to u
subpart that introduces
wastewater pollutants In
owned treatment works L
with 40 CFR part 403. In
following pretreatment s
establishes the quantity
pollutants or pollutant i
controlled by this section wh
discharged to a publicly ow ,
treatment works by a new owt
to the provisions of this subp .
Pollutant or pollutant pm
and grease.
Pretreatment standard-1OOmg/li
PART 460—(AMENCEDI
In Part 460:
1. The authority citation
read as follows: . .
Authority: Secs. 301. 304(b) end (C),
306(b). 307(b) end (C), Federal Wets.
Pollution Control Act. aa amended (33
1251. 1311. 1314 (b) and (c), 1316(b),
1317 (b) and (C), 88 Stat. 816 etq . Peki
a2—soogthe Act) -
2. Section 480.12 is amended 1
revising the introductory test toi
follows:
§460.12 Efltu.ntUmltatlonsi
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by Vi. i
th . best practicable control
currendy available.
Except as provided In §4125.3r
through 125.32, any oiasdng point
source subject to this subpart.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degrest
effluent reduction attainable by th.
application of the best practicable
control technology currently availi
(BFI :
C a a S
(FR Doc. 93-15027 Plied 8-28--OS: 8:431
coos s .

-------
25718
Federal Register I Vol . 60. No. 92 / Friday. May 12. 1995 / Notices
Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Program,
Implementation, City of DuPont.
Pierce and Thurston Counties. WA.
Due: June 12. 1995, Contact: Timothy
P. Julius (703) 696—8078.
EIS No. 950182, Draft EIS. NOA, FL,
Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary Comprehensive
Management Plan. Implementation,
Special-Use-Permit. Monroe County,
FL. Due: December 31, 1995, Contact:
Billy Causey (305) 743—2437.
EIS No. 950183, Draft EIS. SFW, CA,
Multiple Species Conservation
Program Planning Area. Issuance of a
Permit to Allow Incidental Take of
Threatened and Endangered Species,
San Diego. County. CA. Due: June 26,
1995, Contact: Laura Hill (503) 231—
6241.
EIS No. 950184. Draft EIS, DOE.
Programmatic EIS—Uranium Mill
Tailings Remedial Action Ground
Water Proect, Implementation, Clean
up of 24 Mill Sites. Due: June 26,
1995, Contact: Rich Sena (505) 845—
6307.
EIS No. 950185, Draft EIS, DOE. NM,
Dual Axis Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT)
Facility, Construction and Operation,
Approval of Operating Permit, Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),
Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties,
NM, Due: June 26, 1995. Contact:
Diane Webb (505) 665—6353.
EIS No. 950186, Draft EIS. AFS, Gypsy
Moth Management in the United
States: A Cooperative Approach,
Implementation, US, Due: June 26,
1995, Contact: Charles Bare (301)
734—8247.
EIS No. 950187, Draft EIS, USN. FL,
Naval Training Center Orlando
Disposal and Reuse, Implementation,
Orange County, FL Due: June 26,
1995. Contact: Ronnie Laftixnore (803)
743—0888.
EIS No. 950188, Draft EIS, USN, CA,
San Diego Homeporting Facilities
Construction and Operation to
Support Berthing One NDVI1TZ Class
Aircraft Carrier. Implementation, San
Diego County. CA, Due: Juno 26, 1995.
Contact: Robert Hexton (619) 532—
3824.
Amended Notices
EIS No. 910277. Draft EIS. APS, OR.
White King and Lucky Lass Uranium
Mine Cleanup and Rehabilitation,
SectIon 404, NPDES Permit and
Special Use Permit, Licenses
Approval. Fremont National Forest,
Lakeview Ranger District, Lake
County. OR, Due: November 07, 1991.
Contact: Felix R. Miera Jr. (503) 947—
3334.
Published FR 08—23—91——Officially
Canceled by Preparing Agency.
ElS No. 950040, Draft E1 , AFS, CA.
California Spotted Owl Habitat
Management Plan. Implementation,
Sierra Nevada National Forests. CA.
Due: July 10, 1995, Contact: Janice
Gauthier (916) 979—2020.
Published FR: 2—3—95—Review period
extended.
EIS No. 950068, Draft EIS. BLM, CA,
NV, Alturas 345 Kilovolt (Ky) Electric
Power Transmission Line Project.
Construction, Operation and
Maintenance, Right-of-Way Grant
Approval, Special-Use-Permit and
COE Section 404 Permit, Susanville
District. Modoc, Lassen and Sierra
Counties, CA and Washoe County,
NV. Due: June 02, 1995. Contact: Peter
Humm (916) 257—0456.
Published FR 03—10—95—Review period
extended.
EIS No. 950073, Draft EIS, BLM. AZ,
Grand Canyon National Park General
Management Plan, Implementation,
Coconino and Mohave Counties, AZ,
Due: May 11. 1995. Contact: Larry L.
Norris (303) 969—2287.
Published FR 03—10—95—Review period
extended.
EIS No. 950106, Draft EIS, NPS, WA,
Mountain Coat Management Within
Olympic National Park,
Implementation, Clallan, Grays
Harbor, Jefferson and Mason Counties,
WA, Due: July 17, 1995, Contact: Paul
Crawford (360) 452—4501.
Published FR—03—31—g5 Review period
extended.
EIS No. 950167, Draft Supplement.
DOE, WA, Puget Power Northwest
Washington Electiic Transmission
Project, Updated Information,
Construction and Operation, Whatcon
and Skagit Counties. WA, Due: Juno
19, 1995, Contact: Ken Barnhart (503)
230—3667.
Published FR—os-os.-gs Due Date
Correction.
Dated: May 9. 1995.
William D. Dickerson.
lJirecior. NEPA Compliance Division. Office
of Federal Activities.
(FR Dcc. 95—11795 Filed 5—11—95, 8:45 azni
e coDa - -I,l .
(FRL-6206 -6J
Water Pollution Control; Approval of
Application by the State of Florida to
Administe, the National Pollutant
DIscharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Approval of application.
SUMMARY: On May, 1. 1995, the Regional
Administrator for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV,
approved the application by the State of
Florida to administer the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program for regulating point
source discharges of pollutants into
surface waters within the State. The
State NPDES program, as authorized, is
a phased NPDES program encompassing
permitting for (1) domestic discharges;
(2) industrial discharges, including
those which also have storm water
discharges; and (3) the pretreatment
program for Publicly Owned Treatment
Works. Storm water discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4’s), individual storm water-only
discharges, storm water general permits,
and Federal facility discharges are to be
phased in by the year 2000. Further, the
State of Florida is not being authorized
to administer a sewage sludge
management program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1. 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Dee Stewart. Environmental Engineer.
Permits Section. U S. EPA Region IV,
345 Courtland Street, NE. Atlanta,
Georgia, 30365, 404/347—3012, ext.
2928. The administrative record (which
comprises approximately 1650 pages)
can be obtained from the,Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) office in Tallahassee, Florida or
the EPA office in Atlanta, Georgia at a
minimal cost per page.
SUPPtEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Governor of Florida requested NPDES
program approval on November 21,
1994. by submitting a complete program
application. Several modifications were
made to the application based on public
comments and discussions between the
EPA and FDEP, and as allowed by
Federal regulations. These
modifications include the clarification
of Section IlL C. and additions of
Attachments A, B, and C, to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
Attachment A. represents perrnit.s under
active Federal enforcement at the time
of authonzation which EPA will
complete the enforcement action but
FDEP will assume permitting.
compliance, and future enforcement
authority for. Attachment B represents
permits for which an evidentiary
hearing has been requested at the time
of program, authorization and EPA will
retain full jurisdiction until the matter
is resolved. Attachment C represents
certain facilities as agreed upon by
FDEP and EPA where EPA will retain
full jurisdiction of these NPDES permits
following authorization. Section
IV.C.1.a of the MOA was changed to

-------
Federal Register / Vol 60. No. 92 / Friday. May 12. 1995 / Notices
25719
allow for EPA review of all discharges
which may affect the waters of another
state or Indian Lands. The final changes.
including the signing of the MOA by the
Regional Administrator for EPA. Region
IV and the Secretary for FDEP, were
completed on May 1, 1995.
Florida’s application was described in
the Federal Register on January 27,
1995, at 60 FR 5390 and in notices
published in: The Orlando Sentinel.
Pensacola News-Journal. Tallahassee
Democrat, News-Press. The Tampa
Tribune. The Palm Beach Post, Key
West Citizen, The Florida Thnes-Union.
and The Miami Herald, on that same
date. Copies of Florida’s application
were available (or review at the EPA
Region IV office and at any FDEP office,
copying was also available at a minimal
cost per page.
As part of the public comment
process. EPA conducted four public
hearings on Florida’s application. The
hearings occurred on March 7. 1995, in
Orlando, Florida, and on March 9, 1995,
in Tallahassee, Florida, at 10:00 a.m and
7:00 p.m. on each day. EPA accepted
written comments from the public until
March 13. 1995. All comments or
oblections presented at the public
hearings or received in writing by EPA
Region IV by March 13. 1995, were
considered by EPA.
Comments were received regarding
the following issues: (1) The language in
Section IV.E. of the MOA representing
endangered specIes. (2) The language in
Section IV.B. of the MOA representing
procedures and policies by which draft
and proposed permits will be reviewed,
(3) Concern regarding Florida’s ability to
administer the NPDES program. (4)
Concern with FDEP and the South
Florida Water Management District
regarding its water quality obligations as
provided in the Federal Everglades Case
Settlement, (5) Concern with the Florida
Everglades Forever Act, (6) Concern
with Florida’s implementation and
enforcement of its Minimum Water
Flows and Level Law, (7) Concern
regarding the possible degradation of
the Central Everglades following state
program approval. (8 Concern that the
United States (including the
Environmental Protection Agency) owes
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida a trust responsibility to protect
tribal land and resources which might
be notated by delegation of the Florida
NPDES program. (9) Concern that
NPDES authorization should be held in
abeyance until existing and future
NPDES challenges peitainirig to the
Everglades Storm Water Treatment
Areas are settled. (10) Concern that
discharges beyond the temtorial seas
(Federal waters) will continue to be
permitted by EPA. and (11) Comments
rega.rding overall benefits resulting from
authorization. EPA’s response to all
comments are contained in this notice.
The comments and hearing record are
contained In the administrative record
supporting this notice.
L Comment Concerning the Language in
Section IV.E. of the MOA Representing
Endangered Species
Informal consultation was initiated
under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) during a meeting
scheduled between the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFSJ, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), FDEP, and EPA
on June 16, 1994. This consultation was
opened to utilize the expertise of the
NMFS and FWS to evaluate EPA’s
assessment of potential effects on
Federally listed species and critical
habitat in the State of Florida. Since
NMFS was unable to attend, a letter
dated June 23. 1994. was sent to the
NMFS reaffirming the initiation of
informal consultation w h NMFS.
A mechanism to address possible
adverse impacts to Federally listed
species and their habitats associated
with state-issued NPDES permits was
developed through discussions with
FDEP. NMPS, FWS, and EPA. The
measures and provision agreed upon are
represented in Section [ V.E. of the
MOA. In letters, both dated December
18, 1994, EPA requested concurrence
from NMFS and FWS with EPA’s
deterrnuiatlon that the authorization of
the FDEP NPDES permit prograr i is
“not likely to adversely affect” listed
species or their critical habitat, pursuant
to 50 CFR 402.13. FWS concurred with
this determination on December 21.
1994. and NMFS concurred with this
determination on January 18. 1995.
On December 15. 1994. EPA requested
concurrence from the Florida Bureau of
Historic Preservation with EPA’s
determination that NPDES program
approval for FDEP will have no effect on
the preservation of histonc properties
within the State of Florida with respect
to the National Historic Preservation
Act. Florida’s Bureau of Historic
Preservation concurred with EPA’s
determination in a letter dated March 3,
1995.
A. Comments
Two organizations provided specific
comments suggesting clarification that
all ESA issues resulting in an EPA
objection be limited to impacts
associated to the permitted discharge.
Their comments pertained to Section
IV.E. of the MOA and the concern that
it could provide a framework by which
a Section 7 review of a draft permit
being reviewed by EPA would focus
upon the permit issuance or other
aspects of the permit process that are
unrelated to the discharge allowed
under the permit.
B. EPA’S Response
Section 7 of the ESA requires
interagency cooperation between the
Services and all Federal agencies.
Section 7(aXl) reqwres all agencies to
review and utilize their programs in
furtherance of the purposes of the ESA.
Section 7(a)(2) requires each Federal
agency, in consultation with and with
the assistance of the Services, to insure
that any action is not likely to
jeopardize an endangered species or
adversely affect critical habitat. The
Federal action which underwent
Section 7(a)(21 consultation with the
Services was EPA’s approval of
Florida’s administration of the NPDES
program.
Section IV.E. of the MOA was an
important factor in developing EPA’s
approval of the State NPDES program.
Because issuance of a state NPDES
permit and EPA’s review of a proposed
state permit does not trigger Section 7
of the ESA, the MOA calls for close
coordination between EPA. the State.
and the Services to ensure that the state-
issued permits are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
Federally listed species. Since the
Services are natural resource agencies
with several areas of responsibilities
and maintain the right to comment on
any issue, as does the public, the MOA
should not attempt to limit the scope of
the Services’ review of a draft state
NPDES permit. The authority provided
by the CWA. on the other hand, only
allows the State arid EPA to ensure that
the permitted discharge will comply
with applicable CWA requirements.
including compliance with state water
quality standards. EPA is moreover only
authorized to object to a state permit
that is outside the guidelines and
requirements of the CWA (402(dfl.
EPA’s review therefore.will focus on
impacts on the discharge sublect to
CWA requirements. EPA believes that
the MOA between the State of Florida
and EPA adequately and appropriately
addresses ESA concerns.
IL The Language in Section IV.B. of the
MOA Representing Procedures and
Policies by Which Draft and Proposed
Permits Wilt Be Reviewed
A. Comments
One organization provided comments
requesting that Section NB. of the
MOA be changed to require that the
basis of EPA’s objections be provided to

-------
25720
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 I Notices
the permit applicant when EPA makes
an objection to a proposed permit, and
FDEP denies the permit or Issues the
permit in accordnnra with the EPA
objections.
B. EPA’s Response
EPA does not believe that additional
notification in the MOA is necessary.
Florida Administrative Code (FAC)
Section. 620.5 10(18)(b) (November 29,
1994) requires that if EPA objects in
accordance with 40 CFR 123.44 to the
issuance of an NPDES permit, FDEP_
shall address EPA’s objections in the
issuance or denial of the NPDES permit.
In accordance with the FAC. FOEP will
advise the applicant of the basis for thE
EPA objections and EPA believes that
additional language for the MOA is not
necessary. In addition, EPA is required
by 40 FR 123.44(a)(1) to send a copy
of any comment, objection or
recommendation on any draft NPDES
permit to the permit applicant.
III. Concern Regarding Florida’s Ability
to Administer the NPDES Program
A. Comments
Three comnientors contend that
Florida is unqualified to administer the
NPDES program for regulating
discharges of pollutants into water of
the U.S. The commentors stated that
FDEP was unable to maintain an un-
biased position and an objective
appearance while collecting and
evaluating information required for an
NPDES permit, especially with respect
to FDEP’s Northeast District Office. One
commentor expressed concern that
Flonda does not utilize a centralized
wastewater permitting system and
stated that delegation to local
government agencies within the state
would be in violation of the Clean Water
Act (CWA).
H. Response
EPA disagrees. EPA is not in the
practice of speculating on future
program implementation. EPA reviewed
the State program submission and found
it complete and sufficient under Federal
law. On November 21. 1994. the State of
Florida submitted its formal State
Program Submission requesting EPA
approval for authonzation to administer
the NPDES program under Sections
402(b) and 304(i) of the CWA. The
submittal included a complete program
description (including funding.
personnel requirements and
organization, and enforcement
procedures), an Independent Counsel’s
Statement, copies of applicable State
statutes and regulations. and a MOA to
be executed by the EPA, Region IV,
Regional Administrator and the FDEP
Secretary. On December 28, 1994, EPA
Informed the State of Florida that EPA
had reviewed the submittal and found it
“complete” under the requirements of
40 R Part 123. Modifications to this
package. based on discussions between
EPA and FDEP, were submitted to EPA
in a letter, with attachments, dated
February 2, 1995. EPA reviewed the
program submittal and modifications
and determined tharit meets the
requirements of Section 402(b) of the
CWA and Federal regulations, which
include, among other things. authority
to issue permits which comply with the
CWA, authority to impose civil and
criminal penalties for permit violations,
and authority to ensure the public is
given notice and opportunity for a
hearing on each proposed NPDES
permit issuance. Finally, EPA examined
all public comments and considered the
overall advantages and disadvantages of
authorizing NPDES program
administration by the State of Florida.
The State program MOA as approved,
also provides ample opportunity for
continuing Federal oversight of the State
program. EPA may review, i.n
accordance with Section IV.C of the
MOA, certain draft permits, sufficiency
of permit applications. permit revisions,
revocations, and reissuances fori (a)
Discharges which may affect the waters
of another state or Indian Tribe, ( )
discharges proposed to be regulated by
general permits, (c) discharges from
Publicly Owned Treatment Works with
a permitted daily average discharge of at
least 1.0 million gallons per day, (d)
discharges from any major facility or
facilities within any of the industrial
categories listed in Appendix A to 40
CFR Part 122, (e) discharges from
sources other than a. through d. with an
average discharge exceedIng 0.5 million
gallons per day, and (0 discharges from
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
required to have a pretreatment
program. In accordance with the MOA,
EPA has the right to request review, at
any time, on any other NPDES permit.
The EPA permit review process is
outlined in the MOA. On the date the
draft permit is sent to the applicant,
FOEP will send EPA Region IV one copy
of the public notice, draft,permit,
application, and the fact sheet or
statement of basis associated with the
draft permit. When applicable, the
submittal will be accompanied by a new
source/new discharger determination. If
the initial permit information supplied
by FDEP is inadequate to determine
whether the draft permit meets the
guidelines and requirements of the
CWA, EPA may, in accordance with 40
CFR 123.44(d)(2) request additional
information. If EPA determines the draft
permit Is Insufficient, EPA shall have 90
days from the date the draft permit is
sent to EPA to supply specific grounds
for objection, and the terms and
conditions which should be included in
the permit. These written objections
must be based upon one or more of the.
criteria identified in 40 CFR 123.44(c).
Following expiration of the period for
public comment for the draft permit,
FDEP will prepare a proposed permit. if
the proposed permit is the same as the
draft permit defined in the public
notice, EPA has not objected to such
draft permit, and valid and significant
public cominenls have not been made,
FDEP may assume EPA has waived their
review of the proposed permit and issue
the permit without further review by
EPA. In all other cases, FDEP will send
EPA one copy of the proposed permit.
recommendations of any other affected
State, and copies of written comments
and hearing records, including the
response to comments prepared under
40 CFR 124.17 to EPA for review. If EPA
objects to the proposed permit, in
accordance with 40 CFR 123.44. FDEP
will deny the proposed permit or will
issue a permit in accordance with EPA
objections and will mail a copy of the
final permit to EPA. This review process
will ensure that FDEP is operating an
authorized NPDES program in
accordance with the requirements of the
CWA.
In response to the commentors other
concern, as the State Program is
approved, there will be no
subdelegation of permitting authority
outside ofthe FOE?. Although in 1987,
the CWA was amended to allow for
NPDES program authorization to more
than one state agency, the state program
request must demonstrate equivalent
scope and stringency to the CWA and
the agency(ies) seeking program
approval must have statewide
jurisdiction over the class or categories
of discharges it seeks to regulate. As is
provided in the MOA, the FDEP will be
the State Agency implementing the
NPDES permitting program and EPA
concurs with the management of the
NPDES program in this manner. The
State is not authorized to delegate any
authority to any local agency.
IV. Concern with FDEP and the South
Florida Water Management pistrict and
Its Water Quality Obligations as
Provided in the Federal Everglades
Case Settlement
Comment
One conimentor contended that the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and the South Florida Water

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12. 1995 / Notices
25721
Management District have violated and
continue to violate their water quality
obligations in the Federal Everglades
Case Settlement (United States of
America VS. South Florida Water
Management District et a!.. 847 F.Supp.
1567 (S.D. Fla. 1992)1. The cominentor
asserted that the proposed changes to
the settlement attest those violations.
Response
EPA reviewed the program submittal
and modifications and determined that
t meets the requirements of Section
402(b) of the CWA and Federal
regulations. (See response to Comment
III, above.) The Federal Everglades Case
Settlement is not relevant to EPA’s
determination.
V. Concern With the Florida Everglades
Forever Act
Comment
One comxnentor contended that.
Chapter 373.4592 (Supp. 1994). Florida
Statutes. also known as the Everglades
Forever Act of 1994 (EFA). violates the
Federal Everglades Case Settlement and
the CWA. and that Florida is failing to
enforce water quality standards as a
result of the passage of the EPA. The
commentor contended that its testimony
to the Florida Legislature. a summary
duthored by the U.S. Department of
Interior, and other documented
statements, outline the deficiencies of
the EPA. The commentOr further
claimed that the refusal by FDEP to
allow the Florida Environmental
Regulation Commission (ERC) to
consider its petition for a numeric
phosphorus standard, and statements by
FDEP in appellate court act as
admissions of weakening water quality
standards and estops the State of Florida
from claiming otherwise. In addition.
the comnientor stated that FDEP did not
properly submit the EPA for EPA
review, that FDEP has failed to respond
to EPA’s questions about the law, and
that the authorization of the NPDES
program should not be decided while
tlSation against EPA is pending
oncerning the necessity of EPA
kpprovaj of the EPA under the CWA
Th ’cponse
This issue is not relevant to EPA’s
litermination of completeness or
ulficiency of the State NPDES Program
“ hrntsston EPA has madeT
il ’terminatjon the Florida’s NPDES
t tnqrarn submission and modifications
•Tt ’ the requirements of Section 402(b)
iflI 1 1 14(l) of the CWA. The passage of
was a State action, and the
gation concerning the necessity of
“ipproval of the EPA is not relevant
to EPA’s determination concerning
NPDES program authorization. It must
be noted that the EPA was submitted by
the State to EPA on October 1. 1994.
Based upon review of the entire statute,
EPA does not consider the EPA to be a
revision of existing water quality
standards, or to change existing
designated uses. FDEP and EPA are in
agreement that the EFA is not a change
to water quality standards but instead
provides a compliance schedule for
bringing existing sources of pollution
into compliance with State water
quality standards.
VI. Concern With Florida’s
Implementation and Enforcement of Its
Minimum Water Flows and Level Law
Comment
One commentor asserted that FDEP
and the South Florida Water
Management District have failed to
implement and enforce the Stato’s._
minimum water flows and levels law for
more than two decades and is thus
unqualified to administer the NPDES
Program.
Response
EPA has made a determination the
Florida’s NPDES program submission
and modifications meet the
requirements of SectIon 402(b) and
304(1) of the CWA. As part of this
determination, EPA reviewed FDEP’s
resources and believes that FDEP has
adequate resources to administer the
NPDES program. Chapter 373.042,
Florida Statutes, Minimum Water Flows
and Levels, is a state law which is not
relevant to the NPDES regulations In
SectIon 402 of the CWA or EPA’s
determination because it deals with a
quantity and no a water quality issue.
In addition, if necessary, EPA retains
federaI oversight authority, as discussed
above. -
VII. Concern Regarding Potential
Degradation of the Central Everglades
Following State Program Approval
Comment
One commentor claimed that the State
of Florida has improperly allowed
continued degradation and pollution of
the central Everglades. which include
Water Conservation Area (WCA) 3—A
and the lands of Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida. The commentor
further asserted that the lack of
enforcement on the part of the State has
irreparably harmed and degraded the
Everglades and allowed phosphorus-
laden discharges into the Everglades
and other state water bodies in excess of
two hundred (200) parts per billion.
Response
EPA has made a determination the
Florida’s NPDES program submission
and modifications meet the
requirements of SectIon 402(b) and
304(i) of the CWA. The issue to which
the commentor refers is being addressed
by the Federal Everglades Case
Settlement (United States of America vs.
South Florida Water Management
District eta!., 847 F.Supp. 1567 (S.D.
Fla. 1992)). That case and the issues
associated with it are not relevant to
EPA’s decision on authorization of
Florida’s application for the NPDES
program.
VIII. Comment Stating that the United
States (Including the Environmental
Protection Agency) Owes the
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
(Miccosukee Tribe) a Trust
Responsibility to Protect Tribal Land
and Resources Which Might be Violated
by Delegation of the Florida NPDES
Program
Comment
One commentor contended that the
United States (including the EPA) owes
the Miccosukee Tribe a trust
responsibility to protect tribal land and
resources, and that said trust
responsibility would be violated by the
delegation of the State of Florida’s
NPDES program.
Response
As a Federal agency, EPA recognizes
the Federal trust responsibility to the
Miccosukee Tribe and other Indian
Tribes. However, EPA believes that the
authorization to the State of Florida to
administer the NPDES program will not
violate that trust responsibility.
EPA must reiterate that, at this time,
it retains full jurisdiction to administer
the NPDES program on the Miccosukee
Tribe’s Reservation. Until the
Miccosukee Tribe seeks program
authorization, all permit application
and related issues concerning
discharges on the Mlccosukee
Reservation must be directed to EPA
Region N. Further, as noted above, EPA
retains the authority to ensure
compliance with water quality
standards, including any water quality
standard set by and approved by EPA by
one Miccosukee Tribe. In addition, the
Miccosukee Tribe may petition for water
quality standards and SectIon 401
certification authority or NPDES
program authority tinder Sections 303.
402, 405 and 518 of the CWA.
Finally, as noted in Comment LII
above. EPA does not “delegate” a state
permitting program. Rather, EPA
authorizes the state to implement the

-------
25722
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 92 / Friday . May 12. 1995 / Notices
permitting program, as provided for
under the CWA and 40 C.F.R. Part 123,
while retaining program oversight
authority for permitting and
enforcement activities. Should the State
of Florida fail to implement its NPDES
program in accordance with the CWA.
EPA has the authority to rescind
authorization.
I X. Comment that NPDES Authorization
Should be Held in Abeyance Until
Existing and Future NPDES Challenges
Pertaining to the Everglades Storm
Water Treatment Areas are Settled
Comment
One commentor asserted that the
State of Florida’s application for
authorization to administer the NPDES
program should be denied or held in
abeyance until the existing and future
NPDES permit challenges pertaining to
the Everglades Storm Water Treatment
Areas (STAs) are settled.
Response
EPA disagrees. This comment is not
relevant to EPA ’s decision on
authonzation of Florida’s application
for the NPDES program. The NPDES
permit for the Everglades Nutrient
Removal (ENR) Project (NPDES No.
FLI]043885) , referenced in Comment DC
above, is one of several permits
currently being challenged through the
evidentlary hearing process (40 CFR
Part 124). SectIon llI.C.3. of the MOA
states that, for permits for which an
evidentlary hearing has been requested
at the time of program authorization,
EPA will retain full jurisdiction until
resolution of the administrative
challenge or expiration of the permit.
These permits axe listed in Attachment
B to the MOA. In addition, in
accordance with Section IILC.4 , and
listed on Attachment C to the MOA.
which represents certain facilities as
agreed upon by FDEP and EPA where
EPA will retain full jurisdiction to issue
these NPDES permits following
authorization, EPA and FDEP have
agreed that EPA will retain full
jurisdiction for the ENR Project (NPDES
No. FL0043885), until such time that
FDEP and the permittee are notified by
EPA that fuil jurisdiction has been
transferred to FDEP. FDEP shall retain
its rights under Section 401 of the CWA
to consider certification to any NPDES
Alabama
Aricansas,
Ca nea
permit issued by EPA. Any NPDES
•!perrnlt issued to any STA must meet
stale water quality standards and all
applicable Federal regulations.
Therefore, EPA believes that the
argument presented above by the
commentor is not relevant to EPA’s
determination.
X. Concern that Discharges Beyond the
Territorial Seas (Federal Waters) Will
Continue to be Permitted by EPA
A. Comments
One commentor suggested that EPA
specifically state in the MOA that
dischargers to waters beyond the
territorial seas (Federal waters) will not
be included in the State of Florida’s
NPDES program authorization.
B. Response
EPA. as listed in Attachment C of the
MOA (which represents certain facilities
as agreed upon by FDEP and EPA where
EPA will retain full jurisdiction to issue
these NPDES permits following
authorization), will contain all facilities
which discharge into waters outside the
jurisdiction of the State (i.e.. beyond the
territorial sea (Federal waters)).
X I. Comments Regarding Overall
Benefits Resulting from Authorization
A. Comments
EPA received comments from three
organizations supporting the delegation
of NPDES authority to Florida. These
comments clearly inaicated support for
delegation because:
1. It would result in the consolidation
of wastewater permitting into one
permitting agency,
2. Provide cost benefits to those who
pay to have facilities permitted,
3. As well as, reduce the confusion of
separate permitting and enforcement,
These comments stated the opinion
that State and Federal governments, the
public, and the environment will benefit
from delegation of NPDES authority to
Florida.
B. Response
Comment noted and supported by
EPA’s response to comment number IlL
above.
Conclusion
EPA is announcing today the approval
of the State of Florida NPDES permitting
program on May 1, 1995. The State of
Florida has demonstrated that it
adequately meets the requirements for
program authorization as defined in
Sections 402 and 304(i) of the CWA and
at 40 CFR Parts 123 and 403. The State
program will implement state law in
lieu of the Federally administered
program. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service concurred with the EPA “riot
likely to adversely affect”
determination. This authorization also
represents a phased NPDES program
authorization encompassing permitting
fori (1) Domestic discharges; (2)
Industrial discharges, including those
which also have storm water discharges,
and (3) pretreatment. Storm water
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems (MS4 s), individual
storm water-only discharges, storm
water general permits, and Federal
facility discharges are to be phased in by
the year 2000 for administration by the
State. The State is required to submit a
program modification for authorization
of jurisdiction of these types of NPDES
permits to EPA for approval in
accordance with the schedule set forth
in the MOA. This authorization does not
include the sludge management
program.
At this time. EPA has full jurisdiction
of NPDES program authority for Indian
Lands. All permit applications and
related issues concerning discharges on
Federal Indian Reservations or Indian
Tribal Lands will be directed to EPA
Region IV.
Federal Register Notice of Approval of
State NPDES Programs or Modifications
EPA must provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDES
program. Today’s Federal Register
notice is to announce the approval of
Florida’s authority to administer the
phased NPDES permit program.
Review Under Regulatory Flexibility
Act and Executive Order 12868
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules that
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of entities.
State NPDES Program Status
State
Approved
State NPDES
permit pro.
Approved to
regulate fed-
eral facilibes
A 7 oved
pretreatment
Approved gen
erai permits
19/19/79
11/01/86
10 119/79
11 101/86
10/19/79
11/01/86
06/26/91
11/01/86

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No . 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 I Notices
25723
State
Approved
State NPOES
PePro
A.w lt
Latefec
era ltaah 5es
Approved
State
pr
A
ipern 9
program
Colorado
03/27/75
09/26/73
04101/74
. —
01 / 09/89
06/03 (81
03104183
03/10/92
10/23/92
Connecticut
Delaware ._........... ._.. . ..
Georgia
06/28(74
11/28/74
10/23/77
01101175
08/10/78
06128(74
.__. .._.. ...
12/08/80
06/01/79
09/20/79
12(09178
08/10/78
08/28/85
03/12181
08112/83
......................
.....................
06/03/81
01/28191
09/30/91
01/04/84
04/02/91
08/12/92
11124/93
Nawan ... ................. . .....
Illinois .
Ind iana ...__._.._..__...__...___......_...._____ __...__....._ . .
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky ._ .._ .
09130/83
09/05/74
10117/73
06 /30/74
05/01(74
10/30/74
06/10(74
09130183
11/10181
12(09178
12/09178
01128/83
06/26/79
06123/81
09/30/83
09130185
04/16/85
07/16179
05/13182
06/00/81
09130/83
09130/91
11/29/93
12/15/87
09/27191
12112185
04/29/83
Maryland
Michigan ..___...__..____..____.___._.____
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missowi .
Montana ..._.
Nebraska .. ..._
06/12 (74
09/19/75
11/02179
08/31/78
........
09107/84
07/20/89
07/27/92
Nevada ...
New Jersey .....
New York
04/1 3 (82
10/28(75
10/19 /75
06 (13/75
04/13/82
06113/80
09/28/84
01/22/90

0 4 113/82
........ ...... ..
06/14/82
04/13 /82
10/15/92
- 09/06/91
01/22/90
. ..
North Carolina .......... . ...... ..
North Dakom ....... .
Ohio .._.......... ..
Oregon .... ._..
Pennsylvania ....._........... . . .
03/11(74
09/26 /73
06 / 30/78
09/17/84
01/28/83
03(02179
06/30/78
09/17/84
...... .....
07/27/83
03/12/81
......
09/17/84
08/17/92
02/23/82
08/02/91
09/17/84
Rhode Island .........
South Carohna ...
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
06110(75
12/30/93
12/28 / 77
07/07/81
03/11174
09 /26/80
12/30/93
09/30/88
07/07/87
._..
04/09/82
12/30/93
08/10/83
07/07/87
03/16/82
09/03/92
12130193
04/18/91
07/07/87
08/26193
Vermont
Virgin Is lande
06/30/76
03/31/75
11(14/73
05/10/82
02 ( 04/74
01/30/75
02/09/62

05/10/62
11/28/79
05 /18/81
..- - - .... -. - -....
04/14189
09/30/86
05/10/82
12/24/80
._........_........
.-..
05/20/91
09/26189
05/10/82
12119/66
09/24/91
Virginia
Washington ..._ ..,
West Virginia
Wisconsin ...__.____ _____.
Wyoming ..... ...
Totals ._.........._.
40
35
28
39
Nun er of Fully Authorized Programs (Federal Facilities, Pretreatment, General Permits) • 25.
Review Under Regulatory Flexibility
Act and Executive Order 12888
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules that
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of entities. The
proposed approval of the Florida
NPDES program does not alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. No new substantive
requirements are established by this
action. Therefore, because this notice
does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entitles, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
needed.
On October 12, 1993, the Office of
Management and Budget exempted this
Agency action from the requirements of
Executive Order 12866.
John H. ji nkincon_Jr ,,
Regional Adnunistmtor.
LFR Doc. 95—11792 FlIed 5—11—95.8.45 aml
aiwisu cooe eo.4O.P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Farmers & Merchants Bank Employee
Stock Ownership Plan; Acquisition of
Company Engaged In. Permisaible
Nonbanking Activities
The organization listed in this nâtlce
has applied under § 225.23(a)(2) or (f)
of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR
225.23(a)(2) or (f)) for the Board’s
approval tinder section 4(c)(8) of the
Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1843(c)(8)) and § 225.21(8) of Regulation
Y (12 G’R 225.21(a)) to acquire or
control voting securities or assets of a
company engaged in a nonbanking
activity that is listed in S 225.25 of
Regulation Y as closely related to
banking and permissible for bank
holding companies. Unless otherwise
noted, such activities will be conducted
throughout the United States.
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
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.
conflicts 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
not suffice in lieu of a hearing.
identifying specifioally any questions of
fact that are in dispute. summari zig the
evidence that would be presented at a
hearing, and indicating how the party
commenting would be aggrieved by
approval of the proposal.

-------
19484
Corrections
Federal Register
VoL 60.
No. 74
Tuesday.
April 18. 1995
Ths secton of ti FEDERAL REGISTER
contains edtodal c Tectons of previously
published Presidental, Rule. Proposed Rule.
Notice docuilents. These corrections are
prepared by the Office of the Federal
Register. Agency prepared corrections are
issued as signed documents and appear in
the appropnate document cotegones
el3ewhere in the issue.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Wiliamette Provincial interagency
Executive Committee (PIEC), Advisory
Committee
Correction
In notice document 95—7445
appearing on page 15746 in the issue of
Monday, March 27. 1995. Ia the second
column, under SUMMARY, in the fifth
line. “255 Capitol Street” should read
“355 Capitol Street”.
coon iiu i
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 290
Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) Freedom of Information Act
Program
Correction
In rule document 95—8852 begInning
on page 18005 in the issue of Monday.
April 10. 1995. the EFFECTIVE DATE
should read “(April 10, 1995).”.
GILUNO 0001 15O 41-O
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 122
(FRL-5 182-8]
RIN 2040 .AC8O
Amendment to Requirements for
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Under
Section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water
Act
Correction
In rule document 95—8209 beginning
on page 17950 in the issue of Friday
April 7. 1995, make the following
corrections:
On page 17950, in the second column.
under the heading “DATES”, in the
second and last lInes. “August 2. 1995”
should read “August 7, 1995”.
On page 17953, In the third column,
In the last line of the first complete
paragraph, “August 2.2001” should
read “August 6, 2001”.
•1 .2e (Corrected)
On page 17957. in the first column, in
§ 122.26(g)(1)(U), in the second line,
“August 2. 2001” should read “August
6, 2001”.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Delinquent Flier Voluntary Complianc
Program
Correction
In notice document 95—7742
beginning on page 16505 in the issue o
Thursday. March 30. 1995. make the
following correction:
On page 16505, in the second colurnr
under A. Justification, in the 3rd full
paragraph, in the 19th line, “$40”
should read “$50...
O 1LUNQ 0001 1606-01-0
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Wage and Hour Division
29CFR Part 580
Civil Money Penalties—Procedures to
Assessing and Contesting Penalties
Correction
In rule document 95—8335 beginning
on page 17221 in the issue of
Wednesday, April 5, 1995, make the
following correction:
On page 17222, in column one, under
the heading “IL Background”, second
paragraph. in the 10th line, “not”
should read “now”.
aLW coos i

-------
17950 Federal Register / Vol 60. No 67 / Friday. April 7. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 124
[ PRL-6182-8J
.RIN 204O-AC O
Amendment to Requirements for
National Pollutent Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Under
Section 402(p)(6) of the Cleen Water
Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACT1OfI: Direct final rule
SUMMARY: Today. EPA is promulgat ing
changes to its National Pollutant
Discharge FitrTthu%tiOO System (NPDES)
storm water permit application
regulations under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) to establish a sequential
application process for all phase 1]
storm water discharges. (Phase fl storm
water discharges include all discharges
composed entirely of storm water.
except those specifically classified as
phase I discharges. Phase I discharges
include discharges issued a permit
before February 4.1987; discharges
associated with industrial activity:
discharges from a municipal separate
storm sewer system serving a
population of 100,000 or more; and
discharges that EPA or an NPDES State!
Indian Trfbe determine to be
contnbutmg to a violation of a water
quality standard or a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States ) Application
deadlines are in two tiers. This action
will provide the NPDES permitting
authority (either a State/Indian Tribe or
EPA) flexibility to target those phase U
d.ischargers that are contributing to a
water quality impairment or are a
significant contributor of pollutants for
permitting within the next six years. A ] ]
other phase U dischargers are required
to apply for a permit only after six years.
and only if the phase I] regulatory
program in place at that time requires
such applications
EPA has also uutiatea process by
inviting its partners who are
stakeholders in this matter to assist in
the development of additional phase U
rules, which will be finalized by March
1, 1999 These rules will determine the
nature and extent of requirements, if
any. that will apply to the various types
of phase II facilities. Both’ the changes
to therules issued today as well as the
development of the comprehensive
phase U program through an
inclusionary process is a response by
EPA to the direction of the President on EPA ’s Water Docket, Room L—102, 401
February 21. 1995, regarding regulatory M Street. SW, Washington. DC 20460
reform. For access to the docket materials, call
DATES: This final rule will be effective (202) 260—3027 between 9 a.m and 3 30
on August 2. 1995 unless significant p.m (Eastern time) for an appointment
adverse or critical comments that would
I. Overview of Today’s Action
cause the Agency to change its position
are received by June 6, 1995 Today. EPA is promulgating changes
accordance with 40 CFR 23.2. this rule to its NPDES storm water permit
shall be considered final for purposes of application regulations under the CW A
judicial review at 1 p in (Eastern ti to establish a oummonseuse approach
on 2.4995 - which will provide for a sequential
ADOR $$E$: Written comments application process for all phase II
rule may be submitted using one of two storm water discharges. Application
different methods. See SUPPLEMENTARY deadlines are In ti tiers. To obtain redi
PWORMATION for information on environmentai restita earlier, the
submitting comments. highest priority is being assigned to
FOR FURThER FORMAi1OW CONTACT: those phase U dischargers that the
NPDES permitting authority (either
Nancy Carnningham, Office of State/Indian Tribe or EPA) determines
Wastewater Management, Permits are contributing to a water qualit
Division (4203). Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street. VJ. .impalrment ar are a sigmflcarn
- contributor of pollutants. These
Washington. DC 20460, (202) 260—9535. dlschargers will be required to apply for
$UPPL EWTARY tFORMAflON: a permit to the permitting authority
Submission ofCmnents within 180 days of receipt of notice.
unless permission for a later date is
First, comments may be sent to the granted. This process will allow the
Comment Clerk.. Water Docket (Storm permitting authority to focus their
Water Phase U Direct Final Rule), MC- current efforts on those facilities that
4101, Environmental Protection Agency, wiLl produce the greatest environmental
401 M Street. SW. Washington DC - - benefit earlier. All phase U facilities that
20460. ItIs requested that an ongiaai axe not designated shall apply to the
and one copy of the comments be permitting authority no later than six
provided to this address. Comments will years from the effective date of this
be considered to be timely if they are regulation, and only If the phase Ii
postmarked by’June 6, 1995. regulatory program in place at that time
Commenters who would like requires such applications. EPA is also
acknowledgment of receipt of their establishing application requirements
comments should include a sell- for these discharges, as well as making
addressed, stamped envelope. No other conforming changes to other
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. portions of its NPDES regulations
In the alternative, EPA will accept Today’s action is the first step in
comments electronically. EPA is EPA’s approach to develop a
experimenting with electronic comprehensive phase U program under
commenting. Comments should be Clean Water Act (CWA) section
addressed to the following Internet 4 O 2 (p)(s) and is consistent with
address: SWPH2—DFR@epamai.l.epa.gov President Clinton’s February 21. 1995
Electronic comments must be submitted direction on regulatory reform as well a’.
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of the Office of Water’s “National Program
special characters and any form of Agenda for the Future.” EPA cannot
encryption. Electronic comments will be deal with all storm water issues in
transferred into a paper version for the today’s action. Some issues raised b
official record. EPA will attempt to stakeholders. such as funding for stOflil
clarify electronic comments if there is yater best management practices and
an apparent error in transmission certain issues with regard to compliance
Comments provided electronically will with water quality standards, can only
be considered timely if they are be resolved by legislative action In fact
submitted electronically by 11.59 p m EPA supported certain statutory chanqes
(Eastern Lime) June 6, 1995 Since this or clarifications to the storm ,‘ater
is still experimental. commenters may program last year in President Clinton”
want to submit both electronic Clean Water Initiative. Some issues.
comments and duplicate paper such as the nature and extent. f
comments. This document has.also been requirements, if any, that will apply It)
placed on the Internet for public review the various types of phase II sourceS.
and downloading at the following can be resolved through rulemalunS
location: goDher.epa gov EPA has Initiated a process of 1 nviting
A copy ol ’the supporting information its partners who are stakcholdersto
for this rule is available for review at participate in development of

-------
Federal Register / Vol . 60, No. 67 / Friday. April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
17951
expectations and requirements for more
comprehensive phase II rules, as well as
revisions and refinements to phase I.
EPA expects stakeholders will consider
the lessons learned from the phase I
storm water program in relooking at the
phase I application process and
requirements. EPA intends to propose
those rules by September 1, 1997, and
finalize those rules by March 1. 1999 If
the CWA is amended in a manner to
deal with these storm water issues, EP
will move to expeditiously implement
the statutory changes. Todays
rulemaking will promote the public
interest by relieving dischargers of the
requirement to apply for permits until
(i) a phase II program is in place that
can be defined by regulation or changes
to the statute or (2) the permitting
authority makes an affirmative finding
of the need for a permit to protect water
quality
II. Background
A Phase I of the Storm Water Program
The Clean Water Act
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (referred to
as the Clean Water Act ).prohibit the
discharge of any pollutant to navigable
waters from a point source unless the
discharge is authorized by a NPDES
permit. While water pollution control
measures in the United States for
industrial process wastewater and
municipal sewage have had major
success, urban and agncultural runoff
continue to contribute to our Nation’s
remaining water quality problems.
EPA ’s Report to Congress under section
305(b) entitled The National Water
Quality Inventory, 1992 Report to
Congress. provides a national
assessment of surface water impacts
associated with runoff from various land
uses The latest report concludes that
storm water runoff from a number of
diffuse sources, including municipal
separate storm sewers and urban runoff
is a leading cause of water quality
impairment cited by States.
Section 402(p) was added to the GVA
in 1987 to require implementation of a
comprehensive two-phased approach
for addressing storm water discharges
under the NPDES program. Section
4O 2 (p)(1) currently prohibits EPA or
NPDES States (including Indian Tribes
authorized to operate the NPDES
program) from requiring permits for
discharges composed entirely of storm
water (storm water discharges) until
October 1. 1994, except for the
following five classes of phase I storm
water discharges specifically listed
under section 402(p)(2):
(a) discharges issued a permit before
February 4. 1987.
(b) discharges associated with
industrial activity,
(c) discharges from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 250,000 or more,
Cd) discharges from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 100,000 or more but less
than 250.000.
Ce) discharges that EPA or an NPDES
State for Tribe authorized to be treated
as a State for this purpose) determine to
be contributing to a violation of a water
quality standard or a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States. (EPA issued guidance
on August 8, 1990 that included a
discussion of designation authority)
tiriderCWA section 402(11(2), permits
are not required for certain dischargers.
specifically, storm water runoff from
mining operations or oil and gas
facilities if the storm water
discharge is not contaminated by
contact with * ‘any overburden, raw
material, intermediate product, finished
product. byproduct. or waste product
located on the site of such operations.
CWA section 502(14) excludes
agricultural storm water discharges from
the definition of point source, thereby
excluding these discharges from the
NPDES permit requirement.
Section 402(p)(3) established
requirements for permits issued under
phase I of the storm water program
while section 4 O 2 (p)( 4 ) established
statutory deadlines for the initial steps
in implementing the phase I program.
Phase I Regulatory Program
EPA promulgated regulations defining
application requirements in 40 CFR
122.26 for phase I storm water
discharges on November 16 1990 (55
FR 47990). Permits are required for large
(over 250,000 population served) and
medium (100.000—250.000 population
served) municipal separate storm sewer
systems (M54): storm water discharges
issued a permit before February 4, 1987;
storm water discharges “associated with
industrial activity,” which are identified
in the regulations by 11 specific
categories; and those dischargers
designated by the NP DES State or EPA.
EPA amended the November 1990
application regulations in ‘various
respects in 1992 in response to a court
ruling in NRDC v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292
(9th Cir., 1992) in which EPA
established generally applicable permit
issuance deadlines In addition. EPA
noted that the Agency was not requiring
permit applications from the two
categories of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(construction activities disturbing less
than 5 acres and light industry without
exposure to storm water) until
application requirements were
established by regulation. (57 FR 60444,
December 18. 1992.)
Phase I Implementation Activities
The efforts of EPA and the authorized
NPDES States to implement the phase I
storm water program have focused on
(1) issuing general permits for industrial
storm water discharges. (2) revie ing
group applications for industrial storm
water dischargers. (3) publishing a
proposed multi.sector general permits
for storm water discharges from 29
industrial sectors, (4) reviewinq
applications and issuing permits for
municipal separate storm sewer
systems, and (5) conducting outreach
activities.
B Phase II of the Storm li’ater Program
Water Quality Act of 1987 arid Later
Amendments
The 1987 amendments established a
process for EPA to evaluate potential
phase II sources and designate sources
for regulation to protect water quality
Section 402(p)(5) requires EPA, in
consultation with the States, to conduct
two studies of storm water discharges
tither than phase I sources (i.e.. potential
phase [ I sources). The first study. under
section 4 O 2 (p)(S) (A) and (B) (to be
completed by October 1. 1988), was to
identify storm water discharges not
covered u.nder phase I and determine, to
the maiamuzn extent practicable, the
nature and extent of pollutants in such
discharges. The second study, under
section 402(p)(5)(C) (to be completed by
October 1, 1989), was to establish
procedures and methods to control
storm water discharges to the extent
necessary to mitigate impacts on water
quality.
Section 402(p)(6) of the CWA requires
EPA, in consultation with State and
local officials and based ott the findings
of the reports required under section
402(p)(5), to issue regulations that
designate additional storm water
discharges to be controlled to protect
water quality under phase II of the
program and to establish a
comprehensive program to regulate such
designated sources. The program shall.
at a minimum, establish priorities,
requirements for State storm water
management programs. and expeditious
deadlines. The program may include
performance standards, guidelines.
guidance, and management practices
and treatment requirements. as
appropriate. These regulations were to
be issued by October 1. 1993. EPA did

-------
17952
Federal Register / Vol. hO. No. b7 / Friday, April 7. 19’)5 I Rules and Regulations
not issue these regulations by the
stafutojy deadline. Today’s action is
common sense approach which defines
and establishes application submittal
requirements for phase I I of the NPDES
program for storm water. As noted
below, EPA will be revising these
requirements over the next several veers
in partnership with its numerous
stakeholders,
September q 19t42 Notice — Phase II
Issues —_
On September 9. 1992. EPA published
a notice requesting informanori and
public comment on the phase if program
(57 FR 41344) The notice identified
three sets of issues associated with
developing phase H regulations.
including U) how sources should be
identified, (2) types of control strategies
for these sources, and (3) deadlines for
implementing the reqwrements. The
notice presented a range of alternatives
under each issue in an attempt to
illustrate, and obtain input on, the full
range of potential approaches for a
phase U strategy. EPA received more
than 130 comments on the notice from
municipalities, trade groups or
industnea, State or Federal agencies.
and other miscellaneous sources No
comments were received from
environmental groups.
Renssejaervjlle Phase (I Effort
In early 1093, the Rensselaervilie
Institute and EPA held public and
expert meetings to assist in developing
and analyzing options for identifying
phase I I sources and controls. One of the
options most favored by the various
groups participating induded use of a
tiered approach that would provide for
EPA selection of high prionty sources
for control by NPDES permits and State
selection of other sources for control
under a State program other than the
NPDES program
Storm Water Reports to Congress
EPA is transmitting to Congress
concurrently with this action, its first
report required under sections 402(p)(5}
(A) and (B). This report is contained in
the record for this rule. This report was
broadly circulated in t4oveniber 1993 by
the Agency to the States, trade groups.
environmental groups, Congressional
staff other interested parues. and all
people who requested a copy. EPA
recessed comments from various States
and other gruu s and made changes. as
appropriate, to respond to those
comments
Section 402 (p)(31(C) requires a second
study of storm water discharges for the
purpose of establishing procedures and
methods to control storm water
discharges that were not addressed as
part of the first phase of the NPDES
storm water program to the extent
necessary to mitigate impacts on water
quality. President Clinton’s Clean Water
Initiative, which was released on
February 1. 199 . contains the Agency’s
recommendations for phase II and is
considered by EPA to oe the second
Report to Congress. EPA has included
these materials in its report that is being
siibmined to Congress
Presij’enf Cliritons Clean Watf’r
Initiative
President Clinton s Clean Water
Initiative addresses a number of issues
associated with NPDES requirements for
storm wdter discharges. inLiuding U)
establishing a phased approach for
compliance of discharges from
murucipal separate storm sewer systems
with water quality standards with a
focus on controlling discharges from
growth and development areas, (2)
clanfying that the Maximum Extent
Practical standard should be applied in
a site specific, flexible manner taking
into account cost considerations as well
as water quality effects, (3) providing for
an exemption (rein the storm water
progsazn for industrial facilities with no
activities or no significant materials
exposed to storm water. (4) providing
for deadline extensions for phase U of
the storm water program, (5) providing
for a targeted approach for phase U
storm water program requirements,
including regulation of storm water
from industrial facilities by
municipalities, and (6) pmvid ng for
control of discharges from inactive and
abandoned mines located on Federal
lands in a more targeted. f1 . xihle
manner.
Several bills to reauthorize the CWA
which include amendments to NPDES
requirements for storm water were
introduced in the House and Senate in
the 103rd Congress; however,
substantive changes to the CWA were
not made. Provisions contained in the
President’s Initiative, as well as the
other bills, will be considered by the
Agency in its compreher.sive
rulemaking involving srakehoiders. to
the extent the Agency is authorized to
make changes discussed there under
existing law
The Agency recognizes that there may
be action in the 104th Congress to
change storm water requirements.
Stakeholders have raised some issues
that go well beyond the scope of EPA’s
regulatory authority and can only be
addressed by legislation. Certain parties
have requested that the Agency delay
issuance of this regulation until
Congress acts. EPA is obligated to
implement the current law and is taking
this action to provide certainty to phase
II dischargers as to when their permit
applications are due if relief is not
provided through regulatory or
legislative action. EPA is willing to
work with affected parties on statutory
issues and, if the law is changed. will
move to expeditiously implement the
changes.
October 1. 1 4 i94 Deddlirie for r rmi;.
under Phase 11
On October 18, 1994. EPA issued
guidance interpreting the October 1.
1994, statutory deadline pertaining to
phase U storm water dischargers. The
memorandum recognized that EPA had
not issued regulations implementing thiS
requirements of section 4 O 2 (p)( 6 ) before
October 1. 1994: and the Agency and
approved NPDES States are unable to
waive the statutory requirement that
point source discharges of pollutants i . .
waters of the United States need an
NPDES permit. The memorandum also
recognized that at the tune of the
guidance, EPA had completed a draft
study identifying potential point source
disc’harges of storm water for regulatory
consideration under the requirements of
section 4 O 2 (p)(6) (as noted, EPA is
transmitting the Reports to Congress),
and the Agency had initiated a process
to develop implementing regulations (of
which today’s action is a part). The
guidance also referred to the general
application requirements for the NFDES
program and the Agency’s January 12.
1994. storm water enforcement strategy
EPA Instituting Federal Advisor,
Committee Effort
The Agency has established a Federal
Advisory Committee Act advisory
committee to provide advice on various
wet weather issues. EPA will work with
a subcommittee of this advisory
committee to form a partnership in
specifically address phase LI storm tsater
issues. This action will complement the
specific regulatory action EPA is taking
today. Both actions are part of the
Agency’s response to the President’s
direction an regulatory reform. E1’;
wants to develop a common sen’e
approach to allow EPA and the Statr’&
Indian Tithes to manage for results in
developing a phase II stonE water
program that will provide ecosystem
protection. EPA believes there is
considerable latitude and flexibilnv
within the existing language contained
in section 4 O 2 (p)( 6 ) in establishing the
scope and extent of the phase II program
and the nature of the controls used.
Some questions EPA will advance build
upon the input the Agency has received
earlier on phase U, including questions

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 67 I Friday. April 7. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
17953
addressing (1) the scope, mechanisms
and timing of phase 11. (2) how EPA can
work more effectively with the Varying
interests to provide outreach and
technical assistance for phase II. and (3)
consideration of lessons learned from
phase 1. EPA would be receptive to
including in the indusionazy process
other issues that have developed broad.
based support; these issues may include
research, cost-effective solutions and
expedited implementation. EPA is in
thif early stages of development of the
specifics of the phase U program. which
can and will include revisions and
refinements top I. including
relooklng at the phase I application
process and requirements. EPA
recognizes that many of the
municipalities and industrial facilities
that are subject to the phase I
requirements believe there is a need to
make major changes to phase I.
EPA is committed to conducting this
phase II process, including
improvements to limited portions of
phase I, In an inclusionary manner,
inviting representatives of affected
stakeholders “to the table” to discuss
thei.r res ectlve interests.
Today s regulatory action is being
taken as a common sense approach to
provide a framework under existing law
for these actions to be undertaken in an
orderly fashion, as well as certainty
regarding the status of phase U
discharges. This approach will allow the
permitting authority to manage for
results by providing the flexibility to
call certain phase II dlschargers into the
program based upon a finding of water
quality impact.
Ifl. Today’s Action
Regulation Changes
Today, EPA is promulgating changes
to its NPDES storm water permit
application regulations to establish a
sequential application process for all
phase 11 storm water discharges.
Application deadlines are in two tiers.
To obtain real environmental results
earlier, the highest priority i s being
assigned to those phase II 1l hnrgers
that the I (PDES permitting authority
(either a State/Indian Tribe or EPA)
determines are contributing to a water
quality impairment or are a significant
contributor of pollutants. These
dischargers will be required to apply for
a permit within 180 days of receipt of
notice from the permitting authority,
unless permission for a later date is
granted. All other phase II facilities will
be required to apply to the permitting
authority no later than six years from
the effective date of this regulation if the
phase II regulatory program in place at
that time requires such applications.
EPA is also establishing application
requirements for these discharges. as
well as making other conforming
changes to other portions of its NPDES
regulations. The specifics of the changes
follow.
First, to codify the already existing
statutory requirement upon the
expiration of the moratorium for phase
II storm water discharges, EPA is adding
40 CFR 122.26(a)(9) to bnng into the
NPDES program, as of October 1, 1994.
discharges composed entirely of storm
water that are not otherwise already
required by the phase I regulations to
obtain a permit. EPA considers the
portions of the two phase I categories
that were remanded by the court in
NRDC v. EPA to be covered by these
phase U requirements, as are the
facilities owned by municipalities that
were otherwise excluded from phase I
by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Transportation Act). These phase II
storm water dlschargers will be required
to apply for a permit according to the
application requirements in new
S 122.26(g). This provision continues to
recognize the applicability of statutory
NPDES exemptions provided by CWA
sections 402(1) and 502(14).
Second, EPA is adding 40 R
122.26(g), which will contain the
regulatory requirements for discharges
composed entirely of storm water under
section 4O2(p)(6). Any operator of a
point source required to obtain a permit
under § 122.26(a)(9) shall submit an
application in accordance with the
following requirements.
Section 122.26(g)(1) contains the
application deadlines. If a phase U
discharger coniplles with these
application deadlines, the facility will
not be subject to enforcement action for
discharge without a permit or for failure
to submit a permit application. First, if
the permitting authority (the regulations
use the term “Director” which means
either the NPDES State/Indian Tribe
Director or EPA Regional Administrator,
or authorized representative) determines
and notifies the discharger that a
discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the
United States, the operator shall apply
for a permit to the permitting authority
within 180 days of receipt of notice,
unless permission for a later date is
granted (see 40 CFR 124.52(c)). This
provision will allow the NPDES
permitting authority to manage for
environmental results by providing the
flexibility to bring certain phase U
sources within the NPDES program at
this time, as determined necessary by
the State/Indian Tribe or EPA. This
determination can be done on a
watershed or class basis where the
permitting authority determines there is
a significant impact or contribution. In
addition, the NPDES permitting
authority may find the information
contained in the Storm Water Reports to
Congress useful in determining the
location and nature of such impacts.
The August 9, 1990, guidance EPA
issued an designation authority may be
useful in making this determination.
The 180 day time period provided for
submission of an application is
consistent with the time period
provided for other situations in the
NPDES program where a facility is
asked to submit an application (40 CFR
122.21(c)(1) and (2)) and the time period
generally provided for applications for
permit renewal (40 CFR 122.21(d)). EPA
recognizes that this time period is
longer than that provided by existing
regulations for those phase I storm water
dischaxgers designated into the program
(40 CFR 122.26(e)(5)). EPA is
establishing this longer time period to
provide an opportunity for the phase [ I
discharger to communicate with the
permitting authority about necessary
information, as well as to collect and
submit the application information.
All other phase U facilities shall apply
to the Stata/ Indian Tribe or EPA Region
no later than six years from the effective
date of this regulation. EPA may change
this application deadline for at least
certain categories of dlschargers in the
future as part of the rulemaking process
involving its various partners dealing
with the scope. nature and extent to the
phase U program. However, if changes
are not made, all phase U storm water
dlschargers will have to submit
applications by August 2, 2001.
Section 122.26(g)(2) contains
provisions for application requirements
for phase U discharges. At this time, the
existing phase! individual industrial
application requirements in
§ 122.26(c)(1) or application
requirements for municipal separate
storm sewer discharges contained in
§ 122.26(d) will be the requirements for
phase 11 discharges, unless otherwise
modified by the permitting authority. As
noted earlier, EPA will be relooking at
the application requirements as part of
the advisory committee on wet weather
issues. -
EPA is also specifically providing for
and encouraging the use of general
permits for phase II discharges and
would require submission of a notice of
intent to be covered by the general
permit, consistent with the current
requirements of 40 CFR 122.28(bJ(2) for
phase I storm water discharges. EPA and

-------
17954 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No . 67 / Friday. April 7, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
the authorized States have effectively
and efficiently used general permits for
phase I storm water discharges and EPA
believes general permits also will be an
effective mechanism to use in phase I I.
when NPDES permits are required.
Group applications for phase 11
discharges are not provided for because
the general permit process will be
available to almost all phase [ 1
discharges.
In developing phase II permits, the
permitting authority may apply the
requirements contained in section
4 O 2 (p)( 3 ), which are the requirements
for phase I permits, on a case-by.case
basis at this time using best professional
judgment.
EPA is also making several
conforming changes to other portions of
40 CFR 122.26. First, EPA is changing
the date for the permit moratorium
contained in § 122.26(a)(1) to October 1,
1994, to reflect the change in this date
provided by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992. Second, EPA
is amending the title to § 122.26(e) to
read “Application deadlines under
paragraph (a)(1)” to make clear that
these are phase I requirements and
application.deadlines, as interpreted by
EPA. Third, EPA is amending
§ 122.26(e)(1)(ii) which are the permit
application requirements forthose
municipally owned facilities for whom
application deadlines were postponed
by the Transportation Act to reflect the
fact that these are now phase II
facilities. (Section 1068(c) of the
Transportation Act amended the CWA
to provide that EPA shall not require
any municipality with a population of
less than 100.000 to apply for or obtain
a permit for any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity other
than an airport. power ptant. or
uncontrolled sanitary landfill owned or
operated by such municipalities before
October 1, 1992.) Because EPA Is not
making available the group application
process in phase II, q4m 1a . changes ai’e
not being made to § 122.26(e)(2).
EPA is aiso making changes to other
applicable NPDES regulatory
provisions. EPA is modifying the
requirements of 40 ‘R 122.21(c)(1) to
clarify that new phase II storm water
discharges do not have to submit a
permit application until six years after
the effective date of this regulation, or
earlier if designated by the permitting
authority. EPA is making conforming
changes to 40 CFR 124.52(c) to clarify
the application of these provisions to
both phase I and phase II storm water
discharges.
Basis of Regulations
Today’s action is the fIrst step of
EPA’s approach to develop a
comprehensive phase U program under
section 4 O 2 (p)(6), and is consistent with
President Clinton’s February 21, 1995,
direction on regulatory reform and the
Office of Water’s December 30, 1994,
“National Water Program Agenda for the
Future.” EPA has initiated an
inclusionary process involving its
partners to develop more
comprehensive phase II rules; EPA
intends to propose those rules by
September 1, 1997, and finalize those
rules by March 1, 1999. In the
comprehensive phase II rulemaking,
EPA will consider input from all
stakeholders, as well as the input that
has already been provided to the
Agency on the phase II September 1992
notice and the 1993 Rensselaervjlle
Enstitute phase 11 effort discussed earlier
in this notice. EPA will also consider
the Information in the Storm Water
Reports to Congress, and the
recommendations in President Clinton’s
Clean Water Initiative. Finally. EPA will
implement any statutory changes that
are enacted during program
development. Today’s action is based on
recommendations in those documents to
the extent they envision an orderly,
tiered process for regulation of storm
water, allowing the NPDES permitting
authority to manage for results at this
time. EPA is considering making other
changes to improve its operation of the
phase I storm water program in the
comprehensive phase U rulemaking
action, including revising phase I
municipal application requirements.
The regulation issued today fulfills, in
part, the requirements contained in
section 4O2(p)(6) of the CWA. It is being
Issued by EPA today after consultation
with State, local officials, Indian Tribes,
and parts of the regulated and
environmental community. The
regulation, which is the first of a
sequential process, is consistent with
the Information contained In the Storm
Water Reports to Congress and the
President’s Initiative as it is providing
the framework of a tiered
implementation of phase 11
requirements, allowing the NPDES
permitting authority current flexibility
to manage for results. The application
requirements allow the NPDES
permitting authority to bring within the
phase U program at this time those
phase II discharges impacting water
quality or who are a significant
contributor of pollutants and, if EPA
does not take action to change its
regulations, will require a permit
application from all phase II storm
water discharges in 6 years.
The regulations also establish a
comprehensive program containing
current permit application
requirements. The permitting authority
will be able to establish appropriate
permit requirements on a case-by-case
basis at this time. This first portion of
the phase II program establishes
priorities and deadlines, for permit
applications, which, as currently
structured, will be a part of the NPDES
program. These requirements and
changes to 40 CFR 122.26 and
conforming changes to other NPDES
requirements in part 122 are required
parts of State/Tribal NPDES programs
(see 40 CFR 123.25). The initial portion
of the phase U program which is being
established today does not contain a
comprehensive set of performance
standards, guidelines, guidance,
management practices, and treatment
requirements. These conditions can be
established by the permitting authority
on a case-by-case basis upon permit
issuance to designated phase U
discharges. Finally, these conditions
may be further defined by EPA when it
revises the phase I I program regulations
as desaibed above,
Today’s action adopts a tiered
approach for selection of high pnority
sources to be controlled by NPDES
permits, which was the lead option
presented for public comment in the
September 1992 notice, and one of the
options most favored by the various
groups participating in the effort
conducted in early 1993 by the
Rensselaerville Institute and EPA, as
well as the Storm Water Reports to
Congress and the President’s Clean
Water Initiative. In its rulemaking effort,
EPA believes there will be discussion
with its partners of other approaches
that will provide flexibility to the States
to deal with sources that are not of as
high a priority using other frameworks
and approaches,
In the September 1992 phase II notice,
EPA invited comment on various issues
regarding phase II of the storm water
program, including the appropriate
deadlines for implementing phase II
requirements. The comments EPA
received on this issue generally
recommended implementation of phase
U in stages and reiterated the need for
time to prepare regulations and to
conduct outreach to implement the
program, as well as the need to wait and
study the results of implementation of
phase I of the program. The actions EPA
is taking today are consistent with these
comments.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 I Friday, April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
17955
Supporting Documentation
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), 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 alter 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 fl facilities. This rule was
submitted to 0MB for review.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875,
entitled “Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership”, issued
by the President on October 28, 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 public comment
period on these actions.
Specifically. EPA has discussed this
action with the representatives of the
States, locals 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 the 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, to the Agency 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 not in
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
including the legal basis of its action
and potential changes to the statute in
this preamble. EPA did consult with
various representatives of local
governments early in the development
of this regulation as well as more
comprehensively in February.
The reaction of EPA’s A O is
positive: the Office of Water will work
through the AIEO to provide for a Tribal
representative to participate in the
inclusionary process.
EPA believes that it has developed an
effective process to obtain Input from
State, Tribal and local governments
before issuance of this rule, as well as
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. Papeiwork Reduction Act -
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 at seq., is intended to
minimize the reporting and record.
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 ‘Applicatlon for
NPDES Discharge Permit and Sewage
Sludge Management Permit” (0MB
Number 2040—0086) contains
information that responds to this issue
for all storm water discharges, including
those facilities designated into the
program. EPA will review and revise the
estimates contained in this ICR. as
appropriate, in its renewal process.
D. Regulatorj Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 at seq., EPA must
prepare a Regulatory Fle bility
Analysis for regulations having a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA
recognizes three kinds of small entities.
and defines them as follows:
(1) Small governmental
ju.risd.ictlons—any government of a
district with a population of less than
50,000.
(2) Small business—any business
which is independently owned and
operated and not dominant in its field,
as defined by the Small Business
Administration regulations under the
Small Business Act.
(3) Small organization—any not.for.
profit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and not dominant
in its field.
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. The
basis for this determination is through
today’s action EPA is benefiting small
entities as this actIon (1) adopts a
common sense approach to deal with
the issue of storm water phase II
requirements. (2) provides the ability for
the State/Tribe or EPA to manage for
results by providing flexibility to the
permitting authority to deal with storm
water phase U permitting at this time
based on water quality violations or
significant contribution of pollutants.
and (3) clarifies and reduces currently
applicable burdens for those facilities
current subject to phase U statutory
•requirements. Finally, the Agency is
committed to issue its comprehensive
storm water phase [ I program
regulations by March 1. 1999: in that
rulemaking EPA will reconsider its
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis.
E. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed
into law on March 22, 1995. EPA must
prepare a written statement to
accompany proposed rules where the
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector.
will be $100 million or more in any one
year. Under section 205. EPA must
• select the most cost.effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of such a rule and that is
consistent with statutory requirements.
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

-------
17956 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 67 / Friday. April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
plan for Informing and advising any
small governments that may be
significantly and uniquely affect by any
rule.
EPA estimates that the costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector, from this rule will be less
than $100 million. This rulemAlkirg
significantly reduces the immediate
regulatory burden imposed on pbase 11
facilities. EPA has determined that an
unfunded mandates statement therefore
is unnecessary.
Although not required to make a
finding under sectIon 206. EPA
concludes that this rule is cost-effective
and a significant reduction In burden for
State and local governments. In a
September 9. 1992, Federal Register
notice. EPA Invited comment process
for public consideration of reasonable
alternative approaches for the phase II
storm water program. Today’s rule
provides for the first step for any of
those alternatives by providing for an
orderly process for development of
regulations. By establishing regulatory
relief until development of those
alternative approaches, today’s
rulemaking itself provides the most
cost-effective end Least burdensome
alternative to achieve the objectives of
the rule at this stage, consistent with
statutory requirements.
As discussed previously, EPA
Initiated consultation with
representative organi ’ ations of small
governments under Executive Order
12875. In doing so. EPA provided notice
to potentially affected small
governments to enable them to provide
meaningful and timely input. EPA plans
to inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with any
requirements that may be develop in
further development of storm water
phase U rules in the course of the wet
weather advisory committee convened
for this purpose. That committee will
also provide advice related to
reconsideration of existing application
requirements that already affect small
governments.
F. Adzrunistrntive Procedure
Requirements
The Agency is publishing this action
as a ‘direct final” rule. A direct final
rule is not an “Interim final” rule (I.e.
a rule which provides for public
comment after it has gone into effect);
rather it is a rule which is publishId
with a delayed effective date allowing
for the receipt of and response to public
comment before the rule goes iuto effect.
A response to all comments received
will be placed in the docket for this
rulemaking prior to the effective date.
This rulemaking thus fully complies
with notice-and-comment requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA). EPA has chosen to use the direct
final approach for this rule because the
Agency does not expect to receive
significant adverse or critical comment
and to allow for the most expeditious
implementation possible, consistent
with the APA. Because in the absence
of this rule, thousands of municipalities
and other storm water discharges are
currently operating in violation of the
CWA, EPA believes that prompt
implementation of this rule is very
important.
However, consistent with AM
requirements, if EPA does receive
significant adverse or critical comment,
EPA will withdraw this rule prior to its
effective date and proceed with a
normal rulemaking process. As a result.
elsewhere in today’s Federal Register.
EPA is also proposing this rule. If EPA
decides to withdraw the direct final rule
based on public comment. EPA will
proceed with rulemaking based on this
proposal. There will not be an
additional comment period, so parties
interested in commenting on the
proposed rule should do so at this time.
List of Sub;ect
40 CF’R Po.rt 122
Admini ctraUve practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeplng
requirements, Water pollution control.
4OCFRPO.rt 124
Administrative practice and
procedure. Air pollution control,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Dated: March 29, 1995.
Carol M. Erowner.
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—CAMEPIDEDI
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authontyi 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 (d l) to read as follows:
4122.21 ApplIcation for a permft
appilcable to State programs, see 4123.25).
• a a a a
Cc) 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 5 122.26(g).
3. SectIon 122.26 is amended as
follows:
a. in paragraph (a)(1) introductory text
by revisIng “October 1. 1992” to read
“October 1, 1994”.
b. By adding paragraph (a)(9) as set
forth below.
c. By revising the title of paragraph (e)
introductory text as set forth below;
d. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii) by revising
the phrase “perriut applications
requirements are reserved” to read
“permit application requirements are
contained in paragraph (g) of this
section”.
e. By adding paragraph (g) as set forth
below.
4 lfl.28 Storm water dlscflarges
(applicable to State PIPOES programs, see
4123.25).
(a)
(9) On and after October 1. 1994,
discharges composed entirely of storm
water, that are not otherwise already
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section to obtain a permit. shall ha
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 §5 122.2
and 122.3.
a * • • a
(e) Application deadlines under
paragraph (a)(z).
(g) Application reqwrements for
discharges composed entirely of storm
water under Clean Water Act section
402(pJ( 6 ). Any operator of a point
source required to obtain a permit under
paragraph (aU9) of this section shall
submit an application in accordance
with the following requirements.
(1) Application deadlines. The
operator shall submit an application in
accordance with the following
deadlines:
U) A discharge 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

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday. Aortl 7. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
17957
(ii) All other discharges shall apply to
the Director no later than August 2.
2001.
(2) Application requirements. The
operator shall submit an application in
accordance with the following
requirements. unless otherwise
modified by the Director
(i) lndivzduai application for non-
municxpai discharges. The requirements
contained in paragraph (dil 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 tntent to be covered by
a genera.! permit issued by the Director.
The requirements contained in 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2).
PART 124 —(AMENDEDJ
4. The authority citation for part 124
continues to read as follows:
Authonty Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. 42 U S C. 3901 et seq. Safe
Drinking Water Act. 42 U SC. 300(f) ci seq.
Clean Water Act. 33 U S.C. 1251 et seq..
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S C. 7401 et seq.
5. Section 124.52 is amended by
revising the parenthetical statement in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 124.52 PerTnita required on a caae.by.
cas. basis.
a I * • S
(C) • (see 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v).
(c)(1)(v). and (g)(l)(i)) a a a
6. Section 124.52 is amended by
revising the next to the last sentence in
paragraph (C) to read as follows:
§ 124.52 Pemii required on a cas.-by
case basis.
a S * S C
(c) S I The discharger must apply
for a permit under 40 GFR 122.26
(a)(1)(v) and (c)(1)(v) within 60 days of
notice or under 40 CFR 122.26(g)(1)(i)
within 180 days of notice. unless
permission for a later date is granted by
the Regional Arhninistrator. a a a
IFR Dcc. 9S—8209 Filed 4—6—95; 8:45 aml
WNO 0OE D

-------
17958 Federal Register I
Vol. 60. No. 67 / Friday. April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFR Paris 122 and 124
RIM 2040-AceO
Amendment to Requirenierits for
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Under
Section 4 O 2 (p)(6) of the Clean Water
Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Today, EPA is proposing
changes to its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
storm water permit application
regulations under the Clean Water Act
(CWAJ to establish a sequential
application process for all phase II
storm water discharges. EPA is also
proposing to establish application
requirements for these discharges, as
well as making other conforming
changes to other portions of its NPDES
regulations. In the final rules section of
this Federal Register, the Agency is
promulgating these changes as a
“direct” final rule because the Agency
does not expect significant adverse or
critical comments and wants to provide
prompt implementation of the rule as
soon as possible to provicje for certainty
for phase U storm water dlscha.rgers; the
Agency also believes it is contrary to the
public interest to further delay the
establishment of permit application
requirements for phase II storm water
discharges at this time. This proposal
invites comment on the substance of the
direct final rule in the “final rules”
section of today’s Federal Register.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received in writing by June 6,
1995
AODRESSES: Written comments on this
proposed rule may be submitted using
one of two different methods,
First, comments may be sent to the
Comment Clerk, Water Docket (Storm
Water Phase U Proposed Rule), MC—
4101, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington DC
20460. It is requested that an original
and one copy of the comments be
provided to this address. Comments will
considered to be timely if they are
postmarked by June 6, 1995,
Comnxnenters who would like
acknowledgement of receipt of their
comments should include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
In the alternative, EPA will accept
comments electronically; EPA is
experimenting with electronic
commenting. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet
address: SWPH2 DFR epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of
encryption, Electronic comments will be
transferred into a paper version for t ie
official record. EPA will attempt to
clarify electronic comments if there is
an apparent error in transmission,
Comments provided electronically will
be considered timely if they are
submitted electronically by 1159 p m
(Eastern time) June 6, 1995. Since this
is still experimental, commenters may
want to submit both electronic
comments and duplicate paper
comments, This document has also bee
placed on the Internet for public revie ’,
and downloading at the following
location: gopher.epa gov.
A copy of the supporting information
for this rule is available for review at
EPA’s Water Docket, Room L—102, 401
M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460
For access to the docket materials, call
(202) 260—3027 between 9 a.m. and 3 31
p.m. (Eastern time) for an appointment
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Cunningham, Office of
Wastewater Management. Permits
Division (4203), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-9535
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the
information provided in the direct final
action which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.
Dated: March 29, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Adman,strvjor
(FR Doc. 95—8210 Filed 4—6- , 8 45 aml
B8.UNG coca 6650- 50-P

-------
Federal_Register I Vol. 60. No. 44 / Tuesday. March 7. 1995 / Notices
12555
(FRL-6165 —7]
Notice of Meetings, Open to the Public,
of the Multi-Agency Radiation Site
InvestigatIon Manual Development
Working Group
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency, lead.
ACTION: Meetings open to the public .
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is announcing that the
Department of Defense. Department of
Energy, Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission are meeting to develop
joint Federal guidance for standardized
and consistent approaches to
accomplish structural and
environmental radiation surveys.
Relevant information will be provided
to the group by other persons present.
The guidance is being developed as a
draft document, entitled the “Multi.
Agency Radiation Site Investigat ion
Manual (MARSIM)”, and it is
anticipated that the final product will be
a consensus document each agency can
agree upon and eventually adopt.
Meetings of the group are open to the
public on a first come, space available
basis with advance registration. During
the next meeting, representatives of the
agencies will discuss: survey planning
and design: implications of minimum
detectable activity; application of
statistics; and the schedule of future
meetings.
DATES, ADDRESSES, AND REGISTRATION: A
meeting will be held on Tuesday, March
28, 1995 from 9:00 am until about 3:00
pm. The meeting will be held at the
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2
White Flint North, Room T—IOA1,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
Persons wishing to attend this meeting
contact Roberta Gordon at (301) 415—
7555 to register. A future meeting is
tentatively scheduled for April 27. 1995.
The schedule, location, and registration
information for future meetings will be
posted on the U. S. Nudear Regulatory
Commission Enhanced Participatory
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
Decommissioning Electronic Bulletin
Board, (800) 880—6091: the NRC Public
Meeting Announcement System by
electronic bulletin board at (800) 952—
9676 or by recording at (800) 952—9674:
the EPA Cleanup Regulation Electronic
Bulletin Board at (800) 700—7837
outside the Washington area and (703)
790—0825 locally; and the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline at (800) 424—9346
outside the Washington area, (703) 412—
9810 locally, or by TDD at (800) 553—
7672.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Persons needing further information
concerning this group and the work of
developing the Multi.Agency Radiation
Site Investigation Manual should
contact Colleen Petullo, U S.
Environmental Protection Agency!
aRIA. P0 Box g8517, Las Vegas. NV
89193—8517, (702) 798—2446.
Dated: March 1, 1995.
Nicholas Lailas,
Chief. Radiation Assessment Bmnch, EPA
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
IFR Doc. 95—5521 Filed 3—6—95. 8’45 ami
01 WHO C C C I 8660-6O.
(FRL- .6166-.5J
Modification of General Administrative
Compliance Order for Produced Water
Discharges Covered by NPDES
General Permits for Produced Water
and Produced Sand Discharges From
the Oil and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category to Coastal Waters in
Louisiana (LAG290000) and Texas
(TXG290000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6.
ACTION: Modification of General
Administrative Compliance Order .
SUMMARY: Region 6 of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
today modifies the General
Administrative Compliance Order that
was issued January 9, 1995. at 60 FR
2393. This Order is modified to add as
respondents to the Order those
permittees subject to General NFDES
Permit Nos. LAG290000 and
TXG290000 who discharge produced
water from new Coastal, Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory wells to “coastal”
waters of Texas or Louisiana which will
be spudded after the effective date of
NPDES permits LAG290000 and
TXG290000 and which discharge
produced water through existing
facilities that are required by this Order
to cease produced water discharges no
later than January 1, 1997.
DATES: The General Administrative
Compliance Order will become effective
on March 7, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Notifications required by
this Order should be sent to the Water
Management Division, Enforcement
Branch (6W-EM, EPA Region 6 P.O.
Box 50625, Dallas, Texas 75202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMAT iON CONTACT: Ms.
Ellen Caldwell, EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202;
telephone: (214) 665—7513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
General Administrative Compliance
Order being modified today wa
originally issued January 9. 1995 and
published in the Federal Register at SO
FR 2393 with an effective date of
February 8. 1995 After the Order ‘as
issued, the Region received inforn ation
that a number of new wells are planned
to be drilled in the near future in
existing fields in Louisiana and Texas
The discharge of produced water
associated with these new wells is riot
currently covered by the Order Those
wells are ones which will discharge
their produced water through existing
treatmeritfdischarge facilities that are
required by the Order to cease discharge
of produced water no later than Januar
1. 1997. Individual wells of this type
cannot normally justify a separate
injection well for a single production
well, if the Order was not modified, it
was claimed that oil and gas drilling in
coastal Louisiana and Texas would be
delayed until the planned inlection
facilities are in place, which in some
cases may be nearly 2 years. The Region
has agreed to modify the Order to allow
coverage of produced water discharges
from those new wells.
Those permittees who have already
submitted an “Administrative Order
Notice” in connection with the General
Administrative Compliance Order
issued January 9, 1995 do not need to
resubmit an Administrative Order
Notice to be covered by today’s
modified Order.
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6 in Re: NPDES Permit
Nos. LAGZ90000 and TXG290000
General Administrative Compliance
Order
The following Findings are made and
Order issued pursuant to the authority
vested in the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
by Section 309(afl3) of the Clean Water
Act (hereinafter “the Act”), 33 U.S.C.
1319(a)(3), and duly delegated to the
Regional Administrator, Region 6, and
duly redelegated to the undersigned
Director, Water Management Division.
Region 6. Failure to comply with the
interim requirements established in this
ORDER constitutes a violation of this
ORDER and the NPDES permits.
Findings
I
The term “waters of the United
States” is defined at 40 C.F.R. 122.2.
The term “coastal” is defined in NPDES
Permits LAG290000 and TXG290000
and includes facilities which would he
considered “Onshore” but for the
decision in AP!v. EPA 661 F.2 340 (5th
Cir. 1981). The term “existing well”

-------
12556
Federal Register I VoL 00. No. 44 / Tuesday, March 2, 1995- / Notites
means a well spudded prior to the.
effective date of NPDES Permits
LAC290000 and TXG290000. The term
“new well” means a well spudded after
the effective date of NPDES Permits
LAG290000 and TXG290000 whose
associated produced water will be
discharged through an existing
treatmerit/diccharge facility required by
this Order to cease discharge of
produced water no later than January 1.
1997.
Ii
Pursuant to the authority of Section
402(a)(1) of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
Region 6 issued National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permits No. LAG290000 and
TXG290000 with an effective date of
February 8. 1995. These permits
prohibit the discharge of produced
water and produced sand derived from
Oil and Gas Point Source Category
facilities to “coastal” waters of
Louisiana and Texas in accordance with
effluent limitations and other conditions
set forth in Parts land II of these
permits. Facilities covered by these
permits include those in the Coastal
Subcategory (40 CFR 435. Subpart 0),
the Stripper Subcategory (40 CFR 435.
Subpart F) that discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas. and the
Offshore Suhcategory (40 CFR 435.
Subpart A) which discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas.
111
Respondents herein are permittees
subject to Cerieral NPDES Permit Nos.
LAG290000 and/or TXG290000 and
who:
A. Discharge produced water derived
from an existing Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Texas or Louisiana.
or will discharge produced water
derived from a new Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Texas or Louisiana.
B. Discharge produced water derived
from an existing Coastal Subcategory
well or wells located in Louisiana or
Texas to waters of the United States
outside Louisiana or Texas “coastal”
waters, or will discharge produced
water derived from a new Coastal
Subcategory well or wells located in
Louisiana or Texas to waters of the
United Slates outside Louisiana or
Texas “coastal” waters.
C. Are required by Permits No.
LAG290000 or TXG290000 to meet the
requirement of No Discharge of
produced water and am taking
affirmative steps to meet that
rpnu lremc int.
D. Have submitted an “Administrative Order
Order Notice”. Such Notices shell be
sent to:.Enforcament Branch (6W—BA).
Region 6. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. P.O. Box 50625. Dallas. TX
75270. Upon submission of such an
Administrative Order Notice, a
permittee shall be a Respondent under
this General Administrative Order. The
terms of each Administrative Order
Notice submitted shall be considered
terms of this Order and shall be
enforceable against the Respondent
submitting the Administrative Order
Notice. Each Administrative Order
Notice must include:
1. Identification of the facility by
name and its location (by lease, lease
block, field or prospect name), the name
and address of its operator, and the
name, address and telephone number of
a contact person.
2. A certification signed by a person
meeting the requirements of Part I I.
Section 0.9 (Signatory Requirements) of
Permits LAG290000 and TXG290000
stating that a Compliance Plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
with this Order. A copy of this plan
shall not be included with the
Administrative Order Notice, but shall
be made available to EPA upon request
3. A Compliance Plan shall include a
description of the measures to be taken.
along with a schedule, to cease
discharge of produced water to waters of
the United States as expeditiously as
possible.
I v
To maintain oil and gas production
and comply with the permits’
prohibition on the discharge of
produced water, a significant number of
Respondents will have to rein ject their
produced water, A lack of access to the
finite number of existing Class U
disposal wells, state UIC permit writers.
and drilling contractors may cause non-
compliance for a significant number of
Respondents. In addition, time will be
required for some Respondents to
reroute produced water collection lines
to transport the produced water to
injection wells.
V
Respondents may reasonably perform
all actions necessary to cease their
discharges of produced water no later
than January 1, 1997.
V I
For new wells as defined by this
ORDER, coverage under this ORDER
shall begin immediately after the
discharge of the associated produced
water begins.
Based on the foregoing Findings. :ti.s—
or*ra’d That Respondents:
A. Fully comply with all conditions of
NPDES Permits No. LAGZ90000 and
TXG290000 except for the prohibition
on the discharge of produced water and
except for the requirement that all
discharges of produced water he
reported within twenty-four hours.
B. Complete all activities necessary to
attain full and continuous compliance
with NPDES Permits No. LAG2900DO
and TXG290000 as soon as possible. but
in no case later then January 1. 1997.
C. Operate and maintain all existing
pollution control equipment. including
existing oil/water separation equipment.
in such a manner as to minimize the
discharge of pollutants contained in
produced water at all times until such
time as respondents cease their
discharges of produced water.
0. Submit notice to the Water
Enforcement Branch of EPA Region 8
when produced water discharges subject
to this Order have ceased.
B. Subject to NPDES Permit
LAC29 0000 comply at all times with
Part L Section C.1.b of said permit.
requiring that Respondents meet any
more stringent requirements contained
In Louisiana Water Quality Regulation.
LAC. 33.IX,7.708.
Nothing herein shall preclude
additional enforcement action.
The effective date of this ORDER shall
be March 7, 1995.
Dated: February 24. 1995.
Myron 0. Knudson,
Ditec or. Water Monagement Division (6W/.
IFR Dec. 95—5519 Filed 3—6—95: 5.45 aml
eL wo cooi
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
(PUblIC Nolke 231
Agency Forms Submitted for 0MB
Review
AGENCY: Export-Import Bank.
ACTION: In accordance with the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, Eximbank has submitted a
proposed collection of information in
the form of a survey to the Office of
Management and Budget for review .
PURPOSE: The proposed Export-Import
Bank Questionnaire of City/State
Partners to exporters and banks is to be
completed by U.S. banks and exporters
familiar with Eximbank’s programs as a
means of providing an evaluation of the
effectiveness, utility, strengths and
weaknesses of, and means to improve

-------
5390
Federal Register I Vol . 60, No, 18 / Friday, January 27, 1995 / Notices
requested that EPA designate an
ODMDS offshore Port Everglades.
Florida for the disposal of dredged
material from the Port Everglades area
when ocean disposal is the preferred
disposal alternative. An EIS is required
to provide the necessary information to
evaluate alternatives and designate the
preferred ODMDS.
Alternatives
1. No action. The no action alternative
is defined as not designating an ocean
disposal site.
2. Alternative disposal sites in the
nearshore. and shelf break regions.
Scoping
A scoping meeting is not
contemplated. Scoping will be
accomplished through contact with
affected Federal, State and local
agencies. and with anticipated
interested parties.
Estimated Date of Release
The Draft EIS will be made available
in January 1997.
Responsible Official
John H. Hankinson, Jr., Regional
Administer. Region IV.
Richard E. Sanderson.
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
(FR Doc. 95—2088 FIled 1—28—95, 8:45 sail
IUJNG cOOS 0-60-P
(FRL -6144 —6J
State Program Requirements;
Application to Administer the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program; florida
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ActioN: Public notice of application for
NPDES program approval .
SUMMARY: The State of Florida has
submitted a request to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for approval to administer the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program for regulating
discharges of pollutants into waters of
the State of Florida. The NPDES
program would be administered by the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP). FDE? has requested
a phased NPDES program encompassing
permitting for (1) Domestic discharges:
(2) industrial discharges. including
those which also have storm water
discharges: and (3) pretreatment. Storm
water discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems (MS4’s).
individual storm water-only discharges.
storm water general permits. and federal
facility dischargers are to be phased in
by the year 2000 for administration by
the State. This notice provides for
public hearing and a comment period
on Florida’s request. Under EPA
regulations, Regional Administrators
will approve or disapprove this request
after taking into consideration all
comments received.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 13. 1995. Public
heanngs have been scheduled for:
March 7, 1995, 10 a.m.—i p.m. and 7
p.m.—10 p.m., Civic Convention
Center, 9800 International Drive,
Orlando, Florida 32819, Orange
County
March 9, 1995, 10 a.m.—1 p.m. and 7
p.m.—1O p.m.. Leon County Civic
Center, 505 W. Pensacola Street.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Leon
County
Part or all of the submittal (which
comprises approximately 1500 pages)
may be copied at any FDEP office, or
EPA office in Atlanta, at a minimal cost
per page. A copy of the entire submittal
may be obtained from the FOE? office
in Tallahassee for a fee.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Dee Stewart. Environmental Engineer,
Permits Section, U.S. EPA Region IV.
345 Court!and Street, NE.. Atlanta,
Georgia. 30365, 404/347—3012. ext.
2928. or Mr. Daryll Joyner, FDEP, Suite
202, Twin Towers Office Building. 2600
Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida.
32301, 904/488—4520.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
402 of the Federal Clean Water Act (Act)
created the NPDES program under
which the Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) may issue permits for the
discharge of pollutants into waters of
the United States under conditions
required by the Act. The Act also
provides that a State may be authorized
to administer the NPDES program upon
request and showing that the State has
authority and a program sufficient to
meet requirements of the Act. The
Governor of Florida has requested
NPDES program approval and on
November 21, 1994, submitted a
complete program description
(including funding, personnel
requirements and organization, and
enforcement procedures), an
Independent Counsel’s statement,
copies of applicable State statutes and
regulations, and a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) to be executed by the
EPA. Region IV, Regional Administrator,
and the Secretary, FOE?. The EPA
Regional Administrator is required to
approve the submitted program within
qo days of submittal unless it does not
meet the requirements of section 402(b)
of the Act and EPA regulations, which
include, amnng other things, authority
to issue permits which comply with the
Act. authority to impose civil arid
criminal penalties for permit violations.
and authority to ensure that the public
is given notice and opportunity for a
hearing on each proposed NPDES
permit issuance. At the close of the
comment period (including the public
hearing), the EPA Regional
Administrator will decide to approve or
disapprove Florida’s NPDES program. In
accordance with EPA regulations, EPA
and FOE? héve agreed to extend the
review period beyond the ninety (90)
day statutory period until April 30,
1995.
The decision to approve or
disapprove Florida’s NPDES program
will be based on the requirements of
section 402 of the CWA and 40 CFR Part
123. If the Florida NPDES program is
approved, the EPA Regional
Administrator will so notify the State
Notice will be published in the Federal
Register and, as of the date of program
approval. EPA will suspend issuance of
NPDES permits in Florida. except for
federal facilities, municipal separate
storm sewer systems, storm water
general permits, and individual storm
water permits, until FOE? assumes
permitting and enforcement authori’ies
for these categories in the year 2000.
The State’s program will implement
federal law and operate in lieu of the
EPA administered program. However.
EPA will retain the right to object to
NPDES permits proposed to be issued
by the FOE?. If the EPA Regional
Administrator disapproves Florida s
NPDES program. the Regional
Administrator wilt notify the FOE? of
the reasons for disapproval and of any
revisions or modification to the program
which are necessary to obtain approval
The Florida submittal may be
reviewed during normal business hours.
Monday through Friday. exchiding
holidays, by tha public at the Florida
FOE? and EPA offices at the address
appearing earlier in this Notice and at
the following FOE? District offices
Northwest District Office, 160
Covernmental Center, Pensacola.
Florida, 32501—5794; Southwest
District, 3804 Coconut Palm Drive.
Tampa, Florida, 33619—8218; Northeast
District. 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite
200B, Jacksonville, Florida. 32256—
7577; Central District, 3319 Maguire
Blvd., Suite 232, Orlando, Florida,
32803—3767; South District. 2295
Victoria Ave.. Suite 364, Fort Mver .
Florida, 33901, and the Southeast
District. 1900 S. Congress Ave , Suite .
We t Palm Beach. Florida. 3340 1i

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 18 I Friday. January 27, 1995 / NotIces
5391
Public hearings to consider Florida’s
request to administer the NPDES permit
program have been scheduled as shown
at the beginning of this Notice. The
Heating Panel will include
representatives of EPA Region IV and
the Florida FDEP.
The following axe policies and
procedures which shall be observed at
the public hearings:
1. The Presiding Officer shall conduct
the hearing in a manner which will
allow all interested persons wishing to
make oral statements an opportunity to
do so; however; the Presiding Officer
may inform attendees of any time limits
during the opening statement of the
hearings.
2. Any person may submit written
statements or documents for the record.
3. The Presiding Officer may. in his
discretion, exclude oral testimony if
such testimony is overly repetitious of
previous testimony or is not relevant to
the decision to approve or require
revision of the submitted State program.
4. The transcript taken at the hearing.
together with copies of all submitted
statements and documents, shall
become a part of the record submitted
to the Regional Adminictrator.
5. The hearing record shall be left
open until the deadline for receipt of
comments specified at the beginning of
this Notice to allow any person time to
submit additional written statement or
to present views or evidence tending to
rebut testimony presented at the public
hearing.
Hearing statements may be oral or
written. Written copies of oral
statements are urged for accuracy of the
record and for use of the Hearing Panel
and other interested persons. Statements
should summarize any extensive written
materials. All comments received by
EPA Region IV by the deadline for
receipt of comments, or presented at the
public hearing, will be considered by
EPA before taking final action on the
Florida request for NPDES program
approval.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
this document. I hereby certify.
pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
‘OS(b), that this notice of Florida’s
application to administer the NPDES
program will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
ritities. The approval of the Florida
NPDES permit program would merely
transfer responsibilities for
administration of the NPDES permit
program from Federal to State
government.
Patrick M.Tobin.
Acting Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc. 95—1862 Filed 1—26—95, 8:45 aml
BI1.UNG coOl 8 560-60-P
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. D.C. Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 800 North
Capitol Street. N.W., 9th Floor.
Interested parties may submit comments
on each agreement to the Secretary,
Federal Maritime Commission,-
Washington. D.C. 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 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Interested persons
should consult this section before
communicating with the Commission
regarding a pending agreement.
Agreement No.: 232—011321—003.
Title: Maersk/Sea-Land Pacific
Agreement
Parties:
A.P. Moller-Maersk Line
Sea-Land Service, Inc.
Synopsis: The proposed amendment
revises Article 9.3—Duration and
Termination by reducing the notice
period required for withdrawal from the
Agreement.
Agreement No.: 203—011487.
Title: The “8900” Lines/APL
Discussion Agreement.
Parties:
“8900’. Lines Agreement
American President Lines. Ltd.
Synopsis: The proposed Agreement
permits the parties to meet, discuss their
separate tariffs, rates, service items.
rules and service contracts in the trade
from all United States ports and points
to all ports and points in Bahrain. Iran.
Iraq. Kuwait, Oman. Qatar. Saudi
Arabia. the United Arab Emirates,
Jordan and Yemen. Adherence to any
such agreement reached is voluntary.
Agreement No.: 224—200555—003.
Title: Jacksonville Port Authority/
Allen Freight Trailer Bridge, Inc.
Terminal Agreement.
Parties:
Jacksonville Port Authority
Allen Freight Trailer Bridge. Inc.
Synopsis: The proposed amendment
provides for the annual rate increase to
the Agreement.
By Order of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Dated: January 24. 1995.
Joseph C. Poliwig,
Secretary.
(FR Doc. 95—2043 Filed 1—26—95, 8.45 aml
sat i e coca 8730-Cl -u
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND
CONCILiATION SERVICE
Labor-Management Cooperation
Program; Appllcadon Solicitation
AGENCY: Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service.
ACTION: Publication of final Fiscal Year
1995 Program Guidelines/Application
Solicitation for Labor-Management
Committees.
SUMMARY: The Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service (FMCS) is
publishing the rinal Fiscal Year 1995
Program Guidelines/Application
Solicitation for the Labor-Management
Cooperation program to inform the
pubLic. The program is supported by
Federal funds authorized by the Labor.
Management Cooperation Act of 1978.
subject to annual appropriations. No
comments were received from the
public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter L Regner. 202—608—8181.
Labor-Management Cooperation
Program Application Solicitation for
Labor-Management Committees FY
1995
A. Introduction
The following is the final solicitation
for the Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 cycle of
the Labor-Management Cooperation
Program as it pertains to the support of
labor-management committees. These
guidelines represent the continuing
efforts of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to implement the
provisions of the Labor-Management
Cooperation Act of 1978 which was
initially implemented in FY81. The Act
generally authorizes FMCS to provide
assistance in the establishment and
operation of plant. area, public sector.
and industry-wide labor-management
committees which:
(A)jiave been organized jointly by
employers and labor organizations
representing employees in that plant,
area, government agency, or industry:
and
(B) are established for the purpose of
improving labor-management

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 5 I Monday, January 9. 1995 / Notices
2387
dioactively contaminated sites. Mr
ode ling transport to people, and for
estimating nsk to individuals and
populations acceptable for providing a
technical basis for writing a cleanup
standard?
(2a) Are the assumptions for the
combined residentiallagricultural land
use scenario, and the pathways model.
reasonable and suitable for assessing
risk at radioactively contaminated sites?
(2b) Are the assumptions for the
combined industrial/commercial land
use scenario, and the pathways model,
reasonable and suitable for assessing
risk at radioactively contaminated sites 7
(3) Is RESRAD version 5.01 (specific
reference to RESRAD may be omitted)
suitable for modeling radiation risk to
individuals at radioactively
contaminated sites?
To Obtain More Information on or
Participate in this SAB Meeting ’
Members of the public who wish to
make a bnef oral presentation at this
meeting should contact Dr.
Kooyoomjian no later than January 18.
1995 in order to have time reserved on
the agenda. Please contact Dr. K. Jack
Kooyoomjian. the Designated Federal
Official. Science Advisory Board (Mail
Code 1400F). US EPA, 401 M Street,
W. Washington DC 20460. by
elephone at (202) 260—6552. FAX at
(202) 260—7118, or via the INTERNET
at
Kooyoom;ian Jack@EP. MAIL EPA.COV
In order to obtain a copy of the draft
agenda, please contact Ms. Diana L.
Pozun. Secretary. Science Advisory
Board, at the above address.
Providing Oral or Written Comments at
SAD Meetings
The Science Advisory Board expects
that public statements presented at its
meetings will not be repetitive of
previously submitted oral or written
statements. In general. opportunities for
oral comment at meetings will be
usually limited to five minutes per
speaker and no more than thirty
minutes total. Wntten comments (at
least 33 copies) received in the SAD
Staff Office sufficiently prior to a
meeting date (usually one week prior to
a meeting). may be mailed to the
subcommittee prior to its meeting;
comments received too close to the
meeting date will normally be provided
to the subcommittee at its meeting.
Written comments may be provided up
until the time of the meeting.
Dated December 20. 1994
A. Robert Flaak,
Acting Staff Director Science Advisory Board
IFR Doc 05—418 Filed 1—6—95. 8.45 aml
GILUNG COOC 6560-60-$
(FRL -6133—1J
Final NPDES General Permits for
Produced Water and Produced Sand
Discharges From the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category to
Coastal Waters In Louisiana
(LAG290000) and Texas (TXG290000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 6.
ACTION: Issuance of Final NPDES
Permits.
SUMMARY: Region 6 of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
today issues final NPPES General
Permits regulating discharges of
produced water and produced sand
denved from oil and gas point source
facilities. The permits prohibit the
discharge of produced water and
produced sand derived from Coastal
Subcategory (40 CFR part 435. subpart
D) to any water subject to EPA
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Discharges to “coastal” waters of
Louisiana and Texas of produced water
and produced sand derived from most
Stripper Subcategory (40 CFR part 435,
subpart F) and all Offshore Subcategory
(40 CFR part 435, subpart A) facilities
covered by these permits are prohibited.
Under Permit TXG290000, Stripper
Subcategory facilities located east of the
98th meridian whose produced water is
derived from the Carrizo/Wilcox.
Reklaw or Bartosh formations in Texas
and whose produced water does not
exceed 3000 mg/I Total Dissolved Solids
may discharge produced water subject
to effluent limitations on oil and grease
of 25 mg/I monthly average and 35 mg /
I daily maximum. TXG290000 prohibits
the discharge of produced sand derived
from those facilities. Produced water
derived from Stripper Subcategory and
Offshore Subcategory wells which
discharge to the main deltaic passes of
the Mississippi River or to the
Atchafalaya River below Morgan City
including Wax Lake Outlet. are not
covered by Permit No. LAC200000. but
may be regulated in future NPDES
permitting actions. Permittees include
commercial disposal facilities as well as
oil and gas operators generating
produced water and sand.
Region 6 is also issuing an
administrative order requiring
permittees discharging produced water
from existing Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory wells which must
meet the No Discharge requirement for
produced water to meet that
requirement no later than January 1.
1997 unless an earlier compliance date
is required by the State
DATES: These permits will become
effective on February 8. 1995.
ADDRESSES: Notifications required by
these permits should be sent to the
Water Management Division,
Enforcement Branch (6W—EA), EPA
Region 6, p 0 Box 50625, Dallas. Texas
75202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON: Contact Ms.
Ellen Caldwell. EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 752(12;
telephone: (214) 665 7513,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
issues these general permits pursuant to
its authority under Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342. These
permits cover discharges of produced
water and produced sand derived from
Oil and Gas Point Source Category
Facilities to coastal waters of Louisiana
and Texas Discharges regulated by
these permits include those from
Coastal Subcategory (40 CFR part 435.
subpart D) facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. discharges from the Stripper
Subcategory (40 CFR part 435, subpart
F) that discharge to coastal waters of
Louisiana and Texas, and discharges
from some Offshore Subcategory (40
CFR part 435, subpart A) to coastal
waters of Louisiana and Texas, These
permits do not authorize discharges
from “new sources” as defined in 40
CFR 122.2.
Public notice of the draft permits was
published in the Federal Register on
December 22, 1992 (57 FR 60926) and
in the Houston Post and New Orleans
Times Picayune on January 9, 1993. As
then announced, the comment penod
was to close on February, 9. 1993, but
Region 6 subsequently extended it to
March 15. 1993 because of numerous
telephone and written requests for
additional time. (57 FR 6968, February
3, 1993). Region 6 considered all
commen ts it received in formulating the
final permits. The Region has prepared
a detailed Response to Comments, but is
not publishing it in this Federal
Register notice for practical reasons A
copy may be obtained from Ms.
Caldwell at the address supplied above
EPA Region 6 made a number of
changes to the permits as a result of
comments. Under Permit No.
TXG290000. facilities in the Stripper
Subcategory located east of the 98th
meridian whose produced water comes
from the Carrizo/Wilcox. Reklaw or
Bartosh formations in Texas and whose
produced water does not exceed 3000
mg/I Total Dissolved Solids are allowed
to discharge produced water subject to
aP effluent limitation of 3000 mg/I for
Total Dissol ed Solids and oil and
grease limits of 25 mg/l monthly a er ge
and 35 mg/I daily maximum. Assocn.” .t

-------
aa
Fedua Register I VoL 60, No . 5 / Monday, anuary 9, 1995 / Notices
changes to the wording of Part LA and
Part ii of the permits reflect these
produced water discharge authoriantloe
e.g.. notices of intent to be covered and
Discharge Momtcring Reports are now
required for facilities allowed to
dx haige. In respoese to comments on
potential ambiguities. clarifying
wording changes and additions are also
included in the final permits. Produced
wqter discharges derived from Stripper
Subcategory and Offshore Subcategory
wells into the main deltaic passes of the
Mtssrssappi Rivet, or to the Atrh falaya
River below Morgan City including Wax
Lake Outlet, have been excluded from
covezag under Permit No. LAG29000a
and may be the subject of future
regulatory athens.. These changes are
d:scus ced in greater detail in the written
Responso to Comments.
The Regjon is also issuing an
administrative order requiring
permittees discharging produced water
from existing Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory wells which must
meet the No Discharga requirement for
produri.d water, to comply with that
requuenient no later than January 1. -
1997 unless an earlier compliance date
is required by the State. Many
discharges in Louisiana are required to
cease so r than January 1. 1997. As
explained in the Fact Sheet for the Draft
Permits. Region 6 was not required to
publish its proposed aistrative
order nor is the final order subject to
judicial review before its enforcement.
Region 6 nevertheless solicited
comments on a draft order and
responses proved helpful in formulating
the final order.
Other Legal Requirements
A. State Certsficotion
Under &ction 401(a)(lJ of the Act.
EPA may not issue a NPDES permit
until the State in which the discharge
will occur grants or waives certification
to ensure compliance with appropriate
requirements of the Act mid State law.
The State of Louisiana, after review of
the permit. has certified that the
Lowsiana permit will comply with
applicable state water qnalfty standards
or limitations. The State of Texas has
waived certiflcatio
B. The Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESAJ,
1& U 153S. requires Federal agencies
to insure that their actions, such as
permit issuance, are unlikely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any listed endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. In informal consultation
under ESA Section 7(a)(2), the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred
with EPAs determination that issuance
of these permits is unlikely to adversely
effect any federally4isted species or
designated critical habitats.
C. The Coastal Zone Mamigem eat Act
In accordance with Section 307(c)(3)
of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management
Division of Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources has reviewed NPDES
permit LAG2900CU and found its
issuance consistent with the Louisiana
Coastal Zone Management Program.
D. The Popeiwork Act
The information collection
requirements of these general permits
have been approved by 0MB under
provisions, of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq. in prior
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program.
E. ReguFator Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires that federal agencies prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for
regulations that will have a significant
impact on a subc nt4a1 number of small
entities, The impact on small entities
was disc’ ed in some detail in the Fact
Sheet (57 FR 609431 for the current
permits.. Be us ” certain groups of wells
are now allowed by these final permits
to discharge produced water and, for the
Louisiana permit, compliance with
produced water No Discharge limits will
in many cases be required by state
regulations sooner than required by this
pernuL the impact on small entities will
be even less than anticipated for the
proposed permits.
NPDES Permits LAC290000 and
TXG2900CO are hearby issued.. In
addition, the General Administrative
Order which applies to those permits is
hereby issued and appears following
NPDES Permits LAG290000 and
TXG290000.
Signed this 22nd day of December. 1994.
Myron 0. Knudson.
Director. WaterManogement Division, EPA
Regain 6.
in compliance with the provisions of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 at seq: the
“Act”), these permits prohibit the
discharge of produced water and
produced sand derived from Oil and
Gas Point Source Category facilities to
“coestar waters of Louisiana and
Texas. as described below, in
accordance with effluent limitations and
other conditions set forth in Parts I and
II. Facilities covered by these permits
include those in the Coastal Subcategory
(40 CFR part 435. subpart U ). the
Stripper Subcategoiy(4aCFR part 435.
subpart F l that discharge Co ‘coas*al”
waters of Louisiana and Texas. and the
Offshore Subcategory (40 CFR part 435.
subpart A) which discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas.
These permits do not apply to “new
sources” as defined in 40 CFR 122 2.
These permits. except for certain
portions listed in Part I B.. shall become
effective February 8. 1995. anti expire at
midnight on February 8,2000.
Part!
Section A Generu! Permit Cocemge end
Notification Requirements
I Operations Covered
a. Facilities in the Coastal
Subcategory f40 CFR part 433. subpart
Dl located in Louisiana and Texas
Location of a Coastal Subcategory
facility is determined by the location of
the wellhead associated with that
facility.
b. Facilities in the Offshore
Subcategory (40 CFR part 435. subpart
A) and the Stripper subcategory (40 CFR
part 435. subpart F) which discharge to
“coastal’ waters of Louisiana or Texas.
Note that facilities in the Stripper
Subcaiegoty and the Offshore
Subcategory that discharge directly to a
major deltaic pass of the Mississippi
River or to the Atchafalaya River.
Including Wax Lake Outlet, below
Morgan City are not covered by Permit
No. LAG290000.
c. Facilities which dispose of
produced water or produced sand.
derived from Coastal Subcategory
facilities located in Louisiana or Texas.
d. Facilitieswhichdisposeof
produced water or produced sand
derived from. .Strippev or Offshore
Subcategory facilities by discharge to
coastal waters of Louisiana or Texas
2. Permittees Covered
Operators of facilities listed in Part
l.A. 1 of these permits.
3. 1’Iotiflcation Requirements
a. Operators of facilities whose
discharge of produced water and
produced sand is prohibited by these
permits are automatically covered: a
written notification of intent to be
covered by these permits is not
required.
b. Operators of facilities whose
produced water discharge is allowed
(See Part LB 2.a of these permits) are
required to submit a written notification
of intent to be covered by these permits.
Written not fication of intent to be
covered, including the legal nmute and
address of the operator. the lease (or

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices
2389
lease block) number assigned by the
Railroad Commission of Texas or, if
none, the name commonly assigned to
the lease area, the type of facilities
located within the lease (or lease block),
the name of the formation from which
the produced water originates and the
Total Dissolved Solids concentration of
the produce water shall be submitted:
(1) For existing discharges of
produced water, within 45 days of the
effective date of this permit.
(2) For new discharges of produced
water, within fourteen days prior to the
commencement of discharge.
C. Because these permits cover only
produced water and produced sand.
discharges of other waste waters from
Coastal Subcategory wells must apply to
be covered by NPDES Permits
LAG33 0000 or TXG330000, which cover
the discharge of waste discharges, other
than produced water and produced
sand, from Coastal Subcategory
production (and drilling) facilities.
4. Termination of Operations
Lease (or lease block) operators shall
notify the Regional Administrator
within 60 days after the permanent
termination of discharges from their
facilities. In addition, lease (or lease
block) operators shall notify the
Regional Administrator within 30 days
of any transfer of ownership.
Section 8. Application for NPDES
Individual Pem Ji
1. Any operator authorized by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this general permit by
applying for an individual permit. The
operator shall submit an application
together with the reasons supporting the
request to the Regional Administrator.
2. 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.
Section C. Genera! Permit Lzzrnts
1. Permit Conditions Applicable to
LAG290 0 0 0
a. Prohibitions
Permittees shall not discharge nor
shall they cause or allow the discharge
of produced water and produced sand.
Operators of facilities generating
pollutants regulated under this permit
shall take feasonable positive steps to
assure said pollutants are not
unlawfully discharged to waters of the
United States by third parties and shall
maintain documentation of those steps
for no less than three years
b. Other Requirements
All dischargers must comply with any
more stringent requirements contained
in Louisiana Water Quality Regulations.
LAC: 33,LX,7.708.
2. Permit Conditions pplicable to
TXG290 00 0
a. Prohibitions
Permittees shall not discharge nor
shall they cause or allow the discharge
of produced water or produced sand.
Operators of facilities generating
pollutants regulated under this permit
shall take reasonable positive steps to
assure said pollutants are not
unlawfully discharged to waters of the
United States by third parties and shall
maintain documentation of those steps
for no less than three years.
Exception to prohibition on discharge
of p oduced wateri Facilities in the
Stripper Subcategor located east of the
98th meridian whose produced water
comes from the CarrizolWjjcox. Rekiaw
or Bartosh formations in Texas and
whose produced water does not exceed
3000 mg/I Total Dissolved Solids shall
meet the following limits and
monitoring requirements:
(1) Produced water discharges must
meet both a daily maximum of 35
mg/i and a monthly average of 25
mg/l for oil and grease.
(2) Monitoring for oil and grease shall
- be performed once per month. The
sample type may be a grab, or a 24-hour
composite consisting of the arithmetic
average of the results of 4 grab samples
taken over a 24-hour period.
(3) Produced water flow monitoring
requirement: Once per month, an
estimate of the flow in MGD (million
gallons per day) must be made and
recorded.
Pail II
(Applicable to LAC290000 and
TXC29000 0)
Section A. Generai Conditions
1. Introduction
In accordance with the provisions of
40 CFR 122.41 et. seq., this permit
jpcorporates by reference ALL
conditions and requirements applicable
to NPDES permits set forth in the Clean
Water Act, as amended (hereinafter
known as the “Act”) as well as all
applicable EPA regulations.
2. Duty To Comply
The permittee 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 andlor for
requiring a permittee to apply for and
obtain an individual NPDES permit.
3. Permit Flexibility
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause, in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.62—122.64.
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
authorize any Injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, or
any infringement of Federal, State or
local laws or regulations.
5. Duty To Provide Information
The permittee shall 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
permittee shall also furnish the Regional
Administrator, upon request, copies of
records required to be kept by this
permit
6. Crii iinal and Civil Liability
Except as provided in permit
conditions on “Bypassing” and
“Upsets”, nothing in this permit shall
be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal 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
USC Section 1001.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the perinittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee may be
subject under Section 311 of the Clean
Water 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

-------
2390
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 5 Monday , Tanuary 9, 1995- / Notices
applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by Section 510 of
the Clean Water Act.
9. Severability
The pTovfsions of this permit are
severable, and if a iry provision of this
permit or the application of any
provision of this peerrift to any’
circumstarrco ’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-
I. 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 m order to
maintain compliance with the
cziethtions of this permit.
Z Duty To Mitf gate
The permittee shall take all
reasonable steps tO m,nimi7A or prevent
any discharge in viol gn. of this permit
which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the
enviromnent
3. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and m thin all
facilities and systems of treatment and.
control (and related appurlenance )
which are installed and used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with
the amditions of this permit. This
provision requires the operation, of
backup or awoliary facilities of similar
systems which are installed by a
permitter only when the operation is
n’ c eary to achieve compliance with
the c diii n of the penniL
4. Bypass ofFacilitfes
a. Definitions
(1) “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a facility.
(2) “Severe property damaga’ ’ means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities that
catnes them to be inoperable, or
substantial and peT-nzunent loss of
natural resources than can reasonably be
expected to occur in the absence of
bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
b. Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. lithe
permittee knows in advance of the need
for a bypass, it shall subma prior notice.
if poseiblo at least ten days before the
date of the hypes..
(2 ) Unanticipated bypass. The
permittee shall, within 24 how ’s, submit
notice of an unanticipated bypass as
required in Part ll.D.2.
c. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited, and the
Regional Adinimstmtor may take
enforcement action against a pernnttee
for bypass, nnless:
(a) Bypess was unavoidable to prevent
loss of hfa personal infwy or severe
property damage
(b) There were no f ihle alternatives
to the bypass. such as the use of
awol±ary treatment Iifre-s . retention
of untreated wastes, or i rntp,i anca
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not
satisfied if adequate back-up equipment
should have been installed l.a the
exercise of re,qa zu ble engineering
judgement to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
mmntenance: and
(c) The permutes submitted notices as
required by Part fl.B.4Ji
(2) The Regjnn l Mministrator may
approve an RfltiCipated bypass. after
considering its adverse effects, if the
Regional Administrator determines that
it’ will meet the conthti ns Listed at Part
rr.B.4.c41J.
& Upset Conditions
a. De nitfon
“Upset” means an exceptional
j icf ens L a which these is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology-based effluent linniations
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 ofan Upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense of an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology-based pernut effluent
limitations if the ruluirements of Part
Il.B.5.c. are met. No determination mad.
during alzniniztzative review of claims
that noncompliance was caused by’
upset. arid before an action for
noncompliance, is final administrative
action subject to judicial review.
a. Conditions necessary for a
demonstration of upset. The perrnittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate,
through properly signed.
contemporaneous iogs, or other relevant
evidence thes’
(lMn upset occurred and that the
permittee 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 !LD.2; and
(41 The perrmttee complied with Part
[ 1.8.2.
d. Burden of ProoLln any
enforcement proceeding the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of art
upset has the burden of proof.
6 Removed Substances
Solids, sledges. ifiter beckwasb. or
other poLlutants removed in the coume
of treataient or control of waste’ waters
shall bedispomdoiinamannerstich
as to prevent aiiy polhdion from such
materials born enteeng waters of the
United States.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
1. Inspe on arid Entry
The perrnistee shall allow the
Regional Administrator or an authonzed
representative, upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as. may
be required by law, to
(a Enter upon the permittee ’s
premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conchzcted. or
where records must be kept under the
conditions of this permit:
(b) Have access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept. under the conditions of this
permit;
(c) Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment).
practices, or operations regulated or
req ,uired under this permit; and
fd) Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, far the purposes of asswmg
permit compliance or as otherwise
authotized by the Clean Water Act, any
substances or parameters at any
location.
2. Representative Sampling
Samples and meannemeirts taken as
required heroin shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge,
3. Retention of Records
The penmttee shall retain records of
all monitoring information, inc luding
all calibration and maintenance records
and all original stnpthart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
and copies of all reports required by this
permit, for a period of at leest 3 years
from the date of the sampling,
measurement, or reporting. This period
may be extended by request of the
Regional Administratrir at any time

-------
2391
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 5 I Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices
iie operator shall maintain records at
development and production facilities
for 3 years. wherever practicable and at
a specific shore-based site whenever not
practicable. The operator is responsible
for maintaining records at exploratory
facilities while they are discharging
under the operator’s control and at a
specified shore-based site for the
remainder of the 3-year retention
period.
4. Record Contents
Records of monitoring information
shall include:
(a) The date, exact place. and time of
sampling or measurements.
(b) The individual(s) who performed
the sampling or measurements,
(c) The date(s) analyses were
performed.
(d) The individual(s) who performed
the analyses.
(e) The analytical techniques or
methods used, and
(f) The results of such analyses.
5. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
‘inder 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test
,cedures have been specified in this
.rniit.
6. Discharge Rate/Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement
devices consistent with accepted
practices shall be selected, maintained,
and used to ensure 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 less than
±10% from true discharge rates
throughout the range of expected
discharge volumes.
Section D. Reporting Reqwrements
1. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance
notice to the Regional Arimini trator of
any planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requiremeits.
2. Discharge Monitoring Reports
For facilities which are allowed to
:scharge and for which monitoring is
required by Part I of these permits, the
operator of each lease (or lease block)
shall be responsible for submitting
monitoring results for all facilities
within that area (I.e.. lease or lease
block). The monitoring results for the
facilities within the particular lease (or
lease block) shall be summarized on the
annual Discharge Monitoring Report for
that lease (or lease block).
Monitoring results obtained during
the previous 12 months shall be
summarized and reported on a
Discharge Monitoring Report (D )
Form (EPA No. 3320-’l). The highest
monthly average for all activity within
each lease (or lease block) shall be
reported. The highest daily maximum
sample taken during the reporting
period shall be reported as the daily
maximum concentration. (See
“Definitions” for more detailed
explanations of these terms).
If any category of waste (discharge) is
not applicable for all facilities within
the lease (or lease block) due to the type
of operation (e.g. drilling, production),
“no discharge” must be recorded for
those categories on the DMR. If all
facilities within a lease block have bad
no activity during the reporting period,
then “no activity” must be written on
the DMR. All pages of the DMR must be
signed and certified as required by Part
U.D.9 of these permits and submitted
when due.
The Permattee must complete all
empty blanks in the DMR unless there
has been absolutely no activity ozno
discharge within the lease (or lease -
block) for the entire reporting period. In
these cases, EPA Region VI will accept
a listing of leases or lease blocks with
no discharges or no activity, in lieu of
submitting actual DMR’s for these areas.
This listing must specify the permittee’s
NPDES General Permit Number, lease or
lease block description, and CPA-
assigned outfall number. The listing
must also include the certification
statement presented in Part ILD.9 of
these permits and an original signature
of the designated responsible official.
Upon receipt of a notification of
intent to be covered (see Part LA.Z of
these permits for facilities requiring
such notification), the permittee will be
notified of its specific outfall number
applicable to that lease (or lease block)
and will be informed of the discharge
monitoring report due date.
All notices and reports required under
this permit shall be sent to EPA Region
6 at the address below:
Director, Water Management Division,
USEPA. Region 6, Enforcement
Branch (6W-EAI, P.O. Box 50625,
Dallas, TX 75270
3. Additional Monitoring by the
Permittee
If the permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
by this permit. using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR Part 136 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
monitoring frequency shall also be
indicated on the DMR.
4. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for all limitations which
require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless
otherwise specified by the Regional
Administrator in the permit.
-5. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a. For facilities which are allowed to
discharge produced water by Part IB.2.a
of Permit No. TXGZ90000, the permittee
shall report any noncompliance which
may endanger health or the
environment (Including any spill that
requires oral reporting to the state
regulatory authority). Information shall
be provided orally 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 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 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 Regional
Administrator may waive the written
report on a case-by-case basis if the oral
report has been received within 24
hours.
The following shall be included as
information which must be reported
within 24 hours:
(1) Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit;
(2) Any upset which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permiL
(3) Violations of a maximum daily
discharge limitation or daily minimum
toxicity limitation for any of the
pollutants listed by the Regional
Administrator in Part III of the permit to
be reported within 24 hours.
The reports should be made to Region
6 by telephone at (214) 665—6593. The
Regional Administrator may waive the
written report on a case-by-case basis if
the oral report has been received within
24 hours.
b. For all facilities prohibited from
discharging produced water, the -
permittee shall report any
noncompliance with these permits.
bypass or upset. Any information shall
4

-------
2392
Federal_Register / Vol. 60. No. 5 / Monday. January 9, 1995 / Notices
be provided orally 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 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 has not been
corrected, the anticipated tune it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or
plans to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance. The
24 hour oral reporting and follow up
written submission requirement in Part
fl.D.5.b of these permits shall become
effective 60 days after the effective date
of these permits.
6. Other Noncompliance
For facilities which are allowed to
discharge by Part I.B.2.a of Permit No.
TXG290000. the permittee shall report
all instances of noncompliance not
reported under Part 11, Section D,
paragraphs 2 and 5 at the time
monitoring reports are submitted. The
reports shall contain the information
listed in Section D, paragraph 5.
7. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware
that ft failed to submit any relevant facts
in any report to the Regional
Administrator, It shall promptly submit
such facts or information.
8. Changes in Discharges of Toxic
Substances
The permittee 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
CFR 122.42(a)(2).
9. Signatory Requirements
All reports, or information submitted
to the Regional Administrator shall be
signed and certified as follows:
a. 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 principle business function,
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.
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. 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.
d. 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 th
(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 oil field,
superintendent, or position of
equivalent responsibility, or an
individual or position having overall
responsibility for envircnxnentai matters
for the company. A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a
Individual or an individual occupying a
named position; and
(3) the written authorization is
submitted to the Regional
Administrator.
e. Certification. Any person signing a
document 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 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 the gatheneg of 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 fir-
and unpnsonznent for knowing violations,
10. 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 claimed
confidential by the submitter. If rio
claim is made at the time of submission.
information may be made available to
the public without further notice.
Section E. Penalties for Violations of
Permit Conditions
1.Cr iniinal
a. Negligent Violations
The Act provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306,
307 or 308 of the Act is subject to a fine
of not less than $2500 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 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 per day of
violation nor more than $50,000 per d
of violation, or by imprisonment for ni.
more than 3 years, or both.
C. Knowing Endangerment
The Act provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 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
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 the Act
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required
tobo maintained under the Act, shall
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than $10,000 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

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday. January 9, 1995/Notices
2393
more than 4 years. or by both (See
Section 309(c)(4). of the Clean Water
Act).
2. Civil Penalties
The Act provides 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 $25,000 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, 318. 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 (I Penalty
Not to exceed SiD.000 per day for
each day dunug which the violations
continues nor shall the maximum
amount exceed $125,000
Section F. Defirutzons
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 follows:
1. Act means the Clean Water Act (33
U.S C. 1251 et. seq.) as amended.
2. Applicable effluent standards and
lim,tations means all state and Federal
effluent standards and limitations to
which a discharge is subject under the
Act, including, but not limited to.
effluent thnitatlons, standards of
performance. to c effluent stantlards
and prohibitions. and pretreatinent
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 pennittedto renimn in effect by the
Administrator following submission to
himiher. puisuant 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. Bypass means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
5. Coastal wtff.ersaie defined as
waters of the United States (as defined
at 40 CFR 122.2) located landward of
he territorial seas.
6. 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 limits expressed in
units of moasunsneat other than mass.
the “daily discharge” is calculated as
the average measurement of the
pollutant over the sampling day. “Daily
discharge” determination of
concentration made using a composite
sample shall be the concentration of the
composite sample. When grab samples
are used, the “daily discharge”
determination of concentration shall be
arithmetic average (weighted by flow
value) of all samples collected during
that sampling day.
7. Daily Maximum discharge
limitation means the highest allowable
“daily discharge” during the calendar
month.
8. Envixvnmentoi Protection Agency
means the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
9. Monthlyitverege lalso known as
daily average) discharge limitations
means the htghe-ct allowable average of
“daily discharge(s)” ever a calendar
month, calculated as the sum of all
“daily discharge(s)” aieasuied during a
calendar month divided by the number
of “daily discharge s) ” during that
month. When the permit establishes
monthly average concentration effluent
limitations or conditions, the monthly
average concentration means the
arithmetic average (weighted by flow) of
all “daily discbaxge(s) of concentration
determined during the miendar month.
10 National Pollutant Discharge
Elirzunatian System means the national
program for issuing. revoking and
reissuing, terminating. monitoring and
enforcing permits. and imposing and
enforcing pretreatment requirements.
under Sections 307, 318. 402 and 405 of
the Act.
ii. Produeed’sand means sand and
other particulate matter from the
producing formation and produqtion
piping (including corrosion products).
as well as source sand and hydrofrac
sand. Produced sand also includes
sludges generated by any chemical
polymer used in a produced water
treatment system.
12. Produced water means water
(bnne) brought up from the
hydrocarbon’bearing strata during the
extraction of oil and gas. and can
include formation water, tn ection
water, and any chemicals added down
hole or during the oil/water separation
process.
13. Regional Administrator means the
Administrator of the U.S.
Envuorunental Protection Agency.
Region 6.
14. 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
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.
15. ‘Territorial seas refers to “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 masking the
seaward limit of inland waters, and
extending seaward a distance of three
n les.”
16. 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 permittec.
An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error. ‘improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
mnintananco, or careless or improper
operation.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6. In Rm NPDES Permit
Nos. LAGZ90000 and TXG290000,
General Administrative Compliance
Order
The following Findings are made and
Order issued pursuant to the authority
vested in the Adirunistrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
by Section 309(a)(3) of the Clean Water
Act (hereinafter “the Act”), 33 U.S.C.
1319(a )(33. and duly delegated to the
Regional Administrator, Region 6, and
duly redelegated to the undersigned
Director, Water Management Division,
Region 6. Failure to conipl r with the
interim requirements established in this
Order constitutes a violation of this
Order and the NPDES permits.
Findings
I
The term “waters of the United
States” is defined at 4DCY.R. 122.2.
The term “coastal” Is defined in NPDES
Permits LAG29000t) and ‘TXGZYOOOO
and includes facilities which would be
considered “Onshore” but far the
decision in AP I v. EPA 661 F.2 340 (5th
Cir. 1q81). The term “existing” means
spudded prior to the effective date of
NPDES Permits LAG290000 and
TXG290 0 00.
II
Pursuant to the authority of Section
402(a)(1) of the Act. 33 U S.C. § 1342,

-------
2394
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No.5 / Monday, January 9. 1995 / Notices
Region 6 issued National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permits No. LAG290000 and
TXGz90000 with an effective dateol
February 8. 1995. These aermits
prohibit the discharge of produced
water and produced sand derived from
Oil and Gas Point Source Category
facilities to “coastal” waters of
Louisiana and Texas in accordance with
effluent limitations and other conditions
set forth in Parts I and II of these
permits. Facilities covered by these
permits include those in the Coastal
Subcategory (40 CFR 435, Subpart D).
the Stripper Subcategory (40 CFR 435.
Subpart F) that discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas. and the
Offshore Subcategory (40 CFR 435,
Subpart Al which discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas.
II !
Respondents herein are permittees
subject to General NPOES Permit Nos.
LAG290000 and/or TXC290000 and
who:
A. Discharge produced water derived
from an existing Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcaiegory well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Texas or Louisiana
on the effective date of LAC290000 or
Txcz9 0 00 0.
B. Discharge produced water derived
from an existing Coastal Subcategory
well or wells located in Louisiana or
- Texas to waters of the United States
outside Louisiana or Texas “coastal”
waters on the effective date of
LAG290000 or TXG 290000.
C. Are required by Permits No.
LAG290000 or TXG290000 to meet the
requirement of No Discharge of
produced water and are taking
affirmative steps to meet that
requirement.
D. Have submitted an “Administrative
Order Notice”. Such Notices shall be
sent to: Enforcement Branch (6W—EA).
Region 6, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, P.O. Box 50625,
Dallas TX 75270. Upon submission of
such an Administrative Order Notice, a
perrnittee shall be a Respondent under
this General Administrative Order. The
terms of each Administrative Order
Notice submitted shall be considered
terms of this Order and shall be
enforceable against the Respondent
submitting the Administrative Order
Notice. Each Administrative Order
Notice must include:
1. Identification of the facility by
name and its location (by lease, lease
block, field or prospect name), the name
and address of its operator, and the
name, address and telephone number of
a contact person.
2. A certification signed by a person
meeting the requirements of Part II.
Section D.9 (Signatory Requirements) of
Permits LAG290000 and TXG2Y0000
stating that a Compliance Plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
with this Order. A copy of this plan
shall not be included with the
Administrative Order Notice, but shall
be made available to EPA upon request.
3. A Compliance Plan shall include a
description of the measures to be taken.
along with a schedule, to cease
discharge of produced water to waters of
the United States as expeditiously as
possible.
lv
To maintain oil and gas production
and tomply with the permits’
prohibition on the discharge of
produced water, a significant number of
Respondents will have to reinlect their
produced water. A lack of access to the
finite number of existing Class II
disposal wells, state IJIC permit writers.
and drilling contractors may cause non-
compliance for a significant number of
Respondents. En addition, time will be
required for some Respondents to
reroute produced water collection lines
to transport the produced water to
inlection wells.
V
Respondents may reasonably perform
all actions necessary to cease their
discharges of produced water no later
than January 1. 1997.
Order
Based on the foregoing Findings. it is
Ordered that Respondents:
A. Fully comply with all conditions of
NPDES Permits No. LAG290000 and
TXG290000 except for the prohibition
on the discharge of produced water and
except for the requirement that all
discharges of produced water be
reported within twenty-foui hours.
B. Complete all activities necessary to
attain full and continuance compliance
with NPDES Permits No. LAG290000
and TXG290000 as soon as possible. but
in no case later than January 1, 1997.
C. Operate and mauitaui all existing
pollution control equipment, including
existing oil/water separation equipment.
in such a manner as to minimize the
discharge of pollutants contained in
produced water at all times until such
tiuie as respondents cease their
discharges of produced water.
D. Submit notice to the Water
Enforcement Branch of EPA Region 6
when produced water discharges subject
to this Order have ceased.
E. Subject to ( ‘WOES Permit
LAG290000 comply at all times with
Part 1. Section B.i.b of said permit.
reqiuring that Respondents meet any
more stringent requirements containe
in Louisiana Water Quality Regulation.
LAC: 33.IX ,7 708.
Nothing herein shall preclude
additional enforcement action.
The effective date of this Order shall
be the effective date of NPDES Permits
No LAG290000 and TXG290000.
IFR Doc. 95—416 Filed 1—6—95, S 45 aml
WWNG coca
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Approved by Office of Management
and Budget
December 30, 1994.
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 Communicationi Commission
0MB Control No.: 3060—0526.
Title: Implementation of Sections 3(n)
and 332 of the Communications Act—
Third Report and Order, Con. Docket
No. 93—252.
Expiration Date 11130197.
Estimated Annual Burden: 6923 total
annual hours; 50- 10 hours per
response.
Description: In the Third Report and
Order in Ceri. Docket No. 93—252, the
Commission adopted changes to Its
technical, operational, and licensing
rules for private mobile radio service
licensees to implement Sections 3(n)
and 332 of the Communications Act of
1934. as amended. These rules are
necessary to implement the statute and
to establish regulatory symmetry among
similar mobile services.
Federal Cominunicaiions Comm iision.
Williani F. Caton.
Acvng Secretor,’
IFR Doe. 95—373 Filed 1—6—95. 8 45 arnl
BiLul4G coOE efla-ot-
Public Information Coirection
Approved by Office of Management
and Budget
December 30. 1994
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has recei’.ed Office

-------
1994

-------
Federal Re&ister I. Vol. 59; No. 245 L.Thurs4ay , December 22 1994.1 Notices.
66033
TABLE 1.—PANEL MEMBERS—
- Continued..
‘S
Name
Affiliation
Scott Trezak..
Mostari$ ”Ptan & Associates,
945 Oaktawn Avenue,
Eln erst, IL 60125.
Jun Fanning ...
ndepenoenl consiita P0
Box 2752. Union City. PA
.
1643&
(FRL-6126-6l
Draft Arctic General NPDES Pemilt for
Oil and Gas Exploration in Waters of
the United States: General NPOES
Permit No. AKG284200 -
AGENCY: Environmental Protection . -
Agency. Region 10.
ACTiON: Extension of the Public
Comment Penod.
SUMMARY: On September 15. 1994. EPA
provided notice of the draft general
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit no.
AKG284200 for oil and gas stratigraphic
and exploration wells on the Alaskan
Outer Continental Shelf and contiguous
state waters. Development and
production wells are not authorized to
discharge by this permit. The public -
comment period schedule was .
published in the notice. At the request
of interested parties. EPA is today
providing notice that the public
comment -period has been extended.
OR1GU4AI,, PUBUC NOTICE ISSUANCE DATES
September 15. 1994.
EXTENDED PUBUC NOTICE EXPIRATION
OATE January 20. 1995.
PUBLiC COIWENTs: Interested persons
may submit written comments on the
draft general NPDES permit to the
attention of Anne Dailey at the address
below. All comments should include
the name, address, and telephone
number of the commenwr and a concise
statement of comment and the relevant
facts upon which it is based. Comments
of either support or concern which are
di cted at specific, cited permit
requirements are appreciated.
Comments must be submitted to EPA on
orbefore the extended expiration dote Of
the public notice.
AOMiNISTRATIVE RECORD: The complete
administrative record for the draft
permit is available for public review at
the EPA Region 10 office at the address
listed below Copies of the draft general
NPDES permit and fact sheet are
available upon request from thu Region
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
A.N.8. Holding Company, LTD.;
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 225.14) to
be come a bank holding 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. 1842 (c)).
The application is available for
immediate inspection at the Federal -
Reberve ‘Bank indicated, Once the-
applhmtion has been accepted for
processing, it will also be available (or
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Gouernors. Interested persons may
express their views in writing to the
Reserve Bank indicated for that
application or to the offices of the Board
of Governors. 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
summarizing the evidence that would•
be presented at a hearing.
Comments regarding this application
must be received not lacer than January
17, 1995.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
(Genie 0. Short, Vice President) 2200
North Pearl Street. Dallas, Texas 75201-
2272:
I: AAI.B. Holding Company. LTD.
Terrell. Texas: to acquire 30 percent of
the voting shares of The : NB
Corporation, Terrell. Texas: The ANB
Delaware CorporatiorL Terrell. Te’cas:
The c mpan ’y listed in this notice has
filed an application under §225 23(a)(lJ
of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR
225.23(a)(i)) 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 commenie or to
engage de novo. either directly or
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking
activity that is listed in § 225.25 of
Regulation Y as closely related to
banking and permissible for bank
holding companies. Unless other ise
noted, such activities will be conducted
throughout the United States.
,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
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.
conflicts 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
not sufFice in lieu of a hearing.
identifying specifically any questions of
fact that are in dispute. summarizing the
.evidence that would be presented at a
hearing, and indicating how the party
commenting would be aggrieved liv
approval of the proposal.
Comments regarding the.application
- must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
Governors not later than January 5.
1995.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
,Gty (fohn E. Yorke. Senior Vice
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Ka .i as
City, Missouri 641913
IFR Doc, 94—30873 Flied 12—21-94.6.45 aml
U O CO M $ -
10 Public Information Center at 1—800-- and The American National Bank of-
424—4EPA (4372). - Terrell, Terrell Texas,
ADORESSES: Public comments should be - Board of Governors of the Federal Resert’e
sent to: Anne Dailey, Envirohmental System. December16, 1994.’ -
Protection Agency Region 10, ‘
Wastewater Management and Depu S a of the Board .- - - -
Enforcement ranth (WD437), 1200 IFR Doc. 94—31453 Filed 12—21—94,845 aml
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington,
98101. - ‘ ‘ -
FOR FURThER iNEORMAT)ON CONTACT
Anne Dailey, of EPA Region 10, at the ‘First Commerce Bancshares, Inc.;
address listed above or telephone (206) Notice of Application to Engage de
553—2110. - - novo In PermIssible Nonbanking
- . Activities
- .. Doted. December 13. 1994.
Sylvia Kewabata,
Acting Director. Water Division -
IFR Doc. 94—31461 Filed 12—21—94, 3 45 aml

-------
Fe(leral Rsgicf”r 1 Mol. 99. No. 245 1 Fciday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
65 41
conformity of the pmpnida ion with
equixeinenio.of TN 1ttVUfOOfer 12 8.
ER? No. D-UN- D11U23-MI3Ratrng
EC2. Naval ilr Wadai,Cm,* w At, mth
DioLBalignlI Inhtand
Construction. . Patwcant Ri ..SL
Marys.Calvert and ( a tntm$i a
MD.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmenl con a.iogardmg water
conservation and raqizestodihat
wetlands and lcmst hehltnt beinore
clearLy idefined in the final EIS.
Final EISs
ER? No. F-BLM-a5044-FL Florida
Land and Resoinre Manegm’n mt Plan
plit-F ntA Federal
Mineral Ownarsbzp.(FMO). several
counties. FL.
Sumniary EPA expmssad
environmental concerns cvarihabitat
toss from the proposed alternative and
suggests the Withlacocithee Slate Forest
prohibit h hmestonas )n The
final ELS was responsivetomber
concerns EPA . e qii a8d in the draft
EIS.
ER? No. F—CGD-D50005-VA Parallel
Croming of thea enapoake Bay.
Construction andOperstion. US 13
betw n iheiDulmzewa P ula and
rnutheastern Virginia. Funding , COE
Section lOand 404 Pviauits and( D
Bridge Permit. Virginia n i ’rh
Northampton Coirety. VA.
Suvnn Rry EPA enotimredta express
envimantel obj ±on to the preferred
alternative and felt theCeast Guard did
not adequately consider the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement with respect
to induced growth.
ERP No. F-F}LW-J40129-WY US 14/
18/20 Highway lmprnvenrnnts . Cody to
Yellowstone NationafPark ffighway.
Funding.and COE Section 404 Permit.
Shoshone National ForesLPar County.
WY.
Summaiy EPA had no objections to
the project as proposed. rlier concerns
regarding water quality weze.addressed
in the Final LIS.
ER? No. F-TVA-E65041-0O Land
Between The Lakes4LBU Natural
Resoince .Management Plan.
Implementation. KY and TN.
Summary: EPA had environmental
concerns regazding timhenng and
encouraged reductions in these impacts
EPA felt that the preferred altexnatu.e
Lncreased resource preservation.
ER? No. F—LYMT—J40119—UT 1—15/
State Street Corridor highway and
Transit Improvements. Ftmding. Sell
.ake County. LIT.
Sumznaiy: EPA had no objections to
‘ m project as proposed. Earlier
.‘vti r mental concerns regarding
wetlnndc and mrqualilyetanderds were
adequately addressed re ihe final tiS.
Dated. December13. l994.
William 0. Dickereon.
Director. Fed erol A enC’/LiQ:SOn Thvssion.
OrnceofFede’ l cUvft,es.
(FR Dec. 94—30993 Filed t2- .1.5-94.B 45 aml
6 5 50 .40-U
(ER -FRL-4718 3J
Environmental impact Statww iiLs ;
Notice of Avallablflty
Responsible Agency: ( ?Iffir ofFederal
Activities. G mprel Infor mation 2 Z)
260—5076 OR (202) 280—3.075.
Weekly aecazpt niEnvironmantal
Impact Statements Piled i3ecem 05..
1.994 Through Desem 1)9. 1994
Pursuant to4D R15D&9.
EIS No. 940499. FINAL E1S. 3(3P . .
Houston Metropolitan Dotentian
Center. Site Selection. Consti’imctwn
nnd Operation. City efaousion,
Harris County. TX. DUe- January 15.
1995. Contact: ?a icia (2024 5 4—
6470.
.EIS No. 940500. DRTS PP.LDI6ENT.
AFS. AK. Shamrock TimberSafes.
Timber Harvesting and iRoad
Construction, Updated Infonnation.
Stikine Ares. Kupreaziaf Island.
Tongasa National Forest.
buplemnentation. X. Dum January 30.
1995 ..Contact Jim Thompson (a67)
72-3R7l.
EIS No. 940501.. DRAFT LIS. S. 151.
Stibntie Co [ d Mine Expansion Project.
Construction and Operation.. Plan of
Operation Approval. NPDES Permit
and COE Section 404 Permit, IPayeUa
National Forest. Kzassel .1 nger
District, Valley(nnnty. ID. Due:
February 14. 1995. Contact: Jane
Wuzater (2118)634-0614.
EIS No. 940302. DRAFT . AES. UT.
Upper Proa’o River Reservoirs
Stabilization Project. ImplamAnfatiun.
Wasatthiha.Natinn .al Forest.
)CAm Ranger j t Suvnmii
County. UT. 51ue January 31. 1995..
Contact Melissa BlackweU (8011 783-
4338.
CIS No. 940303. DRAFT EIS.CDE. CA.
Humboldt Harbor and Bay
‘(Deepening) Channels. Feasththty
Study for Navigation impros’ements.
Humboldt County. CA. Due: January
30. 1995. Contact: T.amara Terry (4351
744—3341.
EIS No. 940504. FINAL EIS. IJSN. NC
Camp Lejeune Mannecorpsflase.
Disposal of Non-Hazardous Solid
Waste Project. Implementation. COE
Section 404 and NPDES Permits.
Onslciw County. NC. Due: January 16
1995, Contact: J n’Omans (7.03469&—
.0866.
EISNo. 940 o5.aRAFrEIS. GSA. MD.
Food and D rug.Ad in inistration
Ceneo1idation Site Selection.
Montgonez!CnL ntlCampus.
Montgomery and Prince Goorge s
Counties. MD. Due: February 12.
1995. Confect: ag Bhargava’( 202)
708-.5.7.04.
Amended Notices
EIS No. 940 54. DRAFT ETS. COE. MO.
ND. SD.N8.IA.1(S.Missotni River
Master Wnter Plan Operation.
Multipurpose Project. SD. NB. Lii.
MO.’Due: March 01.. 1.995. Contact:
Lawrence Ciaslik (4021 221—7360.
Published P’R—09—30—99—-Revrew
period extended.
EIS No. 940414. DRAFT SIJPPLEMENT.
FAA. J. Expanded EastCoazt Plan.
ianges in Ain uft Flight Patterns
over the sate of New jersey, Updated
Information. hnplementation. NJ. Due:
Vebruary09. 1995. Contact: William
Marx ‘(202) 267—7900 Published FR—
T0—07-94—Review Period Reope icd
Damed: December 13.. 1.994
William D..Dlckarwe.
Director. FedemMgeng’Lwiaan D iii’n
Office of Federal Aciiwties.
IFR Doe 94—30992 Filed 12—15—94 Ii 45 dn)I
eLuas cO 65
FRL-423- -.P4PDES.NP. FLG830000 )
Reisseance of the National Pc Iu ant
0ls arge Elimination System
( NPDES ) Goneral Permit For
D aLedrmg and Peti’olewn .Puel
Contaminated Groued/Starnv Waters in
the State of Florida
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency
ACTION: Noticecof Final Rule—
Reissizance.of.a PWDES General Permit
to the State Fiarida
SUMM Y: The Regional Administrator.
EPA. Region IV is rei -eithrg the final
National Pdllutant Discharge
Eli imitin System (NPDES) General
Permit No. FILG830000 to facilities
within the paliticel boundaryaf the
State of .Flonda. This final reissued
NPUES general permit contains effluent
limitations, prohibitions. reporting
requiroments.and other .conditions im
facilities which discharge
uncontaminated groundwater associated
with dewatering or treated groundwater
arzdlor storm water incidental to the
groundwater dnamip operation whiLli
have been contatnin ted by automotive
gasoline, aviation andlor diesel f .zela.
This permit authorizes 4mstharges from

-------
65042
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
facilities currently located in and
discharging to surface waters within the
political boundary of the State of
Florida, and any new treatment facilities
placed In operation during the term of
this permit. Reissuance of this final
NPDES will allow general dewatering
end cleanup actions at petroleum
contaminated sites to begin without the
delays of individual NPDES permit
issuance procedures.
For facilities seeking coverage for
general dewatering discharges. coverage
under the general permit is automatic.
upon the permittee’s receipt of
acceptable groundwater screening
values, as described in Part I.A.3(c) of
the general permit. The effluent from
these general dewatering activities shall
be monitored within thirty (30) days
after commencement of the discharge
and once every six months for the life
of the project to maintain coverage
under the general permit. Additionally.
short-term pump tests, eight (8) hours in
duration or less, shall be automatically
covered upon receipt of the permittee’s
Notice of Intent (NOl) by EPA and the
permittee will be responsible for
meeting the requirements of Parts l.A.1
or A.2. DMRs shall be submitted within
thirty (30) days after completion of the
pump test discharge.
Except for facilities meeting the above
conditions, all other facilities seeking
coverage under the general permit by
NO1 requests will be responded to by
wntten notification of coverage by
certified mail from the DIrector. Water
Management Division. U.S. EPA Region
IV. This method of notification will be
applicable to both new dlschargers
applying for coverage for the first time
and eidstlng dlschaigers which are
seeking coverage under the reissued
general permit. Facilities which are
currently discharging under the
previous NPDES general permit are
required to submit another NO!
requesting coverage under the reissued
general permit by February 14, 1995, in
accordance with Part I I. Section F(b).
DATES: This general permit is effective
on December 7, 1994. at 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Savings Tune.
Dates for coverage: (1) Dewaterthg
Activity discharges are authorized upon
the perrnittee’s receipt of acceptable
groundwater screening values listed in
Fart LA.3. (2) Short-Term Pump Test
discharges, eight (8) hours in duration
or less, are authorized upon receipt of
a complete NOl, as described in Part II.
Section F(f). (3) Petroleum
Contaminated discharges. are only
authorized after written notification of
crrverage by certified mail from the
Director, Water Management Division,
U.S. EPA Region IV is received.
This action constitutes the
Environmental Protection Agency’s final
permit decision, in accordance with
TItle 40, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 124.72.
The administrative record, including
draft NPDES general permit, fact sheet.
state certification, comments received,
and additional information are available
by writing the EPA, Region [ V. or for
review and copying at 345 Courtland
St., N.E., Atlanta, Georgja 30365.
between the hours of 8:15 A.M. and 4.30
P M.. Monday through Friday. Copies
wtll be provided at a nominal charge per
page. Additional information
concerning the permit may be obtained
at the address and during the hours
noted above from Ms. Lena Scott. Public
Notice Coordinator, 404/347—3004.
A00RESS : Notifications required
under this general permit should be sent
to: Director. Water Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region IV. 345 Courtland
Street. N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Request for Coverage: Written
notification of intent to be covered by
the general permit (if required) shall be
provided as described in the permit Part
I I Section F.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT:
Larry Cole, Environmental Engineer,
Water Permits and Enforcement Branch,
Water Management Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 345
Co irtland Street. N.E.. htlanta, Georgia
30365, (404) 347—3012 ext. 2948.
SUPPtEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. IntroductIon
On Thursday, August 25, 1988 (53 FR
32442). EPA. Region IV proposed the
Issuance of the draft NPDES General
Permit. During the 30-day comment
period, a request for an extension of the
comment period was received, and art
Tuesday, October 23, 198.8 (53 FR
43035), the comment period was
extended to November 15, 1988. On
Monday, July 17, 1989 (54 FR 29986).
EPA. Region IV issued the Final NPDES
General Permit for Petroleum Fuel
Contaminated Ground/Storm Waters In
the State of Florida.
On Friday. February 22, 1991 (56 FR
7379). EPA. Region IV published a
notice ole proposed modification to the
NPDES General Permit for Petroleum
Fuel Contaminated Ground/Storm
Waters in the State of Florida (56 FR
7379) to include dewatering activities.
On Thursday, August 29. 1991 (56 FR
42736). the final modification was
issued. The general permit expired on
July 16, 1994. On Monday. September
19, 1994. EPA Region IV published a
notice concerning the reissuance of the
general permit (59 FR 47862) that is
being Issued in final form today.
The Region received comments from
eight (81 commentors. All the public
comments received during the 30-day
comment 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.
For reference. Region IV published a
detailed fact sheet with the proposed
draft permit in 59 FR 47862. The Region
is incorporating by reference that fact
sheet as part of the final fact sheet for
today’s final permit. The discussions
presented in the previous fact sheet
should be consulted in reviewing the
applicability and scope of the final
permit conditions.
A formal hearing is available to
challenge any NPDES permit issued
under 40 CFR 124.14 except for a
general permit. Persons affected by a
general permit may not challenge the
conditions of a general permit as a right
in further agency proceedings. They
- may instead either challenge the general
permit in court, or apply for an
individual permit under 40 G ’R :22.21
as authorized at 40 ‘R 122.28 and then
request a formal hearing on the issuance
or denial of an individual permit.
Additional Information regarding these
procedures Is available by contacting
Ms. Gwen Eason. Office of Regional
Counsel, at the address above or at (404)
347—2309.
U. Other Legal Requirements
A. £recutive Order 12292
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.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on 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 an4 Budget in
submissions made for the I4PDES permit
program under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act.
C. State Certification Requaremenls
Section 301(b)(lUc) of the Act
requires that NPDES permits contain
conditions which ensure compliance
with applicable State water quality
standards or limitations. Section 401 of

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 241 I Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
65043
the Act requires that States certify that
Federally issued permits axe in
compliance with State law. This permit
is for ope auons discharging to waters
within the State of Florida. Pursuant to
40 CFR 124.53. EPA requested
certification of the permit on September
15. 1994. on October 27, 1994. the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection waived certification of the
general permit
D. Effective Date
The final NPDES general permit
issued today. December 6th, 1994. is
effective on December 7, 1994.
E. Reguiator) ’ flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
this document, I hereby certify,
pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.SC
§ 605(b), that this NPDES general 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.
Patrtck M. Tobin,
epu Reg1onaJAdmm, ,
Summary of Conunents
Appendix A—Public Comments
Public notice of the draft permit
reissuance was published at-59 FR
47862 (September 19, 1994).
Additionally, the permit was publicly
noticed in five (5) major cities in the
State of Florida on September 18. 1994,
(Public Notice Number 94FL0167), to
allow comments from Interested partiss
which would be considered in the
formulation of a final decision regarding
reissuance of the proposed draft NPDES
General Permit No. FLG830000.
The following parties responded with
written comments on reissuance of the
proposed NPDES general permit:
Florida Department of Env ironmentnj
Protection (FDEP), Chevron Research &
.rethnology Company, Morgan Lewis a
Bockius, Mobil Oil Corporation, Ei on
Company. Walt Disney World Company,
Florida CEetnical Industry Council and
the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Comment 1: The Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
Bureau of Waste Cleanup, submitted
comments by letter dated October 3,
1994, which commented on Part !.A.3 of
the general permit. The FDEP wanted
clarification concerning the intent of
D LA.3. FOEP stated that the
itement on Page two (2) of the
.. troduction states that” Except for
facilities meeting the conditions of Part
£.3 written notice of intent to be
covered by the reissued NPDES general
permit shall be provided to the Permit
Issuing Authority prior to Initiation of
discharge to waters of the United
Slates,” implies that this includes
subparts of Part L3., including L3.(a),
(b), and (c). FDEP stated that this
Implies that for discharges that are
either UflCofltsnilniited or are
contaminated with petroleum only and
are treated, notification to EPA Is not
required. It was stated that this is not
consistent with the phrase under 1.3(a)
which states “upon receipt of written
EPA notification of coverage that the
Notice of intent (NO!) request is
complete, these short-term discharges
may commence.” The State mentioned
that this implies that not only must
prior notification be given by EPA for
the short-term discharges from sites
contAminpted by petroleum only, but
that the person responsible for the
discharge must wait for a reply from
EPA, and this inconsistency should be
reconciled.
Response: EPA agrees that the
referenced statement on page 2 of the
introduction is incorrect. It has been
corrected to read. “except for facilities
meeting the conditions of Part LA.3(c),
written NO! to be covered by the
reissued permit shall be provided to the
Permit Issuing Authority.”
Comment 2: FDEP stated that It is not
reasonable to waft for a response from
EPA in order to Initiate a short-term
discharge for the following reasons: (1)
Chapter 62—770, requires that a
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) be
submitted to the FDEP withIn 2 months
of approval of a Contamiantion
Assessment Report (CAR), and that it is
routine to require pump tests to design
Information for the RAP, plus identify
aquifer characteristics, FDEP stat ii that
it is not reasonable to delay the RAP by
requiring prior approval from EPA of
these simple 8 hour pump tests. (2) Due
to varying hydrogeologlcaj conditions In
Florida, local departments commonly
perform dawatering activities in their
tight-of-way of previous retail service
stations, plus have no information
before commencing these activities on
the eidstence of petroleum
contamination. FDEP stated that these
construction projects should not be
delayed for an extended period to wait
on response from EPA, since mobile
treatment units can be deployed and
designed to meet EPA’s discharge
limitations in the NPDES general
permit. (3) During dewatering for
construction and replacement of
underground storage tanks. FDEP
mentioned that it was not reasonable for
the tank installation to be delayed for an
extended period of time; especially
since discharges from these operations
only last for a few hours at a time and
mobile equipment used is very reliable
in achieving EPA’s discharge standards.
Response; EPA concurs with FDEP
reason No.1 above which allows short-
term 8 hour pump tests at sites which
have identified petroleum
contam nsltion, to be covered upon
receipt of the NO! by the Permit Issuing
Authority. Only short-term pump tests,
B hours In duration or less, designed to
obtain Information on aquifer
characteristics, will be automatically
covered upon receipt of the permittee’s
NO!, and the permitteo will be
responsible or meeting the discharge
limitations of Part A.1 or A.2. General
Permit numbers will be assigned to
these sites and DMR’s sent with a copy
of the general permit and a letter
acknowledging receipt of the Notice of
Intent.
EPA responds to reasons #2 and #3
as proposed by the FDEP, which would
allow coverage by simply submitting an
NO! for local departments dewatering
projects or scheduled dewatering during
gasoline tank replacements, it is EPA’s
understanding that the construction
activities desalbed In No.2 and No.3
are planned well In advance of the
Initiation of the dewatering process. For
this reason. EPA sees no reason to
exempt these sites from NOl
requirements, Unless preliminary
groundwater assessments have been
performed along the right-of-way project
prior to startup, even the local
departments may be unaware of an
contaminAted plume that may be
encountered during the road widening,
or excavation projects. The potential
problem EPA expects in waiving NO!
requirements for these activities, is the
lack of sufficient data to cover these
operations. The better approach would
be for the permfttee to survey potential
problem areas well in advance of the
dewatering startup, identify the type of
contaminAtion and seek discharge
coverage under the NPDES general
permit using the NO! process, for those
potentially contnminiited groundwater
discharge areas.
Comment 3: FOEP also questioned
whether the indicator criteria values
listed under Part !.A.3, should be
analyzed using untreated groundwater
or treated groundwater. FDEP also.. . $
stated that if the intent of Part 1.A.3 is
to allow short term discharges from sites
contaminated with petroleum only, then
the Indicators should be applied to
treated recovered groundwater, because
if these indicators were applied to
untreated groundwater, this would
preclude discharges from sites
contaminated with petroleum only
However. FDEP stated that applying

-------
65044
Federal Regfster I Vol. 59 , No. 241 A Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
these indicator values to the treated
effluent may allow tzea t
akerneth,eg that me capable of removing
the metals listed and become eligible to
d1sdiw under the 5wi l permit,
since the indicator values ware not
exceeded (even if the of
contamination wee not petroleum In
nature).
Response: EPA notes that the
indicator values apply to untreated
representative geoundwster sein pies
from the vicinity of the proposed
produced groundwater disdiasge. These
could be tests from monitoring wells.
recovery wells, or samples of produced
groundwater taken prior to any
treauneni and would not allow
treatment alternatives capable of
removing metals to be covered by this
general permit. It should be emphasized
that the intent of Part LA.3 is to allow
the discharge of produced groundwater
from an uncontaminated site activity. If
the site Is contaminated with petroleum
fuels, the permit refers back to Parts
or LA.2.
Comment 4: FDEP requested EPA’s
determination on a particular issue
before the finalization of the general
permit. FDEP stated that many
petroleum sites me located in urban
areas, and other possible sowces of
contamrnatlon may be located In the
vicinity of the petroleum site. In these
situations commingling of plumes from
non-petroleum sites may ocoar. ft was
noted that many sites p rfo 1 ing
Contamination Assesmaent R ’pvit
(CARs) had detected low levels e(TCI
or PCI for many sites which had a dry
cleaner in the vicinity. FDEP stated that
since these solvents had similar
characterletica and were volatile, most
treatment system desiges based on
permit effluent requirements for the
petroleum compounds will easily
remove the or T to non-
• detectable levels without my ovemising
• of equipment or additional treatment
processes. FDEP stated that other
compounds in relatively low
concentrations from oU site sernees
should not preclude eligibility of the
generai permit for the overall cleanup,
which is to remedlate the petroleum
plume and requested EPAs
determination on the-issue.
Response: EPA in it’s initial
conception of the general permit, only
made specific reference to
contamination from petroleum fuels arid
referenced gasoline, aviation gas. diesel
and jet.fuel. The intent in issuing this
general permit was to provide general
permit coverage for the discharge of
treated petroleum contaminated
groundwater. To cover other sources of
contamination will require additional
research and public participation.
Because the general permit expired on
July 16. 1994. EP mes an urgency to
reissue this permit; therefore, EPA may
consider this issue in the fixture through
a permit modification. EPA. after
collecting sufficient information. may
consider the mdusfon of other
chemicals associated with thy deaners
in the near future. but due to the lack
of sufficient information, will not
add ss it at this time.
Comment 5: Chevron Research and
Technology Company, by letter dated
October 4, 1994, requested a copy of the
NPDES Best Management Practice
(BMPJ Guidance Document.
Response: EPA sent the NPDF.S SM?
Cwdance document to Chevron on
October 13. 1994.
Comment 6: Morgan, Lewis& Bockius
(ML&B), Counselors at Law, by letter
dated October IS, 1994, made two
comments concerning the permit. ML&S
mentioned that all references to Florida
Administrative Code Chapter 17—770,
17—302, or any other “17-” should be
changed to Chapter “62—770, or 62. 302,
and mentioned that Chapter 82- is
where the current law is found. ML&8
also mentioned that the Fact Sheet
should contain seine discussion of
discharge to surface waters ”, the
triggering event. ML&B also mentioned
thai the perniittee should know where
to go In order look up the definition of
“surface Waters” or discharges to
surfece waters. Mentioned that these
issues and basic guidance thereon may
ensure that all facilities obligated under
the general pemnnt actually apply for
coverage and discussion of this
significant jurisdictional Issue In the
Fact Sheet or permit itself seems
appropriate.
Response: EPA refers the coinmentor
to the Clean Water Act (CWA) which
requires that point source discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States
becovexud by NPDES pennfts.The
definition of “point sowos” and “waters
of the US.” can be found at 40 CFR
Section 122.2. AdditIonally, afi
references that refer to Flonda
Adnimistratlve Code Chapter “ID’ will
be changed to Florida Administrative
Code Chapter ‘62.”
Comment 7: Mobil Oil Corporation
IMOC), by letter dated October 17. 1994.
supported the reissuance of the general
permit. since it is more efficient and
cost effective approach to permitting
routine activity than the individual
permitting process. MOC raised several
concerns on the draft NPDES general
permit concerning the new
requirements of the whole effluent
toxicity IWET) tests. MOC stated that
the need for tVET testing has not bean
established. it was stated that the Fact
Sheet cited that the chemical oritarla
was significantly more stringent than
Florida’s water quality standards and
MOC stated that meeting the diesnical
criteria, coupled with the required
treatment pro .- should be more
than adequate to protect aquatic life
Response’ In response to MOC
comment, EPA notes that the chemical
specific discharge limitations
mentioned do provide adequate
protection to meet Florida’s chemical
specific water quality standards.
However, since previous toxicity
monitonng tests did indicate that a
number of effluents were toxic, which is
also a violation of Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) Section 17—
4.244(31(a). WET limits were
incorporated into the permit.
Comment 8: MDC stated that if WET
testing is required, the pro dw’e
outlined in Part V should be modified
MOC stated that if the compliance limit
for WET testing is an LC5O> 100%, the
requirement for a full concentration teal
is not warranted and only a sci’venrng
test (control and 100% final effluent
only) should be run to demonstrate
compliance.
Response: Regarding Mobil’s
comment on the use of multiple
dilutions, per the EPA acute WET
protocol manual (E’A/600/4- 90/OZ7F)
cited in the September 19.1994 Federal
Register notice, such dilutions are
recommended to assess NPDES
compliance for all WE’! rests (pg. 47—
48) They provide more information
about the dose-response of the test,
increase the statistical power of the test,
and decrease the inherent variability
found in conducting a single test
concentration with a control.
Comment 9: MOC stated that there
was no advantage to static-renewal
versus the static procedure for these
discharges and recommended the static
procedure for these WET tests.
Response: Regarding Mobil’s
comment that static tests only be
conducted, the EPA acute WET protocol
manual (EPA/600/4-9o/027F3 cited in
the Federal Register notice above
mandates the use of static renewal tests
for all tests exceeding 48 hr (pg. 57. 61.
65, 69). Because the acute WET tests
specified in this notice are 98-bra. In
duration, static renewals tests must be
conducted.
Comment 10: MOC also
recommended that the mandatory
requirement that recommended
concurrent standard reference toxicani
(SRT) testing be removed, since this
provides limited information on the
quality of the testing laboratory MOC
mentioned that requiring facilities to

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 1994 I Notices
65045
ay for these studies, when they receive
no benefit is inappropriate.
Response Regarding Mobil’s
comment on the required concurrent
standard reference toxicant (SRT)
testing with each WET test, the
September 19.1994 Federal Register
notice does allow for monthly SRT
results to be submitted in lieu of such
concurrent tests. Regarding Mobil’s
comment on requiring contract
laboratories to conduct such SET
testing. EPA does not currently have a
national laboratory certification program
for WET EPA does acknowledge that
some states do have such a certification
program Until a national certification
program as established. EPA must have
some means to assess the quality of a
gwen laboratory’s performance. The use
of SRTs is one way of making that
assessment EPA notes that permittees
have the option of using in-house
capabilities to conduct such WET tests.
However, when permittees rely on
outside laboratories to conduct WET
tests for NPDES compliance purposes.
the use of SRts is required. EPA
disagrees with Mobil’s comment that
such SRT tests have no benefit for the
perinittee On the contrary, such SET
testing serves to validate the quality and
precision of the WET tests conducted by
the contract laboratory on behalf of the
neranittee that are submitted to the
permitting authority
Comment 11 MOC mentioned that
facilities covered by the existing, but
expired general permit may be required
to perform another testing requirement,
such a EPA 624 and 625 although this
sampling was performed for the existing
general permit.
Response EPA does not agree that
facilities already discharging under the
general permit be excluded from
performing an additional test analysis
on the effluent using EPA methods 624
or 625 priority pollutant scan. This
requirement conforms with the
reapplication data necessary for
individual permits in which a permiuee
is required to retest the effluent to
obtain accurate information which
determine possible changes in effluent
..haracteristics. This priority pollutant
scan shall be performed within 60 days
of startup of the produced water
discharge. or within 60 days after
receipt of notification of coverage from
EPA for facilities currently discharging
.inder the previous general permit.
Comment 12: E,ocon Company (EC).
oy letter dated October 20, 1994, stated
that some risk-based analysis is an
important element in establishing water
quality criteria for certain processes.
and that the proposed 1.0 ugh benzene
effluent limit appears to be absent of
any risk-based approach. EC stated that
scientific data does not warrant the
restrictive 1.0 ugh benzene effluent
limit for release into surlhce water and
is even more stringent than that
required under Florida Administrative
Code (FAC) 17—302.530 for Class I
potable water supplies and
recommended that the national limit of
5.0 ug/l be substituted as the benzene
effluent limit.
Response: EPA concurs that the 1.0
ugh limit for benzene is more stringent
than Flonda’s water quality standards.
The limitation for benzene is based on
the best treatment technology available
and happens to be more stringent than
FAC l7—302.53o(9) [ 4125/94J, Class I
potable water supplies which is 1.18 ugh
1. The 1.0 ugh Limitation is also more
stringent than Florida Class UI water
quality standard, which requires an
annual average limitation of 71.28 ug/l
for benzene. Therefore, since technology
has proven capable of consistently
maintaining the 1.0 ug/l limitation for
benzene and numerous permittees have
consistently designed treatment systems
that meet the requirements of the
NPDES general permit, EPA will retain
the benzane limit. In addition,
maintaining the 1.0 ug/l beazene limit
complies with Section 402(o)(1) of the
Water Quality Act of 1987, which states
that a permit may not be renewed.
reissued, or modified to contain effluent
Limitations which are less stringent than
the comparable effluent limitations in
the previous permit except in
compliance with Section 303 (d)(4).
Comment 13: Eiocon Company (Ed
mentioned that the acceptable pH for
treated effluent under the previous and
proposed NPDES general permit is 6.0-’
8.5 standard units (SUs), and mentioned
that many lakes and streams in Central
and North Florida have a pH range of
5.0-6.0 SUL EC stated that many
Influent pH samples for remedial pump
and treat systems are also in this range
and recommended reducing the allowed
lower limit from 6.0 to 5.5 SUs.
Response: In response to EC comments,
the pH language in the current proposed
draft permit does allow some variation
for pH depending on natural
background of the receiving water.
However, this natural background data
must be furnished to EPA by the
permittee in the initial NOl request; in
order to be considered in determining
the pH range for the facility during the
notification of coverage request. It
should be noted that the pH of the
receiving stream, not the uifluent or
effluent, influences the pH permit
limits.
Comment 14: E,ocon Company (EC)
commented on Part I.A.3 concerning the
screen for metals that would indicate
contamination from sources other than
petroleum fuels. EC mentioned that it as
unwarranted to require screening for
additional metals that are not ordinarily
considered constituents of petroleum
fuels as a basis for securing a NPDES
general permit for petroleum fuel
contamination. EC mentioned that if
there is a cause for this additional.
screening at a particular sate, the
regulatory processes in place will
generate the additional site investigation
and testing needed, instead of testing
every Site whether )ustified or not and
recommended that the screening for
other metals be removed as a
requirement from the NPDES general
permit. EC mentioned that if additional
metal testing is required, annual testing
is much more appropriate than semi-
annual, especially for groundwater
remedial systems at underground
storage tank cleanup sites.
Response: In response to Eiccon
Company (EC) comments, EPA clarifies
the misconception that contaminated
petroleum fuel sites must perform the
Part LA.3 testing requirements for
metals; these discharges must comply
only with the requirements of Part l.A 1
or LA.2. EPA refers to the general
applicability of Part I.A.3, that allows
produced water discharges from any
noncontamjnatecj site, which could
include dewatering for tank removals.
construction activity, or aquifer pump
tests from water wells. Any point source
discharge of pollutants to waters of the
U.S. requires an NPDES permit.
regardless of whether the sate as
contaminated or uncontaminated. EPA.
in its approach to covering dewatering
of produced ground*ater associated
with any activity, placed the burden for
verification on the perxniuee for
determining that the site groundwater
has not been contaminated with sources
other than petroleum fuels. Requiring
all permittees to perform this screening
allows fadlites performing dewatering
activities to be placed under the general
permit, assuming that the screening
reveals no contamination from sources
other than petroleum fuels.
Comment 15: Exxon Company (EC)
mentioned that the Discharge
Monitoring Report forms should be
revised and the reporting procedure
should be simplified. Also, mentioned
that the quality of forms initially
received from EPA tend to become
illegible when photocopied. EC also
requested that EPA retain the current
level of bioassay testing instead of
increasing the frequency as proposed.
Response: EPA will, send original
Discharge Monitoring Reports to the
permittee so that more legible

-------
c 1c
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
photocopies can be prodiaceiL ‘A
recnmmpnd that these onginals be
maintained by the permiltee for copying
purposes. In reference to the bioassay
requirements, permzt ee which have
previously obtained covemge under this
general pencil. which effluents have not
demonstrated unacceptable toidclty (LC
50c 100%). may continue to sample 1/
year. All sampling procedures and test
methods must comply with Part V. ft
should be noted that the permit limit
identified in Part V is applicable to
those facilities covered by this general
permit under Se ons Litl and LA.2.
Comment 1& Wait Disney World
(WDW) Company, by letter dated
October 18. 1994. submitted comments
cm the Reissuence of the NPDES Genaraj
Permit for the State of Flonda. WOW
made general comments concerning the
proposed effluent limitations for (1)
Total Organic Carbon and (2) pH. for
discharge of unc.on*amm ted produced
groundwater. WOW mentioned most of
the nnaxjntaminated groundwater below
their property ex fs EPA’s proposed
total organic carbon (TOC) limitation
solely because of its naturally ocurnng
properties. WDW indicated that only
lakes on the property fall be law the 10
mgIl requirement and four isolated
wipliand , had TOC values averaging
bette rthan9 omWl orbetter. with all
other TOC values ranging between 10
and 65 mgJL WDW mentioned that
these olgenic componnds are naturally
oourznng and large: greater than 500
molecular weight, moat of which consist
ci humic scids which generally come
ffme the decomposition of organic
R pcmsa EPA concurs that some
zv.ted 7CC levels are the result of
urally onsurring conditions.
Themfere EPA will revise the language
in Part A..3 to read as fellows: If any of
the anahiical test results. (except TOC,
or nap+IihsisnøL esomd the
, emeceing values the discharge is
nnt es2b mdby this — permit
For--—-.’. han,,n or naphshalene
Part A.3(a) below.
For init4-1 — .‘ ve 7CC values that
may be caused by natumlly.occumng,
j i iol_ lav weight organic
. .m.yu.rnds . the pmmittee may submit
eddlibmal information which describes
midlind used to prove that these
. . 1 ,nnzndt are naturally o rlng
1 s additional
nimai r. . shall be submitted to EPA
tim filing of the NO! request for
smder the general permit. EPA
will ge’ w this data and determine if
usdes the general permit is
____ 17: WaLt Dlsuey World
CWL,IVJ made nmnnts concerning the
• pH limitatIon as proposed in theNPDES
general permit. WDW mentioned that
the pH of the waters on the WOW
property range between 3.7 and 7.7
standard units. WOW mentioned that
the generel permit should allow
discharge of unconfan’mated produced
groundwaters into eny receiving waters
so long as the produced groundwater pH
falls within the lower ancf upper
background pH limits of the receiving
waters as determined from sampling
data submitted by the appIi nt in the
Notice of Intent (NOL) request.
Response: Since the pH requirements
as proposed axe based on Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) Section 17-
302.530(52)(c) , EPA will retain the
language in the final NPDES general
permit.
Comment 18: The Florida Chemical
Industry CounQl (FCIC), by letter dated
October 21, 1994, mentioned that the
proposed permit requires all produced
groundwater discharges to submit
analytical results to EPA, regardless of
project size or duration even if
contamination is undetected. FUC
mentioned the permit should allow a de
minimis limit, so that very small
construct ion projects will not be
required to report and would eliminate
small projects that do not involve
cleanup at uncontaminated sites.
Response: The Clean Water Act
(CWA) does not allow for exclusion
based on the volume of the discharge.
However, having all potential
permittees perform the analytical screen
for any produced groundwater discharge
to surface waters of the U.S., places the
burden on the potential discharger to
venfy that the groundwater is
uncontaminated prior to discharge
regardless of the length of discharge.
The CWA requires that all point source
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
U.S. be authorized by NPDES permits.
Comment 19: The United States, Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) submitted
general comments on the NPDES
general permit No. FLC830000. The
FWS recommended that the pwiziit be
denied unless it includes discharge
limitation, and other appruptiate puauut
conditions that will assure the
maintenance of natural pre .pruj
habitat quality. induding (a) Water
quality, (b) sediment quality and, (cI
vegetative species diversity and -
abundi nce, plus the best available
technology and scientific data be
utilized to avoid any ed erse effects on
fish and wildlife, their behavior, and the
reprtxhscticn of any speaes.
Response: Since some technology
based limits in this general permit are
more stringent than Florlda’s water
quelity standards, and the Waxes
Quality-based limits are based on
Florida’s water quality standards. EPA
believes that the main.tenanceofpre.
project water qsmlity will be
maintained. Additionally, the
requirement to perfrmn acate toxiaty
testing on more sensitive orgam s
assures that adequate monitoring is in
place to avoid potential adverse impacts
on fish and wildlife.
[ II. Other Changes to Final NPDES
General Permit at Issuanw.
L The word “Dewazering” was added
to the title of the final issued permit to
indicate that the pernut covers general
dewatering.
2. In Part LA .3 the language was
revised to read: The following are the
minimum reporting requirements for all
produced groundwater dischargers
which have acceptable screening value
results as described below’
Additionally, the language was revised
to allow initial sampling to begin within
thirty (30) days after cornrne’ncrment of
discharge.
3. In Part l.A 3(c) and imPart II,
Section Ftg), the language was revised to
allow the short summery and analytical
results to be sent one (1) week after
discharge begins.
Permit No. FLCB30000
General Permit To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq; the “Act”).
Discharges of uncontanirni 1ød
groundwater from dewatering activities,
treated gronndwaxer and incidental
stomi water, which are itmna ILsjnd
with gasoline or aviation bmL are
authorized to discharge to waters of the
United States within the &ate of Florida
in acccrrl un .’e with limitation,.
monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth herein. This final
tains:sts of Part!, Part 0, Part ill,
Part IV. and Part V.
This permit shall become effective on
De ber 7, 1994. This mit and the
authorization to disctharge shall mpüe
at midnight, Eastern Daylight Savings
Time, on December 6, 1999.
Dame Issued: December 6, 1994.
Robert F. McCbee,
Acting Director, Water Management Divuwo.
Pail!
A. Effluent Umitations and Monitoring
Requirements: Existing Sources and
New Dlschargera
L During the period beginning on the
effective date of the permit and lasting

-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 241 I Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
through the term of this permit. the Automotive Gasoline. It is
anticipated necessary, or eqwvalenl treatment to
ernuuee is authnnzed to discharge that these contz yninpted will be
meet following effluent limitations.
treated groundwater and storm water treated by air stripping, followed by Such discharges shall be limited and
that has been contaminated by activated carbon adsorption, if monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Discharge buta oce Monitoring reqtnremen
Effluent iaractenstrc
Measurement Sample
Daily avg Daily max frequency
type
Flow, MGD ._, . Report .... Report .... Continuous ._ Flowmetw-.
Benzene, rgfl ..._.. . .._,, , . , , ,___ .__ 1.0 1/month — Gi .
Total Lead, fig/I . .— .....______ . . 30.0 — 1/month ._.... Grab.
pH. standard units . See Below
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity . ... ,, ._ See Part V
Grab,
Monitoring tar ttas oarnnleta’ Is remared only when contanwation results from leaded fuel.
An LC o of 100% or less in a test of background for fresh and coastal
location(s)’ Nearest accessible point
96 hours duration or less will constitute If natural background of the receiving after final treatment but prior to actual
a violation of Florida Adzrunistrative water, as revealed by sampling data discharge or mixing with the receiving
Code (FAC) (July 11. 1993) §62— from the in the NO!
request, waters.
4 244(3)(a) and the terms of this permit. us determi.ned to be higher than 8.5 A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
The testing for this requirement must units, the pH shall not vary above
conform with Part V of this permit. naturaJ background or vary more Requirenients: Existing Sources and
For fresh waters and coastal watem, one (1) unit below natural
1 , Discharger,
background
the pH of the eifluent shall not be of fresh and coastal waters. The
During the period beginning on the
lowered to less than 6.0 units for fresh acceptable pH range will be included in effective date of the permit and lasting
waters, or less than 6.3 units for marine the letter granting permit coverage and through the term of this permit, the
waters, or raised above 8.5 units, unless on the DMR The pH shall be monitored
permittee is authorized to discharge
the permittee submits natural once month by grab
sample. or groundwater and storm water
ackground data in the NOl request continuously with a recorder (See item that has
contaminated by Aviation
onfirrning a natural background pH LB.4).
Gasoline. Jet Fuel or Diesel.
utside of this range. If natural In accordance with FAC § 62— ills anticipated that these
background of the recewmg water, as 302.50011)(a—c )(4_.25 —g3), the discharge contaminated waters will be treated by
revealed by sampling data from the shall at all times be free from floating air stripping, followed by activated
permittee in the NO! request, is solids, visible foam,
visible
or
carbon adsorption. if necessary, or
determined to be less than 6.0 units for oil in such amounts as to form
equivalent treatment to meet the
fresh waters, or less than 6.5 units in nuisances on surface waters, following effluent limitations Such
marine waters, the pH shall not vary Samples taken in
with
compliance
discharges shall be limited and
below natural background or vary more monitoring requirements specified monitored by the permittee as specified
than one (1) unit above natural above shall be taken at the following below:
Discharge lirnitatior Monitonng requirements
Effluent charactenstuc
Measurement Sample
Daily avg Daily max frequency type
Flow, MGD . Report ... Report .. Continuous ... Flowmeter
Benzene, ig/l — _ . , .__, . , , . . , ,,_, , .,,,,_ ... 1.0 . 1/month Grab.
Naphthalene, g l ._ . .._ 100.0 ... 1/month ...... Grab.
‘Total Lead, pig/I .. .. .. . . . .._ 30.0 ._.. 1/month Grab.
pH, standard WlItS (SUs) - , ,, - . ,. See Part LA 1
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity
See Part V
Grab
Monitonng for this paraxieter is required only when contamination results from
An LCro of 100% or less in a test of
96 hours duration or less will constitute
a violation of FAC (July 11, 1993) §62—
4 244(3)(a) and the terms of this permit.
The testing for this requirement must
conform with Part V of this permit.
The permittee shall comply with the
me pH requirements for this Part LA.2
in Part LA.L
The pH shall be monitored once every
month by grab sample, or continuously
with a recorder. (See Item I.B.4). In
accordance with FAC §62—302 500(1)(a ’
c), the discharge shall at all times be free
from floating solids, visible foam.
turbidity, or visible oil in such amounts
as to form nuisances on surface waters
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 mirong with the receiving
waters
A. Effluent Limitations and Monit.ori.og
Requirements
3. During the period beginning ou the
effective date of the permit and lasting
through the term of this permit, the
peranittee is authorized to discharge
produced groundwater from any
noncoritaminated site activity which
discharges by a point source to waters
of the United States, only if the reported
values for the parameters listed below
do not e.’iceed any of the screening

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday, December 16. 1994 / Notices
ies below. Before discharge of
luced groundwater can occur from
h sites, analytical tests on samples of
untreated proposed discharge water
11 be performed to determine if
tammation exists from other sources.
he following are the minimum
irting requirements for all produced
mdwater dlschargers which have
‘ ptable screening value results as
nbed below:
he effluent shall be sampled at the
leffluent within thirty (30) days
commencement of discharge and
a every six months for the life of the
ect to maintain continued coverage
or this general permit. The effluent
1 be sampled for the parameters
d below and the analytical results
uied shall be submitted to EPA at
iddress given in Part lILA.
Parameter
Daily maximum
Organic Carton

Report. mg/I.
Report, stand-
ard units
Recoverable Mercury
Report. ig/1.
Recoverable Cad-
Report. ig/l.
Jil l.
Recoverable Copper..
Report. ig /1.
Recoverable Lead .....
Report, ugh.
Recoverable Zinc
Report. ig/1.
Recoverable Chro -
Report, gfl.
m i (Hex.).
ene..............................
Regofl.ugfl.
ithaleno .... ......
Report. uag/l.
ported analytical test results for the
meters listed above exceeding any
e screening values listed below
I be considered an indication of
animation from sources other than
ileum fuels:
rter ths-
0 intO
Parameter
Fresh waters
Otganic
10.0 mg/i
10.0 mg/i
rton.
jU’S ........
6.0-8.5
0.5-8.5
Recov-
0.012 pg / i
0.025 igfl
ibie Mer-
.y.
, Recov-
9.3 pig!)
9.3 pig!)
‘bfe Cad-
m l.
Recov-
2.9 pigil
2.9 pig/i
bt Cop-
Recov-
0.03 mg/i
56 pig/i
ble Leat
Recov-
880pig/I
SaOpigl
ole Zinc.
Recov-
110 pig/i
50.0 pigti
ble
on um
ixavalen-
ine .
lOiLg /1
1.O p igIl
ttialene..
100.Opig/I
1000 ag/1
If at any time during discharge, the
effluent exceeds these screening values.
EPA may require the faQlity to cease
discharge.
If any of the analytical test results.
(except TOC, benzene or naphthalene).
exceed the above screening values,
discharge is not authorized by this
permit. See paragraph LA.(3)(b) for
further guidance.
For excessive benzene or nophthaiene
concentrations, see Part A.(3)(a) below
For initial excessive TOC values that
may be caused by noturaily-occumng.
high molecular weight organic
compounds, the perrnittee may request
to be exem pted from the TOC
requirement by submitting additional
information with the NO! which
describes the method used to exclude
these naturally ocumng compounds.
In accordance with FAC 62-
302.500(1)(a-c), the discharge shall at all
times be free from floating solids, visible
foam, turbidity. or visible oil in such
amounts as to form nuisances on surface
waters.
All discharges must comply with the
following permit requirements:
(a) If analytical tests of Part LA.3
reveal excessive bensene and
naphthalene concentrations indicative
of contiiniinatlon from petroleum fuels,
and the discharge will occur for thirty
(30) days or less, the permittee shall
comply only with the applicable
effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements in Part LA.1 orLA.2 for
benzene, pH. and/ar naphthalene and
total lead. The commencement of the
Part V biomomtonng program and Part
LB.3 EPA method 624 and 625 (one time
analysis) is not required for this short.
term activity. One (1) grab sample shall
be analyzed per seven (7) days during
the discharge period, and the total
volume discharged shall be recorded.
For discharges contaminated by
petroleum fuels that last for less than a
week, daily monitoring will be required
for the applicable parameters. Upon
receipt of written EPA notification of
coverage that the NO! request Is
complete, these short-term discharges
may commence. Discharge Monitoring
Reports shall be submitted to EPA
within thirty (30) days after termination
of the discharge.
(b) If contamination from sources
other than petroleum contamination
does exist, as indicated by the results of
the analytical tests required by Part I.
A.3 above, the discharge is not covered
by this general permit. The operator
shall apply for an individual NPDES
permit at least one hundred and twenty
(120) days prior to the date a discharge
to waters of the United States is
expected. No discharge is permissible
without an effective NPDES permit.
(c) If analytical tests reveal no
contamination exists from petroleum
fuels or sources other than petroleum
contamination as a result of the required
analytical screening tests required in
Part I. A.3, the permlttee can commence
discharge immediately and is covered
by this permit without having to submit
an NO l request for coverage to EPA.
Region IV. A short summary of the
proposed activity and copy of these
analytical tests shall be sent to the same
address specified in Part ffl.A one (1)
week after discharge begins. These
analytical tests shall be kept on site
during discharge arid made available to
EPA. if requested. Additionally, no
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
forms are required to be submitted to
EPA, Region IV.
B. Other Requirements
1. Any more frequent effluent
discharge monitoring required by the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) for the parameters
limited in this permit. or different
parameters. shall be reported to the
Permit Issuing Authority in accordance
with the requirements of Part III of this
permit.
2. Effluent limitations for combining
contaminated groundwater pumped to
above-ground storage tanks with
contenunated groundwater from the
site’s recovery wells: The permittee
shall notify FDEP 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 FDEP
will constitute approval to apply for
coverage under this permit.
3. Within sixty (60) days of the
effective date of this permit or startup of
dfwhsirge the permittee shall also
submit the results of the follpwing
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—Acid and basal
neutral extractable organics
b. EPA Method 624—Purgeable
Organics
If such analyses required in Part B 3
above reveal toxic pollutants other than
those regulated in Part l.A. or
subsequent Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET) tests reveal an LC, 0 of 100% or
less in a test of 96 hours duration or
Less, coverage under this general permii
will be reviewed for termination by EPA
Region IV Enforcement Section.

-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
65O4
4. lIthe pH is monitored
continuously, the p11 values shall not
deviate outside the required range more
than 1% of the time in any calendar
month: and no Individual excursion
shall exceed 60 minutes. An
“excursion” is an unintentional and
temporary incident in which the pH
value of discharge wastewater exceeds
the range set forth in this permit
C. Test Procedures
I. In performing the analysis for the
dissolved constituents in the surface
water and groundwater, the pennittee
shall use the guidelines recommended
and descn bed in PAC Sections 62-
770.600(811a-dj of the Pet.roleuin
Contamination Cleanup Criteria (PCCC].
amended February 20. 1990. or the most
current edition.
2 If the petroleum contamination is -
from a petroleum fuel in which the
source of contamination has not been
identified, the groundwater diall be
analyzed (using the recommended
methods) for the following parameters
as described in FAC Section
6 1770.600(8J(c)l. of the PCCC.
amended February 20. 1990. or the most
current edition:
u Lead
b Priority Polluzani
Volatile Organici
c. Priority Pollutant
Extractable Organics
d on-Pnority Pollut.
ant Orgonics (with
GCMS Peaks greater
tl’an loppb)
0. Schedule of Compliance
1 The permittee shall achieve
compliance with the effluent limitations
specified for discharges in accordance
with the following schedule:
Perrnitteeg with Revoked Individual
Permits’
Operational let el attained—Upon
Receipt of Notification of Coverage
New Dischargers:
Operational lev t attained—Upon
Commencement of Discharge
2. No later than fourteen (14) calendar
days after any date identified in the
abote schedule of compliance the
perinittee shall subnut either a report of
progress or. in the case of specific
actions being required by identified
dates, a written notice of coraplianee or
noncompliance. In the Latter case, the
notice shall include the cause of
noncompliance, any remedial actions
taken, and the probability of meeting the
“ c i scheduled requirement.
Past II
Standard Conditions for NPDES
Permit,
Section 1 t General Conditions
I DutytoComply
The permittee must comply with aLl
conditions of this pe it. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Clean Waxer Act and is grounds
for enforcement action lot permit
termination, revocation and reissuance,
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 willfuily or
negligently violates permit conditions is
subject to a fine of up to $50,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year. or both. Any person
who knowingly violates permit
conditions is subject to criminal
penalties of $5,000 to 50,000 per day of
violation, or impnsonznent for not more
than 3 years, orboth. Also, any person
who violates a permit condition may be
assessed an administrative penalty not
to exceed $10,000 per violation with the
ma,dmwn not to exceed $125,000 jRef:
CFR 122.41(a)I.
3 Duty to Mitigate
The petmittee shall take all
reasonable steps to aiiniuuze or prevent
any discharge in viol son of this permit
which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the
environment
4. Duty to Reapply
Where EPA is the Permit Issuing
Authority (PIA). the terms and
conditions of this permit are
automatically continued in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.6, only where the
perrnittee has submitted a timely and
complete Notice of Intent 180 clays prior
to expiration of this permit. and the PIA
is unable through no fault of the
permittee to issue a new permit befort’
the expiration date
S Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a
hearing, this permit may be modified.
terminated, or revoked for cause (as
described In 40 Q ”R 122.62 et seq)
including, but not limited to. the
foUo%ving ’
a. Violatioii of any terms or conditions
of this permit.
b. Obtaining this permit by
misrepresentation or (allure to disclose
fully all relevant facls
c. A change in any cnni 4 itions 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.
If the perimttee believes that any pest
or planned activity would be cause for
modification or revocation and
reissuance under 40 CFR 122.62, 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
6. 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 ih the
discharge and such standard 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 permntee so notified
7 Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit
conditions on “Bypassing” Section 8.
Paragraph 8—3. nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the
permittee from civil or criminal
penalties for noncompliance
8 Oil 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 pernuttee is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
Act
9 State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution ol
any legal action or relieve the permitlee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
authority pres’rved by Section 510 of
the ict
(EPA Method 23g.z
or Standard
Method 304)
(EPA Method 624)
‘IEPA Method 6as)
(EPA Methods 624
and 625$

-------
65050
Federal_Register / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16, 1994 / Notices
10 Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort.
or any exrlusive 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
11 Severability
The provisions of this permit axe
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
12 Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Permit Issuing Authority, within a
reasonable time, 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 perm.ittee shall also furnish
to the Permit Issuing Authority upon
request, copies of records required to be
kept by this permit.
Section 8. OperatIon and Maintenance
of Pollution Controls
I 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 4mi lap systems which are
installed by a permittee 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
perrruttee 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 this 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
not a designed or established operating
mode.for the facility.
(2) “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
noimean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
b. 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
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of Paragraphs c. and d. of
this section.
c. Notice
(1 Anticipated 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; including an
evaluation of the anticipated quality and
effect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The
perinittee 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 judgment to prevent a
bypass which occurred during normal
periods of equipment downtime or
preventive maintenance; and
(c) The pemiittee submitted notices as
required under Paragraph c. 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.(i) of this section,
4, Upsets
“Upset” means an exceptional
incident in which there is 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
facihties, inadequate treatment
facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation. An upset constitutes an
affirmative defense to an action brought
for noncompliance with such
technology based permit limitation if
the requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(n)(3)
are met. (Note that this provision does
not apply to water quality
requirements.)
5. Removed Substances
This permit does not authorize
discharge of solids, sludge, filter
backwash, or other pollutants removed
in the course of treatment or control of
wastewaters to waters of the United
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 monitoring points
specified in this permit and, unless
otherwise specified. before the effluent
joins or is diluted by any other
wastestream, body of water, or
substance. Monitoring points shall 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 less than ± 10%
from the true discharge rates throughout
the range of expected discharge
volumes. Guidance in selection,
installation, calibration and operation of
acceptable flow measurement devices
can be obtained from the following
references:

-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 241 / Friday, December 16. 1994 / Notices
65051
(1) “A Guide of Methods and
Standards for the Measurement of Water
Flow”, U.S. Department of Commerce.
National Bureau of Standards. NBS
Special PublicatIon 421, May 1975, 97
pp. (Available from the U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Washington. D.C. 20402. Order by SD
catalog No. C13.10:421.)
(2) “Water Measurement Manual”,
U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of
Reclamation, Second Edition, Revised
Reprint. 1974, 327 pp. (Available from
the U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402. Order by
catalog No. 127.19/2:W2912. Stock No.
S/N 24003—0027.)
(3) “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 535155T.)
(4) ‘NPDES Compliance Flow
Measurement Manual”, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Water Enforcement.
Publication MC)—77, September 1981,
135 pp. (Available from the General
Services Administration (8BRC),
Centralized Mailing Lists Services,
Building 41, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225.)
3. Mon,tonng 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.
4 Penalties 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 yecordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
copies of all reports required by this
permit. and records of all data used to
omplete 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.
6. Record Contents
Records of monitoring information
shall include:
a. The date, exact place. and time of
sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed
the sampling or measurements:
ci The date(s) analyses were
performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed
the analyses; -
e. The analytical techniques or
methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
7. Inspection and Entiy
The permittee 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. 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;
b. Have access to and copy. at
reasonable times. any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit;
ci 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 permittee 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
critena 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 liin.itatlons in the permit, nor to
notification requirements under Section
D, Paragraph D- .10(a).
2. Anticipated Noncom plionca
The perinittee 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 or
facilities, which might necessitate
unavoidable interruption of operation
and degradation of effluent quality,
shall be scheduled during noncritical
water quality periods and canned out in
a manner approved by the Permit
Issuing Authority.
3. Tmnsfer of Ownership or Control
A permit may be automatically
transferred to another party if:
a. The permittee notifies the Permit
Issuing Authority of the proposed
transfer at least 30 days in advaj ce 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
ci The Permit Issuing Authority does
not notify the existing perrnittee 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 Ill of this permit.
5. Additional Monitoring by the
Permittee
If the perrnittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
by this permit. using ‘test procedures
approved under 40 CFR 136 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 Discharge Monitoring
Report (DMR). Such increased
frequency shall also be indicated.
6. 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.

-------
1i5052
Federsl R gi er/ Vol. 59 , No. 241 / Fjiaiiv, Decemher 16. 1994 / Notices
8 l•wcidy . Hour Reporting
The perrmttee shall orally report any
noncompliance which may endanger
health or the euvu- m ,nt . within 24
hours from theilmethepermmee
becomes aware of the rotances. A
written submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the
permrnee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written sbmissjou
shall ceetain a descnption of the
noncompliance and its cause, the period
of nonccrnphance, inchidin ecait dates
and times, and if the noncompliance has
not been cvrrect d , the anticipated time
it is expected to untinue, and steps
taken or planned to reduce, eliminate.
and prevent reoccurrence of the
rioncomp!ianee The Permit Tssuing
Authority may verbelly waive the
written report on a case-by-case besis,
when the oral report is made. The
followthg violations shall be induded in
the 24 hour report when they might
endanger health or the environment:
a. An imanncl paled bypass winch
exceeds any effhzent lünization 2fl the
permit.
b. Any upset which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit
9 Other Noncompliance -
The permittee shalt report in narrative
form, all jn r nrv.s
not previously reported under Section
D, Paragraphs 0-2.0-4.0-7. and D-8
at the time monitoring reports are
submitted. The repasts shall crm the
information fiatmi m Paragraph fl-a
10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic
Substances
The pesmnittee shall notify the Permit
Issuing Authority as seen as it knows or
reason to bdieve
a. That any activity has oonsrred or
will o ur wthch would result in the
discharge, on a routine or frequent basis,
of any toxic substance(s) (listed at 40
CFR 122. App.lndixD,TtbleUa dlfl)
which is not limited in the permit. ii
that discharge will em d the highest of
the following “notificatien lavein”:
(1) One hundred miangrnma per liter
(100 ugh); or
(2) Two hundred mcru um3 per liter
(200 ugh) for acrolein and acrylonstrile;
five hundred mici’ogrims per liter (500
ugh) for 2, 4-dlriilropheool and fur 2’
methyl-4, 6.dinitzophenol; and one
milligram per Liter (I mg /I) for
antimony.
b. That any activity has occwved or
will occur which would result in any
discharge, on a non-routine or
infrequent bosis, of a toxic pollutant
(listed at 40 CFR 122. Appendix 0.
Table II and Ill) which is not limited in
the permit, iithat diacherge will esoeed
the highest of the foikiwwg
‘notiflcation levels”:
(1) Five hundred mic ogranis per liter
(500 ughl ) or
(2) One milligram per htm’(i mg/ i) for
antimony.
All applications, reports, or
information sulanirted to the Permit
Issuing Authority shall be signed and
ceitiled.
a. All permit applications shall be
signed as Iollowm
(1) For a corporatiare by a respaasihle
corporate officer. For the pirpose 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 perfmrns
similar policy—or decision-making
functions for thecorporation, or (2) the
manager of one or more matuifocturing
production or operating Facilities
employing more than 250 persons or
having gross ari.nual 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 oep te procedures.
(2)Fora partnership orsate
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 rerrts required by the permit
and other mforn,ation requested by the
Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed
by a p lrsoii 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 ha
writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specifies either
an individual ora position having
respnncth.lity for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity. such
as the position of plant manageri
operator of a well or a well field.
superintendent. position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall respoesibthty
for eevlron.naerital matters (or the
company. (A duly authorized
representative moy thus ha either a
earned 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 llowrng
*xrflflcauoui
“1 certify under penalty of law that
this document end all auarhzw’it*s were
prepared under the direction or
supervision in ann an with a
designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submittdii Ossed on ray
inquiry of the jwcon or persons who
manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible far gathering the
iriiormatjaa. 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.
uicluding the possibility of fine and
impnsonment 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 pubiic 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 far Faisiflcafaon qc Reports
The Clash Water Act provides that
any person who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or
certification in any re rd or other
document submitted or required so be
mamtained under this permit. including
monitoring reports or reports of
complianne or nonamapliance shall.
upon conviction. ha puntdied by a fine
of riot more than $10,000 per violation.
or by anprLsonmont for not more than
2 years per violation, or by both.
Section E. Definitions
I Permit fscuzrag Author*y
The Regional Administrator of EPA
Region LV or his designee. unless at
some time in the future the State
receives the authority to administer the
4PDES program and assumes
jurisdiction over the permit: at which
time, the Director of the State program
recetvrng authorization becomes the
issuing authority.
2. Act
“Act” means the Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act) Public Law
92- 5O0, as amended by Public Laws 95—
Z’17, 95—576. 96—483, 97—117, and
Public Law 100-4,33 LLSC 1251 at
seq.
3. Concentration Measurenients
a. The ‘average monthly
concentration”, is the awn of the

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16. -1994 I Notices
65053
concentrations of all daily discharges
campled andJor measured during a
calendar month on which daily
lischarges 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
‘n the case of grab samples is the
trithmetic mean (weighted by flow
value) of all the samples collected
during the calendar day.
b. The “maidmum 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 Measurements
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
pecifled in Part I of the permit the flow
ite 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 monitoring requirements for
pH or dissolved oxygen are specified in
Part I of the permit. the values are
generally reported in the “Quality or
Concentration” column on the DMR
5 Types of Samples
a. Grab 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.
6 Calendar Day
A calendar day is defined as the
period from midnight of one day until
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.
Hazardous Substance
A hazardous substance means any
substance desigiiated under 40 CFR Part
16 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act.
8. Toxic Pollutant
A toxic pollutant is any pollutant
listed as toxic ttnder Section 307(a)(l) of
the Clean Water Act.
Section F. Application Requirements
a. For expired individual NPDES
permits. dischargers desiring coverage
under this general permit are required to
submit a notice of intent (NO!) to the
Permit Issuing Authority The NO! shall
include (1) the name and address of the
person that the permit will be issued to
(2) the name, and address of the
operation, including county location. (3)
the applicable individual NPDES
number(s). (4) the identification of any
new discharge location not contained in
the expired permit. (5) evidence that the
operation has obtained approval of a
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Order from
the FDEP. (6) a map showing the facility
and discharge location (including
latitude and longitude). (7) the name of
the receiving water, and (8) for
discharges lasting over one (1) year a
pollution prevention plan. (See Part
IV.2) Operators having several
individual permits are encouraged to
consolidate requests for coverage into
one NO! for all individual permits. The
previous submission of the proper forms
in the renewal application does not
relieve the perinittee desiring coverage
under the general permit of the
requirement to file a NO!.
b. All facilities continued by the
previous general permit, will be
required to submit a NO! requesting
continued coverage under the reissued
general permit by (insert date 60
calendar days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register)
The NO! shall contain the same
information specified in paragraph a
above.
c. Dischar ’ ers with current individual
NPDES permits that desire coverage
under this general permit are required to
file an NO! to the Permit Issuing
Authority at least thirty (30) days prior
to expiration of their current permit(s).
The NO! shall contain the same
information specified in paragraph a
above. Permittees desiring to renew
their individual permit are required to
submit the appropnate application
forms at least 180 days before expiration
of their individual permit.
d. Dischargers who have not
previously obtained an individual
NPDES permit are required to submit to
EPA the FDEP approval order letter
approving the site RAP. The RAP
approval order shall be attached to an
NO! to be covered by the general permit
and shall contain the same information
specified in paragraph (a) above. The
application for coverage under the
general.permit must be made at least
‘fourteen (14) days before the discharge
is to commence.
e. Dischargers seeking coverage under
Part I A.3.a. will be required to submit’
to EPA the date the discharge is
expected to cease, results of analytical
data and the same information in
paragraph a above, except items (3). (4).
(5) and (8). NotIfication of coverage to
discharge will be upon receipt of EPA’s
short-term coverage letter
f. Notification of coverage will be
given by the Permit Issuing Authority by
certified mail to the permnittee (except
for short-term pump tests. 8-hours in
duration or less), for dischargers seeking
coverage under Part! Sections A.1 and
A.2. with the issuance date for each
facility being the effective date of
coverage by the Permit Issuing
Authority
Short-term pump tests, shall be
covered automatically once the
permittee receives acceptable
groundwater screening values, and the
permittee will be responsible meeting
the requirements of Parts LA.1 or A.2.
The DMR’s for these pump tests shall be
submitted to within thirty (so) days
after discharge ceases.
g Dischargers meeting the conditions
set forth in Part I A.3.c. are not required
to submit an detailed NO! as outlined
above, but must submit a copy of the
analytical tests and a summary of the
proposed activity one (1) week after
discharge begins. These dischargers are
covered upon receipt of the data, unless
notified otherwise by EPA
h. The coverage of the permit shall
expire on December 6, 1999
i. In accordance with 40 CFR
122.28(a)(2) permittees who are covered
by this general permit who seek to be
continued under this general permit.
shall submit an complete NO! in
accordance with paragraph a, to EPA
180 days before the expiration of this
permit.
Section G. Additional General Permit
Conditions
1 The Permit Issuing Authority may
require any person authorized by this
permit to apply for and obtain an
individual NPDES permit when.
a. The discharge(s) is a sigruficant
contributor of pollution;
b. The discharger is not in compliance
with the conditions of this permit:
c. A change has occurred in the
availability of the demonstrated
technology of practices for the control or
abatement of pollutants applicable to
the point sources:

-------
FederaLJ Re ster/ Vol 59, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 1994 / Notices
d. Emu zt lim i4 g nde4in are
promulgated kr point sm s covered
by this zt
a. A Water Quality Management Plan
r *.n4 g i applicable to
such point iw is approved. or
f. The point senrcetsla,vered by this
permit no longer
(1) Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
12) Discharge the same types of
wastas
(3) Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
(4) Require the same or similar
mmnthnog and
(5) in the opiman of the RA. ate more
appropadely ix ofled under an
individual permit then under a general
permit. The Regional Administrator
(RA)rimyri paiiu anyoperator
authorized by this permit to apply for an
individual NPOES permit only if the
operator has been notified In Wtitlng
that a mi1 application required.
2. Any o ator anthteized to
discharge by title permit mey request to
be exduded from theow ge of this
general permit by applying fur an
indMthial p uad . Th. operator shall
submit an application together with the
reasons supporting the request to the
RA.
3. When an individual NPDES permit
is k iuid tonn operator otherwise
subject to thia caI permit, the
appli tliIy of this permit to the owner
or pe n*t isanra1In241ls IIy terminated
on the , ,ff. ,rlive date of the individual
httL d m coverage
under this genoml p 1t solely because
it already has an individual permit may
requeot that its individual permit be
• revoked. andthat it be covered by this
general peuuiL Upon ruv tlan of the
individual pP!Trnl this general pemut -
shall apoly to sowue.
S. A peti l contn tlon
recuzyu-i X imaybewrclnded
from this g.IL . anl permit If It pi ,o s
db h 1 1 .hrg waters that are
classified en ‘ Spimiiil Protection.
Ontlin Plida Waters,
Outsiimdlng N 5 ia1 Resmirce Waters
as set truth by FAC 62—302.700, dated
Aprt1 .19 .
6. The 1 H shall notify the
Permit l uing Authority within 30 days
after the rmination of
discbergs tiasr ismhzy. This letter
shall include the n ary Site
He Dtmioa G &d
(SRCO) FIt.ida Bureau of Waste
Cleanup wlith iiIii itnIms final action
NPDES permit for the facility.
Dischargers covered under this general
permit without RAP approval shall
submit a No Discharge Cazii&atiua
Form to EPA, within 30 days after
ceasing discharge.
Part III
Other Reqoirements
A. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results obtained for each
celendar month shall be suninianzed
and reported on a DMR Form EPA No.
3320—1). one DMR for each month.
Unless otherwse required in Part V.
these forms shall be submitted after
each colendar quarter and postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the month
following the completed calendar
quarter. (For example, data for Januaiy-
March shall be submitted by April28.)
Calendar quarters are January-March,
April-June, July-September and October.
December. Signed copies of these and
all other reports required by Section 0
of Part II, Reporting Requirements. and
Part V shall be submiued to the Permit
Issuing Authority at the following
address: U.S. Env-irownental Protection
Agency, Region IV. Enforcement
Section. Water Penmts and Enforcement
Branch. 345 Conriland Street, N.E,,
Atlanta. GA 3036&
If no discharge occurs dunng the
reporting period, sampling requirements
of this permit do not apply. The
statement “No Discharge” shall be
written on the DMR form. If, during the
term of this permit, the facility ceases
discharge to surface waters, the Permit
Issuing Authority shall be notified
immediately upon ce tion of
discharge.
9. Reopener Clause
This permit shall be modified, or
alternatively revoked and relanial to
comply with any applicable effluent
standard or limitation issued or
approved under Sections 301(b)(2XC).
and WI. 304(b)(2), and 307(a}(2) of the
Clean Water Act (the Act), if the effluent
standard or limitation so issued or
approved—
1. Contains different conditions or is
otherwise more stringent than any
condition in thus permit; or
2. Controls any pollutant nor limited
in the permit. The permit as modified or
reissued under thus paragraph shall also
contain any other requirements of the
Act then applicable.
PartIV
Best Mana 1 Practices and
Pollution Prevu ntion Conditions
Section A. General Conditions
1. BMP Plan
Preparation of a Best Management
Practices IBMP) Plan .shafl be prepared
in coo unction with development of the
Remedial Action Plan required by
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (See Part ILF.c.). The
permittee shall maintain the BMP plan
at the facility and shall make the plan
available to the permit issuing authority
upon request. The “NPDES Guidance
Document” inn be used as a reference
which nnt ,n 5 technical information
on BMPs and the elements of the BMP
program. The permnlrtee shall develop
and implement a B plan which
prevents, or miTilmizes the potential for,
the release of pollutants from ancillary
activities, including material storage
areas, plant site runoff: in-plant transfer.
process and material handling areas:
loading and unloading operations, and
sludge and waste di osal areas, to the
waters of the United States through
plant site nmoff spillage or leaks;
sludge or waste disposal, or drainage
from raw material storage. The term
pollutants refers to any substance liste
as toxic under Section 3074a3(1) of the
Clean Water Act, oil, as defined in
Section 311(al(1J of the Act, and
substance listed as hazardous under -
Section 311 of the Act. Copies of the
‘NPDES Guidance Doa.unent” may be
obtained by submitting written requests
to: Director, Water Management
Division. U.S. EPA Region IV. 345
Courtland St. N.E.. Atlanta, Georgia
30365.
2. Pollution Prevention Plan
New permittees with long lena
treatment systems expected to discharge
one (a) year or more shall develop a
Pollution Prevention Plan for the site
and submit it with the M)L It shall
contain the following information:
(a) A Narrative of What Caused the
Groundwater Contamination.
(b) Methods currently being deployed
at the site to xevent groundwater
contamination from re urnng
(c) Other alternative treatment options
which were considered in reducing the
groundwater contamination.
Id) Explanation of why long term
treatment of discharge to Surface Waters
of the United States was chosen as
opposed to:
(1) Redzrctuan-Morator PIame I—.Usuiç
a combination of techniques to
significantly reduce groundwater
contamination that could be achieved iii
on the Slate laud far £inqipI ltjen of
a les p saisir en at the allacted site.
After review of the SRCO, EPA will
inactivate of the general

-------
Fedveal Ragister i \&oL S Na Z4 i Friday. Decai r l6 t094 / Notices
three’ ( 3)monthaoe less.wsth, the’
objective’ of sehiuga monitor-only
tatus.
(2) Reduct ion-Ic 1oni ac Phase II—
Using a combination, of teabaiques. to
significantly rduwgoundwatey
contarrunotion that caithj be achieved In
six (6) months Sr rn, with the ob ectxve
of reaching amon:r on1Tstatu,s.
In an effort to promote polluncu
prevention, the Permit Issuing Authority
may issue permita which include or
require poliutiae’ pre sImon actwiaes.
Part V
Whole ff1uent Taxicit, Testing
Progrocr. Acu Erm vater Language
As required by Pflrt I of the permit,
within 30-days after commencement of
discharge. p tteesdischarging to
fresh waters, which are surface waters
in which the chloride concentration at
the surface is 1 than lsoainf llrgrarns
per liter, shall initiate the series of tests
- described below to evafuata whota
effluent toxicity of the discharge. from’
the outfafl. rrm than one (11 outfall
exists, separate tests will be performed.
on each outfaff. All test sp.ciai.
procedures. and qua ty auurance
criteria used shaitbe. L as riance with
Methods for Measu nng the. Acute
“oxJcJt ’y of Effluents taFrestwiatez and
brine OrnJ6ow o/
or the most current, edlLton. The
dilution/contro1 water used. wilL be
moderately hard water as.descnbedrn
• EPA/600/4—goIovF, Section, 7, or the.
most current edition. A standard
reference toxicant, quality as&uzance tes&
shall be conducted concurrently with
each. species used in, the’ toxicity tests.
and the results submitted with. the
discharge monitoring report (DM&).
Alternatively, if monthly QA/Q
reference toxicant tests are conducted.
these results must besubmg ed with the
DMR.
l.a. The perinittee shall conthict 90-
hour acute static .renewaj mujti.
concentration toxicity tests usreg the’
daphnid (Cerzodaphnurdubj,4 and the
fathead minnow ( Pbrs.pfraieapmnzeLas).
All tests shall be.cond iscted
sample of 100% final elfl uent. All tests
shall be conducted ona controL (0%)
and the following dilution,
concentrations atam*zumwn 100.0%,
500%, 25.0%, t2 5%.and6.25%.
b. IfcontruLmonalityoxceedsm% the
either species in, any test, the’ test(s) for
that species (including the control) shalIl
be repeated . Ai test with be considered
‘ilid only itcontroimertality does nor
:eed tft% for either species.
2. The tnxlcity tests specified above
bhalLbe conducted once. every month
until three (3) valid mnnthly tests have
been completed, and ones eveiy year
thereafter for’ the’ dwatsou of
imless not fla otharwme by the p nit
issuing authority thea tesesam’
referrod. ge “roatsne” tests.
3. a. If unacceptable acute toxiciry (an
LC of 100% or less occiamin either
test species in any of the above-
described tests within the specified
time) is found in a “mutine” test., the.
pernuttee shall conduct two additional,
acute toxicity tests in the same manner
as the “routine” test on the specie( T
hidicaring’ unacceptable acute toxicity
For each.additjonal tes the sample-
collection. reqwreznents.and tesi
acceptability criteria specified in
Section 1 above must be met for the test
to be considered valid. The first test
shall begin withie two weeks of the ’end
of the “runthre” tess. and shall be
conducted weekly thereafter until two’
additionaL valid tests are cwirpfeted
The’ additional tests. will be used t
determine ifthe’ toxicity f 1m f i the
‘rcotine” test is stillpresear.
b. Results from additional tes ,
required due to unacceptable acute.
toxicit ’m the”ruutj J ’ test (s) , must be
reported on the Dfschm ’ge Morittorixrg
Report ( MR) Farm forthe muuth in
which the test was begun. Such test’
resuJk must be srthm,fled within 4
days of completion of thee second
additional, valid test.
PartV -
Wflolg Effluent Tax, city Testing
Pmgrrmr, Acute- Saltwater Language
As.meqmred by Pa tti of thispernut.
withie 30-days after comme neat of
discharge, pemuttees discharging to
manne watem. which are surface waters
in which the chloride conc itratjon. at
the’ surface is greater than or equal to
150 itifligraina per liter, shall imntiate
the series of tests described below to
evaluate whale effluent toxicity of the-
discharge from the’ outfall, if more than
one (1) outfall exists, separate tests will
be performed on each outfalL All test
species, procedures and quality
assurance criteria used shall be in
accordance with Methods for Measuring
the 4cute Toxicity of Effluents to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
EPA/60014-.9c/027F, or the most current
-edition. The dilution/control water and
effluentusecLwillbo adjustedtna
salinity of 20 parts per thousand using
artificinaseltsasdescrihed in EPAI
600/4-90/027F, Section 7 (or the most
current edition), A standard reference
toidcant quality assurance test shall be
conducted conciwmntly with each
species used in the toxIcity tests and the
resulte submitted with, the discharge
monitoring report (DMR). Alternativ lv,
if monthl r QAJQC refrmnce t mnr
tests are conducted, these results must
be submitted with the’DMg.
l .a. The petinittee shnduct, g
hour acute static-renewal multi-
concentration toxicity te5Ie’iiSmg’the’
mysid shrimp (M eidopsis bahioLayid
the inland silverside- (Menidia
bezythna). All tests shall’ be-conducted
on one grab sample’ of 11 % final
effluent. Al! tests shall be conducted ou
a control (0%) and the following,
dilution concenlratjone. at a minimum.
1000%, 50.0%, 25.0%,, 12.5%, arid
6.25%.
b. If con Ira ityexceedsro% for
either species m i any ’ test,, th. test(s ). for
that species. (including the eonfl-ol) sh lI
be repeated. A test will be’considered
valid only if control mortality does nor
exceed 10% for either species.
2 The odcay’tests.specijlgd aboue
shall be condu ed once every month,
untiLi.hree (3) valid monthly tests. haiae
been completed, and once-every yeas
thereafter for the duration o the.permi*.
unless.noufied otherwiseby the-permit
issuing aurhority. These. t a am
referred. as ‘mub.n&” tests.
3 ,a, If unacceptable utif toxicity ( iT
LC 5 , of rOO% op fess occurs iii either
test species in any of the above-
described tests within. the specified
timel Is. found in a ”rautine.” test, the
permnittee shall conduct two additional
acute toi ty tests in the same manner
as the “routine” test on the specie(s)-
indicating unacceptable toxicity. For
each additional test, the sample
collection requirements end test
acceptability criteria specifi’ed in
Section 1 above most be met (‘or the test
to be considered valid. The first test
shall begin within two’ weeks of the end
of the “routhie’ tests, awl shall be
conducted weekly thereafter until two
addit1onaI valid tests are completed. -
The additional-tests will be used ,to
determine if the toxicity found in the
“routine” test is still
b. Results from additional tests.
required due to unacceptable acute
toxicity in the “routine” test(s), must be
reported on the Discharge %fomtonng
Repalt (DMR) Form for the month in
which the- test was- begun. Such test
results must be szthmitted’wjthjn 45
days of completion,of the second
addltiânal, valid test,
(FR Doc. 94—30952-Filbd 12— --O4; 8’45 oral
en.UNG coca sass-so-.

-------
63792
Federal Regieter I VoL 59, No . 236 / Friday, December 9, 1?94/Notices
S No. 940496, DRAFT EIS, FRC, ME,
NH
Seco River Basin Hydropower
Development, (FERC Project Nos. 2528,
2527, 2194. 2531, 2529, 2530. and
11385. Licenses and Relicenses. ME and
NH. Due: January 23, 1995, Ccntact
Rich MCCLUre (202) 219-3094.
EIS No. 940497. DRAFT EIS, COE, GA.
Sc
Savannah Harbor Navigation Project.
Operation and Maintenance. Long Term
Management Strategy Study. Chatham
County. GA and Jasper County. SC. Due:
January 23, 1995. Contact: William
Bailey (912) 652—5781.
EIS No. 940498, DRAFT SUPPLEMENT,
FRC,NB
Kingsley Dam Prof ect (FERC No.
1417) and North Platte/Keystone
Diversion Darn (FERC. No. 1835)
Hydroelectric Project, Additional
Information, Application for Licenses,
Near the Confluence of the North/South
Plattes. Keith. Lincoln. Garden, Dawson
and Grasper Counties, NB, Due: J auary
23, 1995, Contact: Lois 0. Casheli (202
(202) 501—7704.
Dated; December 6, 1994.
Richard E. Saadrr,on.
Director, ce of Federal Activities.
LFR Doe. 94—30377 Filed 12—8—94; 8;45 am
enUNG cOOS IO4O
(OPPTS-00183; FRL -4925.-2)
Biotechnology Science Advisory
Committee; Subcommittee on
Premanufacttre Notificaton; Review of
Nitrogen Fixing Rhizoblum Meilloti
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACflOM: Notice of open meeting .
SUNMARY There will be a 1-day meeting
open to the public of the Biotechnology
Science Advisory Committee’s
Subcommittee on Commerd.al Use of
Genetically-Engineered Mleroorganisms
to review Research Seeds’ application
for commermal Introduction of a
Rhizobium maillot! strain RMBPC-2
(PMN P-92-403). The committee will
discuss the risk assessment prepared by
the Agency for the commarcialimtion of
this product. The public will be given
an opportunity to comment Members of
the public are requested to contact the
Agency in advance concerning their
desire to comment at the meeting.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Wednesday, January 4, 1995, starting at
9 a.nt. and ending at 5p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Crystal Gateway MarrIott, 1700
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington. VA
22202.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION COItTACT Ma.
Creavory Uoyd. Biotechnology Science
Advisory Committee (MC-7101), Office
of Prevention. Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M St., SW., Ret. E—627,
Washington. DC 20460, Telephone
(202) 260—6900. For copies of the risk
assessment and related materials
contact James Willis, Acting Director.
Envlrori ,tnental Assistance Division
(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics. Environmental Protection
Agency, Rm. E—643. 401 M St.. SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:
202—554—4404, TDD: 202—554—0551.
These documents also may be accessed
through the Internet at: gopher.epLgov.
SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATION: Research
Seeds is the successor in interest to
certain genetically modified strains of
Rhizobium which were originally
submitted to EPA for reviev by
BioTechmca Agriculture international
in 1987 These premanufactuie notices
(PMNs) were submitted pursuant to
section 5(aHl) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). Rhizobium species
form symbiotic relationships with
certain legumes by causing the legumes
to form root nodules within which the
Rhizob,um species fix atmospheric
nitrogen. RMBPC.2. symbiotic with
alfalfa, has been modified for enhanced
nitrogen fixation. The PMN strain also
contains a gene for resistance to the
antibiotico streptomycui and
spectinomycin for purposes of
Identifying RMBPC-2 in the
environment. Attendance by the public
will be lunited to available space.
Persons interested in making public
comment or interested in attending
should contact Creavery Lloyd at 202—
260—6900, or by FAX to 202—260—0949.
or by internet to
Uoyd.creavery iepamaiLepa.gov, no
later than Wednesday, December 28,
1994. A copy of any public comments
should be forwarded to Creavary Uoyd
no later than December 28. 1994.
Dated’ December 5. 1994.
Susan H. Wayland.
Asnstazrt Admuusti’ntor for Prevention,
Pes :czdes and Toxmc Stthstanccj.
IFR Dcc. 94—20484 F led l2—8— : a ts ami
amuiso coos esac-sa-
(FRL4I 19-6)
National Pollutatt Discharge
Elimination System (NPOES); Final
General Permit for the States of htalne,
Pitassachusetta, and New Hampahire
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notices of Final NPDES General
Permits—MAG640000, MEG640000,
and NHG640000.
susw. pv: The Regional Administrator
of Region I is issuing Final National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit for water
treatment facilities in certain waters of
the States of Maine, Massachusetts. and
New Hampshire. This general NPDES
Permit establishes notice of intent (NOl)
requirements, effluent limitations,
standards prohibitions and
management practices for facilities with
discharges authonred by the permit.
Owners andior operators of facilities
discharging effluent from water
treatment facilities will be required to
submit to EPA, Region 1, a notice of
intent (NOl) to be covered by the
appropriate general permit within ISO
days of the effective date of this permit
and will receive a written notification
from EPA of permit coverage and
authorization to discharge under the
general permit.
DATES: This general permit shall be
affective on January 9. 1995 and will
expire five years from the effective date
The authorization to discharge shall
become effective upon notification by
EPA that the operator is covered by this
1.
ADDRESSES: Notices of intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permrts should be sent to: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
NPDSB Program Operations Section.
P.O. Box 8127, Boston, Massachusetts
02114.
The submittal of other information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should
be sent to the above address.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suprokash Sarker. Wastewater
Management Branch. Water
Management Division. WMM.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1. F.
Kennedy Federal Building. Boston.
Massachusetts 02203. Telephone (617)
565—3573.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Introduction
The Regional Administrator of Region
I is issuing final general permit for
effluent discharges from water treatment
facilities to certain water of the States

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 1994 / Notices
63793
of Maine. Massachusetts. and New
Hampshire. This notice contains two
sets of appendices. Appendix A
siimmnrizas EPA’s response to major
comments received on the dm11 general
permits published on July 28. 1994 (59
FR 38465). Appendix B contains the
final general NPDES permits including
Part II. Standard Conditions.
I I. Coverage of 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 Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Although such permits to date
have generally been issued to individual
discharges. EPA’s regulations authorize
the issuance of general permits” to
categories of discharges. See 40 CFR
122.28 (48 FR 14146, April 1. 1983).
EPA may issue a single. general permit
to a category of point sources located
within the same geographic area whose
permits warrant sunilar pollutant
control measures.
The Director of an NPDES permit
program is authorized to issue a general
permit if there are a number of point
sources operating 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 Regional
Administrator. are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
under individual permits.
Violations of a condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the
Clean Water Act and subjects the
discharger to the penalties in Section
309 of the Act.
Any owner or operator authorized by
a general permit may be excluded from
coverage of a general permit 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 90
days after publication by EPA of the
final general permit in the Federal
Register. The Director may require any
person authorized by a general permit to
apply for and obtain an individual
permit. Any interested person may
petition the Director to take this action.
However, individual permits will not be
issued for sources discharging effluent
from water treatment facility covered by
this general permit unless it can be
clearly demonstrated that inclusion
under the general permit is
inappropriate.
The Director may consider the
issuance of individual permits when:
1. The discharge is a significant
contributor of pollution;
2. The discharge is not in compliance
with the terms and conditions of the
general permit;
3. A change has occurred La the
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
source;
4. Effluent limitations guidelines are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit:
5. A Water Quality Management plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point sources is approved; or
6. 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;
In accordance with 40 CFR
122 28(bli3)Uv). the applicability of the
general permit is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the
individual permit.
Under this general permit. owners
and operators of potable water treatment
plants in Massachusetts. Maine and
New Hampshire may be granted
authorization to discharge process
generated wastewaters into waters of the
respective States as follows:
a. treated presedimentation
underfiow;
b. izeated underfiow from the
coagulation/settling processes using
aluminum compounds or polymers as
coagulants; and
c. treated filter backwash water from
filters.
This permit shall apply specifically to
operators that have a discharge from a
point source s -.ich as a sludge settling
lagoon or other device whereby
comparable control of suspended solids
Is possible.
Authorization under the permit shall
require prior submittal of certain facility
information. Upon receipt of all
required Information, the permit issuing
authority may allow or disallow
coverage under the general permit.
The following list shows the criteria
which will be used in evaluating
whether or not an individuaL permit
may be required instead of a general
permit.
1. Evidence on non-compliance under
previous permit for the operation;
2. Preservation of high quality waters
and fisheries;
3. Facilities with an effluent discharge
flow of over 1.00 MGD maximum daily
for the states of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire and 0.15 MGD maximum
daily for the state of Maine;
4. Production of effluent at the facility
other than using aluminum compound
or polymer as coagulant; and
5. Use of land application as a means
of discharge:
8. For the state of Maine, a minimum
dilution of effluent of 100:1 ui the
receiving water at 1Q10 should be
stipulated.
The similarity of the discharges has
prompted EPA to prepare this draft
general permit for public review and
comment. When issued, this permit will
enable facilities to maintain compliance
with the Act and wiil extend
environmental and regulatory controls
to a large number of discharges and -
reduce some permit backlog. The
issuance of this general permit for the
geographic areas described below is
warranted by this similarity of (a)
environmental conditions. (b) State
regulatory requirements applicable to
the discharges and receiving waters, and
(c) technology employed.
In the State of Maine, there are 271
industrial applicants or permittees. his
estimated that 13 of the industries that
have direct discharges to the waters of
the State are strictly water treatment
facilities.
In the State of New Hampshire. there
are 171 estimated industrial
applications or permittees. It is
estimated that a or more of the
industries that have the direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly water treatment facilities.
In the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, there axe 651 industrIal
applicants or permittees. It is estimated
that 33 of the Industries that have direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly water treatment facilities.
UI. Conditions of the General NPDES
Permit
A. Geographic Areas
Maine (Permit No. MEG640000)—AU
of the discharges to be authorized by the
genera) NPDES permit for the State of
Maine from dlschargers are limited to
Class B.C.SB and SC waters of the State.
except lakes. The drainage areas must be
more than 10 square miles.
Massachusetts (Permit No.
MAG640000)—A1I of the discharges to
be authorized by the general NPDES
permit for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts dischargers are limited to
Class B. ans SB waters as designated in
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards,
314 CMR 4.00 et seq. Discharges Into
Class A water needs review and
approval by MADE?.
New Hampshire (Permit No.
NHG640000 1.—All of the discharges to

-------
63794
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 1994 I Notices
be authorized by the general NPDES
permit for the State of New Hampshire
_____ are into all waters of the
State of New Hampshire unless
otherwise memetad by the State Water
Quality Standards, New Hampshire RSA
485—A:8. (or as revised).
B. Nobficatlon by Pernuttees
Operators of facilities whose
discharge. or discharges. are described
in Part II and whose facilities are
located in the geographic areas
described in Part IlL A. above may
submit to the egionaI Administrator.
Reçon La noth of intent to be covered
by the appropriate general permit
within 180 days of the effective date of
the general permit. This written
notification must include the owner’s or
operator’s legal name and address; the
facility name and address; the number
and type of facilities to be covered. the
facility locations; a topographic map (or
other map if a topographic map is not
available) mdLCSUIIg its facrlity
the names of the receiving
waters into which discharge will occur
a determination as to whether or not the
facility discharge will adversely affect a
listed or proposed to be listed
endangered or threatened species or its
critical habitat (see Part El.
The facilities authorized to discharge
under a Snal general permit will receive
written notification from EPA. Region!,
with State concurrence. Failure ta
submit to EPA. Region I, a notice of
intent to be covered or failure to receive
from WA written notification of permit
coverage means that the facility is not
authorized to discharge under this
general permit.
C. Effluent Limitations
1. Statutory Requirements
The Clean Water Act (the Act)
prohibits the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States without a
National Pollutant Discharge
linifn on System (NPDES) permit
unless such a discharge Is otherwise
authorized by the Act. The NPDES
Permit Is the mhu ( used to
implement technology and water quality
based effluent limitations and other
requirements including momtoring and
reporting. The NPDES permit was
developed in accordance with various
statutory end regulatory authorities
established pursuant to the Act. The
regulations governing the EPA NPDES
Permit program are generally found at
40 CFR parts 122. 124, 125 and 136.
EPA is required to consider
technology and water quality
requirements when developing permit
limits. 40 CFR part 125 Subpart A sets
the criteria and standaida that EPA must
use to determine which technology
based requirements. requirement under
Section 301 (b) of the Act and/or
zequirernents established on a case by-
case basis under section 402(a)(1) of the
Act, should be included in the permit.
The Clean Water Act requires that all
discharges, at a minimum, must meet
effluent limitations based on the
technological capability of dizchargers
to control pollutants in their discharge.
Section 301(b}(1)(A) of the Act requires
the application of Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT) with the statutory deadline for
compliance being July 1. 1977, unless
otherwise authorized by the Act.
Section 301(b)(2) of the Act requires the
application of Best Conventional
Control Technology (BCT) for
conventional pollutants, and Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) for non-conventional
and toxic polLutants. The compliance
deadline for BCT and BAT being March
31, 1980.
2. Technology.Based Effluent
Limitations
EPA has not promulgated National
Effluent Guidelines for water treatment
facilities. For a category where
Guidelines have been promulgated, the
issuance of an individual permit for the
discharges would be more appropriate
(See 40 CFR 122.2a(b)(3fl1)(C)).
Therefore, as provided In section
402(a)(1) of the Act. EPA has
determined to issue this general permit
utilizing Best Professional Judgement
(BPT) toineet the above stated criteria
for BATIBCT described in section
304(b) of the Act. Accordingly monthly
average TSS Limitation is established
based upon best professional judgement
pursuant to Section 402(a)(1) of the
CWA .
Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitations
Under Section 301(b)(i)(C) of the Act
discharges are subject to effluent
limitations based on water quality
standards and to the conditions of Slate
certification under sectIon 401 of the
Act. Race mug stream requirements are
established according to numerical and
narrative standards adopted under state
andior federal law for each stream use
classification. The CWA requires that
EPA obtain State certification which
states that all water quality standards
will be satisfied. Regulations governing
State certification are set forth in 40 CFR
§ 124.53 and 124.55.
Section iD1(a)(3) of the Act
specifically prohibits the discharge of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The
States áf Maine, Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire have similar narrative
criteria in their water quality regulations
(See Maine TItle 38. Article 4—A, section
420 and section 484.4.A.(4)
Massachusetts 314 Qi1R 4.05(5)(e); and’
New Hampshire Part Env.Ws
432.02(d114) that prohibits such
discharges. The permit does not allow
for the addition of materials or
chemicals in amounts which would
produce a toxic effect to any aquatic life.
The effluent from the water treatment
facility may contain toxic pollutants due
to use of chemicals and chlorine.
However, they do not contain hazardous
pollutants or oil and grease. Therefore.
water quality criteria established for oil
and grease and hazardous pollutants do
not apply to these discharges. Water
Quality Standards and State
certification requirements applicable to
these discharges have been reviewed by
EPA and the limits and testing
requirements for each State are given
below:
Massachusetts: Limits of Max. Daily
TSS. Monthly Average and Max Daily
Settleabie Solids and pH. Teeming
requirements for Chlorine. Aluminum.
LC5O and G-NOEC.
Maine: Limits of Chlorine Aluminum
and pH. Testing requirements of LCSO
and C-NOEC.
New Hampshire: Limit of pH. Testing
requirements of Chlorine. Aluminum,
L 0 and C-NOEC.
D. Antidegrtidation Provisions
The conditions of the permit reflect
the goal of the CWA and WA to achieve
and maintain water quality standards.
The environmental regulations
pertaining to the State Antidegradatlon
Policies which protect the State’s
surface waters from falling below State
standards for water quality are found in
the following provisions: Maine Title
3a, Article 4—A, Section 464.4.F.;
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
314 CMR 4.04 Antldegradatioii
Provisions; and New Hampshire policy
RSA 485-A8. Vi Part Env.Ws 437.01
and EnvWs 437.02.
This general permit will not apply to
any new or increased discharge unless
it can be determined that such
discharges will result in insignificint
effects to the receiving waters This
determination shall be made in
accordance with the appropriate State
Antidegmadatlon Policies.
B. Monitonng and l?eporting
Reqwrements ’
Effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements are included in the general
permit describing requirements to he
imposed on facilities to be covered.

-------
- FedeTal Regis*ST I Vol. 59, Na. 2 36 I Friday, December 9, 1994] Notices - . 63795
management requirements mmon to feopardize the continuid existence of
all permits. - — any endangered or threatened species or
IV. State . . - - - adversely affect Its 1th i habitat. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Section 401 of the CWA pzoiides that Nations] Mañ e Fisheries Service
no Federal licons, or permit, including ncu this conhiajon.
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
. -that may result in anv discharge i D. £nviroiwienthl Impact Statement
navigable waters &nau be ted uii Requirements
the State in which the discharge The general permits do not authorize
originates ceiiifies that the discharge the consfluction of any water resources
will comply with the applicable project or the impoundment of any -
provisions of sections 301,302, 303, water body or have any effect on
306. and 307 of the CWA. The section historical property, and are not major
-401 certification process has bean Federal activities needing preparation of
completed for all St ies covered by any Environmental hirpact Statement.
today’s general permit. - Therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, 1.6 U.S.C. SS 1273 at seq..the
V. n1 ve Aspects Nations] Historic Preservation Act of
A. Requesl To Be Covered - - 1966, 16 LI.S.C §5470 at seq.. the Fish
A facility is act covered by any of and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16
these general permits until itmeet, U.S.C §5661 at seq.. and the National
following requirements. FIrst, ft t Environments] Policy Act. 33 U.S.C.
send a oUce of intent to EPA and §54322 at seq.. do not apply to the
xpp p state fndi it meetithe Issuance of this general NPDES permit.
lequiremenis of the permit and WaDIS to VI. Other Legal Requirements
be covered. And second, It must be — -
notified in wnting by EPA that . Econoinzcimpoc’s (Executive Order
covered by this general permit. - 12291) . -
Any faclity operating under any EPA has reviewed the effect of
effective individual NPDES permit zany Executive Order 12291 on this draft
request that the individual permit be general permit and has determined that
isvoked and that coverage under the - it is not a major rule under that order.
general permit granted, as outlined in 40 This regulation was submitted
Q’R 122.28(bJ(3J(v). If EPA grants - previously to the Office of Management
coveragiunder the general permit, EPA and Budget for review as required by
will so notify the facility and revoke the Executive Order 12291. Th. Office of
Individual permit. : Management end Budget has exempted
Facilities with expire individual this action from the review
permits that have been idmrntctraUvoly requirements of Executive Order 12291
continued In accordance with 5122.6 pursuar t to Section 8(b) of that Order.
may apply for coverage under this
general permit When coverage is • ‘3. Popervork Reduc on Act
granted the expired Individual permit . EPA has reviewed the mquirements
automatically will cease being in effect. Imposed on regulated facilities liv these
draft general NPDES permits under the
B. The Coastal Zone Mo.nageme nt Act - Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
The Coastal Zone Management Act u.s.c §53501 at. seq. The information
(CZMA). 16 U.S.C. §51451 at seq., and collection requirements of these draft
Its implementing regulations (15 R permits have already been approved by
Part 930) require that any federally . - the Office of Management and Budget
licensed activity affecting the coastal - under s ib_ 4 oe.s made for the WDES
zone with an approved Coastal Zone - permit program under the provisions of
Management Program (C 4P) be the Clean Water Act No comments from
determined to be consistent with the the Office of Management and Budget or
4P. EPA. Region I. has determined the public were received on the
that these general NPDES permits are Information collection requirements in
consistent with the EPA has these permits. - - - - -
received certification from the -
Massachusetts, Maine, and New C The Reguiotoiy Flexibility Act
Hampshire coastal acne agencies for a After review of the facts presented in
determination that these three permits the notice printed above, I hereby
are consistent with their respective State certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5
policies. U.S.C. S 605 (b). that this permit -does nor
have a significant Impact on a
C. The Endangered Species Act - substantial number of small entities.
EPA Region I has concluded that the Moreover, the draft permit will reduce
discharges to be covered by the general a significant administrative burden on
NPDES permits will not affect or regulated sources.
P ‘itiee covered by the final general
will be required to submit to
iegian 1. and the epprupriate State
s Th1icharge Monitoring Report
f?rvnrein i ng effluent data an a seen-
rn ,u .l basis.
- ‘Th monitonng requirements have
established to yield data
representative of the discharge under
authority of Section 308(a) of the Act
and 40 G’R 122.41U), 122.44(1) and
48, and as certified by the State.
£rdangered Spec:es -
Discharges that may adversely affect.a
bared or proposed to be listed
endangered or threatened species or its
entical habitat axe not authorized under
thin general permit without the written
approval of the Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or the National Maxine
Fisheries Service. -
The Fish and Wildlife Service has -
indz ted that the dwarf wedge mussel
(Alsaidonta heteiodon), a Federally -
lismd endangered specias, occurs in a,,
stretch of the Connecticut River frcnn - -
tailanon. New Hampshire to -
Weacherafield Bow, Vermont. in the
Ashaslot River In Keen ., New
1atnTtp hire and historically from a
number of rivers In Massachusetts, Any
‘whose discharge may adversely
w he mussel or any other -
thr tl eAd or endangered species or its
habitat is required to omitact the Fish
end. Wildlife Service at the following
adifress In order to make a formal
dhm!! TIinntiou United States
parfment of the Interior, Fish and
Wlktiifgi ServIce, 400 Ralph Pill
llJli etplace, 22 Bridge Street, Concord,
wHempshize 03301—4901.
Nalinnid Marine Fisheries Service
h ir d; ted that the endangered
thtnrrxzose sturgeon (Acipenser
lIrmiiiostrum) inhabits certaii? sections
ai Penobscot, Keinnebec and
i*a±oscoggin Rivers in Maine, and the
ftirthn rk and Connacticut Rivers in
rhu ett .s , Any facility whose -
d1 arge may adversely effect the
or any other threatened or
anr ngered species or its habitat is
q .drcd to contact the national Marine
ies Service at the following
n ess United States Depar ent of -
(D.erce, National Oceanic and -
Al nospheric Administration, National
tmin. Fisheries Service, Habitat and
Rtntected Resources Division, One —
mhc buxa Drive, Gloucester.
lø ”qchusetts 01903—2298.
‘rer Requirements
a remaining conditions of the
permit axe based on the NPDES
7 y!auon3 40 C ’R Parts 122 through
• and consist primarily of

-------
63796
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 236 / Friday. December 9. 1994 / Notices
Dated: November 20.1994
ohn P. De LUurs,
Regional Adm:n,sbvtor.
Appendix A.—Swninaiy of Responses to
Public Comments on the July 23, 1994
Draft General Permit
Based on comments from the States of
Maine end New Hampshire the
requirement of Footnote No. I under
Part I l.a. is limited for the State of
Massachusetts only. Based on another
comment the note A.i.h. under Part I
A.Lh. has been changed. The change is
that the Toxicity testing will be
performed when requested by EPA or
State within 90 days after the date of
request. -
Appendix B—Final General Permit
Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDESI
Note: The FolLowing general NPDES pernut
has been combined for purposes of this
Federal Register notice in order to eliminate
duplication of material common to all
permits for the Individual states.
2. Massachusetts. Maine ana’New
Hampshire General Permit
In compliance with the provisions of
the Federal Clean Water Act, as
amended. (33 U.S.C. 1251 et.seq. the
“CWA ) operators of facilities located in
Part Ill A. which discharge effluent from
water treatment facilities as defined in
Part II of Supplementary Information to
waters as designated in Part Ill A in
accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective
when issued.
This permit and the authorization to
dLscharge expire at midnight, five years
from the effective date of the Federal
Register Publication.
This permit consists of Part I below
Including effluent limitations.
monitoring requirements etc. and Part U
General Requirements.
Operators of facilities within the
general permit area who fail to notify
the Director of their intent to be covered
by this generiti permit and receive no
written notification of permit coverage
or those who are denied by the DLrectr
are not authorized under this genera
permit to discharge from those facihti..
to the receiving waters.
Signed this lath day of November 1994.
David A. Flerra.
Director, WaterMonogement Division.
Environmentoi Protection Agency. Region I.
Boston, Massachusetts.
Andrew Gofflieb,
Director. Office of Watershed Management.
Dureuu of Resource Protection.
Conunon wee Ith of Mossachbsetts. Boston.
MA.
Part I
A. Effluent Lnruteflions and Monrtorrng
Requirements
1. During the period beginning
effective date and lasting through
expiration, the permittee is authorized
to discharge from each outfall effluent
from water treatment facilities to
receiving waters as designated in Part ill
A
a. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored by the permittee as
specified below
b. The discharge shall not cause
objectionable discoloration of the
receiving waters.
c. There shall be no discharge of
floating soid s or visible foam. The
discharge shall be adequately treated to
insure that the surface water remains
free from pollutants In concentrations or
combinations that settle to form haraiM
deposits, float as foam, debris, scum or
other visible pollutants. It shall be
adequately treated to insure that the
surface waters remain free from
pollutants which produce odor, color.
taste or turbidity in the receiving water
which is not naturally occurring and
would render it unsuitable for its
designated use.
d. The effluent limitations are based
on the state water quality standard and
are certified by the states.
e. Samples taken in compliance with
the monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the point of
discharge.
L All discharges as designated in Part
U of Supplementary Information shall
pass through a settling pond for 24
hours minimum detention time or other
approved treatment system and meet the
effluent limitations in Part I.A .1.a. prior Maine
to discharge to waters of the slates.
g. pH.
Massachusetts
The pH of the effluent shall not be
less than nor greater than the range
given for the receiving water
Effluent -
Dischwge limitations
Monitoring requirements
Avg. Max.
monthiy daily’
Measurement
frequency 2
S J PIO tYPO
Flow (MGO) ........._.._ . . -. -_.. ... . ........ . ..._. . ........ . ..
TSS (mqlI - --————— -. . . ... . .... -
See note A.1. $
30 50
.1 0.2
See Note A 19.
See note A.1
See note A.1.h Corep
See note A.1 k
1/wealc ..............
liweek
llweek -.
..
llmonth ...........
.. ....
llweek
Daily average.
Q
Grab.
Grab
Comp.
Grab
Seffl ab4a Solids (rnlIt)’. -
pH —-— — —.— ....
AIUTTUnUIn (mgjfl.
LC50&C NOEC23 .____......... . ... . . . ....... .._..... . . . ...
Chtaiine Residuai 4 Ugh .—..—..——.—.-. . .._ ..
,‘
Footnotes:
‘Re juemeni i cr the State of Massachusetts only.
2 Satr Ies st iaIJ be taken only ‘*flen discharging.
I.c-50 is the concanbubon of effluent In a sample that causes mortality to 50% 01 the test population at a specific time of observation.
No Observed Chrorixi Etfeot Concentration (C-I ’JOEC) is the hrghest conceritraUon of effluent to which organisms ate exposed in a life-cycle or
paillat hfe-cyde test whIch causes no adverse effect on growth, survival anti reproduction
4 Test only it chtorinatios, is used in the process.
classfficatlons. unless these values are
exceeded due to natural causes. The
following table specifies ranges for -
Massachusetts:
Classificabon
Range
B ................. ..
C ............. . .. . ....._..
SB ..,........ ..
SC...... ..
6.5-8.3
6.5-9.0
6.5-6.5
6.5—90
The pH range in both freshwater and
saltwater is 6.0 to 8.5 sit, unless
establishes on a case-by-case basis (By
State Policy).

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No . 236 / Friday, December 9, 1994 / Notices
63797
‘ew Hampshire
-- ThepHoftheeffluentshallnotbe
less than 6.5 standard units (su) nor
greater than 8.0 su at any time unless
these values are exceeded due to nature!
causes.
h. One chronic and modified acute
toxicity screening test shall be
performed by the permittee when
requested by EPA or State within 90
days after the date of request. One grab
sample will be taken during normal
facility operation. The Ceriodaphnia
dubia for fresh water and sea-urchin for
manne water shall be used as test
organism in the test. A copy of the test
procedure and detailed protocol will be
provided upon request from EPA.
Region I. The results of the chronic
biological test IC—NOEC and LC5O) will
be forwarded to State and EPA within
30 days after the completion of all tests.
i. The states of Massachusetts and
New Hampshire will have a maximum
daily limit of 1.0 mgd. The state of
Maine will have a maximum daily limit
of 0 15 mgd.
;. Far the states of Massachusetts and
New Hampshire report only. For the
state of Maine the maximum daily limit
of Aluminum will be 5.0 mgIL
k. For the states of Massachusetts and
iw Hampshire report only. For the
state of Maine the maximum daily limit
of chlorine residual will be 1.0 mg/I.
B. Monitoring and Reporting
Maine, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire
Monitoring results obtained during
the previous 8 months shall be
summarized for each quarter and
reported on separate Discharge
Monitoring Report Form(s) postmarked
no later than the 15th day of the month
following the completed reporting
period. The reports are due on the 15th
days of January and July. The first report
may include less than 6 months
information.
Signed copies of these, and all other
reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Director and the State
at the following addresses as follows:
a. EPA shall receive copy of all
reports required herein: NPDES Program
Operations Section, Water Compliance
Branch Water Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency. Post
Office Box 8127. Boston. MA 02114.
b. Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control
(1) The Regional offices wherein the
charge occurs, shall receive a copy of
1 reports required herein:
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection,
Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control. Western Regional
Office, 436 Dwight SI. Suite4OZ
Springfield. MA 01101
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection,
Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control, Southeastern
Regional Office. 20 Riverside Drive
Lakeville, MA 02346
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control, Northeastern
Regional Office, 10 Commerce Way.
Woburn, MA 01801
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection,
Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control, Central Regional
Office, 75 Grove Street, Worcester,
Massachusetts 01605
(2) All notifications and reports
required by this permit shall be
submitted to the States at: -
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Office of
Watershed Management. 40 Institute
Road. North Grafton, MA. 01536.
c. Maine Department of
Environmental Protection.
Signed copies of all reports required
by this permit shall be sent to the State
of Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, Operation and Maintenance
Division, State House, Station 17.
Augusta. ffi 04333.
d. New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services.
Signed copies of all reports required
by this permit shall be sent to the State
at: New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. Water Supply
and Pollution Control Division, Permits
and Compliance Section: P.O. Box 95,
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095.
C. Additional General Permit Conditions
1. NotificatIon Requirements
a. Written notification of
commencement of operations including
the legal names and addresses of the
owners and operator and the locations,
number and type of facilities and/or
operations covered shall be submitted.
(1) For existing discharges within 180
days after the effective date of this
permit. by operators whose facilities
and/or operations are discharging into
the general permit area on the effective
date of the permit; or
(2) For new or substantially increased
discharges 30 days prior to
commencement of the discharge by
operators whose facilities and/or
operations commence discharge
subsequent to the effective date of this
permit.
b. Operators of facilities and/or
operations within the general permits
area who fail to notify the Director of
then’ intent to be covered by this general
permit and do not obtain written
authorization of coverage are not
authorized under this general permit to
discharge from those facilities into the
named receiving waters.
2. Termination of Operations
Operators of facilities andlor
operators authorized under this permit
shall notify the Director upon the
termination of discharges. The notice
must contain the name, mailing address,
and location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted, the NPDES
permit number for the water .reatment
facility discharge identified by the
notice, and an indication of whether the
operator of the discharge has changed
The notice must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR § 122.22.
3. Renotification
Upon reissuance of a new general
permit. the parmittee is required to
notify the Director of the intent to be
covered by the new general permit.
4. When the Director May Require
Application for an Individual NPDES
Permit
a. The Director may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and obtain an individual
NPDES permit. Any Interested person
may petition the Director to take such
action. Instances where an individual
permit may be required include the
following:
(1) The discharge(s) Is a significant
contributor of pollution:
(2) The discharger is not In
compliance with the conditions of this
permit;
(3) A change hasoccuried in the
availability of the demonstrated
technology of practices for the control or
abatement of pollutants applicable to
the point source:
(4) Effluent limitation guidelines are
promulgated for point sow covered
by this permit;
(5) A Water Quality Management Plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point source Is approved; or
(6) The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longer
(a) Involves the same volume or
substantially similar types of operations
(b) Discharges the same type of
wastes;
(C) Requires the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
(d) Requires the same or similar
monitoring and
(e) In the opinion of the Director is
more appropriately controlled under a

-------
63798
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 236/Friday. December 9. 1994 / Notices
general permit than under an individual
NPDES permit.
b. The Director may require an
individual permit only if the permittee
authorized by the general perlrnt has
been notified in wntulg that an
individual permit is required, and has
been given a brief explanation of the
reasons for this decision.
5. When an Individual NPDES Permit
is issued to an operator otherwise
subject to this general permit. the
applicability of this permit to that
owner or operator is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the
individual permit.
Pail 11, Standard Conditions
Section A. General Requirements
1. Duty To Comply
The perinittee 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 reissuance,
or modification; or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
a. The perrnittee shall comply with
effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the
CWA for toxic pollutants and with
standards for sewage sludge use or
disposal established under Section
405(d) of the CWA 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.
b. The CWA provides that any person
who violates Sections 301.302, 305,
307, 308.318, or 405 of the CWA or any
permit condition or limitation
implementing any of such sections in a
permit issued under Section 402. or any
requirement Imposed in a pretreatment
program approved under Sections -
402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the CWA Is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$25,000 per day for each violation. Any
person who neghgentiy violates such
requirements is subject to a fine of not
less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000
per day of violation, or by imprisonment
fçr not more than 1 year, or both. Any
person who knowingly violates such
requirements Is subject to a ftne of not
less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000
per day of violation, or by Imprisonment
for not more than 3 years, or both. Note:
See 40 CFR 122.41(a)(2) for additional
enforcement criteria.
c. Any person may be assessed an
administrative penalty by the
Administrator for violating Section 301.
302, 306.307,308. 31e. or 405 of the
CWA. or any permit condition or
Limitation implementing any of stich
sections in a permit issued under
Section 402 of the CWA. Administrative
penalties for Class I violations are not to
exceed $10,000 per violation, with the
maximum amount of any Class I penalty
assessed not to exceed $25,000.
Penalties for Class U violations are not
to exceed 510.000 per day for each day
during which the violation continues,
with the maximum amount of any Class
B penalty not to exceed $125,000.
2. 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.
3. Duty To Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Regional Administrator, within a
reasonable time, any inlomiation which
the Regional Ad.mmistrator may request
to determine whether cause exists for
rncdifyuig. revoking and reissuing. or
terminating this permit, or to determine
compliance with this permit. The
permittee shall also furnish to the
Regional Administrator, upon request.
copies of records required to be kept by
thinper init.
4. Reopener Clause
The Regional Administrator reserves
the right to make appropriate revisions
to this permit in order to establish any
appropriate effluent limitations.
schedules of compliance, or other
provisions which may be authorized
under the CWA In order to bring all
discharges into compliance with the
CWA.
5. Oil and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the perinittee
from any responsibilities. liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
CWA, or SectIon 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
6. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does riot
convey any property rights of any sort,
nor any exclusive privileges.
7. Confidentiality of Information
a. in accordance wIth 40 CTR Pail 2.
any information submitted to EPA
pursuant to these regulations may be
claimed as confidential by the
submitter. Any such claim must be
asserted at the time of submission in th
manner prescribed on the application
form or instructions or, in the case of
other submissions, by stamping the
words “confidential business
information” on each page containing
such information. U no claim is made at
the time of submission. EPA may make
the information available to the public
without fiuther notice. If a claim is
asserted, the information will be treated
In accordance with the procedures in 40
CFR Part 2 (Public Information)
b. Ch mc of confidentiality for the
following information will be denied.
(i)The name and address of any
permit applicant or permittee;
(ii) Permit applications. permits. and
effluent data as defined in 40 CFR
2.302(a)(2) -
c. Information required by NPDES
application forms rovided by the
Regional Administrator under § 122.21
may not be claimed confidential. This
Includes information submitted en the
forms themselves and any attachments
used to supply information required by
the-forms. -
8. Duty To Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue ai.
activity regulated by this permit after its
expiration date, the permittee must
apply for and obtain a new permit. The
permittee shall submit a new
application at least 180 days before the
expiration date of the existing permit.
unless permission for a later date has
been granted by the Regional
Mvninigttator. (The Regional
Administrator shall not grant
permission for applications to be
submitted later than the expiration date
of the existing permit.)
9. State Authorities
Nothing in Part 122, 123. or 124
precludes more sthngent State
regulation of any activity covered by
these regulations, whether or not under
an approved State program.
10. Other Laws
The issuance of a permit does not
authorize any injury to persons or
property or invasion of other private
rights, nor does it relieve the permittee
of its obligation to comply with any
other applicable Federal, State. and
local laws and regulations.
Section B. Operation and Maintenance
of Pollution Controls
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shafl’at all times
properly operate and maintain alt

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59.. No. 236 I Friday, December 9 1994 / Notices
63799
• lities and systems of treatment and
£rol (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 prevention plans. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedu.res. 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 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
conditions of this permit.
3. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge or sludge use or disposal
in violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely
-fecting human health or the
ironment.
4. Bypass
a. Definitions. -
(1) “Bypass” means the Intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
(2) ‘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.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The perzmttee may allow any bypass to
occur which does not cause affluent
limitations to be exceeded, but only if
it also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of Paragraphs B.4.c and 4,d
of this section.
c. Notice.
(1) Anticipated bypass.
If the permittee knows in advance of
the need for a bypass, it shall submit
prior notice, if possible at least ten days
‘fore the date of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass.
‘ perniittee shall submit notice of
an unanticipated bypass as required in
Paragraph D.I.e (24-hour notice).
d. Prohibition of h% pass.
(I) Bypass is prohibited, and the
Regional Admuustrato; may take
enforcement action against a pernhittee
for bypass, unless:
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent
loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage;
(bj 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 uistafled inbe
exercise of reasonable engineering
judgment to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance: and
(c) (1) The permittee submitted notices
as required under Paragraph 4.c of this
section.
(ii) The Regional Adrnixustrator may
approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the
Regional Administrator determines that
it will meet the three conditions listed
above in Paragraph 4.d of this section.
5. Upset
a. Definition. ‘Upset” means an
exceptional incidejit In which there is
unintentional and temporary non-
compliance 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.
b. Effect of an upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology-based permit effluent
limitations lithe requirements of
Paragraph B.5.c 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 admini ’itrative action subject to
judicial review, - -
c. Conditions necessar/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 thati
(1) An upset occurred and that the
perrnittee 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 in Paragraphs
D.I.a and I.e (24-hour notice); and
(4) The perinittee complied with any
remedial measures required under B.3.
above.
d. Burden of proof. In any
enforcement proceeding the pexmittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
1. Monitoring and Records
a. Samples and measurements taken
for the purpose of monitoring shall be
representative of the xnorutozed activity.
b. Except for records of monitoring
Information required by this permit
related to the permittee’s sewage sludge
use and disposal activities, which shall
be retained for a period of at least five
years (or longer as required by 40 CFR
Part 503), the pemuttee shall retain
records of all monitoring information.
including all calibration and
maintenance records and all original
strip chart recordings for continuous
monitonng 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
hample. measurement, report or
application except for the information
concerning storm water discharges
which must be retained for a total of 6
years. This retention period may be
extended by request of the Regional
Administrator at any time.
c. Records of monitoring information
shall include:
(lIThe 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
performed;
(4) The Individual(s) who performed
the analyses:
(5) The analytical techniques or
methods used; and
(6) The results of such analyses.
d. Monitoring results must be
conducted according to teat procedures
approved under 40 Q’R Part 138 or, In
the case of sludge use or disposal,
approved under 40 CFR Part 136 unless
otherwise specified in 40 CFR Part 503
unless other test procedures have been
specified in the permit.
e. 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, or by
imprisonment for not more than 2 years

-------
F rnJ R er I Vol. 59, No.236 / Priday December 9. 1994 F Notices
h. if a cm victlon of a p on is for
latüm .Jtera rst -
iiction of such persen undo: this
p i aeizt isa ffn,of not
more than 00perdayofvo1atto .
or by imprisonment of not more than 4
years, or both.
2 rnsp’ tinn and Entry
The permictee shall allow the
Regional Administrator, or an
authorized representative rmduding an
authorized cora acting as a
representative of tha mirILc*T torI.,
upon. presentation of ora’is tin] ’ and
other documents as may ba ratpozed by
law, to:
a. fotar u inn the permittee’s. cemis
where a regulated f iIity or ivity is
lo .ted or onnducteiL or where records
must be kept under the conditions of
this permit.
b. Have to and onpy.at
re n i}iT t mac , any recordi that must
be kept under the nnrHtinn of this
permit.
c. Inspect, at times any
facilities. equipment (inc luding
inceiitoring and contra! Ii 1 l T RZ 1 )
practices, or operations regulated or
required tmder this pennit. and
d. mp1e or monitor at reasonable
‘ies. for the purposes of assuring
au compliance or as otherwise
ozized by the clean Water Act, any
.t tA7W Pq Q parameters at any
location.
SectIon 0. ReportIng Requirements
1. ReportIng Requixevn itc
a. PIo.nned changes. The peruiittee
shall give notice to the Regional
Adminictrator or seen as pn. ibl. of any
p1 nir d pby ca1 alterations or
additions to th permitted facility.
Notice is required only whanr
(1) The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for deternining whether a
facility Is a now sowos In 40 ‘R
§ 122.29(b); or
(2) The alteration or addition wald
significantly change the nature or
manes. the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants which are subject to the
effluent lireitati ens in the permit. nor to
the notification r uiremeuts under 40
CFR 122.42(aX1),
(3) The alteration or addition results
in a significant change in the permittee’s
sludge use or disposal practices, and
such alteration, addition or change may
justify the application of permit
-“aditicas different from or absent in
wdatlng permit. Including
ificailon of additional use ordispooal
..icns not reported during the permit
application process or not reported
pursuant loan approved Pand
application plan.
5. Anticipated noncompliance. The
p nsttet shall give advance notice to
the Regional Ar na1 is ator of any
planned changes in the piirrnitted
facility or activity which may result in
noncom plinarce with E rmt
reqmremena
c, Transfers. This permit is not
transferable to any person except after
notice to the Regional Adrarnistralet
The Rogieeal Administrator may require
modifica&i at mocation and
reissuance of the permit to change the
name of the permittee and incorpocate
such other requirements es may be
necessary undet the Clean Water Ast.
(See § 122.61: in some cases.
modification or revocation and
reis.suanca ?Tlsans t niory.}
d . Moiutorrng reports Monitoring -
results shall be reported at the intervals
specified elsewhere in this permiL
(1) Monitr rlngresulta must be
reported on. a Discharge Monitoring
Report (DMR1 or forms provided or -
specified by the Regional 4m ni arator
for reporting results of morutonng of
sludge use or disposal practices.
(2) If the peonittee moniLors any
poLlutant more frequently than required
by the permit using test procedures
approved under 40 O’R Part 1.36 or. in
the case of sludge use or disposal.
approved under 40 ( R Part 136 un1es c
otherwise specified in. 40 CFR Part 503.
or as. sp ef fi d In the permit. the results
of this monitoring shall be included in
the cafr”!aiion and. reporting of the data
suburitiatho the DMR or sludge
reporting farm sp ci6eA by the R gjnnal
Administrator.
(3) CalculatIons for all limitations.
which require averaging of’
measurements shall utilize an
arithmetic mean unless otherwise
specified by the Regional Administrator
in the permit.
e. Twenty-four hour reporting.
(1) The permittee shall report any
noncompliance which may endanger
health or the environment Any
lnfcbeaton shall be provided orally
within 24 hours from the time the
per!mttee becomes aware of the
circumstances.
A written submission shafl also be
provided within 5 days of the time the
permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a desa tion of the
noncompliance and its cause the period
of noncompliance, including exact dates
and times. and lithe noncompliance has
not been corrected, the anticipated time
It is expected to continue and steps
taken or planned to reduce, eliminate,
and prevent reocewvenes of the
noncompliance.
(2) The (allowing shall be icciuded a.
Inlovrnetion which must be reported
within 24 hours underthisparagraph.
(a) Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit. (See 122.41(gJ)
(b Any upset which exceedsany
effluent limdatlen in the permit.
Ic ) Violation of a maidmum daily
discharge limitation briny of the
poihitants listed by the Regional
Admmrstraiar in the permit to be
reportedwithin 24 hours. (See
§ 122.44(g))
(3) The Ra onal Administrator may
waive the written report on a case-by-
case basis for reports under Paragraph
D.1.s lIthe oral repeal has. been received
wIthin 24 hours.
L 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
g. Other noncoinp)iance. The
perraittee shall report all instances of
noncompliance not reported nuder
Paragraphs D.1.d. D.1.e and D.1.f of this
section. at the time monitoring reports
are submitted. The reports shall rr .ntain
the information listed in Paragraph
D.1.e of this section.
h. Other infommtlon. Where the
permittee becomes aWW that it failed to
submit any relevant facts in a permit
application. oreucbrmtted incorrect
uxformatlon in a permit apphcatf on or
in anyrvpofl to the Regional
Ada mistrator, It shell promptly submit
such lacts or Information.
2. .Sigoetory Requirement
a. Al! applications. reports. or
information submitted to the Regional
Administrator shall be signed and
certified. (See §122.22)
b. The CWA provides that any person
who hiowingly 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 non-compliance shalL
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than $10,000 per violation.
or by imprisonment for not more than
6 months per violation, or by both.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under Paragraph AS.
above, all reports prepared in
accordance with the terms of this permit
shall be available for public inspection

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 1994 / Notices
63801
at the offices of the Stata water pollution
ntrol agency and the Regional
.dininistrator. As required by the CWA,
effluent data shall not be considered
confidential. Knowingly making any
false statement on any such report may
result in the imposition of ci 4 minil
penalties as provided for in Section 309
of the C%VA.
Section E. Other Conditions
1. Definitions for purposes of this
permit are as follows:
Administrator means the
Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, or an
authorized representative.
Applicable standards and limitations
means all State, interstate, and Federal
standards and limitations to which a
“discharge” or a related activity is
subject to, including water quality
standards, standards of perfthrnance.
toxic effluent standards or prohibitions.
“best management practices,” and
pretreatment standards under sections
301. 302, 303. 304. 306. 307. 308. 403,
and 405 of CWA.
Application means the EPA standard
national forms for applying for a permit.
including any additions, revisions or
modifications to the forms; or (onus
‘ipproved by EPA for use In “approved
ates,” including any approved
.. iodiflcatlons or revisions.
Average The arithmetic ineanof
values taken at the frequency required
for each parameter over the specified
period. For total and/or fecal coliforms.
the average shall be the geometric mean.
Average monthly discharge limitation
means the highest allowable average of
“daily discharges” over a calendar
mouth, calculated as the sum of all daily
discharges measured during a calendar
month divided by the number of daily
discharges measured during that month.
Average weekly discharge limitation
means the highest allowable average of
“daily discharges” over a calendar
week, calculated as the sum of all daily
discharges measured during a calendar
week divided by the number of daily
discharges measured during that week.
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
“sposal, or drainage from raw material
orage.
Best Professional Judgement (DPI)
means a case-by-case determination of
Best Practicable Treatment (BPT), Best
Available Treatment (BAT) or other
appropriate standard based on an
evaluation of the available technology to
achieve a particular pollutant reduction.
Composite Sample—A sample
consisting of a minimum of eight grab
samples collected at equal Intervals
during a 24-hour period (or lesser
period as specified in the section on
Monitoring and Reporting) and
combined proportional to flow, or a
sample continuously collected
proportionally to flow over that same
time penod.
Continuous Discharge means a
“discharge” which occurs without
Interruption throughout the operating
hours of the facility except for
infrequent shutdowns for maintenance,
process changes, or similar activities,
CWA or “The Act” means the Clean
Water Act (formerly referred to as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act or
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972) Pub. L 92—500.
as amended by Pub. L 95—217. Pub. L
95—576, Pub. L. 96—483 and Pub. L. 97-.
117; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
Doily 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 daily discharge is calculated
as the total mass of the pollutant
discharged over the day. For pollutants
with limitations expressed in other
units of measurements, the daily
discharge is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the
day.
Director nieans the person authorized
to sign NPDES permits by EPA and/or
the State.
Discharge Monitonng Report Fonii
(DMR) means the EPA standard national
form, including any subsequent
additions, revisions, or modifications,
for the reporting of self ’monitonng
results by permittees. DMRs must be
used by “approved States” as well as by
EPA. EPA will supply DMRs to any
approved State upon request. The EPA
national forms may be modified to
substitute the State Agency name,
address, logo, and other similar
information, as appropriate, in place of
EPA’s.
Discharge of a pollutant means:
(a) Any addition of any “pollutant” or
combination of pollutants to “waters of
the United States” from any “point
source,” or
(b) Any addition of any pollutant or
combination of pollutants to the waters
of the “contiguous zone” or the ocean
from any point source other than a
vessel or other floating a aft which is
being used as a means of transportation
- This definition includes additions of
pollutants into waters of the United
States from: surface runoff which is
collected or dizinnelied by man;
discharges through pipes, sewers, or
other conveyances owned by a State.
municipality, or other person which do
not lead to a treatment works; and
discharges through pipes, sewers, or
other conveyances leading intoprivately
owned treatment works.
This term does not include an
addition of pollutants by any “indirect
discharger.”
Effluent limitation means any
restriction imposed by the Director on
quantities, discharge rates, and
concentrations of “pollutants” which
are “discharged” from “point sources”
Into “waters of the United States,” the
waters of the “contiguous zone,” or the
ocean.
Effluent limitations guidelines means
a regulation published by the
Administrator under Section 304(b) of
CWA to adopt or revise “effluent
limitations.”
EPA means the United States
“Environmental Protection Agency”
Grab Sample-An individual sample
collected in a period of less than 15
minutes.
Hazardous Substance means any
substance designated under 40 CFR Part
116 pursuant to SectIon 311 of CWA.
Maximum daily th’scha.rge limitation
means the highest allowable “daily
discharge.”
Murucipality means a city, town,
borough, county, parish, district,
association, or other public body created
by or under State law and having
jurisdiction over disposal or sewage,
Industrial wastes, or other wastes, or an
Indian thbe or an authorized Indian
tribe organization, or a designated and
approved management agency under
section 208 of CWA.
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System means the national
program for issuing, modifying,
revoking and reissuing, terminating,
monitoring and enforcing permits. and
imposing and enforcing pretreatment
requirements, under sections 307. 402.
318, and 405 of CWA. The term
includes an “approved program.”
New discharger means any building.
structure, facility. or installation
(a) From which there is or may be a
“discharge of pollutants”;
(b) That did not commence the
“discharge of pollutants” at a particular
“site” prior to August 13, 1979.
(c) Which is not a “new source”, and

-------
63802
Federal Register I 1oL 59, N . 236 1 Friday. December 9 . 1994 I Notices
(d) Which has never received a finally
effective NPD permit for dlschargja at
that “site”.
This definition includes an 9ndlrect
discharger which commences
discbaz ng Into ‘watsrs of the United
States” after August 13, 2979. ft also
includes any existing mobile point
source (other than an onshore or coastal
oil and. gas exploratory drilling rig or a
coastal oil and gas developmental
drilling rig) such as a seafood processing
iig, seafood processing vessel, or
aggregate plant, that begins discharging
at a “site” (or whIch it does not have a.
permit; and any offrhore or w st d
mobile oil and gas exploratory drilling
rig or coastal mobile oil and gas
develo!pn iental drilling rig that
commences the discharge of pollutants
after August 13. 2979. at a “site” asder
EPA’s pernntring nrisdictfon for which
it is not covered by en individual or.
general permit and which Is located in
an area determined by the Regional
Administmtor In the issuance of a final
permit to be an area of biological
concern. In determining whether an area
is an area of biological concern, the
Regional Mmfr istrator shall consider
the (actors specified in 40 ( R Se ons
§5 125.1224a)(1) thruagh (10).
An offshore or rniiilal mob il.,
exploratory d 41Itng rig or coastal mobile
developmental drilling rig will be
considered a “new diechaigar” oniy for
thedmetianofftadisdigeuianez ea
of blologixml conc .
Now source means any ii!diog ,
structure, f il!y , or 4nunItnt , i from
which there Is or may be a “discharge
of pollutants,’ the construction of
which osminpnced:
(a) After promulgation of standards of
performance under Section 308 of CWA
which are applicable to such.
(b) After proposal of standards of
performance In accordance with Section
306 of CWA which are applicable to
such so ce, but only If the standards
are uu ulgated In accordance with
Section 306 withIn 120 days of their
proposal.
NPDESzneeas “National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System.”
Non-Contact Coating Wotør Is water
used to reduce tomperature which does
not come In do Contact with any raw
material, intermediate product. e waste
product or finished product.
Oi mer or operator means the owner
or operutorof any “foabtycractivity”
subject to regulat.an under the NPDES
programs.
Permit means an authonzation,
license, or equwalent control document
issued by EPA or an “approved State.”
Person means an individual.
association. partnership. corporation.
murncipa&y .Siateor Federal agoncy.or
an agent or employsa thareoL
Point source icosna any disem iIe.
coTTfinc IL and, discrete conveyance.
Including but. not tfrI ftA 1 i teeny pipe.
ditch, channel. imepif, rnnf iii wall.,
discrete fissure, container. rolling, steak.
concentrated animal feeding operation.
vessel, or other ftn ’ii g craft, from.
which pollutants are or may ha
discharged. Thin term does nat include
return flows from. irrigated grfr iiThnre .
Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid
waste, incinerator residue. lIter
backwash, sewage, garbage. sewage
sludge, munitions, chemical wastes,
biological materials, radioactive
materials (except those regulated under
the AtornicEnergy Act of 1954. as
amended (42 U.S.C f5 2011 at seq.U,
heat, wrecked or discarded er uipmcnt.
rock, sand, cellar dirt and Industrial,
munic i pal. and agricultural waste
discharged Into water. It does ant meani
(a) Sewage from vessels; or
(b) Water, gas. or other material which
Is rejected into a well to facilitate
production of oil or gas. or water
derived in association with oil and gas
production and disposed of in a welt, if
the well used either to facilitate
production or for disposal purposes is
approved by authority of the State in
which the wefl is located, and if the
State determines that the iu ection or
disposal will not result in the
degradation of ground or surface water
resources.
Primary industry category means any
industry category listed in the NRDC
settlement agreement (Natural
Ressorres ”Defense Council el al. v.
Troin, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D C. 1976).
modified 12 E R.C. tefl (D D.C. 1979));
also listed in Appendix A of 40 t ’R
Part 122.
Process wart ewa tar means any water
which, during manufocturing or
processing, conies frito direct contact
with orresuils from theproductionor
use of any raw material. Intermediate
product. finished prodoct. byprodect, or
waste product.
Regional Mmuziis*rutor means the
Regional Admtni trstas; EPA. Region L
Boston.
State means any of the 3 States of
Maine, Mes-cai hn trs and New
H thne.
Secondary Industry Category means
any industry category which is not a
“primary industry category.”
Toxic pollutant means any pollutant
listed an toxic in Appendix D 0140 ( R
Part 122. under Section 307(aXI) of
CWA.
iincontaniinated storm water is
precipitation to which no pollutants
have been added and has not come Into
direct contact with any mw material.
intermediate product. waste product o’
fimshnd product.
Waters g the Uiuled St th’c means :
(a) All waters which are currently
used, were used In the past. or may be
susceptible to usa in in r t ta or foreign
commerce. including all waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide:
(bi All interstate waters, including
Interstate “wetlands.”
(C) AU other waters. such as intrastate
lakes, rivers. streams (Including
lntermitta streams ), mudflats,
sandOals. “wetlands,” stoughs. prairie
potholes, wet dows, playa lakes, or
natural pamis the use. degradation, or
destruction of which would affect or
could affect interstate or foreign
commerce ii e 4 i ling arsw 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 takon and sold to interstate or
foreign commercor or
(3) Which are used or could be used
for Lnd rtat purposes by indizames in
interstate commercei
(dl All unpoundments of waters
otherwise d fin d as waters ol the
United Slates under this definition:
(e) Tributaries. of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) (d) of this di firntio
(I) The territorial see; and
(g) “Wetlands.” adjacent towalers
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identthod in paragraphs (a)-
(I)ofthi sda f tniulon.
Whole Effluent Toxicity I WET 1 1 means
the aggregate toxin effect of an effluest
measured directly by a toio.city test.
Well ends means those areas that are
inundatadL or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficaaat to support. and that
under normal ni m nres do support.
a prevalence of vegetmion typically
adapted for life In saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally Include
swamps. marshes, bogs. and 1rni}ar -
areas.
3. Abbreviations when used in this
permit are defined below:
Cu. M/day orM3lday: cubic meters per
day
mg/i: milligrams per liter
ugh: mirrograins per liter
ibslday pounds per day
kg/day’ kilograms per day
Temp. °C. temperature in degrees
Centigrade
Temp. ‘F: temperature iii degrees
Fahrenheit
Turb.: turbidity measured by the
Nephetonretric Method INTU)
pH: a measure of the hydrogen ion
concentration

-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 1994 / Notices
63803
7S: cubic feet per second
CD: million gallons per day
,Jil & Grease Freon extractable material
mi/I: milliliter(s) per liter
Cl 2 : total residual chlorine
IFR Dec. 94—30315 Piled 12—8-94; 0:45 emi
O UNG Ccue
FEDERAL CO?, qUNICAT1ONS
COMMISSiON
Public Informa on Collection
Requirement Submitted te Office of
Management and Budget for Review
November 30.1994.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to 0MB far 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. Inc., 2100 M Street. NW, Suite
140, Waahington DC 20037, (202)857—
3800. For further information on this
submission contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communjcaton Cammie jnn (202)
Al 8-0214. Persons wishing to cnmni nt
.hls information coll tou should
• .itact Timothy Pain, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10214
NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202)
395—3561.
0MB Number 3060-0600.
Title: lniplesnantatjan of Seetion
309(() of the Cnmmunfcatjons Act—
Competitive Bidding, Filth
Memorandum Opinion and Order. PP
Docket No. 93-253.
Form Number FCC Form 175IFCC
175—S.
Action: Revision of a currently
approved collection.
Respondens:BusIni c a 7 other for-
profit (including email businesses).
Frequency of Response: On ocoasion
reporting requirmnent and
recordkaepiug requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 1,000-
3,000 responses, 3 - 7.5 hours average
burden per response, 3,000- 22,500
hours annual burden, 2,000- 3,000
recordkeepers, 1 hour average burden
per recordkeeper, 4,000 -25500 hours
total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: The C mmiq ,nn re-
examined certain aspects of Its rules in
the Fifth Memorandum Opinion Order,
a’ 1 ted November 10, 1994.
fically. the Cnminimno resolved
t... .. s ARtflcjated with our
entrepreneur’s block rules, es well as
other provisions we established to
ensuie that small businesses, rural
telephone companies and businesses
owned by minorities and women
(collectively termed “designated
entities”) have a meaningful
opportunity to participate in the
provision of broadband PCS. Thus, as
described below, we relax some aspects
of our rules to encourage investment in
designated entitles, but clarify other
provisions to emphasiza that broadband
PCS participation for women and
minorities should be synonymous with
a bonofide and meaningful presence in
this emer ng telecoznmunicatjons
Industry. In summary, the Cmnmiomon
decided to modify the rules to allow
certain noncontrolling investors who do
not qualify for the entrepreneurs’ block
or as small businesses to become
Investors in an applicant’s control group
and allow entities that are controlled by
minorities andior woman, but that have
investors that are neither minorities nor
women, to be part of the control group.
Retain the requirement that a designated
entity’s control group own at least 2.5%
of the applicant’s total equity, but
require that only 15% be held by
controlling members of the control
group that are minorities, women or
emall/entreprezieuriai business
principals. The minimum 15% may be
held in the form of options, provided
these options are exercisable at any
time, solely at the holder’s dlsantion,
and at an exercise price less than or
equal to the carrent market valuation of
the underlying shares at the time of
filing FCC Form 175 (the short form).
The resTialning 10% of the applicant’s
equity may be held in the form of either
stock options or shares, and the FCC
will allow certain investors that may not
be women, minorities or small business/
entrepreneurial principals to hold
interests in such shares or options that
are part of the control group’s equity.
The FCC Form 175 as been revised to
require applicants lalmlng designated
entity status to certify that they will
consent to audits, as set forth in our
rules, to verify such status. See the Fifth
Memorandum Opinion and Order, PP
Docket No. 93—253, released November
23, 1994. for further modifications to
these rules and requirements.
Federej Communications Commission.
WIlliam P. Caton,
iicting Secretazy.
(FR Doc. 94—30243 Filed 12—08—94; &45 amj
u3 coot
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FEMA-t008 -0RJ
Californla Amendment to Notic4 of a
Major Disaster Declaration
AGa c’v: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACT1ON Notice.
SU ARV: This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster far the State of
California (FEMA—1008—DR), dated
January 17, 1994, and related
determinations.
EFFECTiVE DATE: November 30, 1994.
FOR RIRnER INFORMATIOtI CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell, Response and
Recovery Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC 20472, 1202) 646—3606.
JPFt,EMEJITARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the incident period for
this disaster is closed effective
November 30, 1994.
I slog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.516, Disaster Assistance.)
l’cherd W. Krlmm,
Auo’ ate Dfrector, Response and Recovery
Dfrecto r ta.
(FR Doc. 94-30356 Filed 12—8—94, 8.45 ami
es.ia.o coot s i ’s-es-u
(FEMA-1 043-OR]
Florida; Major Disaster and Related
Determinations
*aatcv’, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTiON: Notice.
SU y: This is a notice of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-
1043-DR) 1 dated November 28, 1994,
and related determinations.
EFFECTIVE OATE November 28, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell, Response and
Recovery Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646—3606.
$JPPIaIThTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that, In a letter dated
November 28, 1994, the President
declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121et seq.),
as follows:
I have detennlned that the damage In
certain arem of the State of FlOrida. tesulting
from Tropical Storm Cordon on November
14. 1994. and continwag is of sufficient
seventy and magnitude to warrant a major

-------
48314
Federal Register’ 1 VoL 59 , No. 181 I Tuesday, September 20, 1994 / Notices
EPA explained in the preamble to the
final MSWLF criteria, EPA expects that
any owner or operator complying with
previsions in a StatefFribal program
approved by EPA should be considered
to be in compliance with the Federal
Criteria. See 58 FR 50978, 50995
(October 9, 1991).
Compliance With Executive Order
12868
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 6 of Executive
Order 12868.
Certification Under the Regulatory
flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b),! hereby certify that this
approval will nor have a significant
economic Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. It does not
Impose any new burdens on small
entitles. This nile. therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Authority. This notice is issued under the
authority of section 4005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Ad as amended 42 U.S.C. 8946.
Joe 0. Winkle,
Acting RegionalAdmirustrctor.
IFR Doc. 94—23240 Filed 9-19-94; 8.45 aml
nus coos
(FRL-6073 -7]
Draft NPOES General Permit for
Offshore Oil and Ga. Operations on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and
State Waters of Alaska: Arctic NPDES
General Permit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Draft NPDES General
Permit.
SUMMARY: The Regional Adnuni trator,
Region 10. is proposing to issue a draft
National Pollutant Discharge -
Elimination System (NPDES) general
permit for oil and gas stratigraphic test
and exploration wells on the Alaskan
Outer Continental Shelf and contiguous
state waters. The proposed Arctic
general permit will authorize ofLshore
oil and gas stratigraphic test and
exploration wells in the federal and
state waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas. Development and production
wells are not authorized to discharge by
this &eneral permit
Unlike previous general permits for
the Beaufort and Cbukchi Seas, the
Arctic general permit will cover a
geographic area not defined by specific
state and federal lease sale tracts.
Rather, the area of coverage includes the
following:
—Federal waters of the Beautort Sea and
Chukchl Sea planning basins as
defined by the Minerals Management
Service (?v 1S) (see U.S. Dept. of the
InterIor, 1992), and
—State waters contiguous to the
landward boundary of the Beaufoit
and Chukchi Sea planning basins.
The permit will authorize discharges
from exploratory operations in all areas
offered for lease by the U.S. Department
of the Interior’s Minerals Management
Service (MMS) included in previous
general permits issued by EPA for the
Beaufort and Chukchl Seas. This
Includes federal lease sales 7 1, 87.97.
and 109; and state lease sales 36, 39.43,
and 43A, Federall5tate lease sale BF;
and “contiguous state lease sales”
which were covered by the modification
for the Beaufort Sea II NPDES general
permit (54 FR 39574, September 27,
1989). Additional lease sale areas not
previously covered by a permit will
include, but are not limited to, the
following: ?vQvlS federal lease sales 124
and 126; and state lease sales 65 and 68.
A brief description of the basis for the
conditions and requirements of the
proposed permit is given in the fact
sheet published below.
uauc c,. gwr PERICO: Interested
persons may submit written comments
on the draft general permit to the
attention of the Director, Water
Division. at the address below. All
‘comments should include the name,
address, and telephone number of the
comnienter and a concise statement of
the exact basis of any comment and the
relevant facts upon which it is based.
Comments must be received by the
regional office by November 21, 1994.
PUBUC NEARING., Public hearings on the
proposed general permit are tentatively
scheduled to be held in Anchorage and
Barrow, Alaska. The Barrow hearing
will be held at the North Slope Borough
Assembly Chambers on November 2.
1994. from 12p.m. to 3 p.m. The
Anchorage hearing will be bald at the
Federal Building, Room 137, 710 “C”
Street. Anchorage, Alaska on November
3, 1994, from 12 p.m. until 4 p.m.
Persons interested in making a
statement at the hearing must contact
Debra Packard at the address below or
at (206) 553—1256 by 4:00 p.m. on
October 24. 1994.
Either or both of the public hearings
will be cancelled if insufficient interest
is expressed in them. Interested persons
can contact Debra Packard at (206) 553—
1266 during the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4 p.m. PDT on October 25, 1994. to
confirm that the hearings will take
place. At the hearings. interested
persons may submit oral or written
statements concerning the draft general
permit.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORO The
administrative record for the draft
permit Is available for public review at
EPA, Region 10, at the address listed
below.
ADDRESSES: Public comments and -
requests (or coverage should be sent to:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10. Attn: Ocean Programs
Section WD— 137, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC’T
Anne Dailey or Eileen Hileman. both of
Region 10, at the address listed above or
telephone (208) 553—2110 or (206) 553—
6513. respectively. Copies of the draft
general permit and today’s publication
will be provided upon request.
FACT SHEET
L General Permits and Requests for
Individual NPOES Permits
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(the Act) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except in
accordance with the terms of an NPDES
permit Under EPA’ s regulations 140
CFR 122.28(aJ(2fl, EPA may issue a
single general permit to a category of
point sources located within the same
geographic area if the regulated point
—Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
—Discharge the same types of wastes;
—Require the same effluent limitations
or operating conditions;
—Require similar monitoring
requirements; and
—in the opinion of the Regional
Administrator, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit
than under Individual permits.
In addition, under EPA regulations
140 G’R 122.28(c}(i)J, the Regional
Administrator shall Issue general
permits covering discharges from
offshore oil and gas facilities within the
Region’s junsdiction. Where the
offshore area includes areas for which
separate permit conditions are required.
such as areas of environmental concern,
a separate Individual or general permit
may be required by the Regional
Administrator. The Regional
Administrator has determined that
exploratory oil and gas facilities
operating in the area described in this
general NPDES permit are more
appropriately controlled by a general
permit than by individual permits.
Any owner andlor operator
authorized to discharge under a general
permit may request to be exduded from
coverage under the general permit by

-------
Federal. Register / VoL 59. No. 181 / Tuesday . September 20. 1994 I Notices
48315
applying for an individual permit as
provided by 40 CFR 122.28(b). The
operator shall submit an application
together with the reasons suppoiting the
request to the Director, Water Division.
EPA. Region 10 (“Director). A source
located within • ‘i” r& permit Fée.
excluded fron. . e under the
general permit solely because it already
has an individual permit (I.e.. a permit
that has not been continued under the
Administrative Procedure Act). may
request that its individual permit be
revoked, and that it be covered by the
general permit. Upon revocation of the
individual permit. the general permit
shall apply. Procedures for
modification, revocation, termination.
and processing of NPDES permits are
provided by 40 CFR 122.62-122.64. As
in the case of individual permits.
violation of any condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the Act
that is enforceable under SectIon 309 of
the Act. -
IL Covered Facilities and Nature of
Discharges
A. Types of Discharges Authorized
The proposed general permit will
authorize the following discharges from
exploratory offshore oil and gas
operations Drilling mud and drilling
cuttings; deck dralnage sanitary wastes
domestic wastes; desalination unit
wastes; blowout preventer fluid; boiler
blowdown; fire control system test
water, non-contact cooling water:
uncontaminated ballast water
uncontaminated bilge water excess
cement slurry; mud. cuttings, and
cement at the seafloor; and test fluids,
Drilling muds and cuttings are the major
pollutant sources di ’ rhiirged from
exploratory operations. Further
description of discharges aie given In
Part V below. When Issued, the
proposed general permit will establish
effluent limitations, standards,
prohibitions, and other conditions on
the authorized discharges from the
facilities covered.
B. Types of Facilities Covered
The general permit proposed today
authorizes the discharge of specific
operational wastewaters from offshore
exploratory oil and gas operations
located in federal and state waters. In
order to be authorized to discharge
wider this permit, the operator of such
exploratory operations must be
registered with EPA as the NPDES
permfttes. Development and production
operations are not covered by this
general permit. Exploratory operations
are defined as those operations
involving the drilling of wells to
A Technology-Based Effluent
limitations
1. SF1’ Effluent Limitations
The Mt requires particular classes of
industrial dlschargers to meet effluent
limitations established by EPA. EPA
promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines requiring Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT) for the Offshore Subcategory of
.‘ the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category (40 CFR part 435, subpart A)
on April 13. 1979 (44 FR 22069).
BPT effluent limitations guidelines
require “no discharge of free oil” for
discharges of dock drainage, drilling
muds, drill cuttings. and well treatment
fluids. This limitation requires that a
discharge shall not cause a film or sheen
upon or discoloration on the surface of
the water or adjoining shorelines, or
eause a sludge or emulsion to be
deposited beneath the urface of the
water or upon adjoining shorelInes 140
R 435.11(d)l. The BPT guidelines for
sanitary waste require that the
concentration of chlorine be maintained
as close to I milligrams/liter as possible
in discharges from facilities housing ten
or more persons. For facilities
continuously staffed by nine or fewer
persons or only Intermittently staffed by
any number of persons. the BPT
guideline for sanitary waste require no
discharge of floating solids. A “no
floating solids” uldeline also applies to
domestic waste,
2. BAT and BCI’ Effluent Umitatrnns
As soon as practicable but in no case
later than March 31, 1989, all permits
are required by Section 301(b)(2) of the
Act to contain effluent limitations for all
categories and classes of point sources
which: (1) Control toxic pollutants (40
CFR 401.15) and noncanventional
pollutants through the use of Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT), and (2) represent
Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCI ’). B effluent
limitations apply to conventional
pollutants (Ph, SOD, oil and grease,
suspended solids. and focal coliform). In
no case may scr or BAT be less
stringent than BPT.
BAT and BCT effluent limitations
guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for offshore oil and
gas operations were proposed on August
26, 1985 (50 FR 34592) and signed on
January 16. 1993 (58 FR 12454, March
4, 1993). The new guidelines wore
established under the authority of
SectIons 301(b). 304. 306, 307, 308, and
501 of the Act. The new guidelines ware
also established In response to a
Consent Decree entered on April 5, 1990
determine the nature of potential
hydrocarbon reserves. Exploration
facilities covered by this general permit
are included In the Offshore
.‘
Subcategory of the Oil and Cas
E raction Point Source Category (40
CFR part 435, subpart A). Under the
proposed permit. the number of welts
from which discharges may occur Is
limited to amaximum of five at a single
site.
C. Areas Covered
The area of coverage under previous
general permits for offshore oiiand gas
activities in Alaska was linked directly
to federal or state lease sales. For a
variety of reasons, EPA is now planning
to tie the area of coverage to MMS
planning basins and all contiguous state
waters. This method of defining the area
of’ coverage will ensure that all areas
likely to be leased during the term of
this general permit will be covered.
While the planning basins are generally
larger than the specific sale areas offered
for lease by MMS, discharges under this
permit would oaur in only those areas
successfully leased. EPA believes that
this is a more practicable way of -
addressing the area of coverage. Hence,
areas covered by the proposed Arctic
NPDES general permit Include the
Beau .fortSea and Chukchi Sea planning
basins as defined by ?C’AS (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1992). and
state waters contiguous to the landwazd
boundary of the Beaufort Sea and
Chukchi Sea planning basins. The
general permit does not authorize
discharges trite any wetlands adlacent to
the temtorial waters of Ab k2 or from
facilities In’ the Onshore or Coastal
Subcategories as defined In 40 Q’R Part
435. -
I D. Statut ’ry Basis for Permit
Conditions
Sections 301(b). 304. 308. 307. 308.
401,402,403, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act (The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. as
amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977 and the Water Quality Act of -
1987). 33 U.S.C. 1311. 1314 (b).(c). and
(e), 1316, 1317, 1318 and 1361: 86 Stat.
816, Public Law 92—500: 91 Stat. 1567,
Public Law 95—217; 101 Stat. 7. Public
Law 100—4 (“the Act” or “CWA”), and
the U.S. Coast Guard regulatIons (33
CFR Part 151), provide the basis for the
permit conditions contained in the
permit. The general requirements of
these Sections fall Into three categories.
which are described below. A
discussion of the basis for specific
permit conditions follows in Section V
of this fact sheet.

-------
48316
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 181 I Tuesday, September 20. 1994 I Notices
(subsequently modified on May 28,
1992) in NRDC v. Reilly, D. D.C. No. 79—
3442 (JHP) and are consistent with
EPA ’s Effluent Guidelines Plan under
Section 304(m) of the CWA (57 FR
41000. September 8. 1992). This permit
incorporates BAT and BC!’ effluent
limitations based upon the BAT aqd
BCT effluent limitations guidelines.
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) are not incorporated in this
general permit. Per the guidelines, NSPS
are not applicable to exploratory oil and
gas operations (58 FR 12457, March 4,
1993). Exploratory operations are
defined in the preamble to the
guidelines as “new dischargers” (rather
than ‘new sources”) on the basis that
they do not constitute “siguificant site
preparation”. NSPS do apply to certain
development and production. but not
exploratory, operations.
This will be the first oil and gas
general permit issued by Region 10
incorporating the new effluent
limitation guidelines. Offshore
exploratory oil and gas wastestreams for
which there are new BAT and BC I
effluent guidelines include: Dnlling
fluids and cuttings. deck drainage.
sanitary waste, and domestic wastes.
- This permit incorporates BAT and BC!’
effluent limitations from the guidelines
for the aforementioned wastestreams
(see also Sections IV and V below).
Based upon EPA’s best professional
judgement. limitations on test fluids
have been established to reflect
guidelines appliceble to produced
water.
The new effluent guidelines do not
specifically address other wastestreams
controlled by this permit (e.g.,
desalination unit wastes; blowout
preventer fluid; boilet blowdown; fire
control system test water; non-contact
cooling water; uncontnminnted ballast
water, uncont*minz.ted bilge water,
excess cement slurry and muds,
cuttings, cement at seafloor). In the
absence Qf effluent limitation guidelines
for these wastestreams, permit
conditions must be established using
Best Professional Judgement (BPJ)
procedures (40 ‘R Sections 122.43,
122.44. and 125.3), As with previous oil
and gas general permits issued by
Region 10, this permit Incorporates BAT
and BC!’ effluent Limitations based on
the Agency’s Best Professional
Judgement
As required by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of
the Act. in developing the BPJ/BAT
permit conditions, the Agency
considered the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques. process changes, the
cost of achieving such effluent
reduction, non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy
requIrements), and such other factors as
the Director deemed appropriate.
The types of equipment and processes
employed in exploratory drilling
operations are well known to the
Agency. Region 10 has issued numerous
general and individual permits for
exploratory oil and gas operations. The
records for this permit and those earlier
permits thoroughly discuss the types of
equipment, facilities and processes
employed in exploratory drilling
operations.
With regard to the engineenng aspects
of the appLication of various types of
control techniques, there are no BAT
permit limitations based on installation
of control equipment. BAT permit
limitations based on the newly issued
guidelines can be achieved through
product substitution for drilling muds
and cuttings. Any costs of achieving the
effluent limitations and any non-water
quality environmental impacts were
also evaluated by the Agency where the
guidelines are applicable. A discussion
of such evaluations is presented below
with respect to any limitation where
applicable.
As required by Section 304(b)(4)(B) of
the Act, the same factors as in BAT are
considered in determining BC’!’ permit
conditions, with one exception. Rather
than considering “the cost of achieving
such effluent reduction,” any BC!’
determination includes “consideration
of the reasonableness of the relationship
between the costs of attaining a
reduction in effluents and the effluent
reduction benefits derived, and the
comparison of the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from
publicly owned treatment works to the
cost and level of reduction of such
pollutants from a class or category of
Industrial sources.” BC!’ effluent
limitations cannot be less stringent than
BFT; therefore, if the candidate
Industrial technology fails the BC!’
“cost test”, BCT effluent limitations are
set equal to BPT.
B. Ocean Discharge Cnteria
Section 403 of the Act requires that an
NPDES permit for a discharge into
marine waters located seaward of the
inner boundary of the territorial seas be
Issued in accordance with guidelines for
determining the degradation of the
marine environment, These guidelines,
referred to as the Ocean Discharge
Criteria (40 G’R part 125. subpart M l,
and sectIon 403 of the Act are Intended
to “prevent unreasonable degradation of
the marine environment and to
authorize imposition of effluent
limitations, including a prohibition of
discharge. if necessary. to ensure this
goal.” (45 FR 65942, October 3, 1980)
If EPA determines that the discharge
will cause unreasonable degradation.
NPDES permit will not be issued. If a
detethirnation of unreesonable
degradation cannot be made because
a lack of sufficient information. A
must then determine whether a
discharge will cause irreparable harm
the marine environment and whether
there are reasonable alternatives to on
site disposal. To assess the probability
of irreparable harm, EPA is required t
make a determination that the
discharger. operating under appropria
permit conditions, will not cause
permanent and significant harm to th
environment during a monitoring per
in which additional information is
gathered. If data gathered through
monitoring indicate that continued
discharge may cause unreasonable
degradation. the discharge must be
halted or additional permit limitation
established,
The Director has concluded that th
is sufficient information to determine
that exploratory oil and gas facilities
operating under the effluent limitauo
and conditions in this general permit
will not cause unreasonable degradati
of the marine environment pursuant
the Ocean Discharge Criteria guidehn
as long as discharge does not occur
shoreward of the 5 meter isobath (TeL
Tech, 1994a) as discussed in Section
V.B.4. of this fact sheet, Conditions
Imposed under Section 403(c) of the.
are discussed in Section V.B.4. below
C. State of Alaska Standoi’ds and
Lunitatioris
All dlschargers to State waters mus
ensure compliance with water quality
standards and with limitations impos
by the state as part of its certification
NPDES permits under Section 401 of
Act. The state waters of the Beaufort
Chukchl Seas have been classified by
the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
marine waters with water use dasses
through 2D (water supply; water
reaeatlon; growth and propagation oi
fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and
wildlife; and harvesting for
consumption of raw mollusks or othe
raw aquatic life). In the best pro fessic
judgement of Region 10. the
requirements and discharge limitat.io.
in the proposed permit will ensure
compliance with the state water qua I.
standards.
In issuing this permit, EPA has
considered Alaska’s antidegradation
policy (18 AAC 70,010(c)). The
exploratory discharges authorized un

-------
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 181 / Tuesday 1 September 20, 1994 / NotIces
48317
this proposed ennit are expected to
have mimmi l Laspact because:
—The relatively short duration of’
exploratory activities,
—The Intermittent nature of the
dI s charges,
—The limited steal extent of the
discharges relative to the total area of
coverage, and
—The controls placed on the discharges
via the proposed NPDES permit
Given the above, and since the project
is not expected to result in any
violations of state water quality criteria,
EPA believes the project complies with
the state’s antidegradation policy.
D. Section 308 of the Qeas WaterAct
Section 308 of the Act and 40
122.44 (1) authorizes the Director to
require a discharger to conduct
monitoring to determine compliance
with effluent limitations and to assist i ii
the development of effluent limitations.
EPA has Included several monitoring
requirements In this permit, as listed in
the table below In Section V.
IV. Summary of New or Cliangsd
Permit Conditions
This section of the fact sheet Is
intended to provide readers with a brief
summary of the parteof the general
permit which are substantively different
from the previous general permits for
offshore oil and gas exploratory
activities in the Beaufort and Chukchl
Seas. For detailed discussion of the
requirements and their bases, please
refer to Section V of this fact sheet.
Many of the new and hAngsd —
requirements are a consequence of the
final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performaivzi Standards
for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil
and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category promulgated by EPA (see 40
CFR pert 435, subpart A).
Drilling Muds and Drilling CuWnp
—Combination of wastestreems: In
accordance with the guidelines,
drilling muds, driil lngcuthngs and
washwater have been combined Into a
single discharge wastestream called
d ulling fluids and drilling cuttings
(Discharge 001). Wasliwater had
previously been combined with
dnlling cuttings in a separate.
wastestream but washwater is now
covered as an intrinsic component of
the drilling muds and cuttings
wastestream.
DnIUng Muth and OnUlnQ Cu n
Toxioty Iimd ___________
No esed_______
—Discharge prohibitions: Under Section
403(c) of the Act, discharge of drilling
muds and cuttings is prohibited to
waters shallower than 5 meters depth
In accordance with computer
modeling done In preparation for this
proposed permit Previously
discharge had been prohibited In
waters shallower than 2 meters.
—ToxicIty l1mit: A toxicity limit of a
minimum of 30,000 ppm suspended
particulate phase (SPP) has been
applied to the discharge in
accordanr with the guidelines.
—Oil content: In accordance with the
guidelines, EPA has eliminated the
10% by weight maximum oil
limitation on cuttings In favor of the
no free oil limitation.
—Barite: EPA has maintained the
limitations on the mercury and
cadmium content of stock barite but
has eliminated the caso.by .case
waiver option present In previous
permits. This waiver option has been
eliminated to ensure consistency with
the effluent guidelines.
—Mud Plan: EPA has included a
requirement that a mud plan be
developed by operators to encouroge
operators to estimate in advance the
toxicity of the drilling muds and
cuttings to ensure compliance with
the toxicity limitation. The individual
NPDES permit recently issued to Auto
Alaska for Operations in Cook Inlet
contains a frnit,,r requirement.
—Area and Seasonal Restrictions: In
addition to several continued
restrictions, based on Section 403(cl
of the Act the proposed permit also
prohibits discharges wIthin 3 miLes of
Kasegaliik Lagoon and Its passes.
—Environmental monitoring: The
requirements for environmental
monitoring am more specific and
detal i0a. These changes reflect the
current level of specificity present in
other NPDES permits issued by
Region 10.
Domestic Wastes -
—Garbage (“All other domestic waste”):
Under the Coast Guard Regulations.
discharges of garbage, including
plastics. are prohibited with one
exception. Victual or food waste can
be discharged with restrictions. This
requirement reflects the new offshore
guidelines (58 FR 12508, March 4.
1993). Several definitions have been
Included to clarify this new effluent
parameter.
Test Fluids
—Oil and grease: Per EPAs best
professional judgemeni and the new
guidelines, the oil and grease
limitation on test fluids has been
made more stringent. The limitations
are now 29 mg /I monthly average and
42 mg/I daily maximum.
Discharge Limitations for All
Wast est reams
—Rubbish, Trash and Other Refuse: As
proposed the permit will prohibit the
discharge of “garbage” induding food
wastes withIn 12 nautical miles of
nearest land. With restrictions,
cornminuted food waste may be
dlscharged further than 12 nautical
miles from nearest land. Under the
proposed permit these limitations,
which ar. already effective under the
Coast Guard regulations, will be
incorporated Into the Arctic general
- permit for consistency purposes.
Best Management Practice Plan -
Requirement
—The proposed general permit requires
permittees to develop and Implement
a Best Management Practices (BMP)
Plan which prevents or minimizes the
generation of pollutants. their release,
and potential release from the
permitted facilities to the waters of
the United States.
V. Specific Permit Conditions
A. Approach
The determination of appropriate
conditions for each discharge was
accomplished through:
(1) consideration of technology.based
effluent limitations to control
conventional pollutants under 8Cr;
(2) consideration of technology-based
effluent limitations to control toxic and
nonconventlonal pollutants under BAT:
and
(3) evaluation of the Ocean Discharge
Criteria for discharges, assuming
conditions in (1) and (2). above, were In
place.
Discussions of the specific effluent
limitations and monitoring
requirements derived from (1) through
(3) appear below In sections B. through
C. For convenience, these conditions
and the regulatory basis for each are
cross-referenced by discharge In the
following table:
Discharge and perM celfltorn S neory base
BAT.
BAT.

-------
48318 Federni Register / Vol. 59, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 1994 / Notices
Cadiniwn & msic*sy bante
Nofreecil
,Mo ad-based muds & cuthngs
Inventory of added st stence
Monitonng volume discharged -—_____
Mud plan
Flow rate limitations
Depth related hITutations
Area and seasonal reqwrementa..
Environmental monitoring requirementa
Deck Drainage:
No free oil
Monitor flow rate
Sanitary Wastes:
No floating solids.
Chtonne (facilities> 10 people)
Monitor flow rate
Domestic Wastee:
No foam
No floating solids.
AU other domestic waste (gaibage) ——
Mon itor flow rate
Miscellaneous Discharges (as defined in permit):
Nofreeod......
Monitor flow e
Test Fluids
pH.
NOfreeod_
Oil and grease limit
No discharge oil-based fluids _____
volume
AR Diachergee:
No floating solids, foam or oily waste ___
Surfa an peisan and detergents -
handotherrefose___
Statutory basis
RAT.
BAT, BCT.
BAT, BCT.
S on 30&
Section 30&
Section 308.
Section 308.
Section 403(c).
Seceon 403(c).
Section 403(c).
Sect. 403(c), was.
BAT, BCT, BPT.
Section 308.
BCT.
BCT.
Section 308.
BAT.
BCT.
BCT.
Seadon 308.
BCT.
Section 30&
BCT.
BCT.
BATI8PJ.
BAT.
Section 30&
Rd.
BAT.
5Cr.
BAT/BCT.
4 (a)(1).
B. Drilling Muds and Drill Cuttings
The term “drilling thud” generally
includes all compositions of fluids used
to aid the production and removal of
cuttings (particles from geological
formations) from a borehole in the earth.
The essential functions of drilling fluids
are: -
—To carry cuttings to the surface
—To cool and clean drill bit,
—To reduce friction In the borehole,
—To maintain pressure balance between
formation and bdrehole in uncased
sections of hole, and
—To assist In collection and
interpretation of information available
from cuttings, cores, electrical logs,
etc.
All drilling fluids tall into one of
three classes: gas-based (e.g.. mist or
foam), water-based, or oil.based. When
the main component of the drilling fluid
is liquid (I.e., water or oil), It is referred
to as ‘mud”. All of Region 10’s previous
permits address only the discharge of
muds, as gas fluids are not used in
Alaskan offshore or coastal drilling
operations. As discussed below in
subsections I and 2, the discharge of oil-
based muds (with oil as the continuous
phase and water as the dispersed phase)
Is prohibited because they do not
comply with the no free oil limitation.
The Agency understands that non-
petroleum hydrocarbon organic liquids
are being developed as an alternate to
gas, water or hydrocarbon (e.g.. diesel or
mineral) oil-based drilling muds. The
Agency invites comments on the
applicability and feasibility of such
muds to exploratory drilling operations
in the offshore Arctic.
1. BC ! Limitations on Drilling Muds
and Cuttings
Free oil and oil-based muds: No
discharge of free oil Is-permitted from
the discharge of drilling mud and drill
cuttings, based upon the guidelines. The
technology basis for this limitation is
substitution of water-based drilling
fluids in place of oil-based muds, non.
petroleum oil-containing additives, and
minimization of the use of mineral oil.
When this substitution is not possible,
the guidelines contemplated that the
technology basis was also transportation
and discharge onshore. Free oil is being
regulated under BAT as an “indicator”
pollutant for the control of toxic
pollutants. Although it is not a listed
conventional pollutant, as is oil and
grease, free oil Is also limited as a
surrogate for oil and grease under BCT
The discharge of oil-based dnlllng
fluids is prohibited since discharge of
oil-based fluids would violate the
effluent limitations of no discharge of
free oil. -
Compliance with the free oil
limitation will be monitored by use of
the Static Sheen Test (see 40 ( R part
435, appendix 1 to subpart A) daily an
before bulk discharges. Region 10 has
required the use of the Static Sheen To
In previous permits because visual
observation of the discharge for sheen
upon the receiving water will not
prevent violations of the standard. Thi
test is also appropriate for the harsh
weather and extended periods of
darkness common in Alaska.
Previous RegIon 10 permits have
contained an oil content limitation on
drill cuttings. However, this approach
has been relected in favor of the no
oil limitation contained In the
guidelines. As discussed at 56 FR 1068
and 58 FR 10885 (March 13, 1991). the
Discharge and permit conditions

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 181 1 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 I Notices
48319
Agency rejected an oil content
limitation based on cuttings washing
treatment technoloejes because
limitations on other parameters (diesel
oil, free oil, and toxicity) are sufficient
to reduce toxics from drilling wastes.
Because the no free oil limitation is
more stringent than the 10% by weight
limitation on the oil Content of cuttings.
this change does not invoke
antibacksliding provisions (see 40 CFR
122.44(l)(2)).
2. BAT Limitations on Drilling Muds
and Cuttings
Toxicity Region 10 is proposing to
incorporate an effluent toxicity limit of
minimum 96-hour LC 30 of 30,000 ppm
suspended particulate phase (SPP) on
discharged drilling muds and cuttings.
This limit is designed to be a
technology.based control on toxicity. as
well as toxic and nonconventionaj
pollutants. The 30.000 ppm SPP
limitation is based on the Agency’s
evaluation that it constitutes an
economically and technically
achievable level of performance and is
both technologically feasible and
economically achievable and reflects
BAT level of control (U.S. EPA. 1993a)
on a national basis. This limitation is
present in the general permit for the
Western Gulf of Mexico (57 FR 54652.
November 19. 1992). The toxicity limit
is also present in a recently issued
individual NPDES permit for ARCO
Alaska operations in Cook Inlet.
The purpose of this Limitation is to
encourage the-use of water-based or
other low toxicity drilling fluids and
additives. This toxicity criterion became
BAT when the final effluent guidelines
were signed January 15. 1993 (58 FR
12469. March 4. 1993).
The toxicity limit is an end-of-pipe
discharge limit; and represents a -
different approach to controlling this
wasteslream than has been applied in
previous general permits issued by
Region 10. When the Region issued its
first general permits under the proposed
guidelines, it developed a case-by-case
approach to limiting the toxicity of
discharged mud/additive systems as BPJ
determination of BAT until guidelines
could be promulgated. Region 10 used
the 30,000 ppm SPP value as a criterion
in evaluating available bioassay data for
the proposed discharges. The process of
evaluating each mud/additive system
with respect to the discharge toxicity
constituted BPJ determination of BAT.
Since the guidelines have now been
promulgated with a toxicity limitation
For drilling muds and cuttings, Region
10 will be discontinuing the mud
preapproval process in favor of the end-
Of-pipe limitation.
Compliance with the drilling mud
toxicity Limit will be determined by
using the Drilling Fluids..Toxicity Test
(see appendix 2 to subpart A of part 435.
58 FR 12507, March 4. 1993). At a
minimum, monitoring is to be done on
a monthly basis for each well. When the
end-of-well is reached, a final bioassay
analysis will be required (see Part
ll.A.1.k. of p rmit). The last monthly
bioassay may constitute the end-of.well
bioassay. If a mineral oil pill is required
(Part flAi.g. of permit), the mud shall
be sampled for bioassay prior to
application of the pill and after removal
of the pill. Complete bioassay reports
are required as part of the regulatory
record for each welL
Diesel oil: The discharge of drilling
muds and cuttings which have been
contaminated by diesel oil is prohibited
by the Agency, in accordance with the
offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines
(58 FR 12469, March 4. 1993). The
prohibtion on the discharge of diesel
oil has been part of all of the general
NPDES permits issued by Region 10 for
the Offshore and Coastal Subcategones.
Diesel oil, winch is sometimes added to
a water-based mud system. is a complex
mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons.
known to be highly toxic to marine
orgamsms and to contain numerous
toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
The pollutant “diesel oil” is being used
as an ‘indicator” of the listeti toxic
pollutants present in diesel oil which
are controlled through compliance with
the effluent limitation (i.e.. no
discharge). The technology basis for this
limitation is product substitution of less
toxic min ra1 oil fdi’ diesel oil.
Mervwy and Cadmium in Barite: In
accordance with the offshore oil and gas
effluent guidelines (58 FR 12469. March
4, 1993), thQproposed permit contains
limitations of 1 mg/kg mercury and 3
mg/kg cadmium in barite. Sante is a
major constituent of drilling muds.
These restrictions on drilling fluid
irifluent are designed to limit the
discharge of mercury, cadmium, and
other potentially toxic metals in the
dnlling flwd effluent, since these metals
can occur as contaminants in some
sources of barite. The justification for
the limitation under BAT is product
substitution or transportation and
disposal of the waste onshore. That is.
operators can substitute “clean” bante.
which meets the above limitations, for
contaminated barite. which does not
meet the limitations. Numerous offshore
exploratory wells and the production
wells drilled under permits previously
issued by Region 10 have been drilled
subject to this requirement. Chemical
analyses have shown that the bante
used has not exceeded the limitations,
Further discussion on the mercury and
cadmium limits in barite is presented in
the offshore oil and gas guidelines (58
FR 12479—80. March 4, 1993) and in the
development document (U.S. EPA,
1993a).
EPA has eliminated a waiver
provision for the barite limits which
was in the previous permits. The waiver
stipulated that if a pormittee was unable
to comply with the barite limitations
due to the lack of availability of barite
which meets the limitation, then the
permittee could request a case-by.case
waiver allowing the discharge of barite
which exceeded the limits (53 FR
37858, September 28, 1988). As a part
of the effluent guidelines development,
EPA investigated the availability of
domestic and foreign supplies of bante
to meet the cadmium and mercury
limits. The Agency also considered the
potential for the increased demand for
clean barite stocks resulting from this
rule to cause a rise in the cost of barite.
(See the Development Document (U.S.
EPA, 1993a) and the Economic Impact
Analysis (U.S. EPA. 1993d) for detailed
discussion on the availability and
economic availability.) EPA concluded
that “there are sufficient supplies of
barite capable of meeting the Limits of
this rule to meet the needs of offshore
drilling operations (58 FR 12480. March
4. 1993). Hence, the waiver provision
has not been included in this proposed
general permit.
3. Section 308 Documentation and
Monitoring Requirements for Muds and
Cuttings
The following reporting and discharge
monitoring requirements are based on
Section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR
122.44(i). These requirements serve to
determine compliance with, or the
possible future need for, effluent
limitations in the permit.
—Chemical analysis
—Chemical inventory
—Monitoring volume discharged
—Mud plan
The requirement of a mud plan is new
and is explained below. The first three
requirements have been present in
previous NPDES general permits for all
coastarand offshore operations in
Region 10. The chemical analysis
requirement has been expanded to
require analysis of total recoverable -
metal concentration, in addition to total
metal concbntration. Analyses are to be
conducted on split samples. This
requirement has been included to
enable the Agency to better evaluate the
impact of metals in the mud discharges.
Mud Plans: As previously noted.
Region 10 plans to discontinue

-------
48320
Federal_Register / Vol. 59. No. 181 I Tuesday, September 20,1994!Notlces
authorization of mud/additive systems.
lnstead A is shifting the
responsibility of case-by-case
evaluations from the Region to the
operator. Resources do not allow Region
10 to continue to perform case-by-case
evaluations or to Issue discharge
authorizations for each drilling mud!
additive system. Hence, the proposed
permit contains a requirement that the
permittee develop, have on-site, and
available upon request a plan for
discharge of drilling muds and additives
(hereafter called “mud plan”). This
requirement is analogous to analyses
that the region has been performing in
development of drilling mud
iuthonzations.
Thebasis for the mud plan
requirement is Section 308(a)(A) of the
Act which provides that A may
require the perinlttee to establish and
maintain records and/or reports that
will assist the Region to determine
compliance with other requirements
and effluent limitations of the permit.
The mud plan is one component of the
Best Management Practices Plan (see
Part ILF.4.d.(4) of the permit). The mud
plan requirement Is also based upon the
Pollution Prevention Act and its policy
of prevention. reduction; recycling, and
treatment of wastes (PPA Section
102(b)) through measures which include
process modification, materials
substitution. and Improvement of
management (WA Section 107(b)(3)).
The goal of requiring development of
amud plan is to ensure that personnel
on-site are knowledgeable about the
information needed and the methods
required to formulate the mud/additive
systems in order to meet the effluent
toxicity limit Simply put. the mud plan
is intended to be a written guide to
planning for, and using, a mud/additive
system in compliance with the permit.
Region 10’s case.by-case approach to
evaluating discharge of mudladdltlve
systems coupled with use of worst case
cumulative toxicity estimates as bases
for authorization, has been conducive to
thedlschargo of muds with lower
to,dcity than elsewhere In the OCS. To
date Akckjui operators have
demonstrated that thorough plartnlng
and evaluation of mud/additive systems
with respect to possible cumulative
toxicity does consistently result In
discharge of muds that am less toxic
than the 30,000 ppm SPP limit.
The mud plan is intended to
demonstrate that the discharged mud!
additive system for the well in question
will meet the effluent limit of 30,000
ppm SPP based on the following
decision criteria:
—Estimates of worst case cumulative
discharge toxicity (either calculated or
actual toxicity test results):
—Estimates of toxicity of discharged
mud when a mineral oil pill has been
used; and
—Use of less toxic alternatives where
possible.
The mud plan shall also include a
dearly stated procedure for dealing with
situations in which additives not
originally planned for are needed at the
“last minute.” This procedure should
enable dnlling and mud personnel to
determine whether an additive or mud
component may be added to the
circulating mud system without
significant effect upon the discharge
twacity. Criteria for reaching this type
of “last minute” additive decision shall
be dearly specified in the mud plan.
In addition to developing the mud
plan. the operator is also required to
certify that the mud plan is complete,
on-site, and available upon request (see
Part ILA.i.f. of the permit).
Certification is due no later than
submission of their written notice of
Intent to commence discharge (see Part
LC. of the permit).
4. Section 403(c) Requirements for
Muds and Cuttings
Depth-me) ated Re ictions: Additional
restrictions on these discharges are
necessary to ensure no unreasonable
degradation of the environment. The
area of coverage includes water depths
from 5 to about 3,000 meters deep.
Discharge rate limitations on total muds
and cuttings have been established in
the ocean discharge criteria evaluation
process in order to allow adequate
dispersion of the discharges. These
maximum rates are:
—No discharge In waters less than 5
meters deep,
—500 bbl/hr for discharges into waters
greater than 5 meters but not more
than 20 meters in depth,
—750 bbl/hr for discharges Into waters
greater than 20 meters but not more
than 40 meters in depth, and
—1,000 bbl/hr for discharges into waters
greater than 40 meters in depth.
These limits are necessary because for
any given discharge rate, the dilution of
drilling muds and cuttings Is not as
great In shallow waters as in deeper
waters. However, at any particular water
depth, greater dilution close to the
discharge point will be achieved with a
lower discharge rate. These maximum
rates will ensure that the water quality
standards will not be exceeded at the
edge of the 100 meters mixing zone
(Tetra Tech. 1994a).
Prevrnus permits have allowed the
discharge of drilling muds and cuttings
between 2 and 5 meters depth.
However, computer modeling of the
dispersion of the drilling muds
conducted for this permit in 2—S meters
depth did not perform adequately (Tetr
Tech, 1994a). The maximum depth of
mud accumulation for these cases was
10—20 times greater than the water•
depth. Mud accumulations of this
magnitude would effectively bury the
drilling mud outfall, making any
calculation of dilution values
meaningless. Accordingly. EPA is
proposing zero discharge of muds and
cuttings in waters less than 5 meters
deep.
Area! Restrictions: Discharge of mud:
and cuttings are prohibited in the
following four areas:
(a) Between the shore (mainland ana
barrier islands) and the 5 meters
isobath,
(b) within 1000 meters of nver
mouths or deltas during unstable or
broken ice or open water conditions,
(c) Within 1000 meters of the
Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch, and
(d) Within 3 miles of Kasegaluk
Lagoon or the passes of Kasegaluk
Lagoon. -
For the specific requirements, see
Parts ILA.3. of the permit In accordanc
with 40 Q ’R 125.123 (C), the Director
has prohibited these discharges becaus
the Region has determined they may
cause unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment. Prohibition (a) ha
changed from previous permits as
described In the previous section of thi
fact sheet. Prohibitions (b) and (C) are
contained in the previous Beaufort Sea
NPDES general permIts (49 FR 23734.
June 7, 1984 and 53 FR 37846,
September 28, 1988). This is the first
time that a provision concerning
Kasegaluk Lagoon has been included ii
a general permit for offshore oil and ga
exploration since the area has never
been covered by an NPDES permit for
exploratory oil and gas operations.
With regard to (a) and (b) above, ‘#
has extensively studied the nearshore
zone of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea In
several Ocean Discharge Criteria
Evaluations (‘rena Tech, 1994a; Jones
Stokes. 1983, 1984). These evaluations
have dearly shown that these nearshor
areas provide Important feeding and
migratory habitat for a large number of
species including fish, waterfowl, and
mammals. Further, these areas provide
essential feeding and preferred habitat
for species of major importance for
subsistence and commercial fisheries.
Concerning (c) above, the proposed
permit does not authorize discharges
Within 1000 meters of the Stefanason
Sound Boulder Patch as defined by
Dunton et al. (1982). The “Patch” is a

-------
Federal Register / VoL 59 , No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20. 1994 / Notices
48321
rare and unique bloiggical community
that is susceptible to adverse effects
caused by discharged drilling muds and
cuttings.
As noted In (d) above, the proposed
permit restricts activity near Kasegaluk
Lagoon and its harrier island system.
Specifically discharge is prohibited
within Kasegaluk Lagoon and in the
waters within 3 miles of the following
passes intensively used by the beluga
whales: Kukpowruk Pass. Akuruk Pass,
Utukok Pass. Icy Cape Pass. and
Alokiakatat Pass. This restriction is in
accordance with the North Slope
Borough’s Coastal Management Program
(NSB. 1988). The NSB recognizes
Kasegaluk Lagoon as a Candidate Area
Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) and
imposes the above restrictions.
Kasegaluk Lagoon extends for
approximately 140 miles along the
Chukchi Sea coast. About 90 miles of
the lagoon is south of Icy Cape and the
rest is north of Icy Cape. Kasegaluk
Lagoon is located in state waters of the
Chukchi Sea and provides important
habitat for spotted seals and beluga
whales. Beluga whales are known to
feed, calve and may molt in this lagoon
(North Slope Borough, 1988; Frost and
Lowry, 1993: Tetra Tech. 1994a).
Spotted seals also calve in Kasegaluk
Lagoon (NSB. 1988). The lagoon also
provides important feeding, migrating.
and rearing areas for marine and
anadromous fish, as well as migratory
birds.
Kasegaluk Lagoon. the barrier islands.
and the nearshore waters seaward of the
barrier lsla s are an important
subsistence area for the villagers of
Point Lay (NSB. 1988). Subsistence
activities that occur seasonally in the
Kasegaluk Lagoon Candidate AMSA
area include egg gathering, waterfowl
hunting, sealing, fishing. walrus
hunting, and whaling for belugas. This
proposed permit and the Borough’s
management program recognizes the
importance of the area for marine
mammals, seabirds, and subsistence
activities,
Environmental MonitorinW
Environmental monitoring is required in
two areas which are of particular
concern to Region 10: discharge of
drilling muds and cuttings below-ke to
water depths shallower than 20 meters
and within 1000 meters of an area of
biological concern (i.e.. a unique
biological community or habitat). The
Director has determined that controlled
discharges to these areas, in accordance
with 40 CFR 125.123(a) and the
limitations and conditions in the draft
permit, will not cause unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment.
Environmental monitoring is required to
verify that discharges to these areas will
not produce conditions in the future
that would lead to unreasonable
degradation.
C. Deck Droinage (Discharge 002)
Deck drainage includes all waste
resulting from deck washings, spillage.
rainwater, and run-off from gutters and
drains incl iding drip pans and work
areas. Oil and grease are the primary
pollutants identified in deck dzainage.
In addition to oil, various other
chemicals used in drilling operations
may be present. Specific conventional,
toxic, and non-conventional pollutants
found in deck drainage are controlled by
the prohibition on the discharge of free
oil. Deck drainage discharges are not
continuous and can vary significantly in
volume.
Free oil. EPA is controlling pollutants
found in deck drainage by the
prohibition on the discharge of free oil.
This limit is the current BPT level of
control and is also the appropriate level
of control under BCT and BAT. No free
oil is permitted from the discharge of
deck drainage in accordance with the
offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines
(58 FR 12506. March 4. 1993). Deck
drainage was subject to this limitation
in the previous permits issued’by
Region 10 and past practices have not
resulted in violations of this limit.
Compliance with the free oil
limitation for deck drainage will be by
visual observation for a sheen on the
receiving water as mandated by the
offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR
12506. March 4, 1993). except under the
conditions descnbed below. The Static
Sheen Test will also be required for the
monitoring Of deck drainage during
unstable or broken ice and stable ice
conditions. Use of the Static Sheen Test
will prevent a violation of the free oil
limitation in those discharges most
likely to be contaminated with oil. This
would not be possible with an after-the-
fact visual observation of a sheen on the
receiving water. This requirement Is
similAr to requirements in the Region’s
previous permits and will not result in
any additional costs to the industry.
7ow Rate: Flow rate is required to be
estimated monthly. The basis for this
requirement is Section 308 of the Act.
D. Sanitary Wastes (Discharge 003)
The sanitary wastes from offshore oil
and gas facilities are made up of human
body wastes from the toilets and urinals.
The volume and concentrations of these
wastes vary widely with time.
occupancy. platform characteristics, and
operational status (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
Floating Solids: The prohibition on
floating solids is mandated by the
offshore oil and gas guidelines for
facilities intermittently manned or
continuously manned by fewer than 10
persons (58 FR 12470, March 4. 1993).
This requirement does not specifically
apply to facilities continuously manned
by 10 or more persons (however, the
method of compliance with the residual
chlorine limit effectively limits floating
solids for these facilities). Since
previous permits for exploratory
operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas have prohibited the discharge of
floating solids for all facilities regardless
of staffing, Region 10 is continuing the
requirement in this permit based upon
antibacksliding provisions [ 40 CFR
122.44(l)(2)). This BCT prohibition on
the discharge of floating solids is
equivalent to the current level of control
for sanitary wastes in previous permits.
Residual Chlorine. Chionne is
regulated by the Agency in the offshore
oil and gas effluent guidelines as a
conventional pollutant. Chlorine is
added to the wastestream to control
fecal coliforms in the discharge.
Facilities continuously manned by 10 or
more persons are required to have a
residual chlorine content of 1 milligram
per liter (and maintained as close to the
limit as possible). This limitation has
been in previous Region 10 permits and
is in-the proposed permit as well.
For facilities with fewer than 10
persons or intermittently staffed by any
number of persons (i.e.. M9IM
facilities), the proposed permit prohibits
the discharge of floating solids only.
with no chlorine limitation.
H. Domestic Wastes (Discharge 004)
Domestic wastes refers to materials
discharged from sinks, showers,
laundries, safety showers, eyewash
stations, and galleys. Because domestic
wastes do not contain fecal coliform.
chlorination is not required.
Floating Solids: Under BCT, EPA is
prohibiting the discharge of floating
solids. The limitation is included in the
offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR
12487. March 4, 1993) and is equivalent
to the current level of control for
sanitary wastes in the previous permits.
Visible Foam: Discharges of visible
foam are prohibited under BAT in the
offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR
12487, March 4, 1993). This limitation
is equivalent to the current level of
control for domestic wastes in existing
permits and past practices have not
resulted an violations of this limitation.
All other domestic waste: This permit
includes requirements limiting the
discharge of all other domestic waste
(garbage) as included in U.S. Coast
Guard regulations at 33 CFR part 151.
These limitations are a new feature in

-------
48322
Federal Register /Vol. 59. No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 1994 / Notices
EPA offshore oil and gas permits for
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas operators
and reflect the offshore oil and gas
effluent guidelines (58 FR 12487, March
4. 1993). The requirements on garbage
a le currently induded in the most
recent reissuance of the Western Guif of
Mexico general permit (57 FR 54854,
November19, 1992).
As proposed, the reissued permit will
prohibit the discharge of garbage
including food wastes within 12
nautical miles from nealest land.
Comminuted food waste which is able
to pass through a screen with a mesh
size no larger than 25 mm
(approximately 1 inch) may be
discharged 12 or more nautical miles
from nearest land. Inaneratlon ash and
non-plastic clinkers that can pass
through a 25 mm mesh screen may be
discharged beyond 3 miles from nearest
land, otherwise ash and non-plastic
clinkers can only be discharged beyond
12 nautical miles from nearest land.
Since this 8Cr limitation already
exists in Coast Guard regulations and
other NPDES permits. it will not result
in any additional compliance cost, or
additional non-water quality
environmental impacts. There are no
incremental costs associated with the
limitation.
I Miscellaneous Discharger:
Desalination unit wastes (005),
blowcut preventer fluid (0Q8 . boiler
blowdown (007),-flre control system test
water (008 ), non-contact cooling water.
(009), uncontaminated ballast water
(010). uncontaminated bilge water (011).
excess cement slurry (012). and mud,
cuttings. and cement at the seafloor
(013).
No free oil: Region 10 has determined
that no free oil shall be discharged. The
no free oil limitation is Region 10’s best
professional judgement determination of
BPT controls for these discharges.
Compliance with the free oil limitation
for miscellaneous discharges will be by
visual observation fore sheen on the
receiving water, except for bilge water
under the conditions described below.
All of these discharges have been
subject to this limitation In the previous
perm i sued by Region 10 and past
practices have not resulted In violations
of this Limit.
C. Discharge 014 (Test Fluids)
Limited volumes of formation waters
which are encountered during testing of
the well are authorized for discharge as
test fluids. Formation waters are
encountered during well testing and are
similar in composition to produced
waters.
Free oil: As previously discussed, no
discharge of free oil is permitted from
discharges authorinsd by this permit. In
previous general permits. Region 10 has
determined that the BCF effluent
limitations guideline of no discharge of
free oil from the discharge of deck
drainage, drilling muds, drill cuttings.
and well treatment fluid! should apply
to other discharges, including test
fluids. The no free oil limitation is
Region 10’s best professional judgement
detennination of BCF controls for the
test fluids discharge. Operators have
been subject to a no free oil limitation
in previous permits issued by Region
10. and past practices have not resulted
in violations of this limitation. In
accordance with Section 308, the Static
Sheen Test will be required for the
monitoring of test fluids.
Oil and grease: Although oil and
grease is a conventional pollutant
subject to 8Cr. It also serves as BAT
(i.e.. as an Indicator of toxic pollutants)
for produced water. Specifically, the
toxic pollutants which are controlled by
limiting oil and grease include phenol,
naphthalene, ethylbonzene, and toluene
(U.S. EPA 1993a). EPA has determined
that it is not technically feasible to
control these toxic pollutants
individually so that the limitation on oil
and grease ntrols discharge these
pollutants in produced water at the BAT
level (U.S. EPA 1993a ).
The promulgated BAT for oil and
grease in produced water as 29 mg/I
monthly average and 42 mg/I daily
maximum based upon the improved
operating performance of gas flotation
technoLogy (58 FR 12508, March 4.
1993). Based upon the chemical
similarity of test fluids and produced
water, Region 10 Agency lies
determined that it is reasonable to apply
the produced water provisions to test
fluids. Accordingly, the proposed
permit limits on oil and grease in test
fluids are 29 mgi! monthly average and
42 mg/I daily maximum.
pH: The pH of discharged test fluids
(which may have a substantially
different pH from that of the ambient
receiving water) has been limited to a
range of 6.5 —8.5 at the point of
discharge. In Region tO’s best
professional judgement. this limitation
appropriately equals a 8FF level of
control. No more stringent standard has
been identified by.the Region at this
time. Therefore. Region lOis setting a
BC !’ effluent limitation for the pH of test
fluids equal to that of BPT. This
limitation will ensure that pH changes
greater than 0,2 pH unit will not occur
beyond the edge of the 100-meter
mixing zone (40 CFR § 12S.121(dB. This
requirement has been and is routinely
complied with by operations under
previous BP’I permits and thuz reflects
no cost incremental to BPT.
H. Other Discharge Limitations
No Floating Solids, or Visible Foam,
or Oily Wastes: Region 10 has
determined that the BCT effluent
limitations guideline of no discharge of
floating solids from the discharge of
sanitary wastes should apply to all other
discharges as well. Operators have been
subject to a visible foam limit and an
oily waste limit In previous permits
issued by Region 10 and past practices
have not resulted in violations.
Suifactants. Thspersants, and
Detergents: The draft permit contains a
provision that the discharge of
surfactants. dispersants, and detergents
shall be minimized except as necessary
to comply with the cafety requirements
of the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration and the Minerals
Management Service. These products
contamx primarily nonconventional
pollutants. This provision previously
appeared in the permits for the Beaufor
Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton Sound, Berm!.
Sea, and Cook Inlet.
Rubbish, Trash, or Other Refuse: The
discharge of any solid material not
-authorized by this permit (as desci,bed
above) Is prohibited. This permit
indudes Limitations set forth by the U.S
Coast Guard in 33 CFR part 151 for
domestic waste disposal from all fixed
or floating offshore platforms alid
associated vessels engaged In
exploration of seabed mineral resources
These limitations, as specified by
Congress apply to all navigable waters
of the United States.
This permit prohibits the dIscharge oi
“garbage” including food wastes, withir
12 nautical miles from nearest land.
Cornminuted food waste (able to pass
through a screen with a mesh size larger
than 25 mm, approximately 1 inch) ma
be discharged from operations located
12 nautIcal miles or more from land.
Graywater, drainage from dishwater,
shower, laundry, bath and washbasins
are not considered ‘garbage!’ within the
meaning of the Coast Guard regulations.
Incineration ash and non-plastic
clinkers that can pass through a 25 mar
mesh creen may be discharged greater
than 3 miles from the nearest land;
otherwise, ash and non.plastlc clinkers
can only be discharged beyond 12
nautical miles from nearest land.
Other Toxic and Non-conventional
Compounds: Under the proposed
permit. prohibitions on discharges of
the following pollutants are retained:
halogenated phenol compounds.
trisodiurn nitrilotriacetic acid, sodium
chromata, end sodium dichromate. The

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 181 / Tuesday . September 20, 1994 / Notices
48323
dass of halogenated phenol compounds
includes toxic pollutants, and sodium
chromate and sodium dichromate
contain chromium, also a toxic
pollutant. Trisodium nitrilotriacetic
acid is a nonconventional pollutant. The
discharge of these compounds was
previously prohibited in the general
permits for the Beaufort Sea. Chukchi
Sea. Norton Sound. Bering Sea, and
Cook Inlet.
1. Best Management Practice Plan
Requirement
It is national policy that, whenever
feasible, pollution should be prevented
or reduced at the source, that pollution
which cannot be prevented should be
recycled in an environmentally safe
manner, and that disposal or release
into the environment should be
employed only as a last resort and
should be conducted in an
environmentally safe manner (Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
13101). Section 402(alil) authorizes
EPA to include miscellaneous
requirements in permits on a case-by-
case basis which are deemed necessary
to carry out the provisions of the Act.
Best Management Practices (BMPs), in
addition to numerical effluent
limitations, are required to control or
abate the discharge of pollutants in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(k).
Pursuant to Section 402(a)(1) of the
Clean Water Act and Region 10 policy
(EPA Region 10, 1992). development
and unplementation of a Best
Management-Practices Plan is included
as a condition of this NPDES general
permit.
The proposed general permit requires
the development and Implementation of
a BMP Plan which prevents or.
minimizes the generation of pollutants.
their release, and/or potential release
from the facility to the waters of the
United States through normal
operations and ancillary activities.
Relevant operations and activities
include material storage areas, site
runoff, storm water. in.plant transfer.
process and material handling areas.
loading or unloading operations,
spillage or leaks, sludge and waste
disposal, or drainage from raw material
storage.
In addition to developing and
implementing the BMP Plan, the
operator is also required to certify that
the BMP Plan is complete, on-site, and
available upon request (see Part ILF.1, of
the permit). Certification is required no
later than submission of their written
notice of intent to commence discharge
(see Part LC, of the permit). These
certification requirements are similar to
the requirements for a mud plan.
The BMP Plan must be amended
whenever there is a change in the
facility or in the operation of the facility
which materially increases the potential
for an increased discharge of pollutants.
The BMP Plan will become an
enforceable condition of the permit: a
violation of the BMP Plan is a violation
of the permit.
VI. Other Legal Requirements
4. Oil Spill Requirements -
Section 311 of the Act prohibits the
discharge of oil and hazardous materials
in harmful quantities. Routine
discharges specifically controlled by the
permit are excluded from the provisions
of Section 311. However, this permit
does not preclude the institution of legal
action or relieve permittees from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties
for other. unauthorized discharges of oil
and hazardous materials which are
covered by Section 311 of the Act.
B. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
allocates authority to and admimsters
requirements upon Federal agencies
regarding endangered species of fish,
wildlife, or plants and habitat of such
species that have been designated as
critical. Its implementing regulations
(50 Q?R Part 402) require EPA to ensure.
in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior or Commerce, that any action
authorized, funded or carried out by
EPA is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or adversely affect
its a’itical habitat. (40 CFR 122.49(c)J.
In compliance with Section 7 of the
SA. an encfangered species list was
requested by EPA and received from
both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)’ nd the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the
affected area. The following threatened,
endangered and/or candidate species
are reported to potentially occur in the
vicinity of the discharges associated
with oil and gas operations proposed by
the permit: arctic peregrine falcon,
spectacled eider, stellars eider, and
bowhead whale.
A draft biological evaluation was
prepared by Tetra Tech under contract
to EPA to determine whether the
discharges authorized by this proposed
general permit are likely to adversely
affect any endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat (Tetra
Tech. 1994b). Based upon the available
information, it is not expected that the
exploratory oil and gas permitted
discharges and related activities will not
adversely affect any of the listed species
or their habitat.
EPA has informally consulted with
the USFWS and the NMFS pursuant to
SectIon 7 consultation of the
Endangered Species Act. The EPA
shared the draft biological evaluation
with USFWS at their request. Comments
raised by the USFWS have been
addressed. EPA has forwarded the
revised document to both Services for
their review. EPA will consider the
Services’ comments in developing the
final permit.
C. Coastal Zone Management Act
EPA has determined that the activities
authorized by this general permit are
consistent with local and state Coastal
Management Plans. The proposed
permit and consistency determination
will be submitted to the State of Alaska
for state interagency review at the time
of public notice. The requirements for
State Coastal Zone Management Review
and approval must be satisfied before
the general permit may be issued.
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 Water Quality Standards and
State Certificat.ron
Since state waters are involved in the
proposed general permit area, the
provisions of Section 401 of the Act
apply. In accordance with 40 CFR
124.10(c)(1), public notice of the draft
permit has been provided to the State of
Alaska agencies having jurisdiction over
fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources
(see section ILC. above).
F. Executive Order t2866
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Execi.itive Order
12866 pursuant to Section 8(b) of that,
order.
G. 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
USC 3501 et seq. Most of the
information collection requirements
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) in submissions made for the
NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act. En
addition, the environmental monitoring
requirements pursuant to Section 403(c)
of the Clean Water Act in Part 11.8.4 of
this permit are similar to the monitoring
requirements that were approved by
0MB for the previously issued Beautort

-------
48324
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 1994 I Notices
Seal! and ChUkCIii Sea general permits
(September 28. 1988. 53 FR 37846) and
the modification of the Beaufort Seafl
NPDES general permIt (September 27,
1989,54 FR 39574), The final general
permit will explain how the information
collection requirements respond to any
0MB or public comments.
H. 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 USC 605(b), that this
general permit will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small 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—Oil and
Gas Extraction SIC 1311 Crude
Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Datedi August 31. 1994.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Admnustrotor, Region 10.
V Rthrencea
Bigham. C., L. Hornaby, and G. Wiens. 1984.
Technical support document for regulating
dilution and deposition of drilling muds
on the Outer Continental ShelL Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10. and Jones end Stokes
Associates, Bellevue, WA. by Tetra Tech,
Inc. November1984. 68pp plus
appendices.
Dunton, K.. S. Reiznnltz, and S. Scbonberg.
1982. An arctic kelp community in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Atctlc 35(4): 465-
484.
Frost. K.J. and L.F. Lowry. 1993. DIstribution
and Abundance of Beluga Whales and
Spotted Seals In the Chukehi Sea,
Inc luding Recent P1ndlng at Kasegaluk
Lagoon. In. Alaska OCS Region Fifth
Information Transfer Meeting Conference
Proceedings. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service. OCS Study
MMS 93—0043.
Jones & Stokes AssocIates. 1983. FInal ocean
discharge aiterla evaluation, Dlapir Field.
OCS lease sale 71. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10. March 21. 1983. 160 pp. plus
appendices.
Jones & Stokes Associates. 1984. Final ocean
discharge ltena evaluation, Diapir Field.
OCS lease sale 87 and state lease sales 39.
43. and 43a. Prepared for U S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, July 24. 1984. 137 pp. plus appendices.
North Slope Borough. 1988. North Slope
Borough Coastal Management Program.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1994a. Ocean discharge
oriteria evaluation for Arctic state and
fedoral waters. Draft. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July
1994.
Tetra Tech. Inc. 1994b. Effects of oil and gas
exploration activities In the area of
coverage under the Arctic NPDES General
Permit on threatened and endangered
species. Draft. Prepared for the U.S.
Envimonmentai Protection Agency, March
1994. RevIsed by EPA on 8/8194.
U.S. Department of the interior. 1992. Outer
Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Oil
Resource Management: Comprehensive
Program (1992—1997). Proposed FInal.
Minerals Management Service.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Final General NPDES
Permits for Oil and Gas Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and in State
Waters of Maska Bering Sea and Beaufort
Sea: Notice. (49 FR 23734, June 7, 1984).
U.S. EPA. 1985. Assessment of
environmental fate and effects of
discharges from offshore oil and gas
operations. EPA 440/4-85(002.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Final General NPDES
Permits for Oil and Gas Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of Alaskai
Beaufort Sea U and Chukchi Sea; Notice.
(53 FR 37846, September 28, 1988).
U S. EPA. 1989. FInal Modifications of the
N FOES General Permit for Oil and Gas
Operations on the Outer Continental Shell
(OCS) and State Waters of AIaska Beaufort
Sea IL (54 FR39574, September 27. 1989).
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Gwdeljnes and New
Source Performance Standards for the
Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Categoiy FinaL
Office of Water. EPA 821-R-93-OO3.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. 40 C’R Part 135. Oil and
gas extraction point source category
offshore subcategory effluent limitations
guidelines and new source p rt . ance
standards, (58 FR 12454. March 4, 1993).
U.S. EPA. 1993c. Response to Public
Comments on Proposed Effluent
Limitatio g Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the O bore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category (January 15, 1993).
Offshore Rulemaking Record Document
No. Vll1.3.(3)1. Volumes 151. 152. and 134
(Excerpts only).
U.S. EPA. 1993d. Economic Impact Analysis
of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards of Performance for the
Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. Office of
Water. EPA-821-R ..g 3,
U.S. EPA. Region 10.1992. Region 10
Guidance. Best Management Practices
Plans in NPDES PermIts. June 1992.
tFR Doc. 94—23419 Flied 9—19-94; 8:45 am)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
tRepof lNo.2 1
A Petition for Reconsideration of
Actions In Ruleniaking Proceedings
September 15. 1994.
A Petition for reconsidematibu has
been filed with respect to the
Commission’s Order listed below. The
full text of this docume t is available for
viewing and copying in Room 616, 1919
M Street, NW., Washington. DC. by
contacting Donna Viert ((202) 418-
1725). In addition, copies may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor, ITS, Mc. ((202) 857—3800).
Oppositions to this petition for
reconsideration must be flied by
October 5, 1994. See Section 1.4(b) of
the Commission’s Rules (47 G R
1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must
be filed within 10 days after the lime for
filing oppositions has expired.
Subject: Specifications as to Pleadings
and Documents; Amendment of Section
1.49 of the Commission’s Rule (FCC 94—
181).,
Filed By: David B. Popkin on August
10, 1994.
Action by the General Counsel.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Calon,
Acting Secretary.
IFR Doc. 94—23208 Filed 9-19-94, 8.45 arnj
BILliNG COO S Iii 2-oi-M
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Security for the Protection of the
Public indemnifIcation of Passengers
for Non performance of Transportation;
Issuance of Certificate (Performance)
Notice is hereby given that the
following have been issued a certificate
of Financial Responsibility for
Indemnification of Passengers for
Nonperformance of Transportation
pursuant to the provisions of Section 3,
Public Law 89—777 (46 U.S.C. 817(e))
and the Federal Maritime Commission’s
Implementing regulations at 46 G’R Part
540, as a mended;
Holland America Llne—Westoun, Inc. (dTh/
a Holland America Line) and HAL Anuuleri
NV., 300 Elliott Avenue West. Seattle,
Washington 98119
Vessels:
NIEUW AMSTERDAM
NOORDAM -
RtJITUCDAM
Holland America LIne—Westours, Inc. (dfb/
a Holland America Line). HAL Shipping
Lid. and HAL Antillen N.y., 300 Elliott
Avenue West, Seattle, Washington 98119
Vessel. WESTERDAM
Holland America Une—Westours. Inc. (d/b/
a Windstar Cruises). Wind Star Limited,
Wjndstar Sail Cruises Limited and HAL
Antillen N.V • 300 Elliott Avenue West,
Seattle, Washington 98119
Vessel: WIND STAR \
Holland America Line—Westoum. Inc. (dIbI
a Holland America Line). HAL Cruises
Limited, Wind Surf Limited and HAL
Anti lien MV.. 300 EllIott Avenue West,
Seattle, Wash Ington 98119

-------
—
- a
— a a
=
a — S
Tuesday
August 9, 1994
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 125
Discharges Into Marine Waters;
Modiflcatlon of Secondary Treatment
Requirements; Final Rule
E
3

-------
40642 - Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 I Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 125
FRL-6025-7 )
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements for Discharges Into
Marine Waters
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating final
amendments to the regulations
contained in 40 CFR part 125, subpart
G. which implement section 301(h) of
the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “Act”).
33 U S.C. section 1311(h). Section
301(h) provides for modifications of
secondary treatment reqwrwnents for
discharges into marine waters by
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that demonstrate their
compliance with the section 301(h)
criteria. These regulatory revisions are
being promulgated to respond to the
amendments to section 301(h) contained
in section 303 of the Water Quality Act
of 1987 (“WQA”) and to reflect program
experience. These amendments revise
portions of the existing part 125, subpart
G, regulations and simplify and revise
the application requirements contained
in Appendices A and B of subpart G.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations
take effect on September 8, 1994.
Promulgation Date: In accordance
with 40 CFR 23.2. the Administrator’s
promulgation occurs at 1.00 p.m. EDT
on August 23, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of comments
submitted and the docket for this
rulemaking are available for review at
EPA’s Water Docket; Room L—102, 401
M St.. SW.. Washington, DC 20460. For
access to the Docket materials, call (202)
260—3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMA1ION CONTAC’fl
Virginia Fox•Norse. Ocean., and Coastal
Protection Division (4504F). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW. Washington. DC 20460,
(202) 260—8448. An amended Technical
Support Document (TSD) has been
prepared to provide guidance for
preparing applications and complying
with provisions of the regulations. This
amended TSD completely supersedes
the 1982 revised section 301(h) TSD,
and will be available soon after these
regulations are published in the Federal
Register. Requests for the amended TSD
should be made to Virginia Fox.Norse at
the address given in this section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Background
A. History of the section 301(h) Program
B. Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987
C. Overview of Public Comments
0. Summary of Changes Made from the
1991 Proposal
II. Section by Section Analysis
Ill. Supporting Documentation
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
3. Executive Order 12291
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. Background
A. Histor, of the Section 301(h) Progmm
Under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the
Clean Water Act of 1972 (hereinafter
CWA or Act) (33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(B)).
POVvVs were required to achieve
secondary treatment by July 1. 1977.
The secondary treatment requirements
establish technology-based effluent
limitations for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS).
and pH. See 40 CFR part 133. Some
municipalities with POTWs that
discharged into marine waters argued
that secondary treatment might not be
necessary to protect certain manne
waters where deeper waters with large
tides and currents can allow for greater
dilution and dispersion than discharges
into fresh waters. As a result. 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 POTW and with the
concurrence of the State. to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
that modifies the secondary treatment
requirements of section 301(b)(1)(B). in
order to obtain a section 301 (h) waiver.
the applicant must demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the
proposed discharge complies with a set
of criteria intended to protect the
marine environment. In addition.
section 301(j)(1)(A) of the Act
established a deadline for filing a
sectIon 301(h) applIcation. EPA
regulations and an accompanying
technical support document (TSD) to
implement the section 301(h) program
were issued in 1979. (44 FR 34784, June
15. 1979.)
SectIon 301(h) was later amended by
the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grants Amendments
(MINTCGA) of 1981 (Pub. L 97—117. 95
Stat. 1623). The MWTCGA extended the
deadline for filing section 301(h)
applications to December 29. 1982. and
modified applicant eligibility
requirements. In response to the
MWTCGA and program experience. the
section 301(h) regulations and the TSD
were revised in 1982. (See 47 FR 24918,
June 8, 1982, and 47 FR 53866.
November 26. 1982.)
B. Water Quality Act Amendments of
1987
On February 4. 1987. Congress passed
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L
100—4, hereinafter WQA). ftirther
amending section 301(h) of the CWA.
Section 303 of the WQA. which
contains the amendments to section
301(h), made the following changes to
section 301(h) of the CWA:
(i) The discharge of pollutants. in
accordance with modified requirements.
cannot interfere, alone or in
combination with pollutants from other
sources, with the attainment or
maintenance of water quality which
assures the protection of the resources
and uses listed in CWA section
301(h)(2).
(2) The scope of required monitoring
is limited to only those scientific
investigations necessary to study the
effects of the proposed discharge.
(3) For POTWs serving a population
of 50,000 or more, with respect to any
toxic pollutant introduced by an
industrial source for which pollutant
there is no applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect, the applicant
must demonstrate that sources
introducing waste into the POT’vV are in
compliance with all applicable
pretreatment requirements, the
applicant will enforce those
requirements, and the applicant has in
effect a pretreatment program which. in
combination with the treatment of
discharges from the POTW. removes the
same amount of such toxic pollutant as
would be removed if the POTW were to
apply secondary treatment and had no
pretreatment program for such
pollutant. (For purposes of this
preamble. this requirement will be
referred to as the “urban area
pretreatment requirement”)
(4) At the time the section 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
CWA section 304(a)(1) after initial
mixing in the waters surrounding or
ad)acent to the point at which the
effluent Is discharged. The statutory
amendments define primary or
equivalent treatment as treatment by
screening, sedimentation, and ski in tnt ng
adequate to remove at least 30 percent
each of BOD and of SS. and
disinfection, where appropriate.
(5) No modification may be issued for
a discharge into manna waters unIe s
those waters exhibit characteristics

-------
40643
assuring that water providing dilution
does not contain significant amounts of
previously discharged effluent from the
POTW.
(6) No section 301(h) modified permit
may be issued authorizing the discharge
of any pollutant into saline estuarme
waters which at the time of the
application exhibit certain stressed
conditions specified in the statute,
without regard to the presence or
absence of a causal relationship between
those conditions and the applicant’s
current or proposed discharge.
(7) No permits may be issued for
section 301(h) modified discharges into
the New York Bight Apex.
(8) Any POTW that had a contrectual
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 section 301(h)
permit in its own right within 30 days
of WQA enactment,
(9) Certain 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.
C. Overiiew of Public Comments
EPA proposed regulations on January
24, 1991, responding to the
requirements of the WQA and program
experience (56 FR 2814). The preamble
to the proposed regulations explains the
proposed changes in the regulations in
response to the WQA. On March 7.
1991, EPA held a public hearing in
Washington. DC. to receive comment on
the proposal. The public comment
period was open for 60 days and closed
on March 25, 1991. Although some
comments were not received until April
8. 1991, EPA has elected to consider all
comments received in developing this
final rule. EPA received both written
comments and comments at the public
hearing on the proposed rule from a
total of 17 commenters eight section
331(h) applicants, two State
governments, four independent
consultants, and three environmentali
public interest groups.
AUhouah the comments recei’.ed
addressed many of the p;opcsed
changes. the principal areas cf concern
to cc rnmcnters focused on prirr.:ry or
equivalent treatment requirements,
urban area pretreatment. and the watcr
quality critena equsrements. A brief
summary of the comments on these
areas is set out below, and a more
detailed discussion of aU comments
roceivea is set out later in the section-
hy-section analysis of this prca.mb!c.
Comments regarding primary
treatment raised issues related to the 30
percent removal requirement for BOD.
the cost to small communities of
complying, and the time limit to meet
the primary treatment requirement.
Comments on urban area pretreatment
raised issues about use of the pilot plant
approach to demonstrate secondary
removal equivalency for toxics,
development of local pretreatment
limits, which pollutants are subject to
this requirement, the time limit to meet
this requirement, and the cost of
compliance. Comments regarding the
section 304(a)(1 water quality criteria
focused on setting risk levels for
carcinogens, determining mixing zones
for evaluating compliance with State
water quality standards, and the role of
the section 304(a)(1) water quality
criteria in cases where the State has
adopted a different water quality
standard under CWA section 303.
D. Summary of Changes Made From the
1991 Proposal
For the convenience of the reader, the
follow trig discussion provides a brief
overview of the sections and subject
areas in which today’s final rule makes
changes from the January 24. 1991,
proposal. Table 1 of the preamble also
provides a summary of those changes. A
full discussion of the changes made in
the regulations and proposal is set out
later in the section-by-section analysis
of today’s preamble.
Today’s final rule would make a
clarifying change from the 1991
proposal in § 125 58(n), which defines
the term “ocean waters.” This change is
intended to clarify the distinction
between “saline estuarine waters” and
“ocean waters,” a distinction important
to the application of the WQA
provisions prohibiting section 301(h)
discharges into stressed saline estuarine
waters.
Today’s final rule makes a change
from tha 1991 proposal in § 125.59.
which addresses general application
requirements, The proposal allowed the
grantirg of tentative approvals if the
applicant demonstrated good faith to
come into compliance with all the
requirements of this subpart. based on a
schedule in accardance with
§ 123 39(O(3l(ii) EPA received a
ccmme: t asking that this section be
clarified The ccmmenter stated that
because S 125.59U)(3) ii) only applies to
pnmc.-v treatment and urban area
pretreaunent requirements, the section
could be interpreted as allowing
compliance schedules only for those
requirements and not for all
r. .quir rnents. Section 125 59(h) has
been amended to allow compliance
schedules for all requirements.
This change merely clarifies EPA’s
original intent.
Today’s final rule makes a change
from the 1991 proposal in § 125.60.
which addresses the WQA requirements
for compliance with primary or
equivalent treatment, The proposal
specified a monthly averaging period for
determining compliance with the 30
percent BOD removal requirement for
BOD and SS established by the WQA. In
response to comments on this issue, the
final rule adds the opportunity under
certain special circumstances for
applicants unable to meet the 30 percent
removal requirement for BOD on the
basis of a monthly average to request a
longer averaging penod (up to annual)
in order to provide needed flexibility in
calculating compliance. This averaging
basis is not available for those POTWs
that have already shown a consistent
ability to meet the 30-percent removal
requirement for BOD on a monthly
basis. Because no comments were
received indicating a need for flexibility
in the monthly averaging period for
determining compliance with the 30
percent suspended solids removal
requirement, this change applies only to
the BOD removal requirements.
The final rule makes a change to the
proposed regulatory language of
§ 125.62 with regard to determining
compliance with State water quality
standards, Comments were received on
the issue of mixing zones, and in
evaluating these comments, EPA noted
that the proposal had inadvertently
omitted language contained in the
existing 1982 section 301(h) regulations
on meeting applicable water qu 1ity
standards at and beyond the zone of
initial dilution, The final rule
promulgated today would retain that
language so that the original
requirement of the 1982 regulations for
meeting State water quality standards at
the edge of the zone of initial dilution -
remains in effect.
The final rule also makes a change
from the 1991 proposal in § 125.63,
which addresses section 30 1(h)
monitoring programs. While implied,
the proposal did not include explicit
regulatory language requiring
monitoring to determine compliance
with the primary treatment
requirements It ilso did not induce,
under general requirements, an explicit
requirement to have a mon orin3
program to demonstrate compliance
with water quality criteria as well as
water quality standards, as aDplicublo.
The final rule adds these requirement;
to § 125 63 (31(1) and (d) 2) in order to
ensure that applicants provide data on
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations

-------
40644 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. t52 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 / Rules and RegIil2tlnns
their ceinpltsnm with these regard to the development of the final rule and implify its use by
requirements over the life of the permit. pretreatment requirements and applicants and the Agency to determine
In adthtion. In response to comments. secondazy equivalency for toxics compliance with the 301(h)
the final rule makes several clarifying removal. req arements.
changes to §125.65, which addresses Some conforming and organizational rne ema nino sections of the rule
the urban area pr xeatment changes were made to the application 56 125 57 125 61 125 64
requsreniena The changes are intended questionnaüe contained in the • ‘ • from
to provide additional guidance on Appendtz to tiwse regulations. These h an
implementation of this section with changes address amendments made in I e 19 1 proposa.
TA8t.EI
F S iA i .
Contents
Changes from 1991 Proposal
I 2556
12557
12558
12599
I 2560
1256 1
125.62
‘25 63
12564
125.55
12566
12557
12568
Aooeqidiz
Scope and Purpose ......_..__ --
t aw govenang issuance of a modified pemil
Oefkatfons .. .. . •• . , - ...
.-..-—.-.. . .—---.--....-.-...- - —
P ,m zy or equivalent treatment fequiremerits ..
Exi enco of and Co sance with applicable water quality szandan
or insinienance of water quality wftch asswes prota ien of water supplies.
w the protection arid propagation of a bala ed. Indigeneus popdation of shellfish.
fish and wildlife, and allows recreational activities.
Estabflalarent of a monitoring program. . .._..... .
Effect of discharge on other point and r,onpoint souices ..
tiitian ea pree’eatrnent program ._..___
Tozice cIAsnII $ f gg fl ,........,..._ . ._
h in etituent ime or ariown of podium discharged
Spr Conditions bar se on 301(h) modifl pern — — .__
Applicant queseonnawe for modification of secondaiy treatment requirements
Un iged.
Unchanged.
Clarified ocean waler cleSration.
Clarified re wemonts br co r nce
schediies.
Change to SOD removal averaging pe-
nod tinder certain ci,cunutances,
Unchanged.
Change to naxing zone provisions
Morlitoni’ prowsions regarding primary
treatment ocn lre’ce ed_.
Unchanged.
Clanf language aided.
Unchanged.
Unchanged.
Unchanged.
Confo...wig and Organizational changes
maie.
ft Section-by-Section Analysis
This section provIdes a description of
each section in the regulation and
discusses the public comments
received. Citations to sections of the
part 125. subpartG. regulations in the
discussion below refer to the section
numbers of the regulations as numbered
under today’s rule.
Although portions of the section
301(hI regulations that were not
proposed for change are being reprinted
with today s action, this has been done
for the convenience of the reader. EPA
did not reconsider those existing
portions of the regulations and they are
not subject to challenge an pail of this
final rulemaking.
Section 125.56: This section
establishes the general scope and
purpom of the regulations. EPA did not
propose to revise this cection. and no
cammects were received. This section
remains unchanged.
Section 125.57: This section sets forth
r e statutory language applicable to
section 301(h) ciodiflod permits. No
comments were received, and this
section remains unchanged from the
çropcsed rule.
Section 125.58: This section sets forth
the deflnition applicable to tim subpart
C regulations. As a result of section 303
,: the WQA. the 1991 proposal added
definitions of “primary or equivalent
treatment,” “pretreatment.” “categorical
pretreatment standard,” “secondary
removal equivalency,” “water quality
critena.” “pernuttee.” and “New York
Bight Apex.” In addition, the proposal
made changes to existing definitions for
“industrial source.” “ocean waters.”
and “stressed waters,” EPA received
significant comments on two aspects of
the primary or equivalent treatment
requirements and the definition of
saline estuarme waters.
Definition of Prima,v Treatment
Section 125,58(r) of the proposed rule
defined “prirnasy or equivalent
treatment” as treatment by screening.
sedimentation, and ikimming adequate
to remove at least 30 percent of the
biochemical oxygen demanding (BOO)
material and of the suspended solids
(SS) in the treatment works influent,
and disinfection, where appropriate.
This definition was taken directly from
the language of section 303(d) of the
WQA. The preamble to the proposed
tule further explained that the terms
“sedimentation” and “skimming” could
indude a range of treatment techniques
such as coagulation and precipitation
(physical adjuncts to sedimentation),
and flotation and subsequent removal
by skimming. in order to achieve the
required 30 percent removal of BUD and
SS, (56 FR 2818). Alihough certain types
of treatment are specified in the
statutory definition (i.e.. screening.
sedimentation, and skimming), EPA
believes the principal Latent of the
statutory definition is to ensure
compliance with the 30 percent BOO
and SS removal reqwremenls. rather
than specifying the exact methods used
to achieve such removal rates. For
example, chemical addition.
coagulation, and precipitation might be
necessary in addition to the specific
treatment processes listed in the
definition in order to achieve the
mandated 30 percent removal, and this
would be allowable.
Several cemmenters sought a change
to the definition due to concerns with
the requirement to achieve 30 percent
SOD removaL As discussed below in
more detail, the commenters’ concerns
centered on the practical difficulties in
achieving 30 percent SOD removal by
the physical processes of primary
treatment. Some noted that from an
engineering standpoint, technologies for
primary treatment are aimed at
removing solids, rather than solubt2
BOO
Some commenters stated that their
review of the legislative history of the
WQ t amendments to sectIon 301(h)

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 40645
shows that Congress did not articulate
any rationale for defining pnmary
treatment as 30 percent removal of SOD
The comrnenters argued that Congress’
intent was to stop the discharge of
untreated sewage from waiver
recipients. They also pointed out that
Congress defined primary treatment as
consisting only of skimming. screening.
and sedimentation, and did not include
more sophisticated technologies, such
as coagulation and precipitation.
Therefore, they slate, EPA must adopt
that literal definition and acknowledge
that skimming, screening and
sedimentation might not be enough to
achieve 30 percent removal of BOO.
Commenters sought a change to the
definition of primary treatment to reflect
only the physical processes and not the
30-percent removal requirements.
Another commenter disagreed and
argued that the advantages of using
clear, uniform 30-percent standards in
the statute and regulations are obvious,
and that the fact that these advantages
arid other plausible rationales were riot
stated explicitly in the legislative
history is insufficient grounds for
ignoring the plain and unambiguous
statutory requirements.
Some commenters noted that primary
treatment generally is intended to
remove sattleable solids and floating
materials rather than SOD and therefore
indusion of 30 percent BOD removal as
part of the definition of pnmary
treatment is technically inappropriate.
In support. several commenters cited
the literature of wastewater engineering
and stated that SOD reductions
achieved by primary treatment are the
result of insoluble (solid form) BOD
being removed along with the settleable
or floatable matenals. The commenters
pointed out that soluble BOO would not
be removed by the physical processes of
screening, skimming, and
sedimentation, and that the BOO
removal rates achievable by primary
treatment would therefore vary
depending upon the relative amounts of
soluble and insoluble BOO. Commenters
also cited situations where pretreatment
of discharges by industrial dischargers
that removes much of the insoluble BUD
(e g , fish processors removing settleable
fish wastes) results in a high proportion
of soluble to insoluble BOD. One
commenter rioted that the key statutory
term in section 303(d112) of the WQA is
“material,” implying that Congress
intended that 30 percent removal refers
to insoluble BOD. not total BUD.
Section 3031d)(2) states that “primary or
equivalent treatment means the removal
o(at least * * 30 percent of the
biological oxygen demanding material
• “ (emphasis added). The
cornmenters therefore sought a change
to the regulations’ definition of primary
treatment to require 30 percent removal
of insoluble BOO, with soluble SOD
being excluded from the 30 percent
removal requirement.
Some coinmenters were concerned
that they might have difficulty in
achieving 30 percent BOD removal by
the physical processes of primary
treatment because their influent BOO
levels were very dilute, that is,
relatively low concentrations of BOD in
the raw wastewater would make 30
percent removal hard to achieve. These
commenters pointed to a number of
factors leading to such dilute
wastewater and difficulties in achieving
removal efficiencies such as (1) cold
climates which result in freeze/thaw
problems including inflow arid
infiltration from snow melt and cracked
or broken pipes with attendant dilution
of the mfluent by the resulting influx of
fresh water (2) insufficient industrial or
commercial sources with high
concentrations of BOO in the
wastewater discharges to the municipal
sewage system to offset otherwise dilute
influents with low SOD concentrations;
(3) cold wastewater temperatures
resulting in relatively less efficient
treatment; and (4) extremely high tides
and high precipitation. These
commeriters recommended that EPA not
require 30 percent removal during
periods of extremely dilute and clean
inflows.
After considering these comments,
EPA made no changes to the definition
of primary or equivalent treatment in
§ 125.58(r). However, as discussed
below in the section-by-section analysis
for § 125.60, the Agency is making
changes to how compliance with the 30
percent removal requirement is
calculated for BOD. Specifically. EPA is
allowing the demonstration of
compliance with the 30 percent SOD
removal requirement to be averaged
over a longer time period than
proposed, in some circumstances. This
added flexibility should provide some
of the relief sought by commenters.
Although EPA recognizes that from a
technical or engineering perspective.
primary tmatrnent is generally thought
of as physical processes to remove
solids, the statutory definition of
primary treatment adopted by Congress
for purposes of section 301(h) is
unambiguous in requiring 30 percent
BOO removal. In addition, EPA
disagrees with the coinmenters who
stated that the statutory definition
precludes the use of additional
treatment processes such as chemical
addition to enhance primary treatment’s
physical processes (e.g.. chemical
addition, coagulation, and precipitation)
in order to achieve the required 30
percent removal of BOO.
With regard to the commenters’
suggestions that the definition be
revised to define SOD as insoluble BUD
only, EPA recognizes that removal of
BOO in primary treatment normally is
associated with the removal of seuleable
(i.e., insoluble) materials. While the
literature cited by the commenters
indicates that BOO removals for
traditional primary treatment range from
about 20 to 40 percent, the reported
range is a result of many factors
including treatment plant design.
subsequent additional treatment and
influent qualities such as the presence
of soluble versus non-soluble SOD.
Furthermore. Congress set the BOD
removal standard without incorporating
such a distinction. Both soluble and
insoluble BOD exert the similar effect of
depressing dissolved oxygen levels in
the receiving waters. Limiting the
required removal to only insoluble ROD
ignores this fact and also would be
inconsistent with the existing approach
of the Agency’s secondary treatment
regulations, which do not distinguish
between removal of soluble and
insoluble SOD. EPA disagrees that the
use of the term “material” in section
303(d)(2) indicates that Congress
intended that 30 percent removal refer
only to insoluble BOB. See, a g.. 40 CFR
part 133.
The definition in today’s regulations
corn ports with the express statutory
language, and if an applicant does ha’ e
difficulty meeting the 30 percent BOD
removal requirement with treatment b’.
screening, sedimentation, and
skimming, for such reasons as dilute
influent, cold temperatures, or soluble-
to-insoluble BOD ratios, applicants can
increase BOD removal efficiencies
through the application of treatment
processes which may include physical
processes enhanced by chemical
processes. Accordingly, given the
unambiguous statutory language on
percent removal and the ability to use
enhanced treatment processes when
necessary, EPA believes the definition
should not be amended to allow for less
than 30 percent removal of SOD or to
exclude soluble BOD from the removal
requirements established by Congress
Compliance with the 30 percent
removal requirement, which may
require enhanced or additional
technologies, is more appropriate trian
limiting treatment strictly to the three
technologies listed in the statute end not
achieving 30 percent in some cases. The
term material. EPA believes, does not
imply insoluble, and, as explained
above, such an interpretation makes

-------
40646 Federal Regi er I Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
little seeaa. ven that soluble and
insoluble SOD emit similar effects in
the receiving waters.
Other c nm il rs requested that the
definition be duingiid to require that the
combined average of both SOD and 55
percent removal be at least 30 percenl
EPA considered this option but did not
deem it ptable for two reasons.
First. the statute states that primary
treatment requires the removal of at
least 30 percent of the biological oxygen
demanding material and of the
suspended solids. Combining the SOD
and SS temeval requirements into an
overall 30 percent average. in EPA ’s
view, would not satisfy the statutory
language or intenL Second. after
considering both information submitted
by commentera and EPA ’s own
assessment of primary treatment
removal data from POTWa (See
Technical Review of the lnfluenti
Effluent aiaractmuth ofpOTWs. hine
1994), EPA concludes that most POTWs
are removing greater than 30 percent of
SS. and some are removing greater than
60 percent of SS. Adopting the
suggested thange thus would allow for
an actual relaxing of both BUD and SS
removal even for applicants capable of
meeting the 30 percent removal of BOO
and 30 percent removal of 55. There is
no indication that Congress intended
this result. Moreover, properly run
primary treatment plants should be able
to meet 30 percent 55 removal and no
comments or data were received that
ind:cate otherwise. EPA believes one
ob euive of the primary treatment
provision is to ensure the proper design
and operation of treatment plants. and
thi oblective would not be met under
the commentain’ suggested
interpretation.
Semilaz to the above comments, some
corr,menwrs requested the definition be
changed to mqwle that the combined
aversge o(both BOO and 55 percent
removal be greater than 60 percenL As
stated above, EPA does not believe that
the statutory language and intent are
c nststenl with annbining BOO and SS
removals to meat the 30-percent
removal requirement. Using a standard
of 60 percent would stray even hurther
from the plain meaning of the statute.
Moreover, if Congress had intended to
provide a 60 percent removal
requirement it could easily have so
spec. fled in the statute, however, the
statute makes no reference to a 60
percent removal of DOD and SS. Finally.
as with the previous comment, this
interpretation could allow for even
greater relaxing of treatment efficiencies
tar BOO removal (or 55). leading to less
ea’k’ent plant operations than
z iii.ants are currently achieving.
Some commenter , suggested that the
requirement for 30 percent removal
should reflect a credit iysteun. ” under
which the removaL efficiency for BOO
would be calculated based on a
combination of the BOO removal by
industrial diachargers ’ pretreatment.
plus the removal achieved by treatment
processes at the POTW. This approach
is inconsistent with the plain statutory
language and thus cannot be adopted.
The statute unambiguously specifies
that the 30 pei nt removal rate is to be
achieved with respect to the app ticant’s
influent. Such influent would already
have been subject to industrial
dischargers pretreatment, and because
the statute reii nres that the 30 percent
removal rate be achieved for the influent
to the POTW. a’edit cannot be given for
upstream treatment by industrial
dischargers.
In contrast to the above comments
seeking a change in the definition of
primary treatment, other comments
supported the definition of primary
treatment as 30 percent removal of BOO
and of SS as proposed. These
commenters noted that this definition is
consistent with the plain, unambiguous
definition specified by Congress in the
WQA as discussed above, and these
commenters agree with EPA that the
suggested changes to the definition that
EPA has re ected would be
inappropriate. -
Definitions of Saline Estuarine Waters
and Ocean Waters
Under section 303(e) of the WQA.
section 301(b) modified discharges are
prohibited into saline estuarine waters
exhibiting certain signs of stress (i.e..
degradation to water quality) specified
in the statute. Zn contrast, this flat
prohibition does not apply to “ocean
waters.” As a result, in the proposed
rule, EPA amended the temi “ocean
waters” in § 125.58(n) to clarify that
ocean waters are distinct from saline
estuarine waters because discharges to
saline estuaries are now subject to
additIonal regulatory criteria not
applicable to discharges to oceans.
Although the existing definition of
saline estuarine waters was not
proposed for amendment, some
commenters expressed the view that it
is too broad and thus might give the
prohibition on section 301(h) discharges
to stressed saline estuarine waters
greater scope than intended. These
commenters sought a definition giving
more precise boundaries to saline
estuarine waters.
The narrative definition of saline
estuanne waters has remained
unchanged since its angina I 1979
promulgition in the section 301(h)
regulations, and the section 301(h
regulations have always placed
additional restrictions on discharges to
saline estuarine waters compared to
ocean waters. Section 125.B1(cJ(4)
(1982) places additional limits on
impacts within the anne of initial
dilution for saline estuarina discharges.
EPA’s experience with the use of a
general narrative definition of saline
estuarine waters for purposes of making
regulatory distinctions is that this
approach us workable. EPA believes that
itis not feasible for the pw’posesof the
section 30 1(h) regulations to develop a
definition establishing fixed boundaries
between ocean and estuarine waters. but
that all relevant Local circumstances
should be considered and the
distinction should be made on the basic
of the site-specific circumstances.
The commenters’ concern appears to
center on the meaning of the term
‘semi-enclosed waters” in the
definition of saline estuanna waters, In
this regard it is Important to note that
under § 125.58(v). not all semi-enclosed
coastal waters are treated as saline
estuaries. Under the section 301(h)
regulations. white some embayments
and other indentationa along the
coastline lie inside the baseline from
which the territorial sea begins, they are
treated for purposes of section 301(h) as
being ocean waters. See preamble to
1979 section 301(111 reguLations (44 FR
34784, 34795. lune 15. 1979). As noted
in the preamble to the 1979 section
301(h) regulations (44 FR 34795), it is
the presence of fresh water inflows that
is the distinguishing characteristic of
estuanes. EPA notes today that saline
estuarine waters typically are waters
lying inside the baseline in which the
salinity is diluted by fresh water
inflows. En contrast, embayments or
indentations along the coastline that are
not influenced by such fresh water
inflows aie not estuaries. To further
clarify that ocean waters and saline
estuarine waters ale distinct and
mutually exclusive terms for purposes
of section 301(h). the final rule, as in the
proposal, amends the definition of
“ocean waters” to note that this term
specifically excludes saline estuanne
waters.
Commenters also inquired about
situations where an outfall crosses
through estuarine waters, but the actual
discharge is into offshore waters.
Because both the statute and the
implementing regulations make clear
that the prohibition applies to
discharges of pollutants into saline
estuanne waters, the statute and
implementing regulations already
adequately address this casi .

-------
Federal Register i’ Vol. 59. No. 152 I Tuesday, August 9, 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 40647
Section 125 - 59: This section des ibes
the general requirements for section
301(h) applications, includiiig filing
procedures and deadlines, procedures
for revising applications., and
procedures for State determinations.
EPA proposed to make several changes
to this section. In the proposed nile.
EPA added procedures for permit
renewal. clarified language regarding
State determinations, and added
provisions for the submission of
additional information to demonstrate
compliance with the urban area
pretreatment program and primary or
equivalent treatment requirwnents. EPA
also proposed to amend the regulations
in accordance with section 303(g) of the
WQA to exclude certain applicants from
the water quality aiteria provisions of
§ 125 62(a), primary or equivalent
treatment program requirements
( 125 60) and urban area pretreatment
program requirements ( 125.65) until
permit renewal. As provided by the
WQA, and explained later on in this
preamble, these grandfathering
provisions in today’s final rule apply
only to those section 301(h) app licathins
that received tentative or final section
30 1(h) modified permit approvals prior
to enactment of the WQA.
The new requirements for submitting
additional information are found in
§ 125.5 le) and (1). Under those
3rovslons, permittees and applicants to
whom EPA has issued a final or
tontanve decision, including those that
have been grand fathered under WQA
section 303(g), must submit a letter of
intent explaining how the perrnittee or
applicant will meet the pnma y
treatment and urban area pretreatment
requirciments. Under 125.59 1013),
applicants that are not grandf ithered
have two years Item publication of the
regulanon to comply with the primary
treatment and urban area pretreatment
requirements; applicants that are
grendfathered .jve until permit renewal
or two years from date of publication of
these regulations, whichever is later.
Under § 125.591e). the letters of intent
must contain a project plan. including a
schedule, to ensure that timely
implementation of the requirements is
a com pI ished.
Some commenters expressed the view
that two years From the date of
promulgation of the regulations is not
sufñcient time to enable i ompliance
with the primary treatment and urban
area pretreatment requirements. One of
these r.ommenters expressed concern
ovor the impact of such a deadline on
a consent decree schedule it has entered
to For development of a pretreatment
ogram. Further, this commenter was
cnni:erned that the time would not be
sufficient to develop pretreatment limits
for all 128 toxic priority pollutants.
Another commenter expressed concern
that two years was not sufficient given
their short construction season and
reliance on obtaining hinds from a State
legislature whose timing is not in the
commenter’s control. Other commenters
expressed the view that two years is a
reasonable timeframe. Another
commenter expressed the view that two
years is an excessive timofrezne and In
fact should not apply to requirements
which were either (1) in effect prior to
the 1987 amendments or (2) dear on the
face of the 1987 amendments (e.g. 30
percent DOD/suspended solids removal
standards).
With regard to requirements in effect
prior to the 1987 WQA, the two-year
time frame is not applicable. The two-
year time frame applies only to the
urban area pretreatment program and
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements. both of which were added
by the WQA.
EPA recognizes that for some
applicants, compliance with a two-year
deadline from the date of promulgation
of the regulations may be more difficult
than for others, for example, those who
may have to obtain Funding to design
and build an upgraded facility to meet
the primary u ’oatxsjent requirements.
However, none of the conimenters
opposing the two-year deadline
provided persuasive information
demonstrating why this deadline could
riot be met. One commenter subject to
court-ordered deadlines and consent
decree time.linas asked how to
reconcile these deadlines with the
consent decree time-lines. That
commenter also noted that there are a
number of different activities that need
to be performed to establish a local
limit, such as gathering data. developing
computer models, and obtaining
government approvals. That commenter,
however, provided no information
supporting why these activities cannot
be accomplished within the time
established in the regulation. EPA notes
that several of these activities can be
performed sintu itaneously. I ii respon.ce,
the comrnenter will have to comply
with the deadlines included in the
consent decree. This comment is moot
because of the time that has elapsed
between the proposed nile and today
The deadlines in the rule should ilot
affect the dates in consent decree. In
addition, the commenter has been on
notice for several years. EPA continues
to betieve that the two-year time frame
for compliance provides sufficient time
to achieve compliance. It should also be
noted that the requirement to develop
local pretreatment limits does not
ne sariiy apply to all 126 priority
pollutants. but only those that are
known or suspected to be introduced to
the plant by industry, as discussed later
in this preamble. The Agency notes that
the statutory provisions giving rise to
these requirements were enacted In
1987, and that the proposed regulations
and draft technical support document
were issued in 1991. In addition, the
Agency has had other final guidance on
the development of pretreatment
programs in place for several years.
Even in cases where cornmeriters cLaim
they have large numbers of dischargers
and large numbers of pollutants will
need to be addressed, EPA continues to
believe that sufficient time and notice
has been given to achieve compliance.
EPA agrees with the commenter who
noted that applicants have been on
notice of the need to comply with the
primary treatment and urban area
pretreatment requirements for quite
some time, and could have already
Initiated work on the planning and
development of rneaswes to achieve
compliance. The Agency also recognizes
that in the absence of final regulations
on these issues, applicants should not
be expected to have completely
developed and Implemented final plans.
Given this situation, and in the absence
of supporting information to show that
the two-year time frame of the proposal
is inappropriate, the Agency Is retaining
the proposal’s two-year time frame from
the date of publication of the final
regulations in the Federal Register to
achieve compliance. This date, August
9, 1996. is inserted in the regulatory te s
of this rule.
One commenter asked for additional
time to comply with the urban area
pretreatment and primary treatment
equivalency requirements bra plant
that has not yet been constructed. In
response, these applicants will have to
demonstrate compliance with these
requirements based on a predictive
analys s of their flows. The applicant
must base their prediction on potential
industrial sources and pollutants, and,
to the best of their ability, support such
predictions within the two-year time
frame.
In proposed § 125 59(h), EPA added
language to clarify that the Agency may
tentatively approve a section 301(h)
permit modification where art applitani
has demonstrated a good faith allan to
come into compliance with all
requirements of the section 30 1(h)
regulations, based upon a schedule
approved by the Agency for meeting any
outstanding section 301(h)
requirements. This provision is
consistent with the existing regulattciin-
and practice and was proposed for

-------
40648 Federal Register I Vol . 59. No. 152 I Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
addition only as a clan fying change. In
addition, the proposal made no changes
to the existing reqwrement that in order
to receive a final section 301(h)
modification, applicants must
demonstrate actual compliance with all
of the part 125. subpart G. requirements
before EPA will issue a final section
301(h) modified permit. See 40 CFR
§ 125.59(g)(1) (1982).
One commenter supported the
approach taken by EPA on tentatively
approving an application based on a
schedule with respect to outstanding
requirements if an applicant has
demonstrated a good faith effort to come
into compliance. However, the
commenter is concerned that § 125.59(h)
creates an ambiguity regarding the
permissible scope of the schedules for
meeting 301(h) requirements. Section
§ 125.59(h) allows EPA to tentatively
approve an application if the applicant
is making a good faith effort to comply
with “all requirements of this subpart.”
(emphasis added) The section continues
on. however, to require that the
schedule for meeting these requirements
must be “approved by the Administrator
in accordance with § 125.59(f)(3)(ii),
which refers only to schedules of
compliance with § 125.60 (primary or
equivalent treatment) and § 125.65
(urban area pretreatment).
EPA agrees with the commenter and
is clanfyuig § 125.59(h) to allow
schedules for satisfying the 301(h)
requirements for all requirements. It was
not the Agency’s intent to limit
compliance schedules to the
requirements of §S 125.60 and 125.65.
The Agency’s intent was that the
limitations of § 125.59(f}(3)(ii) apply
only to compliance sch%dules for
meeting the § 125.60 and 125.65
requirements. Therefore, we are adding
a phrase to § 125.59(fl(3)(ii) that reflects
the Agency’s intent.
Some commenters expressed the view
that EPA should not grant tentative
approvals before all the sectIon 301(h)
requirements are met. Additionally, one
of these cominenters felt that If a
tentative approval is granted prior to
such compliance, the applicant may be
encouraged to relax its effort to comply.
Based on its past experience with this
approach. EPA believes that the
provisions of the proposed regulation
are appropriate and contain adequate
safeguards to prevent abuse. The
regulatory provision specifically
requires that applicants must be making
a good faith effort to achieve compliance
and requires that EPA establish a
schedule for achieving compliance. In
addition, this approach provides an
opportunity for EPA. through the
tentative decision document, to put the
public and applicants on notice of
specific deficiencies and the steps and
time frame required to correct such
deficiencies. Rather than a’eating a
disincentive to timely compliance, the
regulatory provision requires that a
schedule for compliance be established.
In addition, EPA believes that by
advising applicants that they may
receive a final section 301(h) waiver if
the identified deficiencies are corrected
as required. the provision provides an
added incentive for applicants to
achieve timely compliance. Fir.ally. by
addressing such deficiencies through
the tentative approval, the more lengthy
process of tentative denial followed by
application revision is avoided. For
these reasons. EPA believes that the
regulatory provision is reasonable and is
promulgating that provision today as
proposed with the clarification noted
above.
One commenter recommended that
the EPA regional office issue a letter to
the applicant stating that its permit has
been administratively extended in
accordance with § 122.6. En response.
EPA notes that this is a procedural issue
governed by the NPDES regulations. It is
not a subject of this rulemaking.
EPA notes in reviewing this section
that § 125.59(d)(5) might be
misinterpreted to mean there is no
opportunity to present new information
on applications for permit renewal.
Paragraph (d)(5) is referring to the one-
time revisions allowed in § 125.59(d)(1)
and (d)(2). Applicants who are
authorized or requested to submit
add tional information under § 125.59(g)
may still do so.
Section 225 60: The proposal added
§ 125.60 to the regulations to implement
the primary or equivalent treatment
provision in section 303(d) of the WQA.
Issues related to the definition of
primary treatment have been previously
dealt with in the discussion of § 125.58.
Proposed § 125.60 required an
applicant’s discharge. at the time the
waiver becomes effective, to have
received at least primary or equivalent
treatment. Additionally, under the
proposal. applicants were to comply
with this treatment requirement based
on the monthly average results of the
monitoring for SS and BOD.
A number of commenters
recommended that EPA consider
lengthening the period of time over
which monitoring data are averaged to
determine compliance with the 30
percent BOD removal requirement.
These commonters presented
Information on the difficulties with
achieving the 30 percent removal
because of such factors as dilute
wastewaters, cold climates that impact
treatment design parameters (e.g..
settling rates), and proportionately low
amounts of insoluble BOD. One of the
options identified by these commenters
was to change from monthly averaging
of monitoring data to annual averaging
(or some period in between).
Commenters pointed out that this was a
reasonable approach which was
necessary to account for variations in
influent quality or other factors affecting
removal rates that might occur over a
year’s time. Other commenters
supported meeting the primary
treatment removal requirements on a
monthly average basis.
The Agency believes that the
proposed period for averaging
monitoring results (i.e.. monthly) to
determine compliance with the 30
percent BOD removal requirement will
be appropriate for most applicants.
However, as noted in the discussion for
the primary treatment definition in
§ 125.58, the Agency also recognizes
that the 30 percent removal rate for BOD
may be difficult to achieve on a monthly
average basis in certain cases. e.g.
dilute wastewater or proportionately
low concentrations of insoluble BOD.
Because of this, the final rule has been
modified to provide flexibility in certain
instances by allowing compliance
monitoring to be averaged for a period
longer than monthly, up to annually.
EPA anticipates that compliance
monitoring requirements established for
longer than monthly average penods
will be the exception, not the general
practice. An applicant who nas
demonstrated a consistent ability to
achieve 30 percent removal of BOD on
a monthly average basis over one year
prior to the publication date of these
regulations will not be eligible for the
longer than monthly averaging period.
The longer period will be available only
to those applicants who have some
historical data on BOD removal, and not
for newly constructed facilities.
Eligibility for the longer period is
limited to those who, based on
circumstances listed below. and subject
to the qualifications listed below, truly
cannot achieve 30 percent removal on a
monthly average.
It is the Regional Administrator’s
decision whether to allow the longer
averaging period. The Regional
Administrator will judge each eligible
case on its individual circumstances,
taking into account climatic, seasonal.
or other factors beyond the applicant’s
control which cause significant
fluctuations in influent characteristics
that could impact BOD removal
efficiencies. Appropriate circumstances
may include

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40649
• Seasonally dilute influent BOD
concentrations due to relatively high
(although nonoxcessive) inflow and
infiltration;
• Relatively high soluble to insoluble
SOD ratios on a fluctuating basis; or
• Cold climates resulting in cold
influent.
The longer period must be requested
by the applicant, and the burden of
justi lying a longer averaging period will
be on the applicant. In addition to
justifying the application on nditions
listed above, to qualify for the longer
averaging period the appLicant Will have
to demonstrate to the satlafliction of the
Regional Administrator that the
treatment facility is properly designed
and operated; that the applicant will be
able to meet all section 30 1 (h)
requirements with the longer averaging
basis; and because of circumstances
beyond the applicant ’s control
(examples listed above), the applicanl
cannot achieve the 30 percent removal
requirement for SOD on a monthly
averaging baths. The final rule also
requires that Inflow and infiltration (1/
i)is nonexcessive In cider to ensure that
applicants have corrected, as feasible,
deficiencies in their cdllecti on system
that result In extremely dilute
wastewater. The definition of excessive
1/1 in 40 ( R 35.2005fb)(16) Will be used
to deterrn.tne whether the I/l Is
xcessive, plus the additional afterion
J at inflow is nonexcesslve if the total
flow to the primary treatment plant is
less than 275 gallons per capita per day.
consistent with 40 ‘R 133.103(d) of
the secondary treatment regulations.
It should be noted that permit writers
can still incorporate interim limits Into
the permit. When compliance
determinations with intenm limits
indicate that the ability to achieve 30
percent removal of DOD for the
designated period is compromised,
action to determine and, if possible. fix
the problem should be taken.
Monitoring frequencies for BOD should
remain the same as they would be if the
compliance determination for SOD
removal was on a monthly average
basis. For enforcement purposes. there
is the potential that allowing longer
averaging periods may prove more
costly to the POTW in violation. POTWs
should note that if a longer period is
granted, they should be aware of the risk
that a violation of an annual average
limit may result In 365 days of
violation.
Other cornmenters requested that EPA
set a baseline level of DOD In the
treatment works influent above which
percent removal would be required.
.th 30 percent removal not required
for Influont cleaner than that threshold
level. This option relies on a level of
BOD In the influent that hypothetically
represents a typical SOD irifluent
concentration. The statute specifies 30
percent removal and does not tie this
requirement to some specific
concentration in the influent. The
Agency believes that making the
statutory 30 percent removal
requirement dependent on a
hypothetical influoni baseline
concentration would not meet the
statute’s intent
One commentor stated that the
approach to section 301(h) waivers
should be based on waler quality effects
and not on any “equivalericies,” e.g.,
primary treatment and secondary
removal equivalency. In response to this
general comment, EPA reiterates that it
is promulgating these regulations to
implement the new provisions of the
WQA which mandate primary or
equivalent treatment. Today’s regulatory
schein is fuily consistent with the now
WQA amendments.
Some commenters raised concerns
about the financial Impact on some
individual dlschargers if additional
capital Improvements are needed to
meet the 30 percent DOD removal
requirement. They see the costs of
meeting the new primary treatment
requirements as having a
disproportionate Impact on small
conimumties. For example, one
conimenter stated that this requirement
would result In a 20 percent rate
incense: that polymers alone would
cost $100,000. Ot)iers commented that
cost should not be a factor in (usti lying
a lower removal efficiency and that EPA
should not guarantee a cap on sewage
treatment costs.
As pail of this rulemaking EPA has
prepared an economic analysis of the
Impacts of the regulations. Although
some communities may need to make
Improvements to their plants to meet
the primary treatment requirements. the
statute does not authorize any waiver of
those requirements on the basis of
financial hardship. In addition, EPA
believes that as shown in the economic
analysis, the final regulations’
requirements do not unduly impact
small coflhrnunities in terms of overall
cost of compliance. Specifically, none of
the small communities, includin8 the
community that Indicated in its
comments a 20 percent increase in rates.
will end up spending more than 1
percent of median household income on
wastewater treatment. Municipal
financial impact models used by EPA
assume that ratios of wastewater
treatment costs to median household
income of less than I are not expected
to cieate economic hardship for
households. Moreover, although current
treatment costs may increase, small
communities will still realize an overall
cost savings if less-than-secondary
treatment is approved through the
section 301 (b) process. Finally, as
discussed above, the Agency in today’s
rule has provided the opportunity for
adjusting the averaging period (or
calculating compliance with the
primary treatment reqwrement for 801)
under certain circumstances. This
added flexibility should Further serve to
reduce any potential adverse financial
impacts. The new flexibility may allow
POTWs with dilute unfluent. provided it
Is not excessive I&l to qualify with less
cost to achieve compliance. The cost of
improving collection systems to fix
excessive l&1 would impact small
communities, but is not a cost of this
rule. In response to a comment that the
need for this flexibility results from
future increases in treatment capacity
due to population growth. EPA agrees
that this is not an appropriate reason.
and has not based iLS decision to allow
flexibility on costs of additional
treaunern due to future growth. There
are other more appropnate and
legitimate reasons, as spelled out earlier
in this preamble, for some measure of
flexibility.
Section 125.61: No changes to this
section were proposed or are
promulgated today.. This section
addresses the existence of, and
compliance with, water quality
standards for the pollutant for which the
modification is requested. No comments
were received.
Section 125.62: This section contains
requirements for the attainment or
maintenance of water quality which
assures protection of public water
supplies, the protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife. arid allows
recreational activities. In response to the
requirement of WQA section 303(d) for
discharges to meet CWA section
304(e)(1) water qualIty criteria. EPA
proposed language at § 125.62(al (Ifli) —
(iii) and 125.82(a)(2) and (3) to
implement that additional requirement.
The proposal also amended § 12 5.62(1)
to implement requirements of WQA
section 303(a) regarding combined
impacts.oL section 301 (h) dIscharges and
made a conforming change in light of
the WQA prohibition on section 301(h)
discharges to stressed estuaries to clarify
that the regulations’ stressed waters test
applIes only to ocean waters. Comments
on this section addressed issues related
to water quality criteria, including
human health carcinogenic risk levels.
mixing zones, combined impacts, and
stressed waters.

-------
O65O Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday . August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
Water Quality Criteria
Under the proposal to implement the
WQA requirement that discharges meet
EPA section 304(a)(1) water quality
criteria, EPA would first determine
whether there is an EPA-approved State
water quality standard that directly
corresponds to the EPA section 304(aj(1)
water quality criterion for the specific
pollutant. If there is, EPA would apply
this directly corresponding State
standard. In the absence of such a State
standard, the section 304(a)(1) water
quality criterion would be applied
instead. Under the proposal. an EPA-
approved State water quality standard
would be deemed to “directly
correspond” if (a) the State water
quality standard addresses the same
pollutant as EPA’s water quality
criterion; and (b) the State water quality
standard specifies a numeric criterion
for that pollutant, oran objective
methodology for deriving such a
pollutant-specific criterion. The
preamble to the proposed rule discusses
this subject in more detail (56 FR 2818—
2819).
A commenter felt that the regulations
should require compliance with the
CWA section 304(a )(1) criteria at a
minimum, and that compliance with a
directly corresponding State standard
that may be less stringent instead was
unacceptable. The commenter argued
that Congress was aware of State water
quality standards, and had Congress
intended that an applicant’s discharge
meet State water quality standards, then
Congress would have provided language
so mandating. The commenter also
asserted that 301(h) waiver
requirements should be strictly
construed in favor of water quality
because 301(h) waivers represent an
exception to the general requirement to
meet secondary treatment Other
commenters supported the proposal to
defer to EPA-approved State water
quality standards. The commenters
believed that this approach
appropriately recognizes the State’s
discretion to set its own standards.
EPA continues to believe that
compliance with the EPA-approved,
directly corresponding State water
quality standard in lieu of the EPA
section 304(a)(1) water quality criterion
is appropriate. EPA water quality
criteria are national criteria, primarily
issued to serve as guidance for the
States to use in establishing their water
quality standards under CWA section
303.
Under the CWA. States may develop
water quality standards based on the
section 304(a)(1) criteria, as modified to
reflect site-specific conditions, or they
may use other scientifically defensible
methods for developing water quality
standards. State standards are subject to
EPA review and approval. They are
developed by the States to protect the
types of biota in, and beneficial uses of.
their local waters, and thus represent
scientifically appropriate standards for
each State’s specific situation. EPA does
not believe that, in amending section
301(h), Congress intended to interfere
with this statutory scheme, nor require
compliance with the national guidance
contained in the section 304(a)(1)
criteria when the CWA section 303
standard-setting process results in
adoption of different standards to reflect
local conditions and those standards
have been subject to EPA review and
approval. Rather, EPA believes that the
intent of this provision was to ensure
compliance with the national section
304(a)(1) criteria in those cases where
the States have not adopted a directly
corresponding State standard and EPA
has not itself promulgated a standard in
light of such State inaction. Today’s
final rule therefore retains the
proposal’s approach. In the absence of
an EPA-approved State water quality
standard that directly corresponds to the
section 304(a)(1) water quality criteria,
the final rule requires compliance with
the section 304(a)(1) water quality
aiten&
For carcinogens, the EPA section
304(a)(1) criteria provide a range of risk
levels and corresponding criterion for
each specific risk level. In the proposal.
EPA did not establish a specific risk
level for use in the section 301(h)
program. As explained in the preamble
(56 FR 2819. 2820), EPA instead would
consider all relevant information in
determining the pollutant concentration
that represents an appropnate risk level
for a specific carcinogen. This
information would include evidence
that the State has consistently used a
particular risk level when establishing
its water quality standards for other
carcinogens. In the absence of such a
consistent State policy, EPA would
consider a State recommendation of a
particular risk level if the State
demonstrates to the satisfaction of EPA
that the particular risk level is justified.
The State demonstration would need to
account for the relevant exposure and
uncertainty factors, show adequate
public participation in the selection of
the risk level, and show that use of the
selected risk level is adequately
protective of human health. In cases
where there is no consistent State policy
or satisfactory State demonstration on
which to base a risk level, under the
proposal, EPA would set a specific risk
level (for example, 10-6) based on the
circumstances of each case. See
preamble to the proposed rule, 56 FR
2818—2820, for a detailed explanation o
a satisfactory State demonstration of a
recommended risk level and EPA’s
approach to setting risk levels.
EPA received a number of comments
addressing the issue of whether to set a
specific risk level by regulation as
opposed to allowing it to be set on a
case-by-case basis. A cornmenter stated
that rather than assuming that a zero
discharge level is unattainable for any
known carcinogen, EPA should require
the discharger to prove that, in fact, zero
discharge in a particular situation either
would create severe economic hardship
or is not technologically feasible. These
commenters also stated that under no
circumstances involving carcinogenic
pollutants should the allowable
discharge exceed a 10 ’ risk level or the
applicable State standard, whichever is
more stringent. Other public comments
received on the issue of water quality
criteria for carcinogens also said the
regulations should specify a human
health risk level that is no less
protective than the 10—6 incremental
cancer risk and asserted that EPA had
done so in other national programs. One
commenter stated that there should not
be a flexible, case-by-case approach
toward establishing risk levels for
carcinogens. Instead, the commenter
suggested that EPA establish a
minimum risk level, the least protective
risk level that is acceptable, (and
corresponding maiomum permissible
discharge concentration) but allow for
flexibility to choose a more stringent
risk level based upon a given State’s
past practice.
With regard to the zero-risk level, as
mentioned in the preamble to the
proposed rule, EPA believes that a zero
effluent concentration is essentially
unattainable. Therefore, EPA has
approved numeric State water quality
standards for carcinogens under CWA
section 303 that correspond te risk
levels above zero. The approach
adopted in the proposed rule provides
consideration of the State’s views on an’
appropriate risk level, or in the absence
of such State input, provides for EPA to
consider all relevant information in
setting a risk level. EPA believes that
establishing a presumption in favor of a
zero risk level would be inappropriate
because even apart from questions of
achievability, compliance could not be
demonstrated due to limitations in
analytical methods. Further, the
commenter provided no basis to refute
EPA’s belief that zero risk levels are not
achievable. EPA thus is not amending

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40651
the regulations to establish a
presumptive zero risk level.
With regard to whether the section
301(h) regulations should establish a
single uniform risk level for use in the
section 301(h) program, the
establishment of risk levels is a national
issue which is not limited to the section
301(h) program. As noted in the
preamble to the proposed ruLe (56 .FR
28 19). EPA expected that many or most
coastal States already had established or
soon would establish one or more EPA-
approved water quality standards for
toxic carcinogenic pollutants, pursuant
to section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA..
Subsequent to the proposal of these
revised section 301(h) regulations, EPA
applied risk levels in the National
Toxics Rule, which sets water quality
standards for priority pollutants in
States that did not have approved
standards, pursuant to Sections
303(c)(2)(B} and 303(c3(4) of the CWA
(57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992). More
specifically, the National Toxica Rule
establishes water quality standards
pollutant-by.pollutant for fourteen
States that did not have an EPA.
approved standard for the toxic
pollutant in question where section
304(o)(1) water quality criteria have
been developed. EPA set legally
enforceable water quality standards
with incremental cancer risk levels for
carcinogens and corresponding numeric
values based on specific exposure and
other modeling assumptions. It should
be noted that EPA did not adopt a
uniform nationwide 106 risk level in
other contexts, e.g.. the National Toxics
Rule, as suggested by a commeriter, who
advocated that as a minimum level of
protection.
In each State covered by the National
Toxics Rule, the carcinogenic risk level
used to set the Slate’s standard(s) was
based on the best information available
to the Agency regarding that State’s
policy or practice for risk levels used or
that should be used in regulating
cardno ens in surface waters. For most
of the affected Slates, the risk level Is
based on a State-adopted or formally
proposed risk level. For some, the risk
level is based on an expressed State
policy preference. With the National
Toxics Rule, all States are now in
.empiia ca with section 303(c)(2)(B).
}knce. for purposes of implementing
S 25.62. EPA vill now look to the
guidance contained in the preamble and
regulations of the National Toxics Rule
to establish the appropriate human
h lth risk evel and numeric value in
the absence of a directly corresponding
State standard for any section 304(a)(1J
c.riterion later estnhlished.
EPA believes that the carcinogenic
risk provisions of proposed
S 125.62(a)(2)(ii) are consistent with the
National Toxics Rule, 40 R § 131.36,
and the guidance provided in the
preamble to the rule (57 FR 60848).
Accordingly, today’s rule at
§ 125.62(a)(ii) is promulgated as
proposed, with a minor editorial
change. In the absence of an EPA-
approved State water quality standard
for a carcinogenic pollutant, the
Administrator will consider a
consistently used, or State-adopted or
formally proposed risk level
recommendation with a satisfactory
demonstration that the level is
adequately protective of human health
in light of exposure and uncertainty
factors and population exposed.
Exposure factors would include, for
example, local patterns of fish
consumption. cumulative effects of
multiple contaminants and local
population sensitivities. Factors related
to uncertainty would include, for
example, the weight of scientific
evidence concerning exposures and
health effects and the reliability of
exposure data.
One commanter noted that
deternunations of compliance with
water quality criteria will be dependent
on the frequency and types of sampling
methods used and the effects industrial
users’ pretreatment programs have on
effluent quality. The commenter urged a
flexible approach in determining
compliance because of these variables.
EPA notes. in response. that the
regulations do not specify rigid
sampling requirements and frequencies,
and thus already allow for consideration
In designing sampling programs to
adequately characterize effluent quality
for purposes of evaluating compliance
with water quality criteria.
New section 301 (h)(9) of the CWA
requires that the discharge meet the
section 304(a)(1) water quality criteria
“after uutiat mixing in the waters
surrounding or adjacent to the point at
which (the) effluent is discharged.” The
zone of initial dilution (ZID) is defined
La existing § 125.58(w) as “the region of
initial mixing 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
standards.” The existing 1982
regulations required that all applicable
State water quality standards adopted
under section 303 of the CWA be met
at and beyond the boundary of the lID
r ew language was proposed in
§ l25.C( )(I)(i) to implement the
requiren cnt of new section 301(hR9) to
campl i’ ith the sect.on 3 4(a)(1) water
quality criteria or the directly
corresponding State water quality
standards, but inadvertently omitted
those State water quality standards that
do not directly correspond to the section
304(a)(1) water quality criteria. In so
doing, EPA inadvertently omitted the
existing requirement that all applicable
State water quality standards, including
those that do not directly correspond,
must still be met at and beyond the ZID.
This requirement has been retained in
the final regulation. For purposes of this
discussion, there are three categories of
water quality requirements: State water
quality standards that directly
correspond to water quality criteria,
State water quality standards that do not
directly correspond to water quality
criteria, and water quality criteria. It is
the second category, those State water
quality standards that do not directly
correspond to water quality criteria, that
was inadvertently left out of the
proposed regulation.
Two commenters questioned whether
the proposed rule, by refemng to the
Z for purposes of calculating
compliance-with section 303 State water
quality standards, raised a potential
conflict with State-specified mixing
zones adopted as part of the section 303
standard-setting process. One of these
commenters requested that the
regulations be clarified to specify that
compliance with State water quality
standards is to be determined under the
methods and conditions specified by the
State in its standards.
EPA agrees that the proposed
language could create confusion.
Today’s final rule includes the existing
requirement of the 1982 regulations that
all applicable State water quality
standards adopted under section 303 of
the CWA be met at and beyond the
boundary of the lID and promulgates as
proposed the new section 301(h)(9)
requirement. The effect of today’s rule is
to retain the existing practice of the
section 301(b) program in determining
oem pliance with State water quality
standards. As stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule, EP,A’s purpose in
promulgating these revisions to the
regulations art this issue was to
implement the new requirements of the
WQA. EPA did not intend to change
existing regulatory requirements not
affected by me WQA. As promulgated
today, § 125.62(a)(1) reflects the existing
regulations with the additional
requirements of section 30 1(h )(9) of the
CWA, and EPA intends no changes to
how determinations of compliance with
S aia water quality standards are made.
One commenter pointed to
inconsistencies between language in
tc irucai i’Jppcrt document tT3D on

-------
40S52 FedernJ Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rides and gu1atiimc
ZID size and! ieectuel definition of the
ZID ascontameh i25.5 (
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 152 I Tuesday , August 9. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 40653
to ensure compliance with water quality
criteria (if applicable under § 125 62(a)).
in addition to water quality standards
based on the provision of section
3011hfl9).
EPA received one comment regarding
monitoring. The commenter requested
that EPA add a provision for amending
nloiutonng programs in existing
permits, including permits
administratively extended beyond their
expiration dates, when the changes are
technically justified. EPA appreciates
that changes to section 301(h)
monitonng programs during the life of
the permit may be appropriate. EPA
notes that this is a procedural issue
governed by the NPDES regulations and
is not the subject of this rulemaking. See
40 CFR 122.6.
Monitoring for Removal Efficiency
Requirements
Some comrnenters suggested that the
demonstration of removal efficiency
(defined as removal of 30 percent of
ROD and TSS) should be made
throughout the year. and not simply at
the time the modification becomes
effective. Other comments suggested
that EPA require a demonstration of
removal efficiency of BOD as an initial
threshold determination only, that is, a
one..tirne demonstration. In response.
EPA believes that demonstration of the
removal efficiency should be an ongoing
requirement, and S 125.60(b) requires
that compliance be demonstrated based
on monthly averaging, as proposed
(subject to the exceptions discussed
above). In addition, the statute does riot
state a one-time requirement but instead
envisions an ongoing requirement that
the applicant “will be” discharging
effluent that has received primary
treatment. Given the statutory
requirement for primary treatment, it
would make little sense to require a one-
time demonstration of removal
efficIency. with the possible result that
less’than.prirnary treatment could occur
during the course of the section 301(h)
modified permit and go undetected.
To ensure that data are available for
purposes of section 301(h) permit
renewals, ongoing momutonng of
compliance with the removal efficiency
requirement is necessary. EPA thus
continues to beheve that section 301(h)
perroittees should monitor for
compliance with the primary treatment
requirement over the life of the permit
at the frequency required in § 125.60
(i.e.. monthly, unless a Less frequent
‘nonitoring period is specified).
Ithough already required in
125.60(b), to clarify this point the final
rule adds a new paragraph.
5 125.63(d1121, to ensure that the permit
monitoring requirements provide
adequate data for demonstrating
compliance with the removal efficiency
requirement over the life of the permit.
EPA is also making a conforming
change to § 125.63(a)(1)(i) to clarify that
monitoring programs must be designed
to evaluate water quality criteria, as well
as water quality standards. This
conforms to the proposed change in
§ 125 63(c), reflecting WQA language
Changes to Monitoring Requirements
Some commenters requested that EPA
identify the practical impact the new
limitation on the scope of monitoring
will have on current monitoring
programs. As previously discussed, EPA
does not believe that WQA language
limiting section 301(h) biological
monitoring to investigations necessary
to evaluate the discharge effects
represents a substantial change in the
program. The purpose of the required
monitoring programs has always been to
evaluate discharge effects. Since the
monitoring program was already
focused on evaluating discharge effects,
the new statutory and regulatory
language should not result in substantial
changes to existing monitoring
programs.
Other comnienters expressed concern
over potentially increased monitoring
costs. The additional monitoring
requirements to ensure compliance with
the WQA’s water quality criteria and
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements are a necessary and
reasonable outgrowth of those new
statutory requirements. Given those
substantive requirements and the need
for data to evaluate continued
compliance and to support future
requests for permit renewal, EPA
believes it is necessary to require
monitoring in these areas. As with other
section 301(h) monitoring requirements.
the exact nature and frequency of such
monitoring by a particular applicant
would be set on a pernut.by.permit
basis in order to reflect individual
circumstances. Burdens associated with
these monitonng requirements were
addressed in the supporting
documentation for the information
collection request accompanying the
regulations. Although some extra costs
may be incurred, many of these are one-
time costs, and are not excessive,
especially in light of the economic
benefits to the discharger receiving a
section 301(b) waiver.
Section 125.64:This section contains
criteria related to the impacts of the
modified discharge on other point and
nonpoint sources and implements
section 301(h)(4) of the C’iVA. There
were no proposed changes to this
section and no comments were received
This section remains unchanged.
Section 125.65: This new section sets
forth the urban area pretreatment
program requirements of section 303 Ic)
of the WQA (CWA section 301 (h)(6))
These requirements apply to POT Vs
serving a population of 50 000 or more,
with respect to any toxic pollutant as
defineil by § 125 58(aa) introduced int”
the P01W by an industrial source.
Applicants subject to this provision
must demonstrate that industrial
sources are in compliance with all
applicable pretreatment requirements.
and that the applicant will enforce thn ”
requirements. Also, for each toxic
pollutant for which there is no
applicable pretreatment requirement in
effect, the applicant must have in effect
a pretreatment program which, in
combination with the treatment of
discharges from the POTW, removes the
same amount of such pollutant as would
be removed if the P01W were to apply
secondary treatment and had no
pretreatment program for such
pollutant.
To implement these provisions, the
proposed rule added S 125.65 and added
or revised certain definitions in
§ 125 58. Proposed S 125.65(a)(2)
clarified that the requirements of
§ 125.65 are to apply in addition to an
applicable pretreatment requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 403 and that
nothing in § 125.65 is intended to wait e
or relax the 40 CFR part 403
requirements.
Section 125 65 provides two methods
for satisfying the urban area
pretreatment requirements. For each
toxic pollutant introduced by an
industrial discharger. the applicant
must demonstrate that it either (3) has
an “applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect” or (2) has in
effect a program that achieves
“secondary removal equivalency “EPA
received a number of comments
requesting clarification of this
provision, as well as comments related
to pretreatment requirements, which
toxic pollutants should be subject to
urban area pretreatment requirements
demonstration of’ secondary
equivalency, and enforcement of
pretreatment requirements.
Scope of Pollutants to be Addressed
Some commnenters believe that the
urban area pretreatment program
requirements should apply only to
“pollutants of concern,” rather than
applying to all priority pollutants
introduced by industrial dischargers
Commenters were concerned that the
requirements might be interpreted to
apply to all 126 priority pollutants
-------
4O 4 Federal 1eg ster I VoL 59. No. 152 / Tuesday, August . 1994 lRu1es and egu1etiei s
whether or not these ak ii er
suspected to be discharged to the POTW
by.rndustry. They believe the uthan area
pretreatmfint mouieeantsalx ul be
limited to those prioñly pollutants that
are spiflcallykwnt.poseethrn_at
or potential threat to human health.
safety, or euvir iueatal quality. These
commentate stated that pollutants of
concern should not include pollutants
that do not pose such a risk and
provided several options for identifying
pollutants of concern. i.e.. by exdudi.ng
from coverage poUutants (1) only
discharged in smafi amounts by one
industry; (Z3 meeting water quality
standards at the boundary of initial
mwng (3) dischargi d in effluent at a
threshold level percent of an applicable
water quality standard. criterion, or
permit limit: (4 discharged in low
concentratlon 5 151 which do not
interfere or threaten to interfere with the
anaimuent or maintenance of water
quality objectives as found lii § 125.62.
or (6) not detected in the effluent of the
P01W. These cominenlars felt that
developing local limits for all toxic
pollutants would be diffiCult and overly
burdensome, The commonters further
stated that a distinction should be made
between signuilcant and ins.gruficant
industrial dischargers.
EPA has not adopted these suggested
changes in today’s rule. The statute
clearly states that the urban area
pretreatment requirement applies to any
toxic pollutant Introduced into the
POTW by an industrial discharger.
There fore. EPA believes the zegulatxins
should address all such toxic pollutants.
However. this means only those toxic
pollutants known or suspected to be
introduced to the P01W by an
industrial discharge:. Thus. if all 126
priority pollutants are not discharged to
a given P01W. not all 126 priority
pollutants will need an appLicable
pretreatment requirement. e.g..
categorical standard or local limit. EPA
notes, however, that the industrial
usez s survey must be comprehensive,
addressing all non-domestic sources. to
assure that the POTW takes afl tQxics
from industrial sources into account.
Guidance is provided in the TSD to help
identify toxica known or suspected to be
discharged from several industries not
subject to categorical pretreatment
regulations.
One commenter asserted that
receiving waters should be the focus of
this requirement: that is. it is
inappropriate to have tech nology-based
requirements when receiving waters do
not warrant them. The cominenter
further stated that the requirement
-should focus on whole effluent toxicity.
In response. EPA notes that the statutory
provision is 4achnelogy -base. . and
refers to each teJdcpolieta d
by tadu ial sources. Other’Ckies t r
Act piovianut addreu wbela dfluant
toxicity anddtis4rasbe k into
account.
Applicable Pretreatment equirements
As specified La § tZ5.65 c ) of the
proposed .rogulallnns , applicable
pretreatment requirements could take
the form of federal categorical
pretreatment standards prrnnalgated by
EPA wider section .307 o(the CWA.
Local limits developed in aixsurdance
with 40 R part 403. arecombre_aijon
of both. As proposed, therefore,
applicable prezeatjnent requirements
consist Qf die following as stated in
§ 125 65(c);
(iJ for each industiül source
discharging to the applicant’s treatment
works for which there is no applicable
categorical pretr tm nt standard lot the
toxic pal lutant. a local L imit or tintac on
the toxic pollutant satisfying the
requirements of 40 CFR part 403 and
§125.5 2 ;
lii) for each uidustr.iaj source
discharging to the applicant’s treatment
works that is subject to a categorical
pretreatment standard for the toxic
pollutant, the categorical standard plus
a local j aec y
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part
403 and 12542.
One commeoter stated that
“applicable pretreatment requirements’
should be developed to ensure
compliance with 40 R part 403 and
not also to ensure compliance with
requuements in § 12542, which
addresses protection of a balanced
indigenous population (B(P3. This
commenter pointed out that the
requiretnents to achieve a BEP already
must be satisfied under § 125.62 if the
section 30 1 (b) permit modification is to
be granted. Further, it us unnecessarily
restrictive to specify that the BIP
requirements be met by applying local
limits ratharthaun throughother means
EPA agr and ha cfanfwd this
provision in the Elcal rule by deleting
the reference to § 125.52 from § 12.5.65
(c )(1) (IL (LI) and (2.j. Any section 301(h)
discharge must comply with the S W
requirements of the regulations, but bow
this is achieved, whether by local
pretreatment standards or other toxics
control measures, is at the discretion of
the applicant. The Agency never
intended to requ;re that local limits
alone must be shown to independently
protect a 8W. The intent was that local
limits wouLd be developed to meet 40
CFR part 403 and § 125.65 and would be
at least one aspect of overall toxic
control efforts by due applicant that
would co ibisto as a wholetomeeting
the sequiretenMz of a 8W. It should be
noted, ec’ ’, that conditIons
necessary to leve arid perpetuate a
BIP may be used as a basis for setting
a local limit,
Because the uegidations already
requnocnpl&ancewith §125.62. and
in light of the noerns raised over
linkage of local limits to the 125 62
reqiuremerit. EPA is making this change
to the final regalatuen& This change
does not after the req enient to meet
all other section 3tfllti provis ions
Some commentate etie*’e that
provisions shoeld be included for local
limits to consider sludge qual. v and the
potential far air to ac omissions, under
the Agency’sexisung local lint:t
program under 40 CFR part 403. and
sewage sludge regulations at 40 CFR
parts 257, 403 and 503, local limits may
be required where necessary to protect
sludge quality se as not to mterfere with
its management and uLtimate disposal or
beneficial use, and where necessary to
protect plant workers. The pretreatrrier.t
regulations address air toxic emissions
within the POTWto protect worker
health and safety. The comm nter ’
concerns iegnr&ng sludge quality and
incineration, end resultant air emissions
are addressed by the Agency’s
pretreatment ze mlations. sewage sludge
regulations arid regulations under the
Clean Air Act. The Agency has began to
address starudaTds for air toxic emissions
from POTWs.
The comments taken as a whole show
some confusion about how FP expects
the “applicable pretreatment
reqiuremnent in eflinf ’ prevision of the
urban area pretreatment program to be
implemented. Ciammenters were
concerned that these requirements were
overly burdensome and sought
flexibility. Commenters pointed out that
requirements for every irudugna! user
are unnecessary for ensuring an
adequate local limit for the toxic
pollutant. A fter sadanng these
comments. EPA has u’ewtsed its approach
as follows. Ffr . the P01W need not
apply a specific local limit to each and
every industrial source of each toxic
pollutant. Instead, a*er conducting a
local Limits analysis, the POTW mac ’
apportion the aUo ion to industrial
sources of the toxicm the way that the
POflV deems most appropriate. subject
to the approval of the Regional
Administrator. This could irichide not
imposing any limit for the pollutant on
certain mdnstrial users. This
modification siwuld achieve the same
end result as the proposal. ttmtt . to
attain the same level of toxic pollutant
reduction, while providing flexibility to
the POTW to Lmplernerxt the provision
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 I Tuesday. August 9. 1994 I Rules and Regulations 40655
The Guidance Manual on the
Development and Implementation of
Local Discharge Limitations under the
Pretreatment Pro m discusses how to
allocate local limits uuu mdustrial
sources for all PO ’rws , not $ust 301 (h)
applicants. EPA believes that the
approach of POTWs under 301(hfl6 )
should be consistent with that guidance.
This approach is less burdensome to
implement While still achieving
equivalent reductions in toxics.
Second. the applicant can show an
“applicable pretreatment requirement in
effect” for those toxic pollutants for
which there is no applicable categorical
pretreatment standard, and for which
the applicant determines, based on the
40 CFR part 403 analyses, that a local
limit is not necesmxy. The permit in
these cases will require the applicant to
demonstrate en an annual basis over the
permit term, that a local limit is not
necessary and, where appropriate. will
require the applicant to institute
industrial management practices plans.
The following steps are intended to
clarify how EPA will implement the
“applicable pretr trnent requirement in
effect” provision for toxic pollutants’
(it The applicant must conduct an
industrial user survey as required by 40
CFR pail 403 and S 125.66;
(2) The applicant must conduct
-epresentative sampling and analysis of
the POTW’s influent, emueot, and
ciud e for toxic pollutants;
(3) The applicant must implement the
rational categorical standards for each
industrial source subject to categorical
s?andards
(4) For those toxic pollutants known
or susp ad to be introduced by an
industrial soun , the applicant must
conduct an analysis under 40 CFR part
403 to assess the need for local limits;
(5) For those toxic poltutams for
which the applicant dotemunes, based
on the 40 CFR part 403 analysis. a need
for local limits, the applicant must set
local limits:
(6) For those toxic pollutants for
which the applicant determines, based
on the 40 (PR part 403 analysis, that
local limits are not necessary, the
applicant must continue to monitor the
POTW inlhzent and effluent during the
term of the permit and/or conduct
technical reviews of data on discharges
from industrial sources during the term
at the permit. and where appropriate
require industrial users to institute
industrial management practices plans
(IMPs) and other pollution prevention
act ivnees, to reduce or control the levels
if these toxic pollutants from industrial
.ources, These plans and activities
r uld include Best Management
Practices (BMPs). See TSD and EPA
Guidance Manual on the Development
and Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations under the Pretreatment
Program (1987 and 1991). For these
toxic pollutants, applicants would be
required to assure EPA on an annual
basis that these particular toxic
pollutants do not result in levels that
warrant development of local limits. If
such monitoring and technical review of
data indicate that a local limit as
needed, the POTW shall establish and
implement a local limit.
The basic philosophy of instituting
industrial management practice plans
(IMPs) is to minimize the discharge of
toxic or ham rdous pollutants to the
sewer, or reduce the impact of toiucJ
hazardous pollutant discharges by
avoiding short4erm, high concentration
discharges. IMPs can be applied to all
classes of industrial users. e.g.. major
and mini ’ industrial users. Examples of
appropriate uses oflMPs include
control of chemical spills and sludge
discharges to the P01W through formal
chemical or waste management plans
(including OMPs ), solvent management
plans. batch discharge policies. waste
recycling and waste minimization. It
would also be appropriate to consider
IMPs in cases where the POTW does not
include biological treatment processes.
or provides less treatment e.g.. primary
treatment
In these cases, IMPs can be tailored
for industrial sources of toxic pollutants
that might otherwise interfere with
biological treatment or would be
degraded or removed through additional
treatment.
EPA has added this information to the
regulations in response to comments.
The intent of these steps is to set forth
a process that is not overly burdensome
for applicants but that assures that
applicable pretreatment requirements
are in effect for each toxic pollutant.
Secondary Rentoirat Equivalency
Under section 301(h ) 6 ) and § 125.65,
where there is no applicable
pretreatment requirement as described
above for a toxic pollutant known or
suspected to be introduced by an
industrial discharger, the applicant
must demonstrate that it has in effect a
pretreatment program which. in
combination with the POTW’s own
treatment of discharges. removes the
same amount of the pollutant as would
be removed if the POTW were to apply
secondary treatment to dicriiarges and if
such works had no pretreatment
program with respect to the pollutant.
EPA has termed this the “secondary
removal equivalency” requirement and
the proposed rule added this term to the
defInitions in § 125 581w). To meet the
“secondary removal equivalency”
requirement, the applicant must
demonstrate that the combi.a.axion of its
own treatment plus pretreatment by
industrial disthargers achieves
“secondary removal equivalency.
Under today’s final ruje. to
demonstrate secondary removal
equivalency, an applicant would need
to usea semndary treatment pdot plant
By diverting part of its waste stream to
the pilot plant alter primary treatment.
the applicant would empirically
determine the amount of a toxic
pollutant that would be removed from
the waste stream if the applicant were
to apply full-scale secondary treatment.
The applicant would then need to
demonstrate to EPA that it has a
pretreatment program in effect which, in
combination with its own treatment
processes, removes at least that total
amount of toxic pollutant from the
POTW’s discharge, achieved through.
concentration- and mass emissions-
based effluent limits. LI at least that
amount is not removed, then further
reductions of the pollutant would be
required. The NPOES permit will
include concentration and/or mass
emissions affluent limits based on the
data from the secondary eqwvalency
demonstration when those values ate
more stringent than effluent limits based
on State water quality standards or
water quality itaria. if applicable, and
to assure that all o(the § 30l h ) aitena
are met Once such effluent limits are
established in an NPDES permit, the
POTW may either establish local limits
or perform additional txeatinent at the
P01W, or coothine the two to achieve
the permit Limit,
Some commenters thought that they
would be penalized for having an
existing pretreatment program if they
used pretreated waste to determine
secondary equivalency, because of the
undetermined removals by current
industnal pretreatment. They urged the
use of procedures (or determining pre-
existing (prior to source control)
conditions to tube into ancount existing
toxic pollutant reductions and
commented on the difficulty of
obtaining ‘ uripietreated ” industrial
wastewaters. Other commenters thought
that the secondary removal equivalency
demonstration should be made with all
other pretreatment requirements
required by section 301(hl(5) in place.
because they reasoned that the section
301th1 program d not provide
waivers from the toxins requirements..
EPA agrees that the section 301(h)
program does not provide a waiver from
to iCS control requirements, and the
etistang section 30 1(h) program already
has toxics control requirements.
-------
40656 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday . August 9. 1994 I Rules and Regulations
including industrial pret.reatznent. in
effect. However, the secondary removal
equivalency provision of section
301(li)(6) addresses only those toxic
pollutants that do not have applicable
pretreatment requirements in effect, and
that are being introduced by industrial
sources to POTWs serving urban areas.
POTWs will not be penalized for
having an applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect for a particular
toxic pollutant. If the POT\V has an
applicable pretreatment requirement in
effect for a specific toxic pollutant, as
described in § 125.65, it will be in
compliance with § 125.65 with respect
to that pollutant, and the POTW will not
need to comply with the “secondary
removal equivalency” requirement for
that pollutant.
There may, however, be reduced
levels of other toxics that are discharged
to the POTW owing to incidental
removals from applicable pretreatment
requirements targeted to remove specific
toxic pollutants. Likewise, there may be
reduced levels of a specific toxic
pollutant discharged to the POTW from
categorical pretreatment for that toxic
pollutant that may not satisfy the
conditions of an applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect. Because neither of
these two above situations satisfy the
requirements of “applicable
pretreatment requirement in effect”
with respect to these toxic pollutants.
the applicant would need to
demonstrate secondary removal
equivalency for them. It may be true that
the cumulative removal will be lower if
pretreated irifluent is used. EPA does
not expect this situation to occur often
because if an applicable pretreatment
requirement exists for a particular toxic
pollutant, then a secondary removal
equivalency demonstration is not
needed for that toxic pollutant. This
situation is only likely if some
pretreatment occurs for other pollutants.
One commenter asserted that
secondary treatment removal
equivalency is highly impractical and
appears to resurrect EPA’s discredited
“removal credit” system. In response,
the statute focuses on the levels of toxic
pollutants that are removed through a
combination of pretreatment and POTW
treatment processes, regardless of where
the removal occurs.
Some conimenters felt that the term
“removals” should not include
removals obtained by air volatilization
and through sludge because this is
simply a transfer of a pollution problem
between media. EPA notes that
removals obtained by a secondary pilot
plant are used simply to determine the
amount of additional pretreatment and/
or POTW treatment if any. that would
be needed to meet secondary removal
equivalency. For purposes of achieving
removals through a combination of a
POTW’s treatment and pretreatment.
EPA will not consider pollutants that
remain in sludge or are volatilized as
removed, except those removals that are
consistent with sludge arid pretreatment
regulations. As noted in the discussion
on “applicable pretreatment
requirements,” EPA’s pretreatment and
sludge regulations do apply in any case
to any P01W treatment processes and
sludge produced from the POVvV.
Some commenters suggested that EPA
identify technology.based limits for
demonstrating secondary removal
equivalency, citing EPA’s Fate of
Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works, Vol. 1 (Sept. 1982)
and Vol. U (Sept. 1982) as a basis for
establishing such limits. In response, in
EPA’s judgement, the above cited
studies demonstrate that each POTW’s
influent is unique based on a variety of
factors. Secondary treatment removes
toxics incidental to the technology for
reducing BOD and SS, and results in
great variability in the levels of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants in
effluent and sludge. The Act clearly
puts the burden on the applicant to
demonstrate and not on EPA to develop
uniform technology.based standards. In
any event, developing uniform
technology-based standards would be
very difficult because of the variability
of influents, pretreatment levels, and
other site-specific conditions. Therefore,
EPA has not developed technology-
based limits representing characteristic
removal of toxic pollutants from
secondary treatment.
Commenters also asked EPA to
address the costs of the pilot plant
approach. These costs are addressed in
the Economic Impact Analysis.
In summary, for those toxic pollutants
for which there is no applicable
pretreatment requirement in effect, the
P0T V must either (1) develop and
implement an applicable pretreatment
requirement or (2) demonstrate, through
a combination of pretreatment by
industry and the POTW’s own treatment
processes, that it removes at least as
much of the toxic pollutant as would be
removed by a POTW that applies
secondary treatment and that has rio
pretreatment program for the pollutant.
Guidance is provided in the TSD
Compliance Determination
Several commenters stated that EPA
needs to address how a POTW will
demonstrate that all of its industrial
dischargers are in compliance with the
pretreatment requirements and that EPA
would allow less than 100 percent
compliance. Some suggested that EPA
should allow POTWs to demonstrati
compliance with all applicable
pretreatment requirements by taking au
appropriate legal and administrative
enforcement actions to enforce
pretreatment requirements. Others
thought that accommodating less than
100 percent compliance would
introduce considerable uncertainty
concerning the level of compliance EP?
will deem to be adequate and the
regulations should identify a definite
standard by which to gauge complianc
with this new standard. En addition.
commeriters have provided examples of
when less than full compliance will b
considered acceptable. such as instances
of trivial or isolated violations
For urban area POTWs with
significant numbers of industrial users.
at any given time, it is reasonable to
expect that at least one or more of those
users might be out of compliance. EPA
intends to determine a POflV’s
continuing eligibility for a 301(h) waiver
under section 301(h)(6) by measuring
industrial user compliance and POTW
enforcement activities against existing
criteria in the Agency’s National
Pretreatment Program. In the proposed
rule. EPA explained that it would
consider the issue of compliance with
the pretreatment requirements on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account
the number and nature of non-
compliances. In 1989, EPA established
criteria for determining POT’vV
compliance with pretreatment
implementation obligations. One
element of these criteria is the level of
significant noncompliance of the
POTW’s industrial users. The General
Pretreatment Regulations (part 403)
identify the circumstances when
industrial user noncompliance is
significant. The industrial user
significant noncompliance (SNC)
criteria are set out in 40 G’R
403 8(f)(2)(vui) and address both effluent
and reporting violations. This policy is
consistent with the approach in the
proposed rule. The General
Pretreatment Regulations, however, are
more explicit. In response to public
comments. EPA has changed the
approach in today’s final rule to be
consistent with Agency enforcement
policy and to remove uncertainty.
For pretreatment purposes, a POTVrs
enforcement program is considered
adequate if no more than 15 percent of
its industrial users meet the SNC criteria
in a single year. A similar level of
industrial user SNC rate will generally
be applicable to POTWs with 301(h)
waivers, but will be subject to facility.
specific conditions. In addition, a
POTW is also considered in SNC if it
-------
FVIgV ..J Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 1 Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 406.57
tails to taè orniel appropriate and
mely enforcement ection against any
ndustrxaj user. the wastawater frore
hich passes through the POTW or
interferes with the POTW cpe ons.
In the pretlestent
prograi . POTWa e eqectcd to
respond to wdu nal user
noncompliance using local enforcement
authonties in accordance with an
approved enforcement response plan
(ERPI which is required of all approved
pretreatment pregrams (see 40 Q R
403 5). POTWs. including 3OUh)
POTWs, with greater than 15 percent of
tbew users in SNC which fail to
enforce appropriately against any single
industrial user causing pass through or
interference, are deemed to be failing to
enforce their pretreatment program.
EPA will base its determination on
data collected during site visits to the
POflY and from the POTWs
pretreatment program performance
report required by 40 CFR 403.12(i).
These reports include compliance
in formation on industrial users gathered
by the POTW weli ae a description of
the enforcao at iv o(i P01W.
EPA believes that the bination of
industrial user coe pli and P01W
enforcement provides an appropriate
easurement of t1 P0TW’s eligibilit)
.or the 30a(h ) waiv under section
30 1(h l i6).
This interpretation is consistent with
the directives in a Senate Report on an
ear 1 er version of the biLl (seeS Rep
No 1125, 99th Cong.. 1st Sess 14
( o8S)) as dismissed in the propcsal (Sn
FR 2817). EPA rietes that approval ci the
30l( ) waiver, which requires that the
POTW applicant demonstrate that its
industiinl users are in corapliaiice with
‘heir applicable pretreatment
requirements. provides a substantial
incentive to the POTW to assure that its
r.dustrtal users are in coroplisace with
:11 iipplicable pretreatme it
eqtzirements. EPA belicves that an
approach relying on a det ra..naoon of
SNC is preferabie to focu .. g on tnvial
r .solated violations, or ciher suggested
methods, because it gives clear
. uidelines d is consisie’it i%”h the
ntcrcement approach i.i
? treatment program
3t ’cUon 125 66. Thts c i ri tc ude
pros isicns for industrial prtiirnat.rnent
iid control of toxic polkiatus from
iontndustrial sources. To update
compliance deadlines. the proposal
nadeaininor change in § 125.66(c)(Ifl
garthng deadlines by which applicants
. ere requued to develop approved
pretreatment pro rezas. No comments
were recei on this section and it is
beuig promulgated as proposed
Sectw,n 12557 This section discusses
the criteria related to lnaeased
dischat es and implem its section
301(hl(8loftheCWA, No changes were
for this section, and no
comments were received, it remains
unchanged.
Section 125 SR:This section sets forth
special ponmt conditions to be included
in S 1ioi 301(h modified NPDES
permits. No changes were proposed for
this section. and no comments were
received, it emauts unchanged.
AppIv ,on piediornseires’ Under the
section 301(h) regulations promulgated
in 1982. t e e two application
questionnaires (qu icxinaue is defined
in § 125.58), non ruseby small
applicants and one for use by large
applican The pra l merged these
into a single questionnaire and added
questions as necesmry to ie iond to the
new requirements of the WQA. No
comments w e iom zved on the
proposed changes. and they am
promulgated today as prcçosed.
Other fssues end Comments
EPA received several tedin,j iJ .nd
minor c.nm nts on the diaft amended
TSD guidance document and smue
comments that addressed the
regulations or 30 1 (h) program i t t
general. EPA p diid to maay
comments by mak iig changes to the
TSD as appropriate. The changes are not
discussed here. Below aie responses to
comments (or which no change was
mane in the IS O. and responses to the
general comments.
One coinmenter suggested that it is
important that significant flexibility he
provided in raakngdetarmin t ons
regarding the impacts of othersources
on i ater quality until more definitive
information is available for conpoint
and other source categories. The
commenter also states that this section
appears to be in conflict with
§ 125 63(b) which limits the monitoring
program too ly those scientific
investigations necessary to study the
ei ects.of the proposed discharge. In
response. the regulations aLready
address the curnul.atiire impacts of a
dicha-geas an integral piece of
information necessary to analyze the
balanced indigenous population
requirement.. of 3Olfli). It is not in
conflict with § 125.6 .3(b ). The effects of
the proposed discharge are evaluated in
the conte z of the receiving water
environment, alone and in combination
with other sources of pollutants.
Another comment recommended that
the guidance document be changed to
require That a date and approval
sequence between the State and EPA
Region be mutually agreed-upon. rather
than requiring compliance with
§ 125.5 9(Q14 ), which requires State
determ.aiatinns to be due to the regions
no later than 90 days after an
application is submitted to EPA. (a
response, the TSD sun ply reflects the
regulatory language, which was not
proposed for change and is not a subject
of this rulewa.king.
Another nmmenter asked that the
guidance better define what is meant by
“sign cant ecological change.’ This
comment is beyond the scope of (his
riil makiqg . The approadi to defining a
balanced indigenous population ( 8 (P)
was not proposed for change and EPA
is not considering redefining the BIP.
A commens stiggested that the
approach to 301(bJ waivera should be
based on water quality e f s and not
on any ‘ u.iva ncres.” Another
comment su stod that if high 801)
levels are allowed (or mudustr
dischargers w d a effluent guidelines for
certain industries, why do we rei ueze
the 30% removajof BOO and far
muni .pal effluents’ In response to beth
these oommests, the statute does not
provide us leeway on these issues, The
statute is clear on its foca iii requiring
equivalency testing and the removal of
30% of 801) and SS.
One cemm t — z uested that strong
consideration be gi’ to con alizing
the evaluation of waiver requests. While
this cemm is bei’ond the scope of
this rulemaking, we recognize the
consistency and elliciency this might
SUggest However. 301 (h) waiver
appbcaumis are handled case by case.
based on site-specific circumstances.
Although there is national 04’ersight on
the implesnernatiort of the program.
regional evaluation provides the ability
to apply regional expemseon regional
and local azcoms.ances surrounding
301(h) applications.
EPA also received requests from
cornmenterc for additional time to
comment. EPA accommodated these
requestsan.d considered all comments
received in developing this (‘teal rule
Others requested that EPA notify
industrial users of the proposal. In
response. EPA gave a 60 day public
comment penon. whicn EPA believes to
be adequate notice for all affected
pames
lii. Supporting Documentation
A Regulatory Fleiribihty Act
Under the Rrgulatory Fleci’bility Act
of 198015 U S C. 601 et seq.). federal
agencies must, when developing
regulations. consider the impact of the
regulations on small entities (small
businesses, small government
jurisdictions, and small organizations)
-------
40658 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 I Rules and Regulations
To evaluate whether this rule will have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
Agency has prepared an Economic
Impact Analysis (EIA). The Agency has
concluded, based on the EIA, that this
rule does not unduly impact on small
communities in terms of overall cost of
compliance. Specifically, none of the
small communities will end up
spending more than 1 percent of median
household income on wastewater
treatment. Moreover, although current
treatment costs may in ease, small
communities will still realize an overall
cost savings if less than secondary
treatment is approved through the
section 301(h) process.
There were 51 appLicants or
permittees in the section 3 01(h) permit
program at the time of the economic
analysis. Out of these 51 applicants or
permittees, only six are both expected to
incur additional costs due to the
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements and meet the Small
Business Administration (SBA)
definition of a small entity (a service
area with a population of less than
50.000). All those applicants or
permittees subject to and expected to
incur additional costs due to the urban
area pretreatment requirements and one
of the permittees expected to incur
additional costs due to the primary or
equivalent treatment requirements have
service area populations of greater than
50,000. and thus are not small entities.
On a national level, the total estimated
capital cost of meeting the primary or
equiva:bnt treatment requirements for
the six small entities amounts to less
than 37.2 million, with an associated
operations and maintenance cost of
$465,000 per year. Assuming a 20-year
repayment schedule, the total
annualized cost, for the six small
entities, equals approximately $675,000
a year. After compliance with the
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements, the total annual sewer fee
charged by these ten small entities is
less than 1 percent of the community’s
median household income.
Consequently, none of the small entities
affected by this rule are expected to
incur significant economic impacts,
especially in light of the overall savings
garnered by these communities from not
having to comply with secondary
treatment requirement3.
li i summary, I .crufv that this rule
:11 aot hate a significant economic
iii. pact on a sLb tantI i number of
e .tities.
B Exect z,t’e Ord. r L2 66
Under Executive Order 12866, (58
Fc ieral Register 51733 (October 4,
1993)J 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 matenal way the
economy, 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 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
President’s priorities, or the pnnciples
set forth in the Executive order.
It has been determined that this rule
is not a “significant regulatory action”
under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to
0MB review.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements of this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and have been assigned control number
2040—0088.
The estimated average annual burden
hours for the collection of information
is approximately 1.006 hours per POTW
respondent. and 120 hours per State
respondent. Of that, the incremental
burden from these regulatory changes is
approximately 192 hours per small
facility. 256 hours per large facility, and
40 hours per State respondent. These
estimates include the time for reviewing
Instructions, for POTWs to collect
information to comply with this final
rule, including conducting monitoring
and toxics control activities, and
completing and submitting the
appiicant questionnaire, as well as time
for States to prepare the State
determinations and certifications. No
comments were received on the
information co!lcction requirements
Send commeits re .trdir.g the burden
est: iate or any other aspt ’cc of this
collection cf information, including
su csuor.s for reduc:ng this burden to
Chief. Information Policy Branch. EPA.
401 M Street. S W, (Mail Code 2136),
Wushington. D C 20•163. and to the
Office t Manab’crncnt and Budget.
Washington, D.C. 20503, marked
“Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.”
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 125
Environmental protection, Marine
point source discharges. Reporting and
recordkeeping, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: July 14. 1994
Carol M. Browner,
Admuustmtor
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, part 125 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as set forth below. Note For clarity, EPA
has set forth below part 125, subpart C
in its entirety. However, the Agency is
amending only portions of these
regulations in today’s notice. Although
the existing portions of subpart C that
EPA is not amending axe also set forth
below, EPA did not reconsider those
portions and they are not subject to
challenge as part of this final
rulemaking.
PART 125—CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS FOR ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR
part 125, subpart C is revised to read as
follows:
Awhori1y Clean Water Act, as amended by
theClean WaterActof 1977,33 USC. 1251
el seq., unless otherwise noted.
2. 40 CFR part 125, subpart C is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart G—Crlterfa for ModIfying the
Secondary Treatment Requirements Under
SecSon 301(h) of the Clean Water Act
Sec.
125 56 Scope and purpose.
125 57 Law governing issuance of a section
301(h) modified permit,
125.58 Definitions,
125.59 General.
125.60 Primary or equivalent treatment
requirements.
125 61 Existence of and compliance ith
applicable water quality standards.
12562 Attainment or maintenance of ater
quality which assures protection of
public water supplies, assures the
protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous popularioi ot
shellfish, fish and wildlife and .‘I y
recreationai activities
125 63 stabiishment of a monitnrin 3
program.
I 25 64 Effect of the tlischa’ue on othi ’r
point and nonpoint soI rrcs
125 65 Urban area pretreatn’ent progr in
I 25 66 Toxics control program.
12’s 67 ncrcdse in .ifflu iit tolume i ’r
Imouiit of polli ;ircs u:scharged
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9 . 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40659
l 5 68 Special conditions for section 30 1(h)
modified permits
Appendix to Subpart C—Applicant
Questionnaire for Modification ofSecoiidasy
Treatment Requirements
Subpart G—Critena for Modifying the
Secondary Treatment Requirements
Under SectIon 301(h) of the Clean
Water Act
§ 125.56 Scope and purpose.
This subpart establishes the criteria to
be applied by EPA in acting on section
30 1(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 requirements (“sectIon 301(h)
modified permit”).
§ 125.57 Law governing Issuance of a
section 301(h) modIfied permit
(a) Section 30 1(h) of the Clean Water
Act provides that:
Administrator, with the concurrence of the
State. may issue a permit under section 402
which modifies the requirements of
paragraph (bull(s) of this section with
respect to the discharge of any pollutant from
a publicly owned treatment works into
marine waters. if the applicant demonstrates
to the satisfoction of the Adminimator that—
(1) There is an applicable water quality
standard specific to the pollutant for which
the modification is requested, which has
been identified under section 304(a)(6) of thit
Act:
(2) The discharge of pollutants in
accordance with such modified requirements
will not interfere, alone or in combination
with pollutants from other sources, with the
attainment or maintena_nce of that water
quality which assure, protection of public
water supplies and protection and
propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish. fish, and wildlife,
and allows recreational activities, in and on
the water,
(3) The applicant has established a system
for monitoring the impact of such discharge
on a representative sample of aquatic biota,
to the extent practicable, and the scope of
such monitoring is limited to include only
those scientific investigations which are
necessaJy to study the effects of the proposed
(4) Such modified requirements will not
result in any additional requirements on any
other point or nonpoint source:
(5) All applicable preeeatinent
requirements for sources introducing waste
into such treatment work, will be enforced,
(6) In the case of any treatment works
serving a population of 50,000 or more, with
respect to any toxic pollutant Introduced into
works by an industrial discharger for
wbith pollutant there is no applicable
1 . u tment requirement La effect. sources
introducing waste into such works axe in
pliance with all applicable pretreatment
requirements, the applicant will enforce such
requirements, and the applicant has in effect
a pretreatment program which, in
combination with the treatment of discharges
from such works, removes the same amount
of such pollutant as would be removed if
such works were to apply secondary
treatment to discharges and if such 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
pqllutants from nonindusmai 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
modification becomes effective will be
discharging effluent which has received at
least prunarv or equivalent treatment and
which meets the criteria established under
section 304(al(l) of this Act after initial
mixing in the waters surrounding or adjacent
to the point at which such effluent is
discharged.
For the purposes of this section. the phrase
“the discharge of any pollutant Into marine
waters” refers to a discharge into deep waters
of the territorial sea or the waters of the
Contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine
waters where there is strong tidal movement
and other hydrological and geological
characteristic, which the Adxninistmtor
determines necessary to allow compliance
with paragraph (2) of this section. and
section 101(a)(2) of this Act For the purposes
of paragraph (9). “primary or equivalent
treatment” 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.
A municipality which applies secondary
treatment shall be eligible to receive a permit
pursuant to this subsection which modifies
the requirements of paragraph (b)(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, In order
fore permit to be issued under this
subsection for the discharge of a pollutant
into marine waters, such marine waters must
exhibit characteristics assuring that water
providing dilution does not contain
significant amounts of previously discharged
effluent from such treatment works, No
permit issued under this subsection shall
authorize the discharge of any pollutant into
saline estuarine water, 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 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 discharge.
Notwithstanding any other pros isions of this
subsection, no permit may be issued under
this subsection 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
minutes north latitude.
(b) Section 3O1(j)(l) of the Clean
Water Act provides that:
Any application filed under this section for
a modification of the provisions of—’
(A) subsection (b)(1)(B) under subsection
(hi of this section shall be filed not later than
the 365th day which begins after the date of
enactment of the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments
of 1981. except that a publicly owned
treatment works which prior to December 31.
1982, had a contractual arrangement to use
a portion of the capacity of an ocean outfall
operated by another publicly owned
treatment works which has applied for or
received modification under subsection (hi
may apply for a modification of subsection
(hI in its own right not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of the Water
Quality Act of 1987.
Cc) Section 22(e) of the Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Construction
Grant Amendments of 1981, Public Law
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. who applies
after the date of enactment of this Act for a
permit pursuant to subsection (hi of section
301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act which modifies the requirements of
subsection (b)(1)(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
(di Section 303(b)(2) of the Water
Quality Act, Public Law 100-4. provides
that:
Section 301(h)(3) shall only apply to
modification, and renewals of modifications
which are tentatively or finally approved
after the date of the enactment of this Act,
Ce) Section 303(g) of the Water Quality
Act provides that:
The amendments made to sections 301(h)
and (h)(21. as well as provisions of (hl(6) arid
(h119). shall not apply to an application for
a permit under section 301(hl of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act which has been
tentatively or finally approved by the
Administrator befor, 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 DefinItions,
For the purpose of this subpart:
-------
40660 Federal Register I vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 / Rules .ind Regulations
(a) Adm:nsstrrjtor means the EPA
Administrator or a person designated by
the EPA Adnunistretor.
(b) Altered discharge means any
discharge other than a current discharge
or improved discharge, as defined in
this regulation.
(c) Applicant means an applicant for
a new or renewed sectIon 301 (h)
modified permit Large applicants have
populations contributing to their
PO11Vs equal to or more than 50.000
people or average dry weather flows of
5.0 million gallons per day (mgd) or
more; small 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 protections for the end of
the five-year permit term. Average dry
weather flows shall be the average daily
total discharge flows for the maximum
month of the dry weather season.
Cd) Applicntion means a final
application previously submitted in
accordance with the June 15. 1979,
section 301(h) regulations (44 FR
347841: an application submitted
between December 29, 1981, and
December 29, 1982; or a section 301(h)
renewal application submitted in
accordance with these regulations. It
does not indude a preliminary
application submitted in accordance
with the June 15, 1979, section 301(h)
regulations.
Ce) Application questionnaire means
EPA’s “Applicant Questionnaire for
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements,” published as an
appendix to this subpart.
If) Balanced 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
reinovee.
(g) Categorfcal pretreatment standard
means a standard promulgated by EPA
under 40 G’R Chapter 1. Subchapter N.
• (hi Current discharge means the
volume, composition, and location of an
applicant’s discharge at the time of
permit application.
(1) Improved discharge means the
volume, composition, and location of an
applicant’s discharge following:
Ii) Construction of planned outfall
improvements, Including, without
-limitatioQ. outfall relocation, outfall
repair. or diffuser modification; or- -
(2) ConstructIon of planned treatment
system improvements to treatment
levels or discharge charactenstics; or
(31 Implementation of a planned
program to improve operation and
maintenance of an existing treatment
system or to eliminate or control the
introduction 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 POTW.
(k) Modified discharge means the
volume, composition, and location of
the discharge proposed by the applicant
for which a modification under 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) Nonindustrrnj source means any
source of pollutants which is not an
Industrial source.
(n) Ocean waters means those coastal
waters landward of the baseline of the
territorial seas, the deep waters of the
territorial seas, or the waters of the
contiguous zone. The term “ocean
waters’ excludes saline estuarine
waters.
(o) Perrnittee means an NPDES
pennittee with an effective section
301 (h) modified permit.
(p1 Pesticides means demeton,
guthion, malathion, rnirex,
methoxychlor, and parathion.
(q) Pretreatment moans the reduction
of the amount of pollutants, the
elimination of pollutants, or the
alteration of the-nature ofpOllutant -
properties in wastewater prior to or in
lieu of dlscha.rging or otherwise
Introducing such pollutants into a
POTW. The reduction or alteration may
be obtained by physical, chemical, or
biological processes, process changes, or
by other means, except as prohibited by
40CFR 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 biochemical
oxygen demanding material and of the
suspended solids in the treatment works
lnfluerit, and disinfection, where
appropriate.
Is) Public water supplies means water
distributed from a public water system.
(t) Public water system means a
system for the provision o the public of
‘ptped water for human consumption, if
such system has at least fifteen (15)
service connections or regularly serves
at least twenty-five (25) 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
POflV means a treatment works, as
defined in section 212(2) of the Act,
which is owned by a State,
mwucipality, orintermwndpal or
interstate agency.
(v) Saline estuanne waters means
those semi-enclosed coastal waters
which have a free connecijon to the
territonal sea, undergo net seaward
exchange with ocean waters, and base
salinities comparable to those of the
ocean. Generally, these waters are near
the mouth of estuaries and have cioss-
sectional annual mean salinuties greater
than twenty-five (25) parts per
thousand,
(w) Secondary removal equivoJen
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
industrial 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.
(xl Secondary treatment means the
term as defined in 40 G’R 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 for 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 th, 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 EPA under
section 304(aj(1) of the Clean Water Act,
which are applicable to marine wateN.
(cc) Water quality standards means
applIcable water quality standards
which have been approved, left in
effect, or promulgated under section 303
of the Clean Water Act.
-------
(dd) Zone of initial dilution (ZID)
means the region of initial mixing
surrounding or adjacent to the end of
the outfall pipe or diffuser ports.
provided that the ZLD may not be larger
than allowed by mixing zone
restrictions in applicable water quality
standards
§ 125.59 General.
(a) Basis for application. An
application under this subpart shall be
based on a current, improved, or altered
discharge into ocean waters or saline
estuanne watels.
(b) Prohibitions, No section 301(h)
modified permu 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 provisions 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 amended, 16
U.S.C. 1531 etseq.;andTitlemof 8
Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
1431 etseq.:
(4) Where the discharge of any
pollutant enters into saline estuarine
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 haters 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 discharge; or
(5) Where the discharge of asty
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. U.
UI:
(2) A completed Application
Questionnaire;
(3) The certification in accordance
with 40 CF’R 122.22(d).
(4) In addition to the requirements of
§ 125 59(c) (1) through (3). applicants
for permit renewal shall support
continuation of the modification by
supplying to EPA the results of studies
and monitoring performed in
accordance with § 125.63 during the life
of the permit. Upon a demonstration
meeting the statutory criteria and
req iirements 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 34784) 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 § 125.59(Q(2)(j); 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 § 125.59(f)(2)(j)
Revisions by such applicants which
propose downgradmg treatment levels
and/or outfall and diffuser location and
design must be justified on the basis of
substantial changes in circumstances
beyond the applicant’s control since the
time of application submission.
(3) Applicants authorized or
requested to submit additional
information under § 12 5.59(g) may
submit a revised application in
accordance with § l 25 . 5 9(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 § 125 59(d)
(1) and (2).
(4) POTWs which revise their
applications must
(‘) Modify their NPDES form and
Application Questionnaire as needed to
ensure that the information filed with
their application is correct and
corn plete;
(ii) Provide additional analysis and
data as needed to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart;
(iii) Obtain new State determinations
under § 125 61(b)(2) and 125.64 (b): and
(iv) Provide the certification described
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(5) Application , for permit renewal
may not be revised.
(e) SubmjttoJ of additional
information to demonstrate compliance
with §5125.60 and 125.65. (1) On or
before the deadline established in
paragraph (fl(3) of this section,
40661
applicants shall submit a letter of intent
to demonstmte compliance with
§ 125.60 and 125.65. The letter of
intent is subject to approval by the
Administrator based on the
requirements of this paragraph and
paragraph (0(3) of this section. The
letter of intent shall consist of the
following’
(i) For compliance with § 12560 (A)
A description of the proposed t.real.ment
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 § 125 60
The project plan shall include dates for
design and construction of necessary
facilities, submittal of infiuentJefflueyit
data, and submittal of any other
information necessary to demonstrate
compliance with § 125.60. The
Administrator will review the project
plan and may require revis lonsf prior to
authorizing submission of the additional
information.
(ii) For compliance with § 125.65 (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 shall
include any necessary data collection
activities, submittal of additional
information, andior development of
appropriate pretreatment limits to
demonstrate compliance with § 125.65.
The Administrator will review the
project plan and may require revisions
prior to submission of the additional
information
(iii) POTWs which submit additional
information must:
(A) Modify their NPDES form and
Application Questionnaire as needed to
ensure that the information filed with
their application is correct and
complete:
(B) Obtain new State determinations
under § 125 61(b)(2) and 125 64(b). and
(C) Provide the certification described
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) The information required under
this paragraph must be submitted in
accordance with the schedules in
§ 125.59(f)(3)(ii). If the applicant does
not meet these schedules for
compliance, EPA may deny the
application on that basis.
(0 Deadlines and distnbution_ 1)
Applications —.-(i) The application for
an original 301(h) permit for POTWs
which directly discharges effluent into
saline waters shall be submitted to the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator
no later than December 29, 1982.
(ii) The application for renewal of a
301(h) modified permit shall be
submitted no less than 180 days prior to
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 152 I Tuesday, August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
-------
40662 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 I Tuesday, August 9, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
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
certilicationjconcurrence under
§5124.53 through 124.55 on or before
the date the application is submitted to
EPA.
(2) Revisions to Applications (ii
Applicants desiring to revise their
apolications under § 125.59 (d)(1) or
(d)(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 i.ntent, further EPA
proceedings on the tentative decision
under 40 CFR part 124 will be stayed.
(B) Submit the revised application as
described for new applications in
§ 125 59(0(i) either within one sear of
the date of EPA’s tentative decision on
their original application or within one
year of November 26. 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 now applications in
§ 125 59(f)(i) 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.
Ii) A letter of intent required under
125.59(e)(1) must be submitted by the
following dates: for perinittees with
301(h) modifications or for applicants to
which a tentative or final decision has
been issued, November 7. 1994; 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
§ 125.39(e)(1), further EPA proceedings
on the tentative decision under 40 CFR
part 124 will be stayed.
(ii) The protect plan submitted under
§ 125.59(e)(iJ shall ensure that the
applicant meets all the requirements of
§5125.60 and 125.65 by the following
deadlines:
(A) By August 9, 1996 for applicants
that are not grand fathered under
§ 125.59(j).
(B) At the time of permit renewal or
by August 9, 1996. whichever is later.
for applicants that are grandfathered
under § 125.59(j).
(4) State detern,jnoüon deadline.
State determinations, as required by
§5 123.61(b)(2) end 125.64(b) shall be
filed by the applicant with the
appropnate 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 he
provided by EPA upon request.
However. EPA will not 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 timefrarrie
required by this paragraph (0(4) is a
basis for denial of the application.
(gJ(i) The Administrator may
authonze or request an applicant to
submit additional information by a
specified date not to exceed one veer
from the date of authorization or
request
12) Applicants seeking authorization
to submit additional information on
current/modified discharge
characteristics, water quality, biological
conditions or oceanographic
characteristics must:
(ii 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
authonzing 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. For
compliance with §5125.60 and 125.65.
such schedule shall be in accordance
with § l 2 5.59(fl(3)(ii) ,
(i) Decisions on section 307(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 applicant’s
demonstration that it has met all the
requirements of §512559 through
125.68.
(2) No section 30 1(h) modified permit
shall be issued until the appropriate
State certlflcationJconcurrence is
granted or waived pursuant to § 124.54
or If the State denies certificationl
concurrence pursuant 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
St3te Director may:
Ci) 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.
Ci) Be issued in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 124
except that, because section 30 1(h)
permits may be issued only by EPA. the
terms “Administrator or a person
designated by the Administrator” shall
be substituted for the term “Director” ic
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) Grandfarhering provision.
Applicants that received tentative or
final approval for a section 301(h)
modified permit prior to February 4.
1987. are not sub)ect to § 125.60, the
water quality criteria provisions of
§ 125.62(a)(1). or § 125.65 until the time
of permit renewal. In addition, if permit
renewal will occur prior to August 9.
1996. applicants may have additional
time to come into compliance with
§5125 60 and 125.65, as determined
appropriate by EPA on a case-by-case
basis. Such additional time, however,
shall not extend beyond August 9. 1996
This paragraph 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 Primary or equivalent Deaunent
requirements.
(a) The applicant shall demonstrate
that, at the time its modification
becomes effective, it will be dischar in
effluent that has received at least
primary or equivalent 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.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
(CII 1) An applicant may request that
the demonstration of compliance with
the requirement under § 125.60(b) to
provide 30 percent removal of BOD be
aUowed on an averaging basis different
from monthly (e g.. quarterly), subject to
the demonstrations provided in
paragraph (cII2) of this section If.
hoi ever, the applicant has
demonstrated an ability to achieve 30
percent removal of BOD on a monthly
average basis over the calendar sear
prior to August 9. 1994. the applicant
shall not be eligible for an averaging
basis longer than monthly.
(2) If the Administrator is satisfied
that the applicant has met the eligibilit)
requirement of paragraph (CIII) of this
section. the Administrator may approve
such requests if the applicant
dernonsr,rates to the Administrator’s
s.atisfac ion that:
(i) The applicant’s PO11V is
adequately designed and well operated.
(ii) The applicant will be able to meet
all recuirements under section 301(h) of
the CWA and these subpart G
regubtions with the averaging basis
selected, and
(iii) The applicant cannot achieve 30
percent removal on a monthiy average
basis because of circumstances beyond
the applicant’s control. Circumstances
beyond the applicanrs control may
acluda seasonally dilute influent SOD
concentrations due to relatively high
(although nonexcessive) inflow and
infiiu ’ation, relatively high soluble to
insoluble BOD ratios on a fluctuating
basis or cold climates resulting in cold
infhie t Circumstances beyond the
applicant’s control shall not include less
concer.tra ed wastewater due to
e ces5ive inflow and infiltration (I&I)
The determination of whether the less
concantrated wastewater is the result of
e cessive I&I will be based on the
definition of excessive 13.1 in 40 CFR
35 2005(b)(16) plus the additional
cr:tai’ion that inflow is nonexcessive if
the total flow to the PO11V (i.e..
castewater plus inflow plus infiltration)
i; less can 275 gallons per capita per
day
(3) En no event shall averaging on a
Ieii frequent basis than annually be
al io ved
§ 125.61 Ezistanee of and Compliance with
acoI’cabie water quality standards.
(a) There must exist a water qualit)
varidard or standards applicable to the
pollutant(s) for which a section 301(h)
modified permit is requested, including’
(Li Water quality’ standards for
ochemical oxygen demand or
•csolved oxygen;
121 Water quality standards for
- pended solids. turbidity, light
transmission, light scattering, or
maintenance of the euphotic zone, and
(3) Water quality standards for pH
(biThe applicant must (I)
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 § 124 53 and 124.54 that the
proposed modified discharge will
comply with applicable provisions of
State law including water quality
standards. This determination shall
include a discussion of the basis for the
conclusion reached.
125.62 Attainment or maintenance of
water quality which assures protection of
public water suppIloZ assures the
protection and propagation of a batanced
Indigenous populatIon of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife; and allows recreatjor aI activities.
(a) Physical characteristics 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
(ii All applicable water quality
standards; and
(ii) All applicable EPA water quality
criteria for pollutants for which there is
rio applicable EPA-approved water
quality standard that directly
corresponds to the EPA water qualit,
criterion for the pollutant
(iii) For purposes of paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of thi; section. a State i%ater
quality standard “directly corresponds”
to an EPA water quality criterion only
(A) The State water quality standard
addresses the axne pollutant as the EPA
water quality criterion and
(B) The State water quality standard
specifies a numeric criterion for that
pollutant or State objective methodolog)
for deriving such a numeric criterion
(iv) The evaluation of compliance
u’ith paragraphs (a)(1) (ii and (ii) of this
section shall be based upon conditions
reflecting periods of maximum
stratification and during other periods
when discharge characteristics. s%ater
quality. biologcal seasons or
oceanograph.c conditions indicate more
critical situations may exist.
(2) The evaluation under paragraph
(a)(ti(u) of this section as to compliance
with applicable section 304(al(1) water
quality criteria shall be based on the
following:
(ii For aquati: life c sterza The
pollutant concentrations that must not
40663
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 otherii ise
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 Adrnirnstrator shall first determine a
level of risk associated with the
pollutant that is acceptable for purposes
of this section 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
(aII2)(ii)(A) of this section, an acceptable
nsk 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 water quality
standards for carcinogenic pollutants
Alternatively, the Ad.ministrator may
consider a State’s recommendation to
use a risk level that has been others ise
adopted or formally proposed b) the
State 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 letel. 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
le el nor accepts a risk level
recommended by the State. then the
Administrator shall otherwise
determine an acceptable risk le el baseci
on all rele ant information,
(iii) For human health criteria [ or
noncarc:ncgerls For noncarcrnogeniL
pollutants, the pollutant concentrations
that must not be exceeded are the
numenc ambient values, if any.
specified in the EPA section 304(a)fl)
water quality criteria documents as
protective against the potential lo1ucit v
of the contaminant through ingestion ot
contaminated aquatic organisms.
-------
40664 Federal Register i vol. 59 “o 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
(3) The requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section apply in
addition to, and do not waive or
substitute for, the requirements of
§ 125.61.
(b) Impact of discharge on public
water supplies. (1) The applicant’s
modified discharge must allow for the
attainment or maintenance of water
quality which assures protection of
public water supplies.
(2) The applicant s modified
discharge must not.
(i Pre ent a planned or existing
public water supply from being used, or
from Continuing to be used, as a public
water Supply: or
(ii) Ha e the effect of requiring
treatment over and abo e that hich
would be necessary in the absence of
such discharge in order to comply with
local and EPA drinking water standards,
Ic) Biological impact of discharge (1)
The applicant’s 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) [ mmediately 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 distinctp,e 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 modified
discharges into saline estuanne % ater:
(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;
(iii The discharge must not interfere
with estuarine 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 ithin the zone of
initial dilution.
Id) Impact of discharge on
recreationo.J octit’,ties. (1) The
applicant’s modified discharge must
allow for the attainment or maintenance
of waler quality which allows for
reaeational 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 %ere
discharging a secondary treatment
effluent,
(e) 4dd,t,onal requiremPnts for
applications based on impro% ed 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 ha e been
thoroughly planned and studied and
can be comp!eted or implemented
expeditiously;
(2) Detailed analyses projecting
changes in average and maximum
monthly flow rates and composi:ion of
the applicant’s discharge ruch are
expected to result from proposed
Improvements or alterations.
(3) The assessments required by
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section
based on its current discharge: and
(4) A detailed analysis of how the
applicant’s planned improtements or
alterations will comply with the
requirements of paragraphs a) through
Id) of this section.
(I) Stressed waters An apolicant must
demonstrate compliance isith
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section
not only on the basis of the applicant’s
own modified discharge. but also taking
into account the applicant s modified
discharge in combination t ith
pollutants from other sources. Ho e er,
if an applicant ishich discharges into
ocean waters belie es 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, sithout
limitation, other municipal or industrial
discharges. nonpoint source runoff. and
the applicant’s previous discharges). the
appltcant need not demonstrate
compliance with those requirements if it
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that its modified
discharge does not or ‘.iill not
(1) Contribute to, increase, or
perpetuate such stressed conditions.
12) Contribute to further degradation
of the biota or t ater qualit :f the le el
of human perturbation from other
sources increases; and
(3) Retard the recover,’ of the biota 0’
water quality if the level of human
perturbation from other sources
decreases.
4125.63 EstablIshment of a monitoring
program.
(a) General requirements (1) The
applicant must:
Ii) Hate a monitoring program that is
IA) Designed to pros ide data to
evaluate the impact of the modi ied
discharge on the marine biota,
demonstrate compliance with
applicable water quality standards or
%sater quality criteria, as applicable and
measure toxic substances in the
discharge. and
(B) Limited to include onl those
scientific Investigations necessart to
study the effects of the proposed
discharge:
(ii) Describe the sampling techniques
schedules and locations (including
appropriate control sites), analvt cal
techniques, quality control and
erification procedures tobe 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) Deterrnrne the frequenc 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 recei ing water quaht
marine biota, and deszgnated t ’ater uses
(2) The Administrator ma ’ require
resision of the proposed monitoring
program before issuing a modified
permit and during the term of an
modified permit.
fbi Biological monitoring program
The biological monitoring program for
both small and large applicants shall
provide data adequate to evalua:e the
impact of the modified discharge on the
marine biota.
(1) Biological monitoring shall
include to the extent practicable’
(I) Periodic surve s of the biolog cal
communities and populations thich are
most likely affected by the discharge to
enable comparisons with baseline
conditions described in the application
and er’ified by sampling at the control
stations/reference sites during the
periodic sur e s.
(ii) Periodic determinations of th
accumulation of toxic pollutants an
pesticides in organisms and
e\amination of adverse effects, such as
disease, growth abnormalities,
ph ’.siological stress. or death.
-------
Federal Regi.ster / Vol 59. No 152 / Tuesday . August 9, 1994 / Rules and Regulation
40665
ii) Sampling of sediments in areas of
ds deposition in the vicinity of the
ifD, in other areas of expected impact.
and at appropriate reference sites to
support the water quality and biological
sur evs and to measure the
accumulation of toxic pollutants and
pesticides: and
(iv) Where the discharge would affect
commercial or recreational fisheries.
periodic assessments of the conditions
and productivity of fisheries
(2) Small applicants are not sub ect to
the requirements of paragraph (bill) (ii)
through (iv) of this section if they
discharge at depths greater than 10
meters and can demonstrate through a
suspended solids deposition analysis
that there will be negligible seabed
accumulation in the vicinity of the
modified discharge.
(31 For applicants seeking a section
301(h) modified permit based on’
(ii A current discharge. biological
monitoring shall be designed to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with
the requirements of § 125.62(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
lonst.rate, upon completion of
rovements or alterations, that the
u rements of § 125 62(c) aremet. or
iii) An improved or altered discharge
involving outfall relocation, the
biological monitoring shall,
(A) Include the current discharge site
until such discharge ceases; and
(6) Provide baseline data at the
r ocation site to dernonsr.rate the
•mp ct of the discharge and to provide
&e basis for demonstrating that
ec.iirements of § 125.62(c) will be met
(ci t’ater quality monitoring program
‘ .e water quality monitoring p;ograrn
;‘iall to the extent practicable.
(1) Provide adequate data for
.alueting compliance with water
quality standards or water quality
:-iterla as applicable under
125 62(a)(1),
2l Measure the presence of toxic
oollutants which have been identified
r reasonably may be expected to be’
asent in the discharge.
(a) Effluent monitoring prog.-am (1)
- addition to the requirements of 40
‘F ’R part 122. to the extent practicable.
r cr.itoririg of the POTW effluent shall
ovide quantitative and qualitative
ata which measure toxic substances
arid pesticides in the effluent and the
tiveness of the toxic control
am.
The permIt shall require the
. :ection of data on a frequency
. .‘ cified in the permit to provide
adequate data for evaluating compliance
with the percent removal efficiency
requirements under § 125.60.
§ 125 64 Effect of Uie discharge on olher
point and nonpoint sources.
(a) Nio modified discharge ma result
in any additional pollution control
requirements on any other point or
noripoirit source.
(b)The applicant shall obtain a
determination from the State or
interstate agency(s) having authorit to
‘establish wasteload allocations
indicating whether the applicant’s
discharge vill result in an additional
treatment pollution control, or other
requirement on any other point or
nonpoint sources The State
determination shall include a
discussion of the basis for its
conclusion
§ 125.65 IJr an area pretreatment program.
(a) Scope and applscabiluv (1) The
requirements of this section apply to
each POTW serving a population of
50.000 or more that has one or more
toxic pollutants introduced into the
P01W by one or more industrial
dischargers and that seeks a section
301(h) modification.
(2) The requirements of this section
apply in addition to any applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 403. and do
not waive or substitute for the part 403
requirements in any way.
(b) Toxic pollutant control (1) As to
each toxic pollutant introduced by an
industrial discharger. each P01W
sub ect to the requirements of this
section shall demonstrate that it either
(I) Has an applicable pretreatir.ent
requirement in effect in accordari e tuth
paragraph (c) of this section: or
(ii) Has in effect a program that
achieves secondary removal
equivalency in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Each applicant shall demonstrate
that industrial sources introducing
waste into the applicant’s treatment
works are in compliance with all
applicable pretreatment requirements.
including numerical standards set by
local limits, and that it s ill enforce
those requirements
(ci Applicab/e pretreatment
requirement (1) An applicable
pretreatment requirement under
paragraph (b)(lilu) of this section i ith
respect to a toxic pollutant shall consist
of the following:
(i) As to a toxic pollutant introduced
into the applicants treatment works by
an industrial discharger for which there
is no applicable categorical pretreatment
standard for the toxic pollutant, a local
limit or limits on the toxic pollutant as
necessary to sattsft’ the requirements of
40 CFR part 403: and
(ii) As to a toxic pollutant introduced
into the applicants treatment works b
an industrial discharger that is subject
to a categorical pretreatment standard
for the toxic pollutant, the categorical
standard and a local limit or limits as
necessar to satisfy the requirPments of
40 CFR part 403.
(iii) A’to a toxic pollutant introduced
into the applicants treatment works b
an industrial discharger for t ’hich there
is no applicable categorical pretreatment
standard for the toxic pollutant. and the
40 CFR part 403 analysis on the toxic
pollutant shows that rio local limit is
necessary, the applicant shall
demonstrate to A on an annual basis
during the term of the permit through
continued monitoring and appropriate
technical review that a local limit is not
necessar . and, where appropriate.
require industrial management practices
plans and other pollution pre ention
activities to reduce or control the
discharge of each such pollutant by
industrial dischargers to the POTW. If
such monitonng and technical revieu of
data indicate that a local limit is
needed, the P0T V shall establish and-
implement a local limit.
(2) An ’ local limits developed to meet
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
and (c)(1) of this section shall be
(i) Consistent with all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 403 and
(ii) Subject to approval by the
AdmInistrator as part of the 301(h)
application review The Administrator
ma require such local limits to be
re ised as necessar to meet the
requirements of this section or 40 CFR
part 403
(di Secondor, removal equivalenci’
An applicant shall demonstrate that it
achiev, es secondary removal
equii.alenc through the use of a
secondary treatment pilot
(demonstration) plant at the applicants
faciht inch provides an empirical
determination of the amount of a toxic
pollutant removed by the application of
secondary treatment to the applicant’s
influent where the applicant’s influent
has not been pretreated. Alternatively.
an applicant may make this
determ:nation using influent that has
recei ed industrial pretreatment,
not tithstanding the definition of
secondari removal equivalency in
§ 125 58(w) The NPDES permit shall
include effluent limits based on the data
from the secondary equivalency
demonstration when those limits are
more stringent than effluent limits based
on State water quality standards or
water quality criteria, if applicable. or
are otherwise required to assure that alt
-------
40666 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
applicable environmental protection
aiteria are met. Once such effluent
limits are established in the NPDES
permit, the POT%V may either establish
local limits or perform additional
treatment at the PO V or a combination
of the Iwo to achieve the permit limit.
* 12516 ToxIcs co, a ’ I program ,
(a) Qremicol analysis. (1) The
applicant shall submit at the time of
application a chemical analysis of its
current discharge for all toxic pollutants
and pesticides as defined in § 125.58(aa)
and (p1. The analysis shall be performed
on two 24-hour composite samples (one
thy weather and one wet weather).
Applicants may supplement or
su itute chemical analyses if
compmition of the supplemental or
substitute samples typifies that which
occurs dwing dry and wet weather
COndLtxcns.
(2) UnLess required by the State, this
requirement shall not apply to any small
section 301(h) applicant which certifies
that there are no known or suspected
sources of toxic pollutants or pesticides
and documents the certification with an
industrial u. survey as described by
40 CFR 403. 8(fl(2). ,
(b Idernificat ion of sources. The
applicant shall submit at the time of
applie rtnn an analysis of the known or
suspected sources of toxic pollutants or
p u fes Identified in § 125.6 6(a), The
applicant shall to the extent practicable
categ iri the sources according to
industriaj and nonindustrjal types.
(c) ii th tririI pretreatment
reqrth j ,ç, (1) An applicant that has
known or siis 1 ected industrial sources
of tnxr.c pollutants shall have an
apprcuied pretreatment program in
with 40 CFR part 403.
(2) Thfs iequirement shall not apply
to any applicant which has no known or
suspected industrial sources of toxic
polhiraziss or pesticides and so certifies
to the Miininictrator.
(3) ‘The titrt atment program
suited by the applicant under this
wujinu shall be subject to revision as
reçiiw d by the Administrator prior to
i ’uin arrenewing any section 301(h)
mcdi ed permit and during the term of
any mit.
(4)l!msp,l mentatjon of all existing
p’ reaVnzesu requirements and
aixtharvithes must be maintained through
the pesfind of development of any
addftunnafl pretreatment requirements
thasi y he necessary to comply with
the requir ents of this subpart.
ld L ‘ cjzcrdustnoj source control
puça .i . 1)Tho applicant shall submit
a proposed public education program
ta minimize the entrance of
ncein u jaj toxic pollutants and
pesticides into its POTW(s) which shall
be Implemented no later than 18 months
after issuance of a 301(h) modified
permit.
(2) The applicant shall also develop
and lñaplement additional nonindusthal
source control programs on the earliest
possible schedule. This requirement
shall not apply to a small applicant
which certifies that there are no known
or suspected water quality, sediment
accumulation, or biological problems
related to toxic pollutants or pesticides
in its discharge.
(3) The applicant’s nonindustrial
source control programs under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section shall
include the following schedules which
are to be implemented no later than 18
months after issuance of a section
301(h) modified permit:
(I) A schedule of activities for
identifying nonindustrzal sources of
toxic pollutants and pesticides: and
(ii) A schedule for the development
and implementation of control
programs, to the extent practicable, for
nonindustj ial sources of toxic pollutants
and pesticides.
(4) Each proposed nonindustrial
source control program and/or schedule
submitted by the applicant under this
section shall be subject to revision as
determined by the Administrator prior
to issuing or renewing any section
301(h) modified permit and during the
term of any such permit.
§ 125.67 Increase in effluent volum, or
amount of pollutanta discharged.
(a) No modified discharge may result
in any new or substantially increased
discharges of the pollutant to which the
modification applies above the
discharge specified in the section 301(h)
modified permit.
(b) Where pollutant discharges are
attributable in part to combined sewer
overflows, the applicant shall minimize
existing overflows and prevent increases
in the amount of pollutants discharged.
(C) The applicant shall provide
projections of effluent volume and mass
loadings for any pollutants to which the
modification applies in 5’year
increments for the design life of its
facility
§ 125.68 Special conditions for section
301(h) modifIed permits.
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,
(hi A schedule or schedules of
complioni.e for:
(1) Pretreatment program
development required by § 125 66(c)’
(2) N’onmdustr’ial toxics control
program required by § 125.66(d); ano
(3) Control of combined êwer
overflows required by § 125.67.
(ci Monitoring program requirements
that include:
(1) Biomonitoring requirements of
§ 125.63(b);
(2) Water quality requirements of
§ 125 63(c);
(3) Effluent monitoring requirements
of § 125 60(b), l25.62(c) and (d), and
125.63(d).
(d) Reporting requirements that
include the results of the monitoring
programs required by paragraph (ci of
this section at such frequency as
prescribed in the approved monitoring
program.
Appendix to Subpart G—Applicant
Questionnaire for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements
0MB Control Number 2040-0088 Expires
on 2128/96 Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average 1.295. 19.552 hours per response. for
small and large applicants, respectively The
reporting burden includes time for reviewing
instructions, gathering data, including
monitonng and toxics control activities, and
completing and reviewing the questionnai,v ’
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection, Including suggestioes for reducin ,
the burden, to aiief. Information Policy
Branch, U S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 40! M St., SW (2136), Washington.
DC 20480 and Office of Management and
Budget. Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Arm: Desk Officer for EPA.
Washington, DC 20503.
L Introduction
1. This questionnaire is to be submitted by
both small and large applicants or
modification of secondary treatment
requirements under sectIon 301(h) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). A small applicant is
defined as a POTW that has a contributing
population to its wastewater treatment
facility of less than 50.000 and a pro;ected
average dry weather flow of less than S 0
million gallons per day (mgd, 0 22 cubic
meters/sec) 140 CFR 125.58(c)). 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
projected average dry weather flow of :13
discharge of at least 5.0 million gallons per
d ..v (mgd. 0.22 cubic meters/set) 140 C R
125 58(cH The questionnaire is an i o
sec t ions. a general information and bis.c
rcqu:rcments section (part I I) and a techrical
etaluation section (part Ill) Satisfactory
completion by small and large dischargers uf
the appropnato questions of this
questionnare is necessaj ’ ’ to enable EP to
aictitrmino whether the applicant’s mo’JiEii’t
da c ’.argt meets the criruria olsection 10fl 1 )
-------
Federal Register I Vol 59. o 152 I Tuesda . August 9 . 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40667
and EPA regulations (40 R part 125.
subpart C)
2 Most small applicants should be able to
complete the questionnaire using available
inforin_ation. However, small PQTWs with
low initial dilution discharging into shallow
aters or waters with poor dispersion and
oansport cbaracteristics. discharging near
disuncti’.e and susceptible biological
habitats, or discharging substantial quantities
of toxics should anticipate the need to collect
additional information and/or conduct
additional anal’. ses to demonstiate
compliance with section 301(h) criteria If
there are questions in this regard. applicants
should contact the appropriate EPA Regional
Office for guidance.
3 Guidance for responding to this
questionnaire is provided by the ne ’ . ly
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. ‘ . ill help
ensure that the proper data are gathered in
the most efficient matter.
4 The notation (I.) means large applicants
must respond to the question and (SI means
small applicants must respond
U. General Information and Basic Data
Requirements
A, Treatment System Descnption
I (L.S) On which of the following are you
basing your application’ a current discharge.
improved discharge. or altered discharge. as
defined in 40 FR 125.58’ (40 ‘R 125 59(a))
2 (L.S) Description of the Trea nent/
Outfall System 140 CFR 125 62(a) and
125 62(e))
a Pro’. ide detailed descriptions and
diagrams of the treannent system and outfall
configuration which you propose to satisfy
the requirements of section 301(h) and 40
R 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 latirude and longitude
of the proposed outfall(s)’
C. For a modification based on an improved
or altered discharge. provide a description
and diagram of our current treatment system
and outfall configuration. Include the current
outfall’s latitude and longitude. iidifferent
from the proposed outfall.
3. (L.S) Prunarv or equivalent treatment
requirements (40 R 125 601
a Pro’. ide data to demonstrate that ‘our
effluent meets at least prirnar’.’ or equi’.alent
treatment requirements as defined in 40 R
123 58(r) (40 CFR 125 60)
b If your effluent does not meet the
primar’. or equi’.alent treatment
requirements, when do you plan to meet
them’ Provide a detailed schedule. indudlng
design. construction. start-up and full
operation, with your application. This
.equirement must be met by the effective date
of the new section 301(h) modified permit.
4 (L.S) Effluent Limitations and
Characteristics (40 R 125 61(b) and
125 62(e)(2 )l
a. ldenuf’. the final effluent limitations for
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BUD,).
suspended solids, and pH upon ‘ . hich ‘.our
application fora modification is based
—BOD 5 ____ mg/L’
—Suspended solids _____ r n _g/L
—pH (range)
b Provide data on the follo’.%ing effluent
characteristics for your current discharge as
well as for the modified discharge if different
from the current discharge
Flow (m’/sec)
—minimum
—average dry weather
—average ‘.‘.et weather
—maximum
—annual a’. erage
BOD, (mg/LI for the following plant floi s
—minimum
—a’. erage d i”. ‘ . eather
—rna’. erage ‘. et ‘ . eather
—maximum
—annual aterage
Suspended solids (mg/LI for the folloi’. tog
plant flo ’ . s
—minimum
—a’. erage dry weather
—average ‘.set weather
—maximum
—annual average
Toxic pollutants and pesticides (ugiL)
—list each toxic pollutant and pesticide
—list each 304(a)(1) criteria and toxic
pollutant and pesticide
pM
—minimum
—maximum
Dissolved oxygen (in_gIL prior to
chlorination) for the follois ing plant fib’.’. S
—minimum
—average ‘ . ‘.‘.eather
—‘a’. erage ‘ . et iseather
—maximum
—annual a’. erage
Immediate dissol’. ed o’c gen demand (mg /
Li
5. (L.S) Effluent Volume and \lass
Emissions 140 CFR 125 62(e)(2) and 125 671
a. Pro’. ide detailed anal see showing
projections of effluent volume (annual
average. m ’/sec) and mass loadings (mtlr) of
BUD, and suspended solids for the design
life of ‘.our treatment facilit’. in (‘he-year
increments If the application is based upon
an impro’.ed or altered discharge the
projections must be provided is ith and
‘.s ithout the proposed un_pro’. ements or
alterations.
b Pro’. ide projections for the end of ‘.our
fi’.e-’.ear permit term for lIthe treatment
facilir’. contributing population and lithe
a’. erage dail’. total discharge fib’.’. for the
maximum month of the di”. ‘. ‘ .eather season
6 (L.S) A’.erage Daily Industrial Flow (&/
sec). Pro’. ide or estimate the a’. erage daily
industrial inflow to .our treatment facility
for the same time increments as in question
II A.5 above. 140 CFR 125 66)
7. (L,S) Combined Se’. ’ .er Overflows (40
R 125 67(b)J
a Does ( ‘ . ill) ‘.our treatment and collection
s’.stem include combined sesser o’.erfios s’
b lf’ es. provide a description of your plan
for minimizing combined ses em ot erflo’. ’ . s to
the receiving water
8 IL Si Outfall/Diffuser Design Pro’. ide
the following data for your current discharge
as isell as for the modified discharge if
different from the current discharge (40 CFR
123 62(a)(1))
—Diameter and length of the outfall(s)
(meters)
—Diameter and length of the diffuser(s)
(meters)
—Angle(s) of port orientation(s) from
horizontal (degrees)
—Port diameter(s) (meters)
—Orifice contraction coefficient(s), if kno ’ . n
—Vertical distance from mean lower loss
water (or mean low water) surface and
outfall port(s) centerline (meters)
— ‘ . umber of ports
—Port spacing (meters)
—Design floss rate for each port if multiple
ports are used (m t /sec)
B Receiving It amer Description
1 (L.S) Are ‘.ou applying for a
modification based on a discharge to the
ocean 140 CFR 123 38(n)I or to a saline
estuar’. (40 GP’R 125 58(s))’ (40 R
125 59(a) (
2 (LS) Is sour current discharge or
modified discharge to stressed ‘. ‘ .aters as
defined in 40 FR 125.58(z)? If yes, what aie
the pollution sources contributing to the
stress’ (40 R 125 59(bJ(4) and 125.62(f))
3 (L.S) Provide a description and data on
the seasonal circulation patterns in the
‘lciflitv of sour current and modified
discharge(s) 140 CFR 125,62(al)
4 (Li Oceanographic conditions in the
v,cinit of the current and proposed
modified discharge(s) Pro’. ide data on the
follo’.’.ing 140 CFR 125 62(a))
—Loss est ten percentile current speed (rn_I
sec)
—Predominant current speed (mlsecl and
direction (n’uel during the four seasons
—Period(s) of maximnuni stratification
(months)
—Period(s) of natural up’.s’elling e’.ents
(duration and frequenc . months)
—Densir’. profiles dunag period(s) of
maximum stratification
5 (L.S) Do the receis ing waters for our
discharge contain significant amounts of -
effluent previousl discharged from the
treatment isorks for sihich you are appl’. irig
for a section 301(h) modified permit’ 140 CFR
125.57(a)(9))
6. Ambient water quality conditions during
the period(s) of maxunwn stratification at
the zone of initial dilution (ZID) boundars
at other areas of potential impact and at
control stations (4OCFR 125 62(a))
a (LI Pros ide profiles (ssith depth) ott the
folIos’. ing for the current discharge location
and for the modified discharge location if
different from the current discharge’
—BOD, (in_gIL)
—Dlssol’.’ed otygen (mg/LI
—Suspended solids (mg!!,.)
—pH
—Temperature ( ‘C)
-------
40663 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday . August 9, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
—Sahmty (pp*)
—Transparency (turbidity, percent light
ansm tance)
—Other slgathcant variables (a g.. nutrients.
3041all1) citerla and toxic pollutants and
pesticides, faca coliferm bacteria)
b IS) Provide available data ott the
following in the vianity of the current
discharge location and for the modified
discharge location, if different from the
current dzscharge l40( R 125 61(bi(1lI
—Dissolved oxygen (mg/I)
—Suspended solids (mg/I)
—pH
—Temperature (‘C)
—Salinity (ppt)
—Transparency (turbidity, percent light
tinnsmittancej
—Other significant variables (e.g.. nutrients,
304(aXl) aiteria and toxic pollutants and
pesticider. fecal coltfmin bacteria)
C. (LS)Are there other periods when
receiving water quality rondirton, may be
more anical than the p4’ odla) of maximum
stratification? if so. desaibe these end other
amcal periods and data requested In 6.a. for
the other a idcal perIod(s). (40 CFR
125.82(a)(1)J.
7. (L) Provide data on steady stale sediment
dissolved oxygen demand end dissolved
oxygen demand due to resuspension of
sediments in the vicinity of your current and
modified disdiarga(s) (mgltfday).
C Slologcai Conditions
1. (LI Provide a detailed deseription of
rep . tatlve biologIcal cemmunides (e.g.,
plankton. . vt thoe, deizzersal fish, etc.)
In the vicinity of your current and modified
dIschargefs) wIthin the ZID, at the ZID
boundary. at other sines of potential
dlscharge-teiated impact, and at reference
(control) shea. Csinmuolty cheincteilatla to
be desaibed shall Include (but oat be limited
to) species cmnposltion : abundancsi
dominance and diversity: spstlaUtemporul
dlstrlbudon growth and reproduction;
disease frequency: trophic structure and
productivity pattarisc presenc . of
opportunistic spedas bloeccwnulatloo of
toxic materials; and the occurrence of mass
mortailtias.
2. (LS . Are distinctive habitats of limited
distribution (such as kelp beds or coral rethj
located in areas potentially effected by the
modified discharge? I4O R 125 6*))
b. ((yes. provide iala . . .etkmon type.
extent. and location of habitat,.
3. (LS )a. Are eadaI or receatfona)
fisheries located in v potentially affected
by the dIscharge? 140 R 125.62 (c) and (dO
b U yea, provide Information on types.
location, and value of fisheries.
D. State and Fetferal Laws (40 (YR 125.61
and 123.62(a%Jj
1. (L.S) Are there water quality standards
applicable to the following pal lutant, for
winch a modification is requesteth
—Biochemical oxygen demand or dissolved
oxygen?
—Suspended solids. turbidity, light
transmission, light scattering, or
maintenance of the euphouc zone 1
—p14 of the r iving water?
2. (LS) If yea, whet Is the water use
classification lot your discharge area? What
are the applicable standards for your
discharge area for each of the parameters far
which a modification Is requested? Provide a
copy of all applicable water quality standards
or a citation to where they can be found.
3. (L,S) Will the modified discharge. 140
(YR 125.59(b )(3fl.
—Be consistent with applicable Stale coastal
zone management proçnnujs) approved
under the Coastal Zone Management Act as
amended. 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.? ISee 16
U S C. 1456(cJ(3)(Afl
—Be located in a marine sanctuary
designated under Title lii of the Marine
Protection. Research. and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) as amended, 16 U.S.C 1431 el
seq.. or in an estuarine sanctuary
designated under the Coastal Zone
Management Act as amended, 16 U.S.C
1461? If located in a manna sanctuary
designated under Title III of the MPRSA.
attach a copy of any certification or permit
required under regulations governing such
marine sanctuary. (See 16 U.S.C.
1432(fl(2 ) (
—Be consattani with the Endangered Species
Act as amended. 16 U.S.C. 1531 at seq.?
Provide the names of any threatened or
endangered species that inhabit or o(xasn
nutrients from waters that may be affected
by the modified discharge. Identify any
critical habitat that may be affected by the
modified discharge and evaluate whether
the modified discharge will affect
threatened orendangered species or
modify. critical habitat. (See 16 U.S.C
1536(a)(2JJ. —
4. (LS) Are you aware of any State or
Federal laws or regulations (other than the
Clean Water Act or the three statutes
identified In Item 3 above) or an Executive
Order eloch Is applicable to your discharge?
If yes, provide sufficient information to
demonstrate that your modified discharge
will comply with such law(s). reçiiadonls),
ororder(s). (40(YR 125.59 (b)(3)).
ID. Technical Evaluation
A. Physical Ciorvicreristlse of Discharge (40
(YR 12 5.62(o ))
1. (LS) What Is the critical Initial dilution
(or your current and modified discharge(s)
durIng (1) the period(s) of maximum
stratification? and (2) any other critical
period(s) of discharge volume/coinpoeftion.
water quality, biological seasons, or
oceanographic conditions?
2. (L.S) What era the dimensions of the
zone of initial dilution for your modified
discharge (s)?
3. (LI What are the effocts of ambient
oarrents and stratification on dispersion end
transport of the discharge phinte wastpfiaId?
4. IS) Will there be significant
sedimentation of suspended solids in the
vicinity of the modified discharge?
SILl Sedimentation of suspended solids
a. What fraction of the modified
dischargo’i suspended solids will accumulate
within Lb. vicinity of the modified
discharge?
b. What are the calculated ei’ efs) and
rile (s) of sediment accumulation within the
vicinity of the modified discharge(s) (g/m t
yr)?
c. What is the fate of settleable solids
transported beyond the calculated scdunen.
accumulation area? -
B Compliance with Appliazb (e Water
Quality Stondo .rds and CWA 530 4(01 ( 1 )
water quality aito’zo (40 (YR 125 62(b) and
225.62 1o)J
1. C L .S) What Is the cnncnntration of
dissolved oxygen immediately following
initial dilution for the period(s) of maximum
stratification and any other critical period(s)
of discharge volunieicomposiiion. ware,
qualIty, biological seasons, or oceanographu.
conditions?
2. (L ,S) What is the farfield dissolved
oxygen depression and resulting
concentration due to BOD exertion of the
wastefield during the petlod ( sl of maximum
stratification and any other rn1cal period(s)?
3. (L) What are the dissolved oxygen
depressions and resulting concentrations
near the bottom due to steady sediment
demand and resuspension of sediments?
4. (LS) What Is the increase In receiving
water suspended solids cooceatlauon
Immediately following initial dilution of the
modified discharge(s)?
5. CL) What Is the change In reiniving water
pH ImmedIately following initial dilution of
the modified discharge(s)?
6. (L.S) Does (will) the modified discharge
comply with applicable water quality
standards for.
—Dissolved oxygen?
—Suspended solids or surrogate standards?
-pH?
7. (L.S) Provide data to demou ate that all
applicable State water quality standards. and
all applicabl, water quality criteria
established under Section 304(afli ) of the
Clean Water Act kz which there are no
directly corresponding numerical applicable
water quality standards approved by EPA, are
met at and beyond the boundary of the ZID
under critical environmental and treatment
plant coadittons In the waters surrounding or
adlacont to the point at which your effluent
Is discharged. 140(YR 125.62taM1)J
6. (L.S) Provide the datenulnatiou required
by4O(YR 125.61(b)(2) for compliance with
all applicable provisions of State law,
including water quality standards or. if the
determInatIon has not yet been received, a
copy of a letter to the appropriate agency(s)
requestlag the required determination.
C Impact on Public Water Supplier 140 (YR
125.82(b))
1. (LS) Is theme planned or existing
public water supply (desslintration facility)
intake In the vicinity of the current or
modified discharge?
2. (L.S) II yesi
a. What is the location o(the EatakeIs)
(latitude and longitude)?
Ii. Will the modified discharge(s) prevent
the tem of Intake(s) for public water supply?
C. Will the modified discharge(s) cause
Increased treannent requirements (or public
water supply(s) to meet local. Stats, and A
drinking water standards?
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 I Tuesday . August 9, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40669
D Biological Impact of Discharge (40 CPA
125 62(c)!
1 (L.S) Does (will) a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, 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.S) Have distinctive habitats of limited
distribution been impacted adversely by the
current discharge and will such habitats be
impacted adversely by the modified
discharge’
3 (L.S) Have commercial or recreational
fisheries been impacted adversely by the
current discharge (e g. warnings, restrictions.
closures, or mass mortalities) or will they be
impacted adversely by the modified
discharge’
4 (L.S) Does the current or modified
discharge cause the following within or
beyond the lID (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 estuanne
waters 140 CPB 12562 (c)(4)1
—Does or will the current or modified
discharge cause substantial differences in
the benthic population within the lID and
beyond the ZID’
—Does or will the current or modified
discharge interfere with migratory
pathways within the ZID’
—Does or will the current or modified
discharge result in bioaccumulatjon of
toxic pollutants or pesticides at levels
which exert adverse effects on the biota
within the lID’
No section (hI modified permit shall be
issued where the discharge enters into
stressed saline estuarine waters as stated in
40 CFR 125 59(b)(4).
6 CL.S) For improved discharges. will the
proposed improved discharge(s) comply with
the requirements of 40 CPR 125 62(a) through
123 62(d)’ 140 G’R 125.62(e))
7 (L.S) For altered discharge(s). will the
ltered discharge(s) comply with the
requirements of 40 Q’R 125.62(a) through
125 62(d)? (40 CPR 125 62(e)I
8. (L.S) If your current discharge is to
stressed ocean waters, does or will your
current or modified discharge 140 CFR
125 62(f)
‘—Contribute to. increase, or perpetuate such
stressed condition’
—Contribute to further degradation of the
biota or water quality if the level of human
perturbation from other sousces increases?
—Retard the recovery of the biota or water
quality if human perturbation from other
sources
S Impacts of Discharge on Recreational
Activities (40 CFR 125 62(d))
1. (L.S) Describe the existing or potential
recreational activities likely to be affected by
the modified discharge(s) beyond the zone of
initial dilution
2. (L.S) What are the existing and potential
impacts of the modified.discharge(s) on
recreational activities’ Your answer should
include, but not be limited to. a discussion
of fecal coliform bacteria.
3. (L.S) Are there any Federal, State. or
local restrictions on recreational activities in
the vicinity of the modified discharge(s)’ If
yes, describe the restrictions and provide
citations to available references
4 (L,S) If recreational restrictions exist.
would such restrictions be lifted or modified
if you were discharging a secondary
treatment effluent?
F Establishment of a Monitoring Program (40
CPA 125 63/
1. (LS) Describe the biological. water
quality, and effluent monitoring programs
which you propose to meet the criteria of 40
CPR 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 Q R
125 63(a)(1)(i)(B)I
2. (L.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 and to carry it out for the
life of the modified permit
C Effect of Discharge on Other Point and
Vonpoint Sources (40 CPA 125 64!
1 (LS) Does (will) your modified
discharge(s) cause additional treatment or
control requiremer.ts for any other point or
nonpoint pollution source(s) 1
2. (L.S) Provide the determination required
by 40 CPR 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 determir, tioa.
H. Tox,cs Control Program and Urban Area
Preueatrnent Program (. 0 CFR 12565 and
125.66)
1 a. (L.S) Do ou have any known or
suspected industrial sources of toxic
pollutants or pesticides’
b (L.S) If no. provide the certification
required by 40 CFR 125 66la1(2) for small
dischargers. and required by 40 (YR
125 66(c)(2) for large dischargers
c. (L.S) Provide the results of wet and dry
weather effluent analyses for toxic pollutants
and pesticides as required by 40 (YR
125.66(a)(1). ( to the extent practicable)
d (L.S) Provide an analysis of known or
suspected industrial sources of toxic
pollutants and pesticides identified in (1)(c)
above as required by 4OCFR 125 66(b) V to
the extent practicable)
2 (S)a Are there any known or suspected
water quality, sediment accumulation, or
biological problems related to toxic
pollutants or pesticides from your modified
discharge(s)’
(SIb If no. provide the certification
required by 40 ( YR 125 66(d)(2) together
with available supporting data
(S)c. If yes. provide a schedule for
development and implementation of
nonindustrial toxics control programs to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
126 66(d)(3).
(L)d Provide a schedule for development
and implementation of a nonindustrial toxics
control program to meet the requirements of
40 CFR 125 66(d)(3).
3 (L.S) Describe the public education
program you propose to minimize the
entrance of nonindustrial toxic pollutants
and pesticides into your treatment system
140 (YR 125 66(d)(1)J
4. (LS) Do you have an approved
industrial pretreatment program’
a If yes, provide the date of EPA approval
b. If no. and If required by 40 (YR part 403
to have an industrial pretreatment program.
provide a proposed schedule for
development and implementation of your
industrial pretreatment program to meet the
requirements of 40 (YR part 403.
5. Urban area pretreatment requirement 140
(YR 125 651 Dischargers serving a population
of 50.000 or more must respond.
a. Provide data on all toxic pollutants
introduced into the treatment works from
industrial sources (categorical and
noncategorical)
b Note whether applicable pretreatment
requirements are in effect for each toxic
pollutant. Ate the industrial sources
introducing such toxic pollutants in
compliance with all of their pretreatment
requirements’ Are these pretreatment
requirements being enforced’ 140 CFR
125.65(b)(2)I
c. If applicable pretreatment requirements
do not exist for each toxic pollutant in the
POT’ ’/ effluent introduced by industrial
sources.
—provide a description and a schedule for
your development and implementation of
applicable pretreatment requirements 140
(YR 125 65(c)I, or
—describe how you propose to demonstrate
secondary removal equivalency for each of
those toxic pollutants, including a
schedule for compliance, by using a
secondary treatment pilot plant. 140 CFR
125 65(d)I
(FR Doc. 94—10058 Filed 8—8—94. 845 am)
-------
38473
(FRL-6021-43
Draft General NPDES Permit for
Seafood Processors In Alaska in
Waters of the United States General
NPDES Permit No. AK-G52-0000
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10.
ACTION: Notice of Draft General NPDES
Permit, and Notice of Finding of No
Significant Impact.
SuIw ny: The Director, Water Division,
EPA Region 10. is proposing to reissue
general National Pollutant Discharge
Elunination System (NPDES) permit no.
AK-C52—0000 for seafood processors in
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 offshore.
nearshore and shore-based vessels and
onshore facilities engaged in the
processing of fresh, frozen, canned,
smoked, salted and pickled seafoods. -
The proposed permit will also authorize
discharges from offshore vessels
(operating more than one nautical mile
from shore at MLLW) that are engaged
in the processing of seafood paste,
mince or meal. The proposed permit
will authorize discharges of 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 will
authorize 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 proposed general NPDES permit
for seafood processors in Alaska will not
authorize discharges from nearshore or
shore-based seafood processors of
mince, paste or meat (operating one
nautical mile or less from shore at
MLLW). The proposed permit will not
authorize discharges of petroleum
hydrocarbons, toxic pollutants, or other
pollutants not specified in the permit.
The proposed permit will not authorize
discharges to waters excluded from
coverage as protected, special, at-risk,
degraded or adjacent to a designated
“seafood processing center.”
A draft NPDES permit, fact sheet and
xher documents of the administrative
record ale available upon request.
PUBUC NO’flCE ISSUANCE DATE:
Monday, July 25, 1994.
PUBLIC NOTICE EXPIRATION DATE:
Tuesday, August 23, 1994.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Interested
persons may submit written comments
on the draft general NPDES permit to
the attention of Burney Hill at the
address below. All comments should
include the name, address, and
telephone number of the commenter
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
reissuance 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 November 1, 1994.
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—1 795. 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
AW, Juneau, Alaska 99811—0165,
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) (see Attachment 1), 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 wiuch it is based, Comments
should be submitted to Burney Hill at
the address below.
PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearings
on the proposed general NPDES permit
are tentatively scheduled to be held in
Anchorage. Alaska, and Seattle,
Washington. The Anchorage hearing
w,U be held at the Federal Building, 222
West Seventh, Anchorage, Alaska. on
Thursday, August 25, 1994, from 6 p.m
until all persons have been heard.
Persons interested in making a
statement at the Anchorage hearing
should contact Valerie Haney at (907)
271—3651 by 4:00 p.m. PDT by August
22, 1994. The Seattle hearing will be
held at Freeway Park Plaza Bwlding,
Room 12A, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington, on Tuesday, August 30,
1994, from 2 p.m. until all persons have
been heard. Persons interested in
making a statement at the Seattle
hearing should contact Florence Carroll
at the address below or at (206) 553—
1760 by 4:00 p.m. PDT on Friday,
August 26, 1994.
Either or both of the public hearings
will be cancelled if insufficient interest
is expressed in them. Interested persons
can contact Florence Carroll or Valerie
Haney between the hours of 8:30 a m.
and 4 p.m. PDT to confirm that the
hearings will take place. At the
bearings, interested persons may submit
oral or written statements concerning
the draft general NPDES permit.
APPEAL OF 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)(i) of the Clean Water Act.
Persons affected by a general permit
may not challenge the conditions of the
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, and the
environmental assessment 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, Wastewater
Management and Enforcement Branch
(WD—137), 1200 SIxth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington, 98101,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Buiney Hill, of EPA Region 10, at the
address listed above or telephone (206)
553—1761.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented ir.
the notice printed above, I herebt t en:”
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 144 / Thursday , July 28, 1994 / Notices
-------
J8474
Federal aegister I VoL 59. Non. 144 1 Thu tsday. Jtily 28.. 994 I otices .
pursatant to .thaprovimoaoffi U .S.C .
605(b) that thL neral NPDES permit
will not have a sigui nt Impact on a
substantial rnirn) ir of sanall entities.
Moreover.ibe permit redu a
significen! administraiiv burden on
regulated sour a.
Dated luly W 1904.
)anis Hiatinge.
Associate Director. Water Division
Ari2rh , P 1..- .F .mhng of No Sigiii ni
Imçact(FNSU
To All Interested Government Agencies.
Public Groups. and tndjviduals:
In accordance with the Eavucv.men.tal
Protection Agency (WM procedures for
complying with the National Emrironniental
Pohcy Act (NEPAl. 40 GR Pert 6. Subpart
F. EPA has conducted an environmental
review of the followIng proposed athon
Reiw .an of gPnerflL National Pollutant
Dischazge E1h th t1on Sysirm (NPDES
permit no. AK-G52-000 to owners and
operatnm of feclildes engaged in the
pm sing of seafood, both floating anti
onshore facilities. in certain water, of the
State of Alaska end waters of the United
States adjacent to the Alaska State Waters -
The general NPDBS permit requnemerite.
uic!uding effluent limitations, monitoring
provisions. and other conditions applicable
to the opersuons covemd axe specified in the
proposed permit The permit (ncr sheet
describes the boils foe the pe it provisions.
An envuonuzeutol ae nt (EAt for this
proposed ectioti baa been prepared. Under
the proposed on. those new source
seafood ii....stng facilities which are
omluded frees the general NPOES permit
will continue to be subjectto individual
NEPA r v1sws. oigpirwp.uudonofen
BA and. if Impactaruuld be significant. en
envirenseental hnpse2 stateinent IBIS).
Based on the BA. and in aixordancn with
the guldetlnee (or determining the
signiftcance of federal actions (40 OiR
1508.27) and WA criteria for Initiating an
ElS (40 R 6.6051, WA hu concluded that
reissuance O(th.CenereI NP ES Permit wilt
cot result in a il nlficsnt effect on the human
environment This action will nos
slgni’ficaatly . ct land ner patterns or
population. wetlands or floodplams.
threatened or endangered species, farmlands..
ecologically critical asses. historic resources.
air quality. water quality, noise levels, fish
and wildlife sescinces. nor will It çonllict
with approved local, regional, or state land
use plans or policies. Par the above reasons
EPA baa dmmsnli d that an will not be
prepared. A py of the BA esalnatleg the
potential Impacts of the 1 opoded action and
explatntegwhy en EIS (a not required is
available upon request by caLling (206) 553-
1761. orat the above address, andi
incorporated into this FNSI by reference.
Comments sopporting or dHa eeing with
this P4 51 may be submitted to EPA at the
above address far consideration. After
evaluating the comments received. EPA will
make a final decision. No adsmnxstrativa
action will be taken on the proposed
reissuanca for at least 30 days after the
release date (indicated shovel of this FNSL
EPA will Mily coased 5nta
received diinng this public notice period
before taking final adlon
Sincere ly..
JaolceHnrCherleeE. Fizulley..
Director. Water Division.
(FR Doc .9 48325 FIled 7-27-0 &4S aaL
noes
FEDERAL RESERVE. SYSThM
Carolina First BancStiares, Inc., et aL;
Formations of Acquisitions by and
Mergers of Basik Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied for the Board’s approval
under section 3 of the Bank Hotding
Company Act (12 U.S.C 1842} and §.
225.14 of the Board’s Regulation ‘((12
CFR 225.14) to become a bank holding
company or to acq ulraa bank or bank
holdrngcompany. The factors that are
considered. 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 avaffable for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persona mey
expreas their views in writing to.the
Reserve Bank or to the offices of the
Board of Governors. Any comment on
an application that requests a hearing
InIL5t include a statement of why a
written presentation would nntsuffica
in lieu ota hearing. identiiytng.
specifically any questions of fact that
are in dispute and summastring the
evidence that would be presented at g
hearing. .-,.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applirotinne
must be recaived.not later than August
22.. 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bankof
Richmond (Lloyd W. Boatian. ft.. Senior
Vice President) 701 East Byrd. Street, -
Richmond. Virginia 23261
1. are line First BancSha .res. inc..
Lixicolnton. North Caroliua to a uiia
20 percent of the voting shares of First
Gaston Bank of North Carolina.
Gastonia, North Carolina, a de nova
banL
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
(Zane R. KeUey. Vice President I 104
Marietta Street. NW., Atlanta. Georgia
30303:
1. Commercial Bancorp of Gwrnnett.
inc.. Cawrencevallo, Georgia; to merge
with Commercial Bancorp of Georgia,
Inc., Atlanta. Georgia. and thereby
indirectly acquire Commercial Bank of
Georgia. Atlanta. Georgia.
Board of Governors of the Fedetal ‘Reserve
System. July 22. 1994. -
— J. Joäme
eputySci. #a., rthe Board -
IFR Dec. 9418378 Flied T.Z 94. 8:45 axnt
siujac cool saio.ei.I
Heritage Bancshares,. Inc., et aL;
Formations of; Acquisitions by; and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies.
The companies listed in this notice
have applied (or 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 112
CFR 225.t41 to become a barth hoLding
company or to acquire shank or bank
holding company. The factors that are
considered in acting on the applications
araset forth in section 3(4 of the Act
(12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). -
Each application is a.vai .Iable for
irmned aie inspection at. the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated_Once the
application has been acoapted for
processing, it will also be avai abIe for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested per ns may
express their views in writing to the
Reserve Bank or tn the offices of the
Board of Governors. Arty continent 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
sped fically any questions of fact that
are in dispute and summarinng the
evidence that would be presented eta -
hearing.
Unless otherwise noted., comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received not later than August
22. 1994. -
A. Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jn. Senior
Vice Presidentl 701 East Byrd Street.
Richmond. Virginia 23261;
1. Heritage Bancshares. In ..
Masunngton. West Vixglna to become a
bank ho Iding company by acquiring 100
portent of the voting shares of First
Exchange Bank. Mannington. West
Virginia.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
games A. Blusenle, Vice President) 230
South LaSalle Street, Chicago. ilLinois
60690:
1. Country Bank Shares Corporation.
Mount Horeb, Wisconsin; to acxiuire 100
percent of the voting shares of Belleville
Baricshazes Corporation. BelleviLla.
Wisconsin. and thereby indirectly
acquire BeUeville. State Bank.
Belleville, Wisconsin.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(Randall C. Sumner. Vice President) 411
Locust Street. St. Lowe, Missouri 83166:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 144 I Thursday. July 28. 1994 / Notices
38465
decrease in the number of active
MSWLFs as a result of the April 9. 1994
federal deadline for small landfills to
either close or be subject to all of the
federal criteria. Twenty-eight (28)
facilities are under Part 360 permits.
eleven (11) facilities are under consent
order, and two (2) facilities are
operating without either a permit or
consent order.
New York State is concentrating its
efforts to bring all landfills that receive
municipal solid waste into compliance
with the Part 360 regulations through
one or more forms of enforcement
actions. Landfills that are permitted
under the revised Part 360 regulations,
effective October 9. 1993. will meet the
federal criteria. For existing facilities all
owners or operators must file a renewal
application if they intend to continue
construction or operation beyond the
expiration date of existing permits. For
those facilities with Part 360 permits
that will expire over the next 2—3 years.
the Department will ensure that each
such facility meets the applicable
federal and state regulations before a
renewal permit is issued. Further, for
the estimated seven facilities with
permits that will expire three or more
years beyond the date of program
approval, the Department will pursue
permit modifications in accordance
wjth requirements contained in 6
NYCRR Part 621 Uniform Procedures.
New York Stcta expects to complete
those seven permit modifications so as
to ensure compliance with both federal
and state regulations within three years
of program approval. Those facilities
operating under a consent order will
either be reqwred to close or be
upgraded to meet the applicable
regulations in accordance with the
terms and conditions of their consent
order.
New York does not have the statutory
authority to enforce the MSWI.F permit
program on Indian Lands. MSWLFs
located on Indian Lands are subject to
the Federal Criteria.
The EPA will hold two public
hearings on its tentative decision.
Comments can be submitted orally at
the hearing or in writing at the time of
the hearing. The public may also submit
written comments on EPA’s tentative
deterrniriauon to the location indicated
in the ADDRESSES section of this notite
such that they are received by the close
of business on September 13. 1994.
Copies of New York’s state application
are available for inspection and copying
at the locations indicated in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
EPA will consider all public
comments on its tentative determination
received during the public comment
period and during each public hearing.
Issues raised by those comments may be
the basis for a determination of
inadequacy for New York’s state
program. EPA expects to make a final
decision on whether or not to approve
New York’s state program by November
1, 1994, and will give notice of it in the
Federal Register. The notice will
include a summary of the reasons for
the final determination and responses to
all major comments.
Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that
citizens may use the citizen suit
provisions of Section 7002 of RCRA to
enforce the Federal MSWLF criteria in
40 CFR Part 258 independent oLany
State/Tribal enforcement program. As
EPA explained in the preamble to the
final MSWLF critena, EPA expects that
any owner or operator complying with
provisions in a State/Tribal program
approved by EPA will be considered to
be in compliance with Federal Cnteria.
See 56 FR 50978, 50995 (October 9,
1991).
Compliance With Executive Order
12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this notice from the
requirement of Section 6 of Executive
Order 12868.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), 1 hereby certify that this
approval will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. It does not
impose any now burdens on small
entities. This notice, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Authority: This notice is issued under the
authority of Section 4005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act as amended. 42 U S C. 6946.
Dated: July 21. 1994.
Jeanne M. Fox,
Regional Administrator.
IFR Dec. 94—18450 Filed 7—27—94. 845 aml
BZLUNO COC 85 O-6O-P
Superfund Program; Availability of
Guidance Document
(FRL —6021 -.3J
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTiON: Notice of Availability of
Guidance Document.
Text
Section 106(b) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation. and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). 42 U.S C. 9608(b). as
amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986. allows any person who
complies with an EPA order issued
under section 106(a) of the statute to
petition For reimbursement of the
reasonable costs incurred in complying
with the order, plus interest. Reimbursal
is authorized if a petitioner can
establish that it was not liable for
response costs, or that the Agency’s
selection of a response action was
arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not
in accordance with law.
The authority to decide whether to
grant such petitions has been delegated
by the President to the EPA
Administrator, and redelegated to EPA’s
Environmental Appeals Board under
EPA Delegation of Authority CERCLA
14—27 (June 1994). EPA is today
announcing the availability of a
guidance document, “Guidance on
Procedures for Submitting RCLA
Section 106(b) Petitions and on EPA
Review of those Petitions.” issued by
the Environmental Appeals Board on
June 9, 1994. This guidance document,
which supersedes previous Agency
guidance. details both the information a
petitioner is expected to submit as part
of a petition for reimbursement and the
procedures the Board intends to follow
in evaluating petitions. This guidance is
applicable to all petitions submitted
after June 9, 1994, and may also be
applied, to the extent practicable. to
petitions pending on that date.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT;
For copies of the guidance document or
more detailed information on specific
aspects of the Section 106(b) program.
please contact Stuart Cane
Environmental Appeals Board (1103B),
U S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW.. Washington. DC
20460, (202) 501—7060.
Dated. July 21, 1994
Edward E. Reich,
Environmental Appeals Judge.
IFR Doc 94—18331 Filed 7—27—94. 845 aml
BILUNO CODE e66O-40-M
(FRL-6016 —6J
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES);
Preparation of Draft General Permit for
the States of Maine, Massachusetts,
and New Hampshire
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency
ACTiON: Nbtice, Preparation of Draft
General NPDES Permits—MAG6400”M,
MEG640000. and N11G640000.
-------
3 68
Federal Register L VoL 59 No. 144 / Thursday , Tuly 28, 1994 Notices
SUMMARY: The RegionalAdniinistiatar
of Region I is today providing Notice of
a Draft General NPDES Permit for waler
treatment facilities In certain wate of
the States of Maine. Memachusatis, and
Now Hampshire. This draft general
NPDES Permit proposes effluent
limitations. standards, prohibitions and
management practices for these types of
discharges (Appendix A contains the
Draft General NPDES Permits and
Appendix B is the Draft General
Conditions applicable to all three
general permits). The permit will
become effective 30 days after the date
of publication of the final general permit
in the Federal Register. The permit will
expire 5 years from the effective data.
Owners and/or operators of facilities
discharging effluent from water
treatment facilities will be required to
submit to EPA. Region l.a notice of
intent (NOl) to be covered by the
appropriate general permit and will
receive a written notification from EPA
of permit coverage and authonzauon to
discharge under the general permit.
The draft permit is based on an
administrative record available for
public review a1 Environmental
Protection Agency. Region I. John F.
Kennedy Federal Building. WMM,
Boston, Massachusetts 02203.
The following “Fact Sheet and
SUPPLEMENTARY LNFORMAT)c.r section
sets forth prinapal facts and the “..
significant factual, legal. and policy
questions considered in the
development of the draft permits.
DATES: For comment period: Interested
persons may submit cnmments on the
dxaftgeneralpermitsaspartofthe
administrative record to the Regional
Administrator. Region I at the address
given in the preceeding ‘SUMMARY”
section no later than August 29, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND COPIES OP
DRAFT GENERAL NPVES PERMtTS
Additional information concerning the
draft permits may be obtained betweezr
the hours of 9.00 a.m. ari4 4.1)0 p.m.,
Monday through Friday clud1ng
holidays from: Suprokash Sarker.
Wastewater Management Branch. Water
Management Division, Environmental
Protection Agency. J.F. Kennedy Federal
Building. WMN. Boston. Massachusetts
02203. Telephone (817) 565—3573.
FACT SHEET AND SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMAT ION:
I. Background Information
A Genervi 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 F ’lIn insilion System (NPDES)
permit. Although such permits to date
have generally been issued to individual
discharges, EPA’s regtilatione authorize
the Issuance of “general permits” to
categories of discharges. See 40 Q ’R
122.28(48 FR 14148, April 1.1983). EPA
may issue a single, general permit to a
category of point sources located within
the same geographic area whose permits
warrant imi Iii , pollutant c (,j
measures.
The Director of an NPDES permit
program is authorized to issue a general
permit if there era a number of point
sources operating in a geogmphic area
that: -
1. Involve the same or substantially
slimier types of operations:
2. Discharge the same ypee of wastes;
3. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
4. Require the same or similar
monitoring requirements and
5. Zn the opinion of the Regional
Adminicriator are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
under Individual permits. -
Violations of a condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the
Clean Water Act and sublects the
discharger to the penalties in Section.
309 of the Act.
Any owner or operator authorized by
a general permit may be excluded from
coverage of a general permit 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 90
days after publication by EPA of the
final general permit in the Federal
Register. The Regional Administrator
may require any person authorized by a
general permit to apply for and obtain
an Individual permit. Any interested
person may petition the Regional
Administrator to take this action.
However, individual permits will not be
Issued for sources discharging effluent
from water treatment facility covered by
this general permit unless It can be
clearly demonstrated that inclusion
under the general permit is
Inappropriate. The Regional
Administrator may consider the
issuance of Individual permits when.
1. The discharge(s) is a significant
contributor of pollution:
2. The discharge(s) is not in
compliance with the terms and
conditions of the general permit,
3. A change has occurred in the
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
Source:
4. Effluent limitations guidelines are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit;
5. A Water QualityManagernent plan
cdntainlng requirements applicable to
such point sources Is appreved -.
8. The requirements listed In the
previous paragraphs are not met.
B. Coverage Under This General Permit
Under this general permit, owners
and operators of potable water treatment
plants in Massachusetts. Maine and
New Hampshire may be granted
authorization to dIscharge process
generated wastewaters into waters of the
respective States as followa
a. Treated presadinientation
underflow
b. Treated underflow froui the
coagulauonlserthng processes using
aluminum compounds or polymers as
coagulants: and . -
-C. Treated filter backwaskwatej ’ from
filters, -.
This permit shall apply specifically to
operators that have a discharge from a
point source such as a .aludge settling
lagoon or other device whereby - .
comparable control of suspended solids
is possible.
Authorization under the permit shall
require prior submittal of certain facility
Information. Upon receipt of all
required Information, the permit issuing
authority may allow or disallow
coverage under the general permit
The following list shows the criteria
which will be used In evaluating
whether or not an Individual permit
may be required Instead of a general
permit. ‘ -
1. Evidence on non-compliance under
previous permit for the operation; -
2. Preservation of high quality waters
and flshertes
3. Facilities with an effluent discharge
flow of over 1.00 MGD maximum daily
for the states of Mas a hu et and New
Hampshire and 0.15 MCD mainmum
daily for the state of Maine.
4. Production of effluent at the facility
other than using aluminum compound
orpolymeras coagulant. anti
5. Use of land application as a means
of discharge.
8. For the state of Maine, a m1nin w
dilution of effluent of 100:1 In the
receiving water at 7Q10 should be
stipulated.
The similarity of the discharges has
prompted EPA to p this draft
general permit for public review and
comment When issued, this permit will
enable facilities to maintain compliance
with the Act and will extend
environmental and regulatory controls
to a large number of discharges and
reduce some permit backlog. The
issuance of this general permit for the
geographic areas descri bed below is
warranted by this similarity of (a)
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 59, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 1994 I Notices
38467
— environmental conditions. (b) State
regulatory requirements applicable to
the discharges and receiving waters, and
(c) technology employed.
Maine
fn the State of Maine, there are 271
industrial applicants or permittees. It is
estimated that 13 of the industries that
have direct discharges to the waters of
the State are strictly water treatment
facilities. . -
New Hampshire
In the State of New Hampshire, there
are 171 estimated industrial
applications or perinittees. It s
estimated that 2 or more of the
industries that have the direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly water treatment facilities.
Massachusetts
In the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. there are 651 industrial
applicants or permittees. It is estimated
that 33 of the industries that have direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly water treatment facilities.
II. Conditions of the Draft General
NPDES Permit
A. Geographic Areas
Maine (Permit No. MEC640000)
All of the discharges to be authorized
by the general NFDES permit for the
State of Maine from dischargers are
limited to Class B, C. SB and SC waters
of the State, except lakes. The drainage
areas must be more than 10 square
miles.
All of the discharges to be authorized
by the general NPDES permit for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
dischargers are into all waters in Water
Quality Classifications B. C, SB and SC
as designated in Massachusetts Water
Quality Standards, 314 QvIR 4.OO et seq.
New Hampshire (Permit No.
NHG64 00 00)
All of the discharges to be authorized
by the general NPDES permit for the
State of New Hampshire dischargers are
into all waters of the State of New
Hampshire unless otherwise restricted
by the State Water Quality Standards,
New Hampshire RSA 485-A :3.
B Notification by Perrrutiees
Operators of facilities whose
discharge. or discharges, are described
in Part lB and whose facilities are
located in the geographic areas
described In Part II. A. above may
submit to the Regional Administrator.
Region 1, a notice of intent to be covered
by the appropriate general permit. This
written notification must include the
owner’s or operator’s legal name and
address, the number and type of
facilities to be covered, the facility
locations, the names of the receiving
waters into which discharge will occur.
The facilities authorized to discharge
under a final general permit will receive
written notification from EPA, Region I,
within 30 days of permit coverage.
Failure to submit to EPA, Region 1. a
notice of intent to be covered or failure
to receive from EPA written notification
of pemut coverage means that the
facility is not authorized to discharge.
C. Effluent Limitations - -
1. Statutory Requirements - -
The Clean Water Act requires all
dischargers to meet effluent limitations
based on the technological capability of
dlschargers to control the discharge of
the pollutants. Section 301(b)(lflA)
requires the application of “Best
Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available” (BPTL Section
301(b)(2) (A). (C), (D), and (F) requires
the application of “Best Available
-‘ . . Technology Economically Available”
(BAT) by July 1. 1984. for all toxic -
pollutants referred to in Table 1 of
Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of the
Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of
Representatives and not later than three
years after the date any limitations are
established for toxic pollutants listed
under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of
Section 307 of the Act which are not
referred to in subparagraph (C) of
Section 301(b)(2). Section 301(b)(2KA)
and (F) requires “Best Available
Treatment Technology Economically
Achievable’s (BAT) for nonconventional
pollution by July 1, 1984, nd Section
301(b)(2)(E) requires the application of
the Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) for conventional
pollutants by July 1, 1984. The effluent
Limitations in the general permit are
consistent with these statutory
requirements.
2. Technology.based Effluent
Limitations -
The Environmental Protection Agency
has not developed effluent guidelines
for water treatment facilities. In the
absence of national standards, effluent
limitations for the TSS limitations are
based upon best professional judgement
pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the
CWA.
The “Maximum Daily” TSS limitation
and the limitations for settleable solids
and pH are based upon state
certification requirements under Section
401(a)(1) of the CWA, 40 R 124.53
and 124.55, and water quality
considerations.
3. Water Quality Standards
The effluent from the water treatment
facility may contain toxic pollutants due
to use of chemicals and chlorine.
However, they do not contain hazardous
pollutants or oil and grease. Therefore,
water quality criteria established for oil
and grease and hazardous pollutants do
not apply to these discharges. Water
Quality Standards applicable to these
discharges are limited to pH, seettleable
solids, and TSS. In addition testing
requirements are necessary for
aluminum, chlorine and LC5O, C—
NOEC. The Limits of total residual
chlorine and aluminum for the stale of
Maine are based upon state certification
requirements.
4. Antidegradation Provisions -
The conditions of the permit reflect
the goal of the CWA and EPA to achieve
and maintain water quality standards.
The environmental regulations
- - pertaining to the State Antidegradation
-, Policies which protect the State’s
-. surface waters from falling below State
standards for water quality are found in
the following provisions: Maine Title
38, Article 4—A, Section 464.4.F.;
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
314 OvER 4.04 Antidegradation -
Provisions, and New Hampshire policy
RSA 485—A 8, VI Part Env.Ws 437 01
and Env .Ws 437.02.
This general permit will not apply to
any new or increased discharge unless
it can be determined that such
discharges will result in insignificant
effects to the receiving waters. This
determination shall be made in
- accordance with the appropriate State
Antidegradation Policies, - - -
5. Mpnitoring and Reporting
Requirements -
Effluent fimitations and monitoring
requirements are Induded in the general
permit describing requirements to be
imposed on facilities to be covered.
Facilities covered by the final general
permits will be required to submit to
EPA. Region I, and the appropriate State
a Discharge Monitoring Report
containing effluent data on a semi-
annual basis.
The monitoring requirements have
been established to yield data
representative of the discharge under
authority of Section 308(a) of the Act
a id 40 CFR 122.41(j), 122.4-4(1) and
122.48, and as certified by the State.
Massachusetts (Permit No. MAG640000)
-------
38468
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 144 / Thursday, July 28. 1994 / Notices
m. Other Requirements . . -
The remaining conditions of the
permit are based on the NPDES
regulations 40 R parts 122 through
125 and consist primarily of
management requirements common tO
all permits. -
IV. State Certification
Section 301(b)(IIIC) of the Act
requires that NPDES permits contain
conditions which ensure compliance
with applicable State water quality
standards or limitations. Section 401
requires that States certify that Federally
issued permits are in compliance- with
State law.
These permits are for operations
within waters of the States. EPA is
requesting the States to review and
provide appropriate certification to
these general permits pursuant to 40
CFR 124.53.
V. Administrative Aspects
A Request To Be Covered
Owners or operators of water
treatment facility discharges are not
covered by this general permit until
they meet two requirements. First, they
must send a Letter of intent to EPA
indicating that they meet the
requirements of the permit and wish to
be coverod Second. they must be
notified by EPA that they are covered by
a general permit lithe fecility has an
existing individual NPDES permit, it
will be terminated as outlined in 40 ( R
122.28(b)(Zfliv).
B Mechanisms
All persons, including dischargers
who believe any condition of the draft
permit is inappropriate must raise all
issues and submit all available
arguments and supporting material for
their arguments In full hy the close of
the public comment period, to the U. S.
EPA. Wastewater Management Branch.
WMN. JFK Federal Building, Boston.
Massachusetts, 02203. Any person. prior
to such date, may submit a request La
writing for a public hearing to consider
the draft permit to EPA and the State
Agency. Such requests shall state the
nature of the issues proposed to be
raised in the hearing. A public hearing
may be held after at least a 30-day
public notice whenever the Regional
Administrator finds that response to this
notice indicates significant interest. In
reaching a final decision on the draft
permits. the Regional Administrator will
respond to all significant comments and.
make these responses available to the
public at EPA’s Boston office.
Following the close of the comment
period, and after the public hearing, if
such hearing is held, the Regional
Administrator will issue a final permit
in the Federal Register..
C. The Càastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA). 16 U.S.C. 1451 at seq.. and its
implementing regulations 115 CFR Part
9301 require that any federally licensed
activity affecting the coastal rone with
an approved Coastal Zone Management
Program (C v1P) be determined to be
consistent with the CZMA. EPA. Region
1, has determined that these general
NPDES permits are consistent with the
CZMA. EPA has requested the
Massachusetts, Maine, and New
Hampshire coastal zone agencies for a
determination that these three permits
are consistent with their respective State
policies.
D The Endangered SpeciesAct -
EPA Region I has concluded that the
discharges to be covered by the general
NPDES permits will not affect or
jeopardize the continued eidstence of
any endangered or’ threatened species or
adversely affect its critical habitat EPA
has requested consultations with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to
confirm this conclusion. -
E. Environmentai Impact Statement
Requirements
The general permits do not authorize
the construction of any water resources
project or the impoundment of any
water body or have any effect on
historical p,roperty. and are not ma tot
Federal activities needing preparation of
any Environmental Impact Statement.
Therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1273 at seq.. the National
Hi toric Preservation Act of 1966. 16
U.S.C 470 et seq.. the Fish ancf Wildlife
Coordination Act. 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq..
and the National Environmental Policy
Act, 33 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.. do not apply
to the issuance of this general NPDES
permit.
VL Other Legal Requirements
A. Economic Impact (&cecut,ve Order
22866)
EPA has reviewed the effect of
Executive Order 12866 on this draft
general permit and has determined that
it is not a significant rule under that
order. This regulation was submitted
previously to the Office of Management
and Budget For review as required by the
former Executive Order 12291. The
Office of Management and Budget
exempted this action from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to Section 8(b) of that Order.
which was revoked and superseded by
Executive Order 12868.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities by these
draft general NPDES permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U S.C. 3501 at. seq. The information
collection requirements of these draft
permits have already been, approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
under submissions made for the NPDES
permit program under the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. No comments from
the Office of Management and Budget or
the public were received on the
information collection requirements in
these permits. -
C The Regulator,r F’le’czb:Iity 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 permit does not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the draft permit will reduce
a significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Dated 7Wy 6. 1994.
John i DeVWars,
Regional Adminisbrjtor.
Appendix A—Drift General Permit
Proposed Draft General Permit Under the
Notional Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)
Note: The Following draft general NPDES
permit has been combined for purposes of
this Federal R gastar notice in order to
eliminate duplication of material common to
all permits for the individual states.
I Massachusetts, Maine and New
Ffampshire Draft General Permit.
In corn pliance with the provisions ofthe
Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S C. i251 etseqj the ‘CWA operators of
facilities located in Part 11 A. which discharge
effluent from water treatment facilities as
defined in Part lB at a rate of one million
gallons per day or less to waters ne
designated in Fart II A In accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements
and other conditions set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on the
date of the signature below.
This permit and the authonsation to
discharge eapu at midnight. five years from
date of signature.
This permit consists of Part I below
including effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements etc. and Part 11 under Appendix
B. General Requirements.
Operators of facilities within the general
permit area who fail to notify the Director of
their intent to be covered by this general
permit and receive no written notification of
permit coverage or those who are denied by
the Director are not authorized under this
general permit to discharge from those
facilities to the receiving waters.
-------
&da e1 Re isIer / VoL 59 Mo. 144 / Thursday. Je)y 28. 994 / Not4cee
3M69
Signed this - day _______ A. E JueatU,pMeti reecndMvmthain each outfa effluent frmw tt eune t
1 v A. Fien Dtrmth . W Miegement Requlremerds - - facilities to receivmg wui i I ztvd hi
DiVISIOe. F eeetd 1. During the penod beginning effective - Part fl A. -
Regiun L  ‘U tS date and lasting theiugh exp rmiee.
Pail I per to ° be4ow
-
O5c$la tlni& li
Monztonng requremente
.
Av m Idy
,
Max. ày’
as &
menl 2 fre.
quency
Sanpe type
Flee MGD)
TSS ngt ._______
Settleable SeNds 4m 111). . 3
pH
Atuminum4mg4) .
LC5O&C—NOEC
Chlgnne Residuat’ ug _.
See note Al.,
30 ..... ____
.1
See note A.1..I .._.
50
02
lI iee t —
Uweek —
iftw ee —

1*J *h —
Daily -—
Oayaveraqe.
Gi .

Gi .
.
Gab.
See note A.l g . __._
See r e A.l j ..... .
See nose Al h. ._....
See noteAl k
See note A.l g
See note A.l
See note A I Ii .._._
See note A 1 Ic ...._......_. .
‘State C rb5cation recpjiremert
2 San te3 stia teicen oily when oss&iazçing. ____
3 LC-50 o the flO6tki,i vi etihient ma sarrpe D causes mor y to 50% ot me test population at a specdlc time or oE eiva1ion. No
Observed Chmnic Ett Conce ation (C-NOEC) er the tu eat mcoi n el uerd to which organisms are exposed in a ate-cycle or
tiaJ bte-cy e test wtliCh causes no adverse ailed on growth, survival and reproduction. - -
‘ Test only it chlorination is cased in the process.
5 Commwiwealto al M edaaatto oily.
b The discharge shall net muse -
obiectionabte d colomtxm of the rocaiwing
waters.
c. There shall be no discharged n”i! g
solids or visible foam. The discharge shall be
adequately tiented to inenre that the surface
water aIas free from pollutants in
concentiatIns or combinations that settle to
forwi baraif i1 depoatb. float as foam. debris.
scum or other visible pollutants. It shall be
adequateiy treated so ineire that the surface
waters remain free from pollutants which
produce odor. hsr. taste or torbidity in the
receiving water which is not naturelly
occunng and would r mJvi it unsuitable for
its designated use
d. The effluent limitations are based on the
state water quality standard end are certified
by the states.
e. Samples taken thphance with the
monitoring requh enta specified above
shall be taken at the point of discharge.
£ All discharges as designated In 13 shall
pass through a settling pond far 24 hours
minummi detention time or othar approved
treatolent 3y 5tnui and meet the effluent
limitations in Port l.2.a. poor to discharge to
waters of the states.
g. pH. Massachusetts.
The pH of the effin W be lees
than nor greater than the senge given die
receiving water dessilicadons. unless dime
values are exceeded due to oatiual ceus-
The following table specifies inages for
Massarhu i1
classiticanon
Range
. 53-8.3
8.5-0.0
85-8.5
85-9k
B
C
SB
SC
Maine
The pH range in both freshwater a nd
saltwater Ii SOlo 8.5 on. Unlees establishes
on a case.by -case basis my Stale Policyl.
New Hainpelure
The pH of the effli.rnt shall net be less
than 6.5 stondard ueita nervester then
8.0 on utney values me
e d due to natwel
h. One c and .. v 14ned .aiw toxicity
sa ng test shall be per nd by
perTnittee within 00 days ar the i eaeno
date of this ral NPD permit. One ab
sample wall be taken &nung normal facility
operation. The Ceno.daphiua dubie for fresh
waterand ses-udila Oxms iine water shell
beusedas testorgen l8msatheteat. A copy
of the test procedure and detailed protocol
will be provided upon request fr EPA.
Region I. The results of the cb3olog?cal
test (C-NOBC and U O) will be Iur..uided
to State and EPA within 30 days a er the
completion of all tests.
L The states of .. .chusetts d New
Hampshire will here a zuwth iu u daily limit
oft 0 mgd. The state of Maine will hive a
maximum daily limit of 0.15 regd.
J. Far the states of Masmehusetta and New
Hampshire report only. For the state of Maine
the men nom dusty hurt of Atannlnwn will
be5.Omgñ.
k. Far the states of Massadmsetts and New
Hampshire report aniy. Fordie state of Maine
the in umnu daily limit of chlorine residual
will be 1.0 mgfl. -
B Monutormg o.nd Reporting
1. Reporting
Maine. Massachusetts and New Hampshire
Monitoring results obtained during the
previous 6 months shell be surnnwrmred for
each quarter and reported on separate
Discharge Monitoring Report Parmfs)
postmarked no liter than the 15th dayef the
month followhigthewnipleted reporting
period. The repeite me doe on the 15th days
of Januaiy and July. The first report may
include less then 6 months information.
Signed copies of tbess,and eli other
reports required herein, shall be submitted to
- the Director a nd the State in the followuig
as follows:
& EPA sheR m ire copy of all iepoits
required NPDES P J JIUII Operations
Section. Water Cnmpllunce Branch Wuter
Management Division. Ezsvfronmental
Protection Agency. Post Office Box 8127.
Boston. MA 02114.
b. Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollutso sCooti’ol.
£11 The Regional offices wherein the
di ’hii.ge ins. shall iecitve a copy of all
reports required herein.
- Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Massachusetts Division of
Water PoUntion Continl.Westam Regional
Office. 436 Dwight St.. Suite 402.
Spnngfield, MA 01101
Massachusetts Department of Eusl nmental
Prot ,Cth,n . Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Cosatol, Southeastern
8 ional Office. 20 R vermde fkive
LakevU1e ,MA 346
Massachusetts Department of Eevi mental
Protection Mn sans DMsloe of Water
Pollution Control, Northeastern Regional
Office. to Conimerce Way, Wobiarn. MA
01801
Massachusetts Depanment of!nvironmental
Frct on, Massechupens Division of
Water Pollution Control. Central Regional
Office. 75 Grove Street. Wo lar.
Massachusetts 01605
(2) The Central Boston Office shall receive
all notifications reports other than the DMRs
required by this permit shall be submitted to
the Stales at: Massachusetts Dvparttuent of
Environmental Prot cflou . M busans
Division of Water Pallutlon Control ?th
Floor. I Winter Street. Boston, MA 02108.
c. Maine Dep I1su t of £nviww atatal
Protection. Signed copies of all lepcets
required by this p dt shall be sent to the
State of Maine Department of Enviromnental
Protection. Operation mid Matetenance
Division. State House, Station 11. Augusta.
ME 04333.
-------
- 38470
d.NewHampshlpar 0 f
Environmental Services.
Signed copies of all reports required by
this permit shall be sent to the State at New
Hampshire Department of Environmentai
Services. Water Supply end Pollution Control
Division. Permit, and Compliance Section;
P0. Box 95. Concord. New Hanipshrie
03302-0095. —
C Additionol General Permit Conditions
1. Notification Requirements
a. Written notification of commencement
of operations including the legal names and
addresse, of the owner, and operator and the
locations, number and type of facilities andl
or operations coveted shall be mitten
(1) For existing discharges as soon as
possible after the effective date of this permit.
by operators whose facilities andior
operations are discharging into the general
permit area on the effective date of the
permit. or
(2) For new or substantially increased
discharges 20 days prior to commencement
of the discharge by operators whose i cilities
andior Operations commence discharge
subsequent to the effective date of this
permit
b Operators of facilities and/or operations
within the general permits area who fail to
notify the Director of their intern to be
covered by this general penmt and obtain
written authorization of coverage are not
authorized under this general permit to
discharge from those facilities into the named
receiving waters. —
2. Termination of Operations -
Operators of facilities and/or operators
authorized under this permit shall notify the
Director upon the termination of discharges.
3. Renotlficatjon -
Upon reissuance of a new general permit.
the permittee is required to notify the
Director of his uitent to be covered by the
new general permit.
4. When the Director May Require
Application for en tndlvuluaj NPDES Permit
Any interested perso may petition the
Director to take such ection, Instances white
an indlviduaj permit may be required
indude the followingi
(1) The ischarge(s) is a significant
contributorof polludom
(2) The dlschargeris not an compliance
with the condition, of this permit
(3)Ach sngehen i -
availability of tb. d nnn.tiai .4 technology
of practices far the control or absteinent of
pollutants appliceble to th. point source
(4) Effluent limitation guideline. are
promulgated for point sources covered by
this permit
(5) A Water Quality Management Plan
containing requuelnants applicable to such
point source is approved: or
(6) The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longer:
(a) Involve, the same volume or
substantially sunder type. of operations
(b) Discharges the same type of wastes;
(c) Requires the same effluent limitations
or operating conditions.
(dl Requires the same or similar monitoring
and
Ce) In the opinion of the Director is more
appropriately controlled under a general
permit than under an Individual NPDES
permit -
S. The Director may require an individual
permit only it the permittee authorized by
the general permit has been notified in
writing that an individual permit is required.
and has been given a brief explanation of the
reasons for this decision.
6. When an Individual NPDES Permit is
issued to an operator otherwise aubiect to
this general permit, the applicability of this
permit to that owner or operator is
automatically terminated on the effective
.date of the individual permit
Appendix B: Pait II, Generai Requirement,
for all EPA. Region L General NPDES
Permits
Section A. General Requirements
1. Dutyto Comply see 40 Q?R 122.41(a)
2. Pemi,tAct,ons see 40 Q R 122 41( 1)
3. Duty to Prov,de Thformabon see 40 CFR
122.41(h),
4 Reopener aause.
The Regional Administrator reserves the
right to make appropriate revisions tq this
permit in order to establish any appropriate
effluent limitations, schedules of compliance,
or other provisions which may be authorized
under the CWA in order to bring all
discharges into compliance with the CWA.
5. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability.
Nothing in this permit shall be construed
to preclude the Instltutio of any legal action
or relieve the perinittee from any
responsibilitIes, liabilities, or penalties to
which the permittee is or may be subiect
under Section 311 of the CWA, or Section
106 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 ( .RCLAj.
6 .PoperyRights 4Q y 122 41(g)
7. Confidentiality of Information.
a. In accordance with 40 CFR part 2. any
information submitted to EPA pursuant to
these regulation, may be claimed as
confidential by the submitter. Any such
claim must be asserted at the time of
submission in the manner prescribed on the
application form or instructions or, in the
case of other submis io ,, by stamping the
words “confidential business information”
on each page contaIning such information, If
no claim Is made at the time of submission,
EPA may make the Information available to
the public without further notice. If a claim
is asserted, the information will be treated in
accordance with the procedures in 40 R
Part 2 (PublIc Informatth ),
b. Qauns of confidentiality for the
following information will be denied:
(lIThe name and address of any permit
applicant or permittee:
(2) Permit applications, permits, and
effluent data as defined in 40 Q R
2.302( )(2).
C. Information required by NPDES
application forms provided by the Regional
Adrninistmtor under § 122.21 may not be
claimed confidentiaL This includes
information submitted on the forms
themselves and any attachment, used to
supply information required by the forms.
8 Duty-to fleapply see 40C ’R 122.41(b).
9. Right of Appeal.
Within thirty (30) day. of receipt of not
of a final permit decision, any interested
person, including, the perinittee, may submit
a request to the Regional Administrator for an
Evidentiaiy Hearing under subpart E. or a
Non-Adversajy Panel Hearing under subpart
F. of 40 R part 124, to reconsider or
contest that decision. The request for a
hearing must conform to the requirements of
4OCFR 124 74.
10. State Authorn,er
Nothing in part 122. 123. or 124 precludes
more stringent State regulation of any activity
covered by these regulation,, whether or not
under an approved State program,
11. Other Laws. —
The issuance of a permit does not
authorize any injury to persons or prnoerty
or invasion of other private rights. nor does
it relieve the permittee of its obligation to
comply with any other applicable Federal.
State, and local laws and regulations.
Section B. Operation and Maintenance of
Pollution Controls -
1 Proper Operation and Maintenance see
4OCFR 122.41 (e)
2 Need to Halt or Reduce Not a Defense
ser4OCFR 122.41 (ci.
3. Dutyto Mitigate see 40 CPR 12241(d)
4. Bypass see 40 G’R 122 41 (m)
S. Upset see 4OCFR 122.41 (n).
Section C Monitoring and Records
I. Mon,tothig and Records see 40 CFR
122.41( ().
2. Inspection and Entiy see 40 R 122 41
(I).
Section D. Repàrting Requirements
1. Reporting Requirements see 40 CFR
122.41 (I ). -
2. Signatoty Requirement see 40 R
122.41 1k).
3. Availability of Reports.
Except for data determined to be
confidential tinder Paragraph A.? above, 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
Regional Administrator. As required by the
CWA. effluent data shall not be considered
confidential, Knowingly making any false
statement on any such report may result in
the imposition of criinlnai penalties as
provided for In Section 309 of the CWA.
Section if. Other Conditions
1. Definitions for purposes of this permit
are as follows.
Adrninisiiutor means the Administmtor of
the United State, Environmental Protection
Agency. or an authorized representative
Applicable standards and limitations
means all State, interstate, and Federal
standards and limitations to which a
“discharge” or a related activity is subject to.
including water quality standards, standards
of performance, toxic effluent standards or
prohibitions, “best management practices,’
and pretreatment standards under sections
301, 302. 303. 304. 306. 307. 308, 403;and
405 of CWA,
Application means the EPA standard
national forms for applying for a permit.
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 144 / Thursday , July’ 28, 1994 1 NotIces
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 59, No. 144 / Thursday, Jidy 28. 1 .994 1 No1
n luding ai ddi o s, revisidnsor
modlfl *osu *. ib. f... orleans
appsssd.by ’n i , “ ved
S ,’ th *k stay aççivved
modifications or ieas.
Amemge. The arithmetic mdan of values
taken the fr neeaysumpthesI for
param or owor the tscifled period. For total
and/orlacal aierageshsl he
the geometric mean.
Average monthly discharge limitation
means the highest alh,wable average of
“daflydischarges a calendar month.
calculated as the sum of all daily dkdimges
measured dunng a calandar month divided
by the number of dmly d di s m l
during that month.
Average week Jiuj lhnitotion means
the highest allowable average of le1ly
dpceiury a ” a lada*ed
as the awn of l daily thachaagas umesesied
during a codandar week dévsdesl by the
nurnberof daily ilisehiugni maazmed during
that week.
Best Monagesnem Practices 1MF )maans
schedules of acti a , obi tioi of
practices, maintenance rocedums, and other
mRnagPuient pta s
the pollw.on c’wotees of the iianted
States.” 5MPg also I nclude tan L -
requirements. operetieg procedures, and
practices to . amevl plant site rtmef. spillage
or leaks, sludge ea”wnste disposal, or
— from me
Best Prc,( nalJedgemeet iBPjJ— a
case-by . se d ’ aat os Best
Practicable Treatment WP]1. Best Avi il 1iin
Treatment (BA’fl or other appropriate
standard based on an evaluation of the
available testheskigy eo achieve a particefar
poliwantref4w to n. -
CcmpowiteSesnple—A nn.icring
of a minimum of eight çnbwnples colleond
at equal Intervals dtwinga 24-hour period or
lesser period as specified In ‘the section on
Morntoring and Repen eg) and combined
proportional to flow. ora mznple -
ualy a -i d pir ortIonallv to
over that s time period.
Continuous Discharge means a “discharge”
which occurs without lnter! !rw ,
throughout the operating hours of the cillty
except for infrequent absadawon for -
maintenance. process changes. or nsnila’
activ itsas.
0 1/A or “The Act” me the Clani Wnt
Act Ifonnealy refeared to as the Fademl Water
Pollution Control Act or Psdarsl Water
Pollution Corurol Act Amendments of 1972)
Public Law 92—500, asended by Public
Law 95-717, PUblic Law -576 . Public Law
96-483 and Public Law 7-tl7: 33 U.S.C
1251 et seq.
Doily Discharge means the dIscharge eta
pollutant measured during a calendar day or
any 24-hour period that reasonably
represents the calendar day for purposes of
sampling. For pollutants with limrtat ions
expresmdi.o unltsofmass. the daily
discharge is calculated as the total mass of
the pollutant discharged user the day. For
pollutants with limitations expressed in
other units of measurements, the daily
discharge Is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the day.
Director means the j ies authorized to
cign t ’JPDES permits by EPA andlor the State.
-- DlscltotgeMon,tonng Report Foizn (0MB)
meaas the ‘A standard natIonal foon.
udtng any subsequent addittone,
revisions, or modifications, lo s the reporting
• - of seif ,monitosmg results by permlttees.
DMRs must be used by “approved Zes as
well as by EPA . EPA will supply DN ts to
any ap 1 ,ved State upon request. The EPA
national forms may be m fied to substitute
the State Agency mane. sddraas, logo , and
other similar uifuwiatloa, as appiuyilale. In
place of B’Pi ’s.
Discharge of a pollu1n .wi
(a) Any addition of any “pollutanr or
combination ofpollutaxitste watess of the
United State, from any “ point 01’
b) Any addition of any pollutant or
combination Of PODt ttatIts to the af’the
“contiguous anne” or the ocean from any
point s ce other than i seseel or other
floetingaeft which esbeangusudes erneans’
of transportation.
This definition indades additions of
polluteast Into waters of the United States
from: st,foeasnnoffwbithlacoflacted or
chmiseUod by men: thsdtges through
pipe! an.ere.orotheramveyances owned
by a State, municipality, or othoiperson
.‘ wb 4onotb.dtee tm mi
discharges_through pipes. ‘ other - -
cunr )cna o posately owned
treatment works.
This term does eot1nf 4 t gna nnof
pollutants by any
Effluent limitation m s eny .uioe
Imposed by the Direcier zilias,
dlschargez , ‘ I . .ii..fi% Qf
“pollutants” which are “d1scha ad” from
“point $Oin h “ , Of the Unsted
States,” the waters of the “contigoons rie.”
or the ocean.
Effluent lan,tati g iAi4’,.i-, means a
regulation publ od bythaMmm tes’
under Section 304(b) of CWA 10 adopt or
revise “effluent [ t wr . ”
EPA means the Llartod States
“Envaro niaI Ps- ’—itn Ageacy.
Crab Sample—An inthvidnalamnple
collected In a period of lass thast 25 inmates.
Hazardous Substance m n . any subetance
designated under 4OtYR Part 116 pursuant
to SectIon 311 of CWA.
A4 ..,m,,n , 4y4s ge iimètG1iO l
means the highest allowable “daily
discharge.”
Municipality mean.sa city. town, bomugh.
county, parish, district, association, or oilier
public body coated by of under Stat, law
and having jurisdiction over disposal or
sewage, redusthal waste,, or ether wastes, or
an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribe
organization, or a designated and approved
management agency under ctron 208 of
CWA .
Notional Pollutant Osschorge E.lisvnatron
System means the national progrom for
issuing,mothfying. revoking and reissuing.
term’rnating. monitoring and enforcing
pennita, and imposing and enforcing
pivtrcatuvut F uu weuis . under sacuons
307,402, 358, and 4C5 ofCWA, The term
Includes an “nppvved psograrn,”
New th iwgvr mema any bolduig,
stricture, facility, or installation:
(a) From which there ts ar may boa
“discharge of pollutants”,
38471
of pollutants” ata poiticelazsile’prmcr*o
M t asI13,197fl
lc)Wblchisnot aew e airr e”; J -‘ -
(di Which has never recal a finally
effacfice NPD permit for dlarh rnJ!I at that
“site”. -
This definition includes an Indirect
discharger” which onmmenow disthargl.ag
Into walers of the Unded States” afar
August 13, 1979. It also Include, any existing
mobile point souothwthanaanffvhiva
driffini rig) such era pr ir g rig,
anfoo po ssiag vassal, wer gregeze plant,
that begins dIerl .iging ate “aito” hi wh1ch
it does net have a p at and an nffdii ,rm
orooastal ITW } 1.Oj andgasLcolaestary
drilling rig ormestal lle oll’aad ,gu
develop .i . ’nt-n1 drilling rig that
the dIscharge of pnfl..t.nt afar Augiest 1.3,
2979, ate slta underBPAspi m. ’ting
Jurisdiction for which Lila not oe d by an
individual osgenem] par and whichss
located in an area dathiru ad hyths
Pagi’.nel MmJmiirator in the ttzwuw eta
finel permit tabeen aresd’hithigaod
iInti,,,ntnl g whether a. is
an area otbiological concern, the Pg n si
Administrator s all rim mr the “ -
spe c ified in 4.0 ‘R 1
(101,
An nff hnm or coastal mn’hTh, “ “p t omtnzy
drilling zig or omstal nsbfl. 4aied ns I
drilling rig wflbertmt4r.ila’new
discharger” only for the deratice of its
discharge In an ares of’hIAlngksl oaru,
New source means any brn’lding , stiucture,
facility, ormastolistien nn which there iser
may be a “dis geafpfl L the
construction of which cnmn% mr1’tI ’
La) After promulgation of ctaed 2 rd of
performance under SectIon 306 a! OVA
which are app1 . hi to such.
(b) After proposal of of
performance in accordance with Section 306
of CWA which sin app lirahlazosnch.soume,
but only ffthe.tenilards are promulgated in
accordance with Section 306 wIthin 129 days
of their proposal.
NPDES m ang “National Pollutant
Discharge T,min thrn System.”
Nan-Contact ( ‘ Zing Waicria used
to reduce temperature which does nut come
in direct contact with snywv material.
intermediate p ’r .dt.r’t,a werte pi . Anrs or
finished prndiict
Owner or operator men . the owries’os’
operator a! any “focility or ictlui&y” sub ct
to regulation under the NPDES pr ns
Permit means an authczii i1ne. license, or
equiva lent control documees Issued by EPA
or an “approved State,”
Person mn nc ddeal
pamwr ihip, cerporarmo. muniapaluy, State
or Federal agency, or an agent or employee
thereof
Point source means any Ahem .ible,
confined. and dIwv .tmcanveyanca , including
but not fty. .itivt tonny ptch.dWtflAI
tunnel, conduit, wall, aiiet ri t fiui ,, .
container, g it __ _
feeding operation, vessel, or other flgai4ng
craft, from which pollutants are or may be
discharged. This i does nat Include
return flows from irrigated agriculiuro.
-------
38472
F dera1 Register I Vol. 59, No . i 44 / Thursday, Jidy 28, 19 4 t Notices
ànidredge spoiL solid waste.
Incinerator reef due. flltm backwash, sewage,
garbage, sewage thzdga. munidon chamw il
wastes, biological niateslala, radioactive
materials ( e it those regulated under the
Atomic Ener Act of 1954. as amended (42
U.S.C 2011 etseq.fl. heat, wrecked or
discarded eqwpment, sock, sand, cellar dirt
and Industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged Into water. It does not
mean:
(a) Sewage from vessels: or
(hi Water, gas. or other material which is
injected into a well to facilitate production of
oil or gas. or water derived In association
with oil and gas production and disposed of
in a well, If the well used either to facilitate
production or for disposal purposes is
approved by authority of the State in which
the well Is located, and If the State -
determines that the Injection or disposal will
not result In the degradation of ground or
surface water resources. •
Prrmory sndustiy category means any
industry category listed in the NRDC
settlement agreement (No i um! Resoui ’res
Defense Coanc,J eta!. v. Train. S E.R.C. 2120
(Di) C. 1976), modIfied 12 E.R.C. 1833
(D.D.C 1979)); also listed in appendix A of
40CR part 122. -
Process was water means any water
which, during 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 wart, product.
Regional Administrator means the -
Regional Administrator. EPA, Region I.
Boston. Massachusetts.
State means any of the 50 States, the
District of ColumbIa. Guam, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands. American Samoa. the Trust Territory
of the PUCIfiC Islands,
Secondwy Thdustr Category means any
industry category which is not a ‘primary
industry category.”
Toxic pollutant means any pollutant listed
as toxic in appendix 0 of 40 R part 122.
under Section 307(afll) of CWA. -
Uncontaminated slomi water Is
precipitation to which no pollutants have
been added and has not come into direct
contact with any raw material, intermedIate
product, waste product or finished product.
Waters of the United States meanxi
(a) All waters which axe currently used,
were used in the past. or may be susceptible
to use In Interstate or foreign commerce.
Including all waters which axe subject to the
ebb and flow of the tide:
fbi All Interstate waters, Including
interstate “wetlands,”
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes,
river,, streams (Including Intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats. “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:
(‘I Which axe 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 am used’oi. could be used for
indusinal purposes by industries in Interstate
commerce: - -
(di All Impoundments of waters otherwise
defined as waters of the United States under
this definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) (di of this definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and
(RJ “Wetlands” adjacent to waters (other
than water, that are themselves wetlands)
Identified in paragraphs (a) ’-(f) of thIs
definition.
Whole Effluent Tox icay(W57) means the
aWegate toxic effect of an effluent measured
directly by a toxicity test. (See abbreviations
Section. following, for additional
information),
Wetlands means those areas that are
Inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal -
circumstances do support. a prevalence of
vegetation typIcally adapted %r life in
saturated soi 1 conditions. Wetlands generally
Include swamps, marshes, bogs. and similar
areas.
2. Abbreviations when used in this permit
are defined below:
on. M/day or M3/day— ubic meter, per
day
mg/I—milligrams per liter
ug/I—mia ’ogrami per liter
Ibslday—pounds per day
kg/day—kilograms pe day
Temp. ‘C—4emperature in degrees
Centigrade
Temp. °F—temperature in degrees
Fahrenheit -
Turb.—turbidity measured by the
Nephelometric Method (NTU)
pH—e measure of the hydrogen ion
concentration
G’S—cublc feet per second
MGD—miulion gallons per day
Oil & Crease—Freon extractable material
ml/l—aullaliterfs) per liter
Cli—total residual chlorine
(FR Doc. 94—18333 Filed 7—27-94: 8:45 am)
eiLUNO cOOS - (pr
(OPPTS -.44 .812; FRL-4903 -.4J
TSCA Chemical Testing; Receipt of
Test Data . -
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
receipt of test data on isopropanol (GAS
No. 67—63—0) and 1.2,4-
trichlorobenzene (GAS No. 120 —82—I)
submitted pursuant to a final test rule
under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Publication of this notice is in
compliance with section 4(d) of TSCA.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION COI4TAC1’:
Susan 8. Hazen, Director.
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408), ornce of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, Rm. E—5438,.401 . M SL SW.,
Washington. DC 20460, (202) 554—1404.
TDD (202) 554 r 0551 -
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; Section
4(d) of TSCA requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting
the receipt of test data submitted
pursuant to test rules promulgated
under section 4(a) within 15 days after
it is received. -
L Test Data Submissions
Test data for isopropanol were
submitted by the Chemical
Manufacturers Association Isopropanol
Panel on behallaf the test sponsors and
pursuant to a teat rule at 40 CFR
799.2325. They were received by EPA
on June 17. 1994. The submission
describes a vapor inhalation
oncogenicity study in fischer 344 rats.
This chemical is used as a solvent in
consumer products and industnal
products andprocedures. -
Test data for 1.2.4-trichlorobenzene -
were submitted by the Chemical
Manufacturers Association on behalf of
the test sponsor and pursuant to a test
rule at 40 R 799.1053. They were
received by EPA on June 23, 1994. The
submissions describe 104-week dietary
corcinogenicfty studies with rats and
mice. This chemical is used in organic
Intermediates, solvents, dye carriers, -
transformers, and dielectric fluids.
EPA has initiated its review and
evaluation process for these data
submissions, At this time, the Agency is
unable to provide any determmation as
to the completeness of the submissions.
L I. Public Record - -
EPA has established a public record -
for this TSCA section 4(d) receipt of
data notice (docket number OPPTS—
44812). This record includes copies of
- -all studies reported in this notice. The
record Is available for inspection from
12 noon to 4 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, except legal holidays, in the
- TSCA Public Docket Office, Rm. 8-607
Northeast Mall. 401 M St., SW..
— Washington, DC 20460. -
Authority: 15 U.S.C 2603
List of Subjects
Environmental protection. Test data.
Dated: July 18. 1994.
Charles M. Auer,
Director. Chemical Control Division, Office
of Pollution Prevention and Tonics.
(FR Doc. 94—18448 Pled 7—27—94, 8 45 am)
wwso coos easo-ao-
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 140 / Friday, July 22, 1994 I Notices
37495
The new TSD provides an explanation
of the technical support for WET testing
and gives detailed guidance on
development of water quality-based
permit limitations for WET and toxic
pollutants.
Based upon its accumulated
experience in administering the WET
control program to date. EPA decided to
develop a new WET control policy to
supplement existing policy. The new
policy consists of eight policy
statements, explanations of each policy
statement, and appendices containing
background materials. En part, the policy
restates EPA ’s strong continuing
commitment to existing Clean Water Act
provisions and the regulatory
requirements at4O CFR 122.44 (d)(1)
governing the control of WET for the
protection of aquatic life. It also
addresses some specific areas where
questions have arisen regarding the
implementation of these requirements,
The text of the eight statements of
policy is provided below.
1. Basis for WET Controls
The permitting authority should
evaluate WET water quality criteria
attainment for acu e WET at the edge of
the acute mixing rone and for chronic
WET at the edge of the chronic mixing
zone except where the State has
different requirements for evaluating
WET criteria.’ The permitting authority
will develop WET effluent limitations
based upon the more stringent of the
acute or chronic criterion applied at the
edge of the respective mixing zone, or,
alternatively, on both.
2. Evaluation o(Dischargers for
Reasonable Potential
Al a minimum, the permitting
authority should review all major
dischargers for reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to exceedance of
WET water quality criteria.
3. Evaluating Reasonable Potential
The permitting authority will
consider available WET testing data and
other information in evaluating whether
a discharger has reasonable potential to
( ,ause or contribute to exceedancp of
WET waler quality criteria.
4. Consequences of Establishing
Reasonable Potential -
Upon finding reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to exceectance of
WET water quality criteria, the
‘Thto bout the policy, the tent “WET
u .jhty criteria ‘refers to ,1aie numenc wale,
• u.ihtya’iIena tot WET and Sidle tialrative waist
.lue.ifty aliens tot tostdty euctias Tho tesi In
lr .ir iounts’ In State water quslity *idflds1
permitting authority will impose
affluent limitations to control WE!’.
5. Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring
Where appropriate, the permitting
authority should impose WET
monitoring conditions upon dischargers
that do not have effluent limitations to
control WET.
6. Comp}iance Schedules in NPDES
Permits
Where allowed under State and
federal law, NPDES permits may
contain schedules for compliance with
WET effluent limitations,
7. Whole Effluent Toxicity Controls and
the Jaj t , , Ammonia and Chlorine
The requirements of the water quality
permitting regulations apply without
regard to the pollutant(s) that may be
causing toxicity.including ammonia
and chlorine.
8. Whole Effluent Toxicity Controls and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) -
1 ’he requirements of the water quality
permitting regulations apply to all
dischargers, including POTWs.
Dated July 14, 1994
Robert Perciasepe,
Assist oth A dmuustmtor for Water.
(FR Doc. 94—17918 Filed 7—21—94. 8.45 aznl
WLUNO COOS 5360.60-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
Public (nfo eation Collections
Approved by Office ot Management
and Budget
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has nicetved Office
of Management and Budget (0MB)
approval for the following public
information collections pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
Public Law 96—511. For further
information contact Shoko B. Hair,
Federal Communications Commission,
(202) 413—1370.
Federal Coinniunications Commission
0MB Control No 3060—0383
Title- Satellite Communications—par,
25
Expiration Date’ 05131/97
Estimated Annual Burden - 10.996 total
hours; 4 hours per response.
scrlpuon: Earth and space station
applicants are required to submit
information as specified in 47 (]‘R
part 25 so that the Commission may
determine whether their request
should be i ranted. The information us
used to determine the objectives of
public interest, convenience and
necessity are being met in accordance
with 47 U.S.C. 309.
0MB Control No.: 3060-0343
Title: Qualifications of Domestic
Satellite Space Station Licensees—
Section 25.140
Expiration Date: 05/31 /97
Estimated Annu J Burden: 25.000 total
hours; 1000 hours per response.
Description: Domestic fixed.satellke
station applicants must submit
information as required by 47 (YR
25.140. To enable the Comniissio to
deterrnu’ie whether the-applicants are
financially, technically and legally
qualified to construct, launch and
operate their proposed systems and
have justified the need for expansion
satellites, applicants are required to
submit specified documentation.
Federal Communications Commission
William F. Caion,
AcUn 8 Seczetwy.
(FR Doc. 94—17349 Filed 7—21—94, &4 5 .tmt
etl ,UNO COOS 13-0s -
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Emigrant Bancorp, Inc., at aI.
Formations of; Acquisitions by; and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied for the Board’s approval
under section 3 of the Bank Holding
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and §
223.14 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12
CFR 225.14) to become a bank holding
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 Ad
(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, ii will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors Interested persons may
express their views in writing to the
Reserve Bank or to the offices of the
Board of Governors, Any comment on
an application that requests a heanng
must include a statement of why a
written presentation would not suffice
in lieu of a hearing, identifying
speciflcajly any questions of fact that
are in dispute and summarizing the
evidence that would be presented at a
hearing
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received not later than August
16, )9q4.
-------
37494
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 140 / FrIday, July 22. 1994 / Notices
Nonconfidential Information Center
(NCIC). N vI—8607 at the above address
between 12 noon and 4 p.m.. Monday
through Friday. excluding legal
holidays.
V 94—a
Manufacturer. Enterprise Coatings
Company.
Chemical. (C) Aliphatic diisocyanate
polymer.
Use/Production. (C) Industrial textile
adhesive binder. Prod. range:
Confidential.
V 94—61
Manufacturer. C. J. Osborn.
Corporation.
Chemical. (C) Polyurethane alkyd.
Use/Production. (Si Pigment coatings.
Prod. range: Confidential.
V 94—88
Manufacturer. Virkler Company.
Chemical. (C) Fatty acids, tall-oil.
maleated. esters with a mixture of Cs 4 y ,
aikyl and alkoxylated potassium salts.
Use/Production. (C) Textile fiber and
fabric processing aid. Prod. range:
Confidential.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection.
Premanufacture notification.
Dated: July iS. 1994
Frank V. Caesar,
Acting Duector. Information Management
Division. Office of Pollution Prevention and
Tox:c
FR Doc. 94—17913 Filed 7—21—94; 8:45 arel
B W40 cOol M400-$
(OPPTS-00155 FRL—4.888-.31
Dry Cleaning Industry Notice of
AvaliabiHty of Comparison Study of
Conventional Dry Cleaning and an
Alternative Procees
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Notice of availability .
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the
availability of a study entitled
“Multiprocess Wet Cleaning: A Cost and
Performance Comparison of
Conventional Dry Cleaning and an
Alternative Process.” The study is the
result of a Joint EPA/industry effort that
demonstrated the viability olan
alternative non-solvent ‘wet’ cleaning
process which relies on soaps, heat.
steam and pressing to clean clothes that
are traditionally dry cleaned.
ADDRESSES: The document is available
at a cost of SI 2.00 from the Government
Printing Office (GPO). 732 North Capitol
St.. NE., Washington. DC 20401.
telephone (202) 783—3238. Ask for
document number EPA 744-R-093-4)04.
This document is also available from the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS). 5258 Port Royal Road.
Springfield. VA 22161. telephone (703)
487—4650: ask for publication P894—
108030. The cost is 327. Free copies of
the Executive Summary can be obtained
by contacting EPA’s Pollution
Prevention Information Clearinghouse
(PPIC), Environmental Protection
Agency. 40t M St.. SW., Mail Code
3404. WashIngton. DC 20460. telephone
(202) 260—1023, Fax (202) 260—1678. A
brochure on multiprocess wet cleaning
is also available from PPIC. Ask for
document number EPA 744-S-94-O01.
FOR FURThER INFCRMA11ON CONTACT:
EPA’s Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC). Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M St., SW.. Mail
Code 3404. Washington. DC 20460.
telephone (202) 260—1023. Fax (202)
260—1678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: The
Agency’s Design for the Environment
Program within the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics formed a
partnership with the dry cleaning
industry, universities, and
environmental, labor, and consumer
groups to explore ways to reduce
exposure to perchloroethylene (PCE).
the chemical solvent used by most dry
cieaners to dean clothes. In November
and December 1992. a short-term, high
volume demonstration project was
conducted to compare the cost and
performance of the alternative non-
solvent process with traditional dry
cleaning methods that use PCE. Results
of the project indicate that the wet
cleaning process appears to be
economically competitive and
acceptable to consumers. The new wet
deaning method, which can reduce the
public s exposure to toxic dry cleaning
chemicals, may be a viable alternative
for some of the nation’s dry cleaners.
Dated: June 28. 1994.
Mark A. Greenwood.
Director. Office of Pollution. Prevention and
Toxics.
IFR Doc 94—17911 Filed 7—21—94.8 45arnI
BU.W0 COOl 6560-40.4
(OW-FRL-6017-4j
Policy for the Development of Effluen
Umltatlons In National Pollutant
DIscharge ElImination System Permits
to Control Whole Effluent Toxicity for
the Protection of Aquatic Ufe: Notice
of Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTiON: Notice of availability .
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
availability of a final policy document
entitled ‘Policy for the Development of
Emuent Limitations in National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permits to Control Whole
Effluent Toxicity (WET) for the
Protection of Aquatic Life.” The
purpose of the new policy is to promote
uniform, nationwide compliance with
existing statutory and regulatory
requirements for the control of WET and
to assist permit writers in implementing
these requirements.
DATES: Copies of this document are
available beginning July 22, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of this document can
be obtained from U.S. EPA, National
Center for Environmental Publications
and Information, P.O. Box 42419,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242—2419
(Document Number EPA 833-8-94-
002).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTI
Wendy J. Miller. Office of Water, Office
of Wastewater Management. 4203. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460.
Telephone: (202) 280—3716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since
1984 EPA has undertaken various
regulatory activities for the control of
WET to protect aquatic life. In 1984,
EPA published the “Policy for the
Development of Water Quality.Based
Permit Limitations for Toxic
Pollutants.” 49 FR 9016 (March 9,
1984). The policy discusses such issues
as integration of chemical specific and
biological permit limits: chemical.
physical. and biological testing
requirements (including WET testing
requirements): and use of data.
in 1989. EPA revised the regulations
governing the development of water
quality-based affluent limitations,
including those to control WET. 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1). The regulations impose
specific requirements such as requiring
effluent limits where the permitting
authority finds “reasonable potential” tr
cause an exceedance of applicable wat
quality criteria.
In 1991. EPA revised the 1985
Technical Support Document for t1’ater
Qizality.bosed Toxics Control (TSD).
-------
36436
Federal’Re ster / Vol. 59, No. 136 / Monday , July 18, 1994 / Notues
3. Health and Research Subcommittee
MeetIng—August 4-5, 1994
The Health and Research
Subcommittee (HRS) of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) will conduct a meeting on
Thursday and Friday, August 4-5 1994,
from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Thursday
and from 8 a.m. to Noon on Friday at
the Albuquerque Hyatt Regency Hotel,
330 Tijeras NW.. Albuquerque. New
Mexico 87102, (505) 842—1234. In this
meeting, the HRS intends to review the
Office of Research and Development’s
(ORD) droft process description for
development of the Agency’s -
Environmental Justice research strategy
HRS will also evaluate and recommend
options on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s overall research
- priorities and science policy setting as
it relates to environmental justice. The
subcommittee will review ORD ’s
research suategy and definitions. The
meetlng is open to the public and
seating will be available on a first-come
basis.
Any member of the public wishing
further information, such as proposed
agenda on the meeting, should contact
Mr. Lawrence Martin, Designated
Federal Official, Office of Research and
Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. by telephone
(202) 260—0673, Fax at (202) 260—0507,
4. Public Participation and
Accountability Subcommittee
Meeting—August 4-5,1994
The Public Participation and
Accountability Subcommittee (PPAS) of
the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC) will hold its
first meeting on Thursday and Friday,
August 4—5. 1994. from 8 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. on Thursday and from Thursday
and from 8 am. to Noon on Friday at the
Albuquerque Hyatt Regency Hotel, 330
Tljeras N.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico’
87102, (505) 842—1234. in this meeting.
the PPAS intends to find ways to
improve communications, develop trust
and involve affected communities. To
this end, the Subcommittee will explore
the creation of business and industry,
stakeholder and other types of pubhc/
private partnerships to address
environmental justice concerns. Finally.
PPAS will evaluate the Agency’s
strategy to use the Geographic
Information System (GIS) program to
identify potential geographic areas of
environmental justice concern, i.e.,
define potential patterns of Inequity and
Insure environmental justice
accountability. The meeting is open to
the public and seating will be available
on a first’come basis.
Any member of the public wishing
further information, such as proposed
agenda on the meeting, should contact
Mr. Bob Knox, Designated Federal
Official, Office of Environmental Justice,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW.. Washington, DC
20460. by telephone at (202) 260—6357
Ot 1—800—952—6215 or by Fax at (202)
260—0852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the NEJAC Charter are
available upon request Please oontact
the Office of Environmental Justice
(3103), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460, 1—800—962—6215 For hearing
impaired Individuals or non-English
speaking attendees wishing to make
arrangements for a sign language or
foreign language interpreter, please call
or fax Kathy Ackley at (703) 934—3293
or (703) 934—9740 (fax).
Dated. July 13. 1994.
Clance E. Gaylord,
Designated Fe4eruj Official, .‘ ation&
Environmentoijustjce Advisory Council.
LFR Dac. 94—17382 Piled 7—15—94’ 8 45 aini
e u o sees
(FRL-4 014 -7J
Approval of Maryland’s Submission of
a Substantial Program Revision to its
Authorized National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Notice of Approval of
Maryland’s revisions to its NPDES
program; publication of EPA’s response
to public comments on Maryland’s
regulation revisions.
SUMMARY: The State of Maryland
submitted amendments to its Code of
Maryland Regulations (COMAR)
(adopted by the Secretary of the
Environment on May 6, 19 3) to EPA for
review as a revision to the State’s
authorized NPDES program. The
submitted revisions to Maryland’s
regulations are considered to be
substantial revisions to Marylands
NPDES program and can be found at
COMAR 26.08.03.07 and COMAR
26.08.04.02—1. EPA requested comments
from the public on the regulation
revisions in Federal Register notices
dated November 10, 1993 and January 3,
1994 at 58 FR 59724 and 59 FR 87,
respectively. EPA considered all public
sei rn nts In review of Maryland’s
regulation revisions. A summary of the
comments and EPA s response can be
found below.
After careful consideration of the
regulation revisions and all public
comments, EPA has determined that the
revisions satisfy the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and minimum federal
requirements. Therefore. EPA has
approved the revisions found at
COMAR 26.08.03.07 and COMAR
26.08.04.02—1. These permit regulation
revisions may now be considered
effective and may be implemented.
DATES Maryland’s regulation revisions,
COMAR 26.08.03.07 and COMAR
26.08.04.02—1, were approved by EPA
on May 6. 1994. The regulation
revisions are effective on May 6, 1994.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Helene Drago. (215) 597—8242. U.S.
EPA. Region Ill, 3WM55, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107
SUPPtEMENTARY INFORMATiON: On May 6.
1993, the State of Maryland, adopted
changes to its NPDES permit program
regulations found at COMAR
26.08.03.07 and COMAR 26.08.04.02—1.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 123.82 and CWA
304 and 402, EPA reviewed the NPDES
permit program regulation for
compliance with federal regulation. The
revisions to Maryland’s regulations were
described in Federal Register notices
dated November 10, 1993 and January 3,
1994 at 58 FR 59724 end 59 FR 87,
respectively A public notice of the
regulation revisions was also published
in the Baltimore Sun on November 12,
1993. Copies of Maryland’s regulation
revisions were available for review at
the EPA Region UI office in
Philadelphia, PA. Copies were also
available for purchase. As part of the
public comment period. EPA provided
the opportunity for a public hearing,
However, there were no requests for a
public hearing. All comments or
objections received by EPA Region II]
were considered by EPA in its review of
the NPDES regulation revisions. A list of
persons who provided comment are
provided below. A summary of the
comments and EPA’s response can be
found below.
After careful consideration of the
regulation revisions, all public
comment, and supplemental
information submitted by Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE)
in letters dated June 1, 1993, February
15, 1994 and March 23, 1994, EPA has
determined that the substantial
revisions to the Maryland’s NPDES
regulations found at COMAR
26.08.03.07 and COMAR 26.08.04 02—I
meet the requirements of the CWA and
federal regulations. Therefore, EPA has
approved the regulation revisions on
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 59.No. 136 I Monday, July 18. 1994 / Notices
36437
May 6, 1994. EPA’s approval letter.
dated May 6. 1994. to David A. C.
Carroll. Secretary of MDE, provides a
full explanation of EPA’s grounds for
approval. These permit regulation
revisions may now be considered
effective and may be implemented.
Response Summary to Public
Comments
Comment EPA should not disapprove
any pan of the NPDES regulations since
disapproval will jeopardize the
agreement reached by a group of
plaintiffs. MDE and the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation.
EPA’s response: EPA understands that
MDE. the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
and a large group of litigants underwent
a lengthy and complex negotiation to
reach the agreement that is reflected in
the revisions to Maryland’s NPDES
program.
However. EPA is obligated under the
CWA and federal regulations to review
any substantial revisions to a State’s
NPDES regulations to ensure that the
revisions meet minimum federal
requirements. It is not reasonable for
any party to request that EPA forgo its
legal duty to carefully review the
regulation revisions. EPA must have the
freedom to review, and If necessary
thsapprove. any part of the regulations
regardless of whether that disapproval
will impact a lawsuit settlement.
Comment Maryland’s Intake credit
regulation is similar if not more
reswcuve than that proposed In the
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
(GLWQI) and therefore should be
approved.
EPA’s response: EPA agrees with the
coinmentor that Maryland’s intake
credit regulation appears to be similar to
EPAs preferred option found in the
proposed GLWQL The implementation
off the intake credit regulation should
assore that any discharger that meets the
requirements of the regulation has no
reasonable potential to cause or
cactribute to an exceedance of an
applicable numerin or narrative water
quality standard. EPA finds the intake
credit provisions in Maryland’s
regulations acceptable at this time with
the understanding that changes may be
a ipropriate once the GLWQI is
Enalized.
Comment: Maryland’s regulations
provide adequate provisions for whole
effluent toxicity (WET) and are
consistent with federal law and
reg u ladon
E’A’s response: Under 40 CFR
222. ,44(d)(1). permitting authorities
establish whole effluent toxicity or
rh.. . .m . .l-SpeClflC effluent limitations In
‘ permits where a discharge
causes. has the reasonable potential to
cause, or contributes to an oxceedance
of a numeric or narrative water quality
standard. Because Maryland’s regulation
does not require WET limits where
standards violations are possible,
Maryland’s regulation Is not consistent
with federal regulations. However. EPA
understands that Maryland Is
committed to working toward providing
WET regulatory provisions that
adequately address federal regulations.
EP has agreed to approve the
regulation revisions under the following
conditions:
(1) MOE has provided an Attorney
General’s Certification, dated May 10,
1993, that defines MOE’s legal authority
to p WET limits.
(2) MOE has agreed to continue to
discuss its WET program and the issue
of WET limits outside the context of the
this regulation revision. MOE will work
with EPA to finalize, within three
months of this approval, mutually
acceptable permitting procedures that
‘will be used to place WET limits in
permits where appropriate.
(3) MDE has agreed to revise the
regulations to embody the concepts of
40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) within two years of
March 23, 1994.
Comment 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) allows
an NPDES authorized State to exercise
discretion in establiahing whether
po11u ts are discharged at a level
which will cause, have the reasonable
potential to cause, or contribute to an
excursion above any State water quality
standard. Maryland’s regulation
26.08.04.02—IC implements this
discretion by allowing the State to
determine that no “reasonable
potential” exists if a facility meets
certain specific criteria.
EPA’s response: EPA agrees that the
State determines whether a discharge
will cause, contribute or have the
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an excursion of a water
quality standard. However, in msiking
this deterii i ntf on a State must
consider, at a minimum, the criteria
found at 40 CiR 122.44(d)(l)(ii). “When
determivtiT ig whether a discharge causes.
has the reasonable potential 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 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”. Maryland must
consider these minimum critena in
determining “reasonable potential”.
Comment: There is no provision in
EPA’s regulations stating that a State
cannot exercise its discretion in NPDES
permitting on the basis of generally
applicable criteria. If EPA’s position is
that any decision under 40 R
122,44(d)(1)(i) must be made in the
context of an individual permit, EPA’s
position is legally incorrect. Maryland s
regulation at 26.08.04.02—IC Is a valid
determination that any discharges
meeting the listed criteria will not
cause, have the reasonable potential to
cause, or contribute to an excursion of
water quality standard.
EPA’s response: EPA agrees that
reasonable potential determinations
need not be made only in the context of
individual permits. EPA does not have
an objection to the concept of using a
categorical provision, as opposed to a
permit-by-permit decision, to determine
reasonable potential. However, when
EPA approves the use of any general
criteria, it is important that that general
criteria is rigorously examined to ensure
that its use will adequately satisfy all
federal requirements.
As it Is written, It is difficult to
determine whether MaryLand’s
regulation at 26.08.04.02—IC would
prevent a discharge from causing,
contributing or having the reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to an
excursion of a water quality standard.
However, the State of Maryland has
determined that the criteria listed in the
regulation is so narrowly defined that
the regulation applies only to dry
weather copper discharges to Colgate
Creek from the General Motors facility.
outfalls 001—003 and 010, located in
Baltimore, MO. EPA and Maryland have
examined the discharge in question and
have determined that It does not cause,
contribute or have the reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to a
water quality standard violation. All the
criteria listed in 26.08.04.02-IC ensure
no other facility or discharger can use
the regulation in the State of Maryland
and it is uniquely applicable to only the
General Motors facility. Due to dilution
and tidal flow found at Colgate Creek.
the specific outfalls in question do not
discharge concentrations that cause.
contribute or have the reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to an
excursion of a water quality standard.
Should another discharger attempt to
use this regulation, or another State
wish to adopt lmitnr provisions in their
NPDES permit regulations. EPA would
require specific site information, the
State’s exact rationale for a finding of
“no reasonable potential” and definitive
language which would limit use of such
-------
36438
Fedesal Regfoser / Vol. 59, No. 136.1 Monday, July 18. 1994 / Notices
an exemption to an appropriate
discharge. EPA has worked closely with
Maryland regarding this regulation and
we have determined that this regulation
is aomptable based on the specific data
obtained from MDE in letters dated June
1, 1993; February 15, 1994; and March
23. 1994.
Written Comments Received
1. Frances Dubrowski, Attorney,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
2. George Van Cleve, Attorney, General
Motors Corporation
3. Alan Bahi, Environmental Engineer,
Red Star Yeast & Products, Baltimore,
MD
4. Deborah Jennings, Potomac Electric
Power Company
S. Colleen Lainont, Balbniom Gas and
Electric, Baltimore, MD
6. The Plaintiffs induding Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company. Dehnarva
Power & Light Company, General
Motors Corporation, Beth1eh Steel
Corporation, Potomac Electric Power
Company, Maryland Chamber of
Commerce
7. Willism Riley, Bethlehem Steel
Corporation, Bethlehms , PA
8. David Carroll. Se etaiy, Maryland
Department of the Envlronmexit
Dated juec 27, 1994.
Peter it Koseeayer,
Regiono!Adminjgtr . Ezn ’zronniep j
Protect ion Agency, Region 111.
IFR Doc. 94—17379 Filed 7—1.5—94. 8.45 awl
WLLee Cone --r
FEDERAL COPiQtIUMCA1TONS
COMMISSION
1995 Worid Radlocommunlcation
Conference tndtzstiy Committee
AGENCY: Federal Comm unia o,
Commission
ACTION: R announcein of second
WRC-gs Advisory Committee Meetlng
SUMMARY: In aomrdan with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Puhlic
Law 92—463, as amended, this notice
also advises interested persons of the
second meeting of the WRC-95
Advisory Committee.
DATES: July 20, 1994; 9:00—I 1:30 a.m.
ADDRE ES: Federaj Commucatj
Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room
856, WashIngton, D.C. 2055’1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFOAMAT1O N : The WRC—
95 Advisory Committee was established
by the Federal Comunicatlons
Commkelo to provide to the agency
advice. technical support and
recommendations relating to
preparation of U.S. proposals and
positions for the 1995 World
Radiocoinmwiicataon Conference.
The proposed agenda for the second
meeting is as follows:
Agenda
Second meeting of the WRC-95 Industry
Advisory Committee, FCC, 1919 M
Street, NW., Room 856. Washington,
DC, July 20, 1994. 9:00—1130 a.m.
1. IntroductIon of Attendees
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Introductory Remarks by (lairmnan
4. Fornado i of Interim Working Group
on Future WRC Agendas (IWC-6)
5. Reports and Discussion of Informal
Working Group Activities:
• W IG— i: Regulatory Coordination
Group
• IWC-2: Mobile-Satellite Service
Below I GHz
• IWG—3: Mobile-Satelifte Service
Above 1 GHz
• IWC—4: Mobile-Satellite Service
Feeder Links
• IWC—5: Space Services
6. Brief by NTLi, Representative on
Covernmont or Preparatory
Activities
7. Discussion of Model Under
Development for MSS Spectrum
Requirements
8. Future Meeting Schedule
9. Other BusinPsa
Federal Cominunjcerj C ii 55
William F. Caine,
AøJngSeaee ry .
(FR Doc. 94-47385 FIled 7—15—94: 8 45 awl
Biu.a.o coos 6??2-O,—.J
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(FEMA -1 31. .oRJ
South Dakota; Major Disaster and
Related Deatio,
AGENCY Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Notice.
S* ARy: This is a notice of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Slate of South Dakota
(F lA—13D1 --DR) dated June 22, 1994,
and related determinations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2!. 1994.
FOR RJMThER INFORMAflOIS CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell, Response and
Recovery Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.
SUPPLEMØi INFORMA11ON: Notice is
hereby given that, in a letter dated June
21,1994, the President declared a major
disaster under the authority of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Esiergency Assistance Ad (42 U.S.C
5121 at seq.). as followst
I have detenalned that the damage in
certain arms of the Stare of South l kota,
resulting from severe sterms sad flooding
beginning on March 1.1994, and
is of suffideni severity end magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assi Act (the Stafford
Acti. I, therefore, declar, that soch $ me m’
disaster exists in the State of Sooth Dakotn
In order to provide Federal assistance, you
are
available for these purposes, such unt$ as
you find necessary for Federal disaster
assistance and admznIstj , ,rj-v pense .
You are authorized to provide Public
Assistance In the designated arms.
Consistent with the os uh er j that Fede aJ
anistance he snpplem ,g , , ,j , any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Ad far
Public Assistance wi l l be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible ems.
The time period pre ibed far the
implementation of s lon 310 1a),
Priority to Certain Apphswtians for
Public Faóhty and Public Housing
Assistance, 42 U.S.C 5153, shall be for
a period not toexceed six months after
the date of this declaration.
Notice lo hereby given that pursuant
to the authority vested In the Director of
the Federal Emergency managem
Agency under Executive Order 12148,!
hereby appoint David P. Crier of the
Federal Emergency Man mnent Agency
to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine th. following
areas of the State of South Dakota to
have been affected adversely by this
deciared major disaster -
Brookings, Brown. Clark. Codingian, Day,
Edmunds, Grant, Hand, Hanson,
Klngsbwy, McPhersoe. Marshall,
Roberts, Sanborn, and Spink for Public
(Catalog of Federal D i essicAsaistance No.
83.518, Disaster Assistance) -
James L Wits,
Director.
IFR Doc. 94—17340 Filed 7—15-94: 845 awl
BILLJUO CoO( arts-as-ar
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
(Docket No. R-0842J
Proposed Policy Statement on
Privately Operated Large.OoUar
Multilateral Netting Systems
AGENCY: Board of Governor, of the
Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Request for comment. —
SU1 ARY: The Board of Governors Is
requesting comment on a proposal to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59 No. 103/ Tuesday . May 31. 1994 I Notices
28079
(PRL-4887-63
Anal NPDES General Permit for Placer
Mining in Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 10. —
ACT)ON Notice of a Final NPDES
General Permit. -
u v: The Director, Water Division.
of Region lOis today issuing a final
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general
permit under the Clean Water Act
which will authorlz8 discharges from
placer mining facilities in the state of
Alaska.
Notice of the draft general permit was
published January 14. 1994. at 59 FR
2504. This permit is intended to
regulate placer mining activities in the
state of Alaska. EPA. Region 10 has
issued almost identical individual
permits to these facilities in the past and
intends to relieve some of the
administrative burden of issuing
individual permits by issuing this
general permit.
The final general permit establishes
effluent limitations, standards.
prohibitions and other conditions on
discharges from the covered facilities.
These conditions are based on existing
national effluent guidelines and
material contained in the administrative
record, Including Alaska Water Quality
Standards and the National Toxics Rule.
A description of the basis for any
chang iñ conditions and requirements
from the proposed general permit to the
final general permit is given in the
Response to Comments published
below.
DATES Request for Coverage: Written
request for coverage under the general
permit shall be provided to EPA. Region
- 10, as described inPartLE. oftheffna
permit. Coverage under the general
permit requires written notification
from EPA that coverage has been
granted and that a specific permit
number has been assigned to the
operation.
Administrative Recorth The
administrative record for the final
permit is available for public review at
EPA. Region 10. at the address listed
below.
ADDRESSES: Requests for coverage
should be sent to Environmental
Protection Agency. Region 10. 1200
Sixth Avenue. WD—l34. Seattle. WA
98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMA11ON CONTACT:
Cindi Codsey at 1200 Sixth Avenue.
WD—134. Seattle. Washington 98101 or
by telephone at (206) 553—1755. Copies
of the final general permit. responce to
comments and today’s notice may be
obtained by writing to the above address
or by calling Jeanette Carriveau at (206)
553—1214. .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONr -
Executive Order 12808
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Executive Order
12366 pursuant to section 6’of that
order. -
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: May13. 1994.
aLtries 8. Findley,
Director. Water Division. .
Response to Comments
On January 14, 1994, EPA. Region 10,
Issued a notice for a proposed Natiwial
PollUtant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDESJ Ceneral Permit (GP) for
AI skan placer mIners (59 FR 2504..
F’riday. January 14, 1994). During.the....
public notice period, comments were
received from National Marine FjshQries
Service (NMFS), Trustees for Alaska.
Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund,
Department of Interior (DOl), Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
(ADNRI. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation IADEC).
Utility Water Act Group. American
Rivere, Alaska Miners Association,
LlvengoodlTolovana Mimng District.
ICarl Hanneman. Steve J. McGroarty.
Roger C. Burggraf. Glenn Bouton.Paul
Manuel. Steve Masterman. Paul Sayer.
Fred Heflinger. Guy L Wiggs. and
Denise Herzog. Public Hearings were
held in Anchorage, Alaska on February
7. 1994, anc in Fairbanks. Alaska on
February 8 and 9, 1994. This document
directly responds tp the significant
comments pertaining to the GP. made in
writing and at the Public Hearings, and
the Finding of Significant impact (FNSI)
for the Environmental Assessment (EM.
1. Comment: Two cornmentors ob;ect
to the use of a general permit due to the
variations among mine sites. One
commentor recommends issuing
individual permits for all suction
dredges larger than 4 inches. In
addition, another commentor obtects to
regulating discharges from operations
utilizing the hydraulic removal of
overburden through this GP stating
these operations should be considered
in individual permits. -
Response: EPA’s NPDES regulations
(40 R 122.28(a)1 outline the
conditions under which the Director
may issue a general permit. More
specifically. 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2llui) lists
conditions the sources must meet to be
considered for a general permit.
a. The facilities involve the same or
substantially similar types of operations.
b. The facilities discharge the same
type of wastes. . -
c. Require the same effluent
limitations and operating conditions.
d. Require the same or similar
mOnitonng.
EPA has covered three different
classifications of facilities in this GP but
feels that each operation is similar to the
others in that class. The development or
the effluent guidelines for placer mining
showed that with treatment, the
pollutants of’concern were the same for
all lacilities. In addition, the Alaska
Water Quality Standards (WQS) have
been taken mnta account for two
parameters as being necessary for
additional controls. In EPA’s best
professional judgement. the second
condition applies to facilities utilizing
the hydraulic removal of overburden as
long as the settleable solids are kept at
0.2 mIlL or below. Also. suction dredges
discharging to waters of the United -
States that operate In the active stiewn
channel would have-substantially the
same types of discharged waste. EPA
believes that each category can be
regulated using the same effluent
limitations and operating conditions
and facilities in each category can be
regulated using similar monitoring
2. Comment: Several commentors
believe that bucket dredges should be
regulated under individual permits. In
addition, one commentor feels that
small bucket dredges should be
regulated under individual permits.
Rei.ponse: The Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Ore
Mining and Dressing Point Soui c.e
Category Goid Placer Mine
Subcategory includes those larger
bucket dredges as mechanical
operations. Since effluent guidelines
and New Source Performance Standaros
(NSPS) apply to these facilities, the
facilities are involved in operations
similar to other mechanical operations
and thus can be regulated by this GP
Since EPA did not include smaller
bucket dredge operations as authorized
b this GP. any application (or this type
of operation would need to be addressed
tn am’ individual permit.
-------
2g080
F oL Rqi5 ie? I VoL . *. O3’ Tuesday. 31 1 I I l & s
3. COIaP ’Tt T wo .-WTi da iz
that the . ypwu h aid with
National EnvironmenI Po cy Ad
(NEPA) I Sa new eam ii thte,mfne to
have a significant ipac1 vioL .t . .s the
NEFA p,U ___
ResporeenThe cunnnentoas are
correct bee this was not the intent of
Permit PD 1 LA.3. This part is rewutten
to read. ‘ISthm i wiflboa ’iig iiRcant
impact. the facility wilt mi uire an
Envfroinnenta} bepad S?nlament “
EPA would prepare the El as funds
became available or the new sou a
could entar a thme party agreement with
EPA and an agr u third party
contractor where the new sourco would
pay the ron m but EPA would
o e th. work.
4. C anneat TWO “eetors
• ge n.’mipanding
I I RK ) b
expansioa and a new somco.
BaspoesesTh.C2 baa dofleed -
“expanding in lity ’ La Pe itPart
Vm.a as: any iThy iace ng ha
size such as, tea the discharge bnk
• opeatingw &hiath. permit area
covered b ’itsCP ”
5. Comment. Several cci
ob a to iegu1atin discharges from
opentiona uiili,i 1 thi hydraulic
re al ci orerb dan doe to the
enynmeatal impeds th method has
onthemafoce. - -
Respaiea: The NPDES O nzm
regulates pthhatant discharg te suth
waters of the United States as mandated
by the Clean Water/jet (CWA . EPA
does not have ai ty ’nnar.i the CWA
to regulate land use. That autherity rests
with the appropriate land management
agency.
6. Comment Two conunentors
suggest that EPA clarify Permit Part
LE.1. because they baliavn that aaying
a EPA nay” mqzdrsindlviduai
permits * ‘gwesEPktoomuch
discretion.
Response The language in the CP
comes directly out of 40 ( R
122.28(al(3)(i). The regulations intended
EPA to have some discretion in making
this determination.
7. Cornment Two commentors
suggest the addition of the nad for a
Total Maximum Daily t.ond TMDLJ as
a reason for requiring an individual
—t
Responset EPA agrees and it has been
incorporated in Permit Part LE.ig.
&. Comment: Tw , ux nueeters clami
Permit Part LF..l would allow an
applicant wher lbfls into a category that
may require an individual permit tu
gain coverage under the GP until a
decision is made on the individual
permit apphicatioD.
• t L lar
The un AJ .ItiQWr w f net
the opeinterfe writing that . ermit
application Is required. If an Opvi tuF
fails to submit $ timeLy m es are
individual NPDES permit appi’cnlioaas
required, then the applicability otthis
gaical permit to the ireth*luel NPTYES
permittes . anarnaticaily terminated at
.yspe c ified rot
applicatie. sebmillaL” The Regi P
Administrator has the opportunity iret
only torequuean in luadual permt -.
application from anew applicant, but
from asr A tfaIg facility covered by the
Cpwhomsftnndon isnutaa indicated
on the Notice o(Lswrt (NOIl. The C? is
app&ableraa new applicant only if
they me in a category authorized by the
GP. Civvz n is net granted anti? the
applicant hasbeeiz notlfidaccordingto
Permit t LP.4.
9. Comment: Two commentors claim
there isa discrepancybetw.eePeu’miI
Part I.F.4. and LE.1. as to when onvuags.
is effective because ILl. implies that a
facility that may require an individual
permit is covered by the CF until
spense: P it Part TEl. slates:
“The Regional Administrator may
require any person avtherir2d by this
permit to apply for and obtain an
lndl iduaJ NVDE3 permit whom’; then
lists the sitiretlea wileD an individual
permit maybe required. These is
nothing in this part that indicates an
opsi on would be covered by the C?
if it requires an individual permit (see
previous coannent). The GP indicates in
both LFi. and LF.4. that the applicant
will be notified in writing that coverage
Is granted. ____
10. Comment: Two commentors claim
that Permit Part LE .5. gives a permittee
automatic coverage tinder the GP if they
are denied an individual permit.
Pee ponw Permit Part I.E.5. states that
If a feclity. already coveted by the C?,
applies for and is denied an individual
permit that coverage will automaticalty
be reinstated under the C?. This is only
the case for permittees already covered.
not just authorized by the C? otherwise
coverage could not be reinstated as is
specified. -
11. C nnm nt: Two coinmentars
suggest that a limitation for total
suspended solids (TSS) he required in.
the placormirnng NPDES permits
because the settleable solids effluent
guideline value of 0.2 m I / I. does not
provide u onable assurance that the
state water qimlity standards for
sediments is met or in the alternative
that TS should be to logy-based
limited on the permit wrfter s Best
Professional Judgement (BPJY.
Response: Effluent guidelines do r
— TSS - he&
(bfli)(c) of the CWA re rus p ’
contain conditions necoesary to comply
with state ...to . qu. ystandsrtfs. The
Alaska WQS contain nesped& afterin
for TSS. Themfea, limb an T S would
be required only when such mits are
needed in assure compliance with
zegul’atfons or Alaska water q iaflty
standards such as sediment or t* bid11y.
Because set ahle solids, is a more
direct measure o(sedlaient impacts than
TSS it would not be appropriate tc
establish a T limit for purposes of
compliance with sediment afteria. EPA
evaluated the possibility of using a TSS
r in.lien o(the turhictliy to
assure compliance with slate tusbithty
critarma. A rev w of the data showed
-there wen no direr correlation between
TSS C nty tfn,jg
values. Therthre ae TSS limit could: be
established wh k would aesura
compliance with. the state turbidity
criteria. The e uenL limitations for
ettleabTe solids and turbidity -
adequately address nvnpflanc . with.
WQS that may be impacted by TSS in
placor mining discharges. Therefore,
EPA datarniined that it La not
to 05 * hf th limits faa 155.. However
the state of AK k2 were to include &
Ilmiarteinn for TSS in their’ Soctire 4Q -
Certification. EPA would uiia it in.
the C?. Eut the Section 401. Certification
fins been waived by the. State according
to the time specified in o CFR 1Z4.5
so no limitation for ISS. is included.
12. C’ enL Two c mmentom ob4ect
to EPA granting turbidity modifications.
to permittees under the GP because it
does not provide the public, with formal
notice and opportunity to comment as
did the in&widuel permits.
Respome Turbidity rn&a&ions.
were not available fur publi ccamment
for the individual placer mining peciruts
issued in the peaL The additional
information to caloilate the
modifications was always called for and
supplied during the public comment
period. ThaGP has allowed public
comment on. the method of determining
the turbidity modifications just as did
the individual psrmha.
13. Comment: Two commentors ob$ect
to the turbidity limitation based on the
following
a. It contradicts the basic principle of
pollution control.
b. EPA has granted a mixing zone
without going through the procedu
required by the Alaska waler quail
standards.
c. EPA has failed toaccount for the
effect ofinultipla sources of turbidity
on the same receiving water, and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 103 ’ Tuesday, May 31, 1994 1 Notices
‘28081
d. The State of Alaska has historically
taken the approach that mass balance
equations are inappropriate basis for
determining effluent limitations.
Response: The WQS at 18 AAC
70.032(a) states: “In applying the water
quality criteria set out in this chapter.
the department will, upon application
and in its discretion, prescribe in its
permits or certifications a volume of
dilution for an effluent or substance
within a receiving water * “. The
state water quality standards describe
dilution as an allowable method of
pollution control. The proposed permit
does take Into account other man made
sources of turbidity on the receiving
water. Permit Part U.D.1.c. states that
the “natural” background shall be -
measured for turbidity, where “natural”
background is defined as the level
upstream from all mining and other
man-made disturbances. The state has
taken the position that a mass balance
equation is not appropriate for volume
based limitations. Turbidity is not a
volume based. limitation. The values
used in the mass balance equation for
turbidity assume the worst case
scenario. The summer low flow for the
stream (3Q2) is the upstream flow and
the highest estimated effluent flow as
used. This should account for slight
variations in operation. - -
14. Comment: Two commentors
indicate that the arsenic limitations in
the placer permits will not have
sufficient public participation to
determine If they are protective.
Response: This option is an EPA
interpretation of the WQS and
discharges up to “natural” background
will be included in the permit as an
option to determine the arsenic
limitation, l ithe state of Alaska
disagrees with this interpretation in
their Section 401 CertIfication, then this
option would not be included in the CP.
The Section 401 Certification has been
waived according to the timeframe
specified in 40 CFR 124.53. -
15. Comment: Several commentars
indicate that the effluent limitations in
the permit will not prevent placer
miners from violating the water quality,
standard for metals other than arsenic
and limitations should be included in
the permit based op site specific
information. One commentór indicates
that there are two studies by Hamilton
and Buhi dated 1990 which should be
considered.
Response: The combination of the
rethtulatlon of process water and the
removal of settleable solids in any
waters discharged from the mines will
adequately control all pollutants found
in effluents In this subcntegory. These
pollutants include metals which are
reduced with a reduction in the solids.
The decision by EPA to rely on the
settleable solids limitation as an
Indicator was specifically upheld by the
Ninth Circuit in Rybachek v. EPA. It
was also upheld by the Superior Court
for the State of Alaska in Stein v. State
because Trustees did not produce post-
1989 klational Effluent Guideline
evidence that toxic metals, other than
arsenic, discharged from placer mines
violate WQS. Although the publication
dates on the studies cited are post-1989,
the actual studies were conducted prior
to guideline development.
16. Comment: Two commentors claim
that EPA must apply technology-based
limitations from the National Effluent
- Guidelines to suction dredges.
Response: In the development of the
Effluent Guidelines for placer mining,
the only type of dredge specified as
being covered by the guidelines were -
bucket dredges so effluent guidelines do
not apply directly to suction dredges.
Suction Dredges are regulated by BPJ
according to 40 CFR 125.3. Based on
BPJ. the effluent guidelines for
mechanical operations do not apply to
suction dredges and the requirements
included in the CF do ppply to this
category of discharger.
17. Comment: Several commentors
suggest that Permit Part N.A. be
changed to reflect that the turbidity
measurement should be niade at.natural
background.
- Response: EPA agrees and has - -
modified this part of the GP.
18. Comment: Two coinmentors claim
thaj the GP lacks an effective reporting
requirement for the technology.based
limità In Permit Parts ILA.1.a. and
ILB.1.a. They suggest specifying an
exact procedure to determine
conrpliance with these requirements.
Response- This is accomplished in
two parts of the GP. The first Is-in
Permit Part fflA4. which states that the
amount of new water allowed to enter
the plant site for use in ore processing.
shall be limited to the minimum amount
required as makeup water for processing
operations. The second is in Permit Pars
114.2. and U.B.2. which state that
effluent discharges are prohibited
during, periods when new water is -
allowed to enter the plant site. -
Additionally, there shall be no
discharge as a result of the intake of new
water. The combination of these two
provisions prevents the discharge
volume from being any more than the
volume of groundwater infiltration.
drainage and mine drainage at the site.
Reporting of non-compliance is required
in Permit Part IV.G.2.c.
10. Comment: Two cominentors claim
that EPA’s proposed reliance on cell-
monitoring is an abdication of EPA’s
regulatory responsibility.
Response: The Clean Water Act
prescribes self-monitoring in Section
308(a)(4)(A)(iv) which says that the
Administrator shall require the owner or
operator of any point source to sample
such effluents in accordance with such
manner as the Administrator shall
prescribe. Self-monitoring is a
cornerstone of the NPDES program and
shall remain Incorporated into this CP.
20. Comment: Two commentors claim
that recreational suction thedgers utilize
dredges with 4 to 6 inch Intake hoses
and recommends that EPA change the
size of the dredges regulated by this
permit to greater than 6 inch Intake
hoses.
Response: EPA has completed a
literature research project considering
the environmental effects of all suction
dredge operations and potential controls
that could be placed on them. Based on
this research. EPA has concluded that
‘suction dredges with intake hoses of
greater than 4 inches may cause
envuonrnental impacts and will be-
covered by this GP. EPA has observed
commercial miners using dredges with
intake hoses less than 6 inches. It does
not matter If a auction dredge is
recreationaL Larger recreational suction
dredges may cause environmental
impacts similar to small commercial
operations. - . - - -
21. Comment: Two commentors
suggest that new facilities should be
allowed to submit an NOl and have a -
permit within thirty days of the
submission. Also, another commentor
dalins that the CP notification
requirements are too restrictive because
the average summer tourist bringing a
five or six inch dredge to Alaska for
vacation cannot dredge because their
application should have been received
by January 1. - - -
Response: EPA.cannot guarantee a
permit within a specified timeframe
because there may be instances where
information needs to be clarified, or the
facility may require an individual
permit and it would not be feasible to
issue a permit in 30 days. The language
,in Permit Pert l.F. has been changed to
‘require NOIs by January.i only for those
new facilities subject to NSPS. Other
new facilities will only be required to
submit an NOl 90 days prior to
discharge. This allows time to review
the NOl and for the applicant to receive
a permit. -
22. Comment: Several commentors
suggest that the methodology for
determining a turbidity modification be
included in.the permit as well as the
Fart Sheet. -
-------
Fedssnl Ragister I Vo’. 59. ! f 103 t Tuesday. May31 , t £ ___
1 espaaw EFAagre rd h
modified Part lLA.L and lL&t te
Include the methodology ro t th dit,
modifications.
23. Co,nn nF Two nx
secomznenzl inserting “whom
applicable” after the term “recycle
system” La Permit Part U .D.i.b..
concerning the visual inspection of a
facility because all facilities do not
utilize recycle 5y trdw .
Response The addition of the phrase
“where applicable” may be confusing to
the permittee because the permittee may
decide that recycle is not applicable t
a certain site and that discharging is the
applicable way to opernia. EPA does not
require the records to show a daily
inspection of the recycle system it it is.
determined that recycle is not
necessary.
24 Comment: Severel comm n nrs
• - su est that the phrase ‘dredging in the
waters of the United States La permitted
only within the active stream channe1’
be modified to make It possibla to
operate dredges that do not dlccharge to
waters of the United States or do so only
after treatment.
Response: Permit Part 1lL 1. is
quoted above and it app lie s only so
these suction dredges operating in
waters of the United States.. This
requirement does not appiy to those
- suction dredges aperatlng and
discharging outside waters of -the United
States. Those facilities with treatrnenL
would beexpectedtomeot the
limitations kr!?thung operations
utilizing similar treatment.
25. Co,irmt,,t: One mu witor
recommends that the GPspecificafly nat
prevent the removal of settleable solids
here settling ponds far use in
reclamation activities.
Response: Permit Part V.F. does not
prevent solids from being removed from
the pond for reclamation activities.
However, care should be taken during
on that solids do not enter
wate of the tlnit.d Sates. Totally’
rec nsd areas. released from bond. see
5 uh r to no water discharge permits.
26. Conenent Two commentors
recommend that the C? require
notification for planned aiterutiom
when the ff” ed pollutant that is
discharged is subject to theeffluent
limitation., in the permit.
Response: EPA agrees and this
provision has been added to Permit Pail
VLB. of the proposed GP. This will
make it pozible to-re -issue a GP toe
facility to reflect changes made that may
affect effluent limitations, especially
turbidity.
2.7. Comment Two cominentors
recommend that if modirw’ rin.s are
made to the proposed GP that
cone ndfng medifications be made to
the FactSbegr.
Responser The Fact Sheet Is the
docnment diet supports the theft
general penmt and Is In its this] form
when it goon tnpublicnotfce. .Aay
changes to the general permit from
propeeed to final will be supported
througb this Response to Carrmients and
the Slat&s Section 401 Certification, if
any.
28. Comment: One coimnentor would
Like Permit Fart LE.2. to specify that
EPA will notiPy the permitter by
certified mail due to the fact that they
may leave the state for several months
and not receive their mail until they
return ,
Response: This change has been made
to the GP although it Is EPAr
experience that after a short period of
time, even unclaimed certified mail is.
returned to-the sender.
29. Comment: One commentor
suggests that Permit Part LP.1.a. be
changed to remove the phrase “no later
than 90 days after the effective date of
the permit” due to circumstances that
may make thedeedline irnpossrble to
meet.
Resse:Fermrtit Part l.F.La. is
applicable to existing facilities whose
permi omespiring or those needing
permits. Provisions have been made for
new fàzi tfes not subtect to New Source
nenceSaridards (NSPS) In
Pennit Part LF.Lc. and for existhig
facilities i Permit Part LF.T.a.
30. Comment: Onecammentor
seggestetheLssiaeofa GPbeing
autematfenity terminated upon issuance
of an iudMd I permit be addressed in
the conditions of the individual permit
in Ca facflity needs the individual
permit as waif as the GP.
Re sponserlf EPA were to issue an
Individuef pvwut to a cility. it would
Incorporate the necessary requirements
of the CF into the individual permit to
lessen the the permnittee
woeld need to keep track of (i.e., one
discharge mu mitu iug report, one
reapplication. et L Tlurs, the CP would
no longer apply and would
automatically terminate upon the
Issuance of sir individual permit.
31. Comment: Two cornmentors
suggest modifying Perririt Part LF. to
allow the use of the ADNR’s Annual
Placer Mining Application (APMA) to
serve on the NOT for the GP.
Response: EPA will accept. but cannot
require. an APMA as an NOL for this C?
as long as.the APMA contains all the
Information on the information sheet in
Appendix A of the GP.
32. Comment: One commentor objects
to the i’equirenwm to monitor settleable
solidsoarn per clay of cfischarge
suggest gthat.thia £s.s.naw daflnitic
and recommensk that. the mnnniZothi
frequency be returned to the prevloua.
requirement of on pee day of
operation..
iTesponse:Plevfously issued permits.
did not contain a requiremerit that
settleable solids be mnnitored “once per
day of operation.” In AckeLsv. Uruled
States Environmental Protection Agency
(9th CIt. 19 L the issue of monitoring
settleable solids was decided on the
1985 and 1987 permits for placer
mining which states: “The CWA [ Clean
Water Actt regulates. and MPDES-
permits place conditions an.
‘discharges’of pollutants. To monitor
for compflance wiTh an NPDES permit.
therefore,, a placer miner must monitor
discharges of pollutants caused by his. or
her placer miner activities whenever
such discharges oaur. not just an days.
when sluicing occurs.”? F3d 862.
33. Comment. One cammpnror objects
to the monitoring frequency for flow
and suggests once per week while.
operating instead of once pee day..in
addition, others request that the flow
monitoring requfrement of the permit be
decreased from once per day toonce par
month user
a. Effluent ifow is static unless these
Is a storm event:
b, In a storm event, the ynhim
receiving steam will Increasa much.
more in proportion to the effluent and
c. During a storm event ALa.skaa
streams naturally exceed any limita in
the permit.
Response: Since the 9th CircuiT Court
upheld the requfrement .ofmanitciring
sertleable solids once per day of
discharge. the flow monitoring
frequency is not an onerous additionaL
burden to the settleable solids
monitoring. See the previous commi’n
for further details,
34. Comuicut Several cammentors are
op d to- any requirement fbr written
reports otherthan the aunual Discharge
MonitoringReport (PM The objection
Is to Permit Part IV.C.2.c. which says
that any violation of the effluent -
lImitations it, Permit Parts lift, and 23.
should be reported In writing to EPA
within the shortest reasonable period of
tims.
Respoase!n the past, placer mining
permits have rIot ccmtamed reporting
reqeiremunts which other NPDES
permits centaur including notice of
violations by phone within 24 hours
and a written report submitted within 5
days of becoming, aware of the violatu’-
This is duo to the unreasonablenessi
the imposed timeframne. EPA does QOL
believe that requiring a report in writing
In the shortest reasonable period of time
ic unreasonable. The commentors
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 103 I Tuesday. May 31. 1994 I Notices
28083
themselves have indicated in other
comments that there would be times
when the miner would need to leave the
mine site to get supplies. It does not
seem unreasonable that, at this time, the
miner could send a report to EPA if it
is necessary.
35. Comznent One coznmentoy
indicates that turbidity modifications
should be done for the body of water
that the receiving stream flows into and
not for the receiving stresm directly
because the diccharge does not affect the
receiving stream. The cornmentor
objects because another permittee on a
nearby stream has a much higher
turbidity modifir ition than does his
permit.
Response: The WQS serve to protect
the water which is first and most
severely impacted by the discharge. The
WQS used not only protect aquatic life
but also protect the receiving water for
use as a water supply and contact
recreation. The application of a
turbidity modification considers severai
things induding the size of the
receiving water’s drainage area and the
effluent flow from the facility. These are
the factors which can cause one
perTnittees turbidity modification to be
different than another.
36. Comment. Several cominentors
indicate that the arsenic standard
should be changed in the GP because it
is too low. Several other commenjors
express concern over the arsenic Limit
being lower than the detection limit.
Response: In establiching the arsenic
limit. thr”Ainendments to the Water
Quality Standards Regulation;
Compliance with CWA Section
303(cJ(2RB); Final Rule” (57 FR 6084.
Tuesday. December 22. 1992) are used.
This rulemaking promulgated the
chemical-specific numeric criteria for
pnority toxic pollutants necessary to
bring all States into compliance with the
requirements of the CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B). The primary focus of the
rule is the inclusion of the federal water
quality criteria for pollutant(s) in State
standards as necessary to support water
quality-based control programs (e.g.
NPDES permits)... The federal human
health standard of 0.18 tigfL total
recoverable arsenic is applicable to
Alaska and this number has been used
to derive the end-of-pipe limitation for
theGP.
37. Comment: Two commentors
mention that there should be a saucing
zone for arsenic. Additionally, several
other commentors believe this GP does
not prohibit a mixing zone and suggest
that the permit specify that a mixing
zone is available if ADEC approves.
Response: Mixing zones are allowed
under the Alaska standards for some
pollutant discharges. However. 18 AAC
70.03 2(a) states. “In applying the waler
quality criteria set out in this thapter
the department will, upon application
and in its discretion. prescribe in its
permits or certifications a volume of
dilution for an effluent or substance
within a receiving water unless
pollutants discharged could -
bioaccuthulate concentrate or persist in
the environment; cause carcinogenic,
mutagenic, or teratogenic effects or
otherwise present a risk to human
health• “ Aisenic is a carcinogen.
In a letter, dated March 24. 1992. from
the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Commissioner, John Sander, to EPA
Water Division Director, Charles
Findley, the State has interpreted this to
mean that “ a mixing zone may be
prescribed where there is no remonable
expectation of an adverse effect on
human health or aquatic life, based on
site-specific, chemical, physical and
biological chaiacterisuca,” EPA did not
propose a mixing zone for arsenic but
would include a method for
determining a mixing zone in the permit
if ADEC determines, in their §401
Certification, that such a mixing zone is
appropriate and is in compliance with
its WQS. The Section 401 Certthcatjon
has bçen waived by the State aceording
to the time specified in 40 R 124.53
so no mixing zone is included.
38. Comment’ One commentor
suggests EPA use Method 3005A for
sample preparation in advance of 206.2
so the detection level would be below
the permit limitation.
Response: This sample preparation
method is’ for Resource Conservation
Recovery Act (RQ A) sampling only and
not appropriate for NPDES permits.
39. Qmment.’ One commeotor
recommends changing the permit
limitation to the minimum level
specified in the GP as 4 izgIL This
commentor claims that this level would
be protective of aquatic life.
Response: The WQS protect most
fresh water sources for use in drinking.
agriculture, aquaculture and industrial
water supply, contact and secondary
recreation and the growth and
propagation of fish, shell fish, and other
aquatic life [ 18 AAC 70.0501. ,Tha
criteria for growth and propagation of
fish, shellfish, aquatic life and wildlife
and also for harvesting for consumption
of raw molluska or other raw aquatic life
are as stringent as any requirement
except perhaps industrial water supply
and secondary recreation. EPA cannot
arbitrarily choose a number to be used
as an effluent limitation in an NPDES
permit. There are regulations that must
be adhered to in setting any limitation.
To use the arbitrary effluent limitation
of 4 pg/L would violate 40 CFR
122.44(d) which states that: “any
requirements in addition to or more
stringent than promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines or standards
under sections 301, 304. 306. 307, 318
and 405 of CWA necessary to achieve
water quality standards established
under section 303 of the CWA.”
“Amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Regulation: Compliance with
CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule”
(57 FR 6084. Tuesday. December 22.
1992) were used to determine the
arsenic limitation. This rulemaking
promulgated the chemical-specific
numeric criteria for priority toxic
pollutants necessary to bring all States
into compliance with the requirements
of the CWA Section 303(c)(2j(B). Since
40 C ’R 122.4(a) states: “No permit may
be issued when the conditions of the
permit do not provide for compliance
with the applicable requirements of the
CWA.or regulations promulgated under
CWA,” an arbitrary number cannot be
used. The Fact Sheet (page 13) states
that: “This reporting threshold does not
authorize the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limitation.”
40. Comment: One commentor points
out that the 16th Edition of Standard
Methods (1985) is referenced in the
permit and that there have been two
editions since then and they suggest
EPA update this reference.
Response: EPA has updated this to the
17th Edition of Standard Methods
(1989) since this is referenced in 40 CFR
136. revised July 1.1993.
41. Comment: Several cornmentors
pointed out that Permit Part ll.D.4.
referenced on pages 8 and 9 of the
proposed GP does not exist in this
permit.
Response. The reference has been
corrected to read Permit Part ILD.1.d
42. Comment: Several commentors
point out that Permit Part ILD.1.c.
contains a reference to a definition in
Permit Part V.!. which does not exist in
the GP.
Response: The reference has been
corrected to read Permit Part V1II.K
43. Comment: One coznmentor
recjuests a definition of new facility and
active stream channel.
Response: The C? has defined “new
facility” as one that has not operated in
the area specified prior to the
submission of the NOL The “active
stream channel” is defined as that part
of the channel that is below the level of
the water. These definitions appear in
Part VIILoftheGP.
44. Comment: One commentor
recommends that the wording be
-------
28084
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 103 I Tuesday, May 31, 1994 / Notices
changed in Permit Pait LF.1. from
“owners or operators of facilities
authorized by” to ‘owners or operators
of facilities to be authorized by.”
Response: The facilities authorized by
this GP are specified in Permit Part l.B.
whose title has been changed to reflect
this. The facilities to be covered by the
GP may be a smaller universe,
specifically those filing NOIs and being
granted coverage in writing.
45. Comment: One commentor
recommends EPA initiate coordination
under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act due to the presence of
critical habitat for sea lions in the
coastal areas.
Response: EPA received a species list
including the N ff S species of concern.
Comments received from NMFS
indicated that the concern was the
critical habitat of the species. Since this
water discharge GP is written to protect
aquatic life or human health (whichever
is more stringent), no alterations of
habitat due to water discharges
authorized by this GP should occur.
Consequently. formal consultation for
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
is not necessary.
46. Comment: One commentor states
that this GP requires 100% recycle and
this Is unnecessarily restrictive because
some miners can operate without
recycling or discharging.
Response: The GP requires no
discharge of process water. It does not
specify that 100% recycle is the only
way to accomplish this.
47. Comment: One comnlentor objects
to the use of 5 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTUs) above background for the
turbidity limitation because this is the
Limit for waters classified for contact
reaeation. He recommends changing
this to 25 NTUs above background
because this level is the threshold at
which impact on aquatic vertebrates
occurs.
Response: The WQS protect most
fresh water sour for use In drinking,
agriculture, aquacultura and industrial
water supply, contact and secondary
reaeatiou and the growth and
propagation of fish, shell fish, and other
aquatic life 118 AAC 70.0501. The
turbidity limitation must protect all of
these and to ensure compliance with the
WQS. EPA assumed worst case
conditions and used 5 NTUs above
natural background as a limit
48. Comment: Two commentors object
to using “total recoverable” as the way
to measure arsenic because it does not
take into account the toxicity of the
various valence states of arsenic and the
compounds it can form.
Response: In establishing the arsenic
limit, the “Amendments to the Water
Quality Standards Regulation;
Compliance with CWA Section
303 (c)(2)(B); Final Rule” (57 FR 6084,
Tuesday. December 22, 1992) are used.
This specifies that the metals are
expressed in terms of total recoverable
(40 CFR 131.36(c)(4)(iii)J and 40 CFR
122.45(c) states that “All permit effluent
limitations, standards, and prohibitions
for a metal shall be expressed in terms
of ‘total recoverable metal’ as defined in
40 CFR part 136.”
49. Comment: One commentor claims
that the measurement of background for
arsenic is different from that of
turbidity.
Response: The tables in Permit Parts
ILA.i.b. and ILB.tb. express the
measurement of background as the
“natural background” for both turbidity
and arsenic. The commentor may be
referring to Permit Part lI.D.1.c. which
stated that the background be monitored
with no reference to natural
background. This part has been changed
to correspond to the rest of the GP.
50. Comment: One commentor
indicates that the Management Practices
in Permit Parts IILB.1. and 2. of the
proposed GP contradict each other
because one says dredging should take
place in the active channel and the
other says to do it In quiet pools.
Response: Permit Part 111.8.1, does say
that dredging should take place in the
active stream channel, whereas Permit
Part IILB.2. states that discharges from
dredging operations, wherever
practicable, shall be set into a quiet
pooL It is possible for the discharge to
be guided away from the actual
dredging site and discharged to any area
where it wiU settle out faster.
- 51. Comment: Several commentors
suggest that Permit Part 1.C. be darified.
Response: To clarify the meaning of this
part, the title has been changed to
“Additional Requirements,”
52. Comment: Several commentors
believe that the expiration date of the
permit is unclear and suggest this
permit expire 5 years from the date of
issuance for each facility.
Response: The language in Permit Part
LG. has been clarified. This GP will
expire 5 years from its effective date as
determined by 40 FR 124.20.
53. Comment: Several commentors
object to the definition of “natural
background” and suggest that the
definition of”natural conditions” from
the WQS (18 AAC 70.110(29)1 be used
in its place because it says that the
natural condition is the condition of the
water at the site prior to impacts from
the facility.
Response: The WQS at 18 AAC
70.110(29) states ‘natural condition
means the sum of the ph sir.al.
chemical, biological, or radiologica’
conditions that exist in a water bad,,
before any human-caused discharge to.
or addition of material to the water,”
The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation does not
interpret this definition to mean that
this is the condition of the water before
a facility discharges to it with no regard
as to what is upstream of the site. On
the contrary, ADEC considers natural
condition to be the condition of the
water prior to any man-made
disturbances in the watershed and
suggest that if this cannot be determined
in the watershed that a similar
undisturbed watershed should be used
to determine the natural condition,
54. Comment: Several commentors
have concerns about the once per day
visual Inspection and suggest that the
GP require the inspection only when the
operator is on-site,
Response: The co inmentors concerns
are valid. The GP has been changed to
require a visual inspection daily during
the mining season when the operator is
on ’site.
55. Comment: Several commentors
wished EPA to clarify Permit Part U.D b.
relating to what the records should
include.
Response: To Clarify this part, it
been changed from “These records s.
include, but are not limited to, an
evaluation of the condition of all water
control devices such as diversion
structures and berms and all solid
retention structures such as berms,
dikes * “ to “These records shall
include an evaluation of the condition
of all water control devices such as
diversion structures and berms and all
solid retention structures including, but
not limited to, berms, dikes
56, Comment: Several cominentors
express concern over the method of
measuring flow for the GP and request
guidance on how to measure flow from
a facility that has no discharge from a
pipe or constructed pond overflow.
Response: To provide the requested
guidance. the sentence. “U measurement
is impractical, the operator must make
a good faith effort to estimate seepage
discharging to waters of the United
States each day that seepage occurs,”
has been added to Permit Part fl.D.i f.
57. Comment: Several cornmentors
request that reasonableness be taken
into account in Permit Part IILA.5. and
suggest that the Management Practice
read “ harms, dikes, pond
structures. and dams shall be reasc
maintained to continue their
effectiveness a”
Response: EPA does not view the
addition of the word “reasonably” to
this management practice as changinv
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 103 I Tuesday . May 31. 1994 I Notices
—
28085
the intent of &t consequently. this
change has been made to the GP.
58. CommenL Several commentors
would like the term ‘ mining season”
defined.
Response: EPA has never contended
that there was a set timefrsme fore
mining season. Racogniring that there
are various levels of mining intensity.
however. EPA has defined mining
season for a particular facility In Permit
Pail VIILLas “the thee between the start
of mining in a caLendar year and when
mining has sad forthat seine
calendar year.”
59. Comment; Several commentors
recommend that Permit Part 111.3.6.:
a. Distinguish between requirements
for reclaimed and unreclaimed areas
and which need to be addressed at the
end of the mining season:
b. Change the words “after the mining
season” to “when mining has ceased for
a particular season;” end
c. Claim the word “additional” is
superfluous.
Response: The commentors are
correct that a distinction should be
made between unieclaimed and
reclaimed lands. Runoff from lands that
are fully reclaimed and have been
released from bond are riot subject to
any water discharge permits. The permit
has been changed to reflect this
distinction. The term “mining season”
has been defined In Permit Part VULL
(see previous comment) so the language
in the CP will remain. Because it is
redundant to have a sentence containing
the word “additional” and the phrase
•‘over those resulting from natural
causes,” the word “additional” has been
deleted from the CP.
60. Comment Several commentors
recommend that EPA clarify Permit Part
V.G. so that bypasses of water around a
site for the essential nu intenance and
efficient operation of the mine are not
included as effluent. The commentors
recommend that Permit Pails V.G.2. and
3. be deleted.
Response: Bypass. as referred to in
Permit Part VG.. is dnflnnd In Permit
Part VIfl.B. as “the intentional diversion
of wasts streams around any portion of
a treatment facility” (emphasis added).
Since water that has no contacl.with the
mine site is not considered a waste
stream, the bypasses that the
commentors refer to are diversions not
bypasses as defined in the CP. The CP
contains this condition based on 40 R
122.41(m).
61. Comment: Several commentors
request that the Fact Sheet be included
with the proposed CP along with other
supporting material be maintained as
part of the GP.
Response The Fact Sheet and other
supporting material will be maintained
as part of the Administrative Record for
the final GP.
62. Comment: One commentor
recommends that more guidani’ he
given to the operator in taking samples
for turbidkty. both effluent and natural
background. One cominentor suggests
specifying a time frame of 15 ninutes
rather than a “reasonable time.”
Response: While EPA would like to
give more guidance to the operator in
taking samples, a timeframe of 15
minutes between effluent and natural
background would be unworkable in
some cases. The natural background is
defined as being upstream from any
man-made disturbance and while this
may be right upstream from the first
mine on a stream, it could be many
miles faran operatorciose to theend of
the stream. Specifying a “reasonable
time” is appropriate under these
circumstances.
63. Comment.’ One commentor urges
implementation of additional B
Management Practices (8MPg) to protect
stream banks and ripanan habitat
restore pool, riffle, and stream habitat
for flsh and remove fish barriers.
Response: EPA does not believe these
practices are reasonably ne -ssary to
achieve effluent limitations or standards
under 40 ClR 122.44(k).
64. Comment.’ One commentor objects
to turbidity modifications and a visual
turbidity location for suction dredges
stating that these are federally -
sanctioped mixing zones and have not
gotten full treatment under NEPA.
Respoi1 : Mixing ne designations
or implementation of WQS are not. per
Section 5 11(c) of the CWA. defined as
a “majo, .federal action” subject to
NEPA.
65. Comment: One coinmentog’
requests information on the standard of
proof EPA will hold ADEC to if a mixing
zone is proposed for arsenic.
Response: ADEC would have to show
that there would be no reasonable
expectation of an adverse effect on
human health or aquatic lil a from the
mixing zone.
66. Comment: One commentor
recommends including guidelines.
objectives, or imteria to prevent mines
being left at the end of the season in
such a way that flushing. eromon and
degradation will not occur.
Response: The Management Practice
1 Permit Part lll,A.8. addresses this
Issue.
67. Comment: One commentor
recommends that the Standard
Condittons of Alaska Department of
Fish and Game’s (ADFG) placer permits
be adopted as part of the proposed GP.
Response: EPA has incorporated
several of these Standard Conditions
into the proposed GP as deemed
- appropriate. The other conditions in
ADFG’s permits canlain issues that the
NPDES program has no authority over
and as such, cannot be regulated in the
GP.
68. Comment: One commentor
requests the scientific basis for
requesting suction dredges to discharge
into “quiet pools” where fish routinely
hold.
Response: EPA does not require
discharges into “quiet pools” at all,
much less “quiet pools where fish
‘routinely hold”. The purpose of
discharging to a quiet pool is to inciease
the opportunity for discharge material to
settle more without going downstream.
69. Comment: One commentor ob ects
to the storm exemption stating that
reasonably predictable flooding is more
along the lines of a fifteen or twenty
year flood event of 12—16 how’s rather
than the 5 year, 6 hour storm event as
stated in the proposed CP.
Response: The storm exemption is
designed to provide an affirmative
defense to an enforrampnt artion EPA
recognizes that mines should not be
required to construct treatment for the
maximum precipitation event or series
of precipitation events that could oocur
with the resulting effects on wastewater
and mine drainage discharge flows. EPA
has established, through the
development of Effluent Guidelines, the
aitetia for designing. constructing. and
maintaining the wastewater treatment
facilities. The facilities must be able to
contain and treat the maximum volume
of wastewater resulting from processing
ore dunng a4 hour period plus the
volume that would be discharged from
a 5-year. 6-hour precipitation event. The
stone exemption is contained in 40 CFR
440.141(b) bait can only be used as an
affirmative defense if all requirements of
the regulation are met lie., compliance
with the BMPs in 40 Q’R 440.148 and
related provisions of its NPDES permit.
and compliance with the notification
requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(m) and
(nil.
70. Comment: One commentor objects
to the use of the GP to cover mine sites
that are located over known minable
deposits of heavy metals other than gold
and if the mine site has been historically
mined using merculy.
Response: In the development of the
Effluent Guidelines for Placer Mining.
EPA conducted sampling and analysis
at facilities which represented a wide
range of locations, operating conditions.
processes, water use rates, topography,
production rates, and treatment
technologies. From the sampling. EPA
-------
8I 6
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. i03 / Tuesday,’ May 31.. 1994 / Notices
selected cettleable solids a.s the only
pollutant of concern to be regulated by
the effluent guidelines and the sampling
indicated no high levels of any metals.
The quantities and (rentability of
pollutants in these treated wastewaters
form the basis for selection of pollutant
parameters for regulation. The
Administrator is required by the CWA
to consider the regulation of all toxic
pollutants and categories of pollutants
listed under Section 307 but is not
specifically required to regulate any of
them.
71, Comment: Two commentors object
to the “nuxing zone” given to suction
dredges. -
Response: The WQS at 18 AAC
70.032(a) states that “In applying the
water quality criteria set out in this
chapter, the department will, upon
application and in its disaetion,
prescribe in its permits or certifications
a volume of dilution for an effluent or
substance within a receiving
water . . .“ The state water quality
standards describe dilution as an
allowable method of pollution control.
EPA proposed the mixing zone in the
proposed GP and if the State disagrees
in its Section 401 CertificatIon with this
mixing zone determination, EPA would
insert the State’s determination of the
mixing zone into the 6?. The Section
401 CertIfication has been waived
according to the thneframe specified in
40 R 124.53.
72. Comment: Several commentors
object to the monitoring frequency for
turbidity and arsenic. One commentor
objects to the monitoring frequency for
arsenic because one sampling per
season of effluent and natural
background Is not statistically valid.
Response: Monitoring for these
pollutants has been established at less
frequent Intervals because sampling and
analysis for these parameters are more
difficult and costly due in part from
requiring nature! background samples.
Samples for monitoring purposes must
be taken during discharge at a time
when the operation has reached
equilibrium. EPA believes that the
required monitoring frequencies will be
sufficient to determine compliance with
permit limitations. - ‘
73. Comment: Two commentors
suggest EPA clanfy the procedure for
suction dredgers conducting visual
inspections.
Response: The procedures are
outlined in Permit Part ILC. The visual
inspection of the stream should be done
500 feet downstream from the operating
dredge. If there is any visual increase in
the cloudiness or muddiness of the
water, it would be considered a
violation. If this does occur, the operator
must slow down or stop operations untjl
there is no longer a violation.
74. Comment: Two commentors
request a discussion of the applicability
of the GP to marine operations and
coastal areas.
Response: This CF does not apply to
marine operations. Permit Part l.B.1.b.
should have inducfed the exception of
dredges operating in open waters as
specified in 40 R 440.140(b). This
part has been changed to reflect this
comment. Operations that are
authorized by this GP and are in coastal
areas may apply for coverage under this
CF. The Alaska Department of
Governmental Coordination (ADGC) has
not given EPA a consistency
determination on the C? under the
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act.
EPA would like to expedite the issuance
of this CF and has made provisions in
Permit Part LA.5. so that facilities in the
coastal zone seeking coverage under the
CF would be able to obtain coverage
after ADGC has made a determination,
either for the facility individually or on
the GP. ADGC’s determination on the
GP could come in the form of a formal
determination or as a waiver due to the
six month review thnefranie which will
elapse on July 24. 1994.
75. Comment: One commentor objects
to the use of a visual inspection for
turbidity for suction dredge operations.
Response: The visual monitoring for
suction dredging has been included in
the GP pursuant to 40 CFR 122.43
which says that conditions not
specifically required in the regulations
can be placed in permits to provide for
and assure compliance with all
appLicable requirements of the GVA.
EPA has used best professional
judgement in determining this
requirement.
76. Comment: Several comnmentors
state that the permit only covers gold
placer mines and that other placer
mines (l,e., platinum and tin) should be
Included since the mining techniques
are for all practical purposes identical to
those covered for gold placer operations.
Response: EPA will consider these
operat ions in the next issuance of the
GP. EPA would consider it
inappropriate to include these
operations without an opportunity for -
public comment or inclusion in the EA.
77. Comment: Several commentors
object to EPA not including small
mechanical operations not authorized
by the effluent guidelines in this general
permit. Further, two other commentors
object to EPA not authonzing small
suction dredges in this GP.
Response: See comment 76.
78. Comment: Several comment ors
object to the use of the GP to re ru late
placer mines in wild and scejuc ri
and conservation system units.
Response: EPA has inducled in
possible requirements for an individual
permit. facilities where other federal or
State legislation, rules or regulations
directly or indirectly related to water
quality may apply to that facility. This
provision is found in Permit Part l.E.1 i
79. Comment: One commentor would
like Permit Part I.C. darified so it is
understood that the C? applies in wild
and scenic rivers, conservation system
units and in anadromous streams.
Response: The GP would apply in
these areas except where it has been
determined according to Permit Part
LE.1.i. that an individual permit is
required.
80. Comment: Several commentors
object to natural background being
defined as above all man-made
disturbances on the stream for
measurement of arsenic and turbidity.
One commentor suggests that EPA
designate the natural background point
Response: According to EPA’s
experience, the number of miners ho
report discharging has dropped
significantly in the past few years. EPA
expects this trend to continue For those
few miners that do discharge, EPA
determine, upon request, the poin
which the natural background sa m 1 ,
will be taken. In determining the sample
point. EPA will consider, with the input
of the permittee and/or the Alaska
Division of Mining, geologic factors,
drainage patterns, access, and the
location of active and historic manmade
disturbances. This has been
incorporated into Permit Part l1.D.1.c.
for turbidity and Permit Part fl.D.1.d. for
arsenic. -
81. Comment: Two commentors
suggest that Permit Part IILB.4. is too
all-inclusive and should be changed to
say that other permits and restrictions
-may apply if there is a possibility of
fisheries being affected by suction
dredging. Two other commenlors claim
that Permit Part lIlB.4. is loosely
worded and unenforceable. Two
commentors recommend that the
reference to harassment of fish should
be defined or deleted from Pennit Part
[ Il.B.4. -
Response: EPA believes that Permit
Part 111.5.4. is a duplication of Permit
Part l.C. and has deleted the former from
the CF.
82. Comment: One commentor claims
EPA should distinguish between th”
crLtical parameters of both intake
and engine power.
Response: EPA did not consider
engine power along with size of intake
hoses because the requirements of the
GP should suffice to minimize impai
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. o. 103 I Tuesday. May 31. 1994 / Notices
28087
The daily in pections.for dawnstream
impacts with the requirement to
decrease or cease operations If Impacts
orcur are applicable to all authorized
suction dredges regardless of engine
size.
83. Comment: One commentor objects
to EPA not considering river bottom
variability in permitting suction dredges
and suggest that EPA issue basin
speci’ic general permits to account for
this.
Response: EPA recognizes the
variability of sediment sizes throughout
a fluvial system. It is this recognition
that prompts the restriction confining
the activity to the active steam channel.
At least in this area, the percentage of
fines is typically at a minimum with
respect to the entire fluvial system and
impacts will be minimized. ‘ -
84. Comment: Two commentors claim.
- that EPA has never enforced its own or
the state of Alaska’s antidegradation
policy.
Response: EPA does not have an -
antidegradation policy but does
mandate antidegradatiorras part of a
state’s water quality standards 140 R
131.6 and 131.12). To date, the state of
Alaska has not implemented their anti-
degradation policy. The pending
standards revision address *
antidegradation. The State plans to
begin their implementation soon and
EPA Intends to work with the State in
the implementation of their policy. lEa
placer mine is shown to be affected by
the policy. It may be required to apply
for an indiVidual permit. This condition
has been added ta the proposed GP as
Permit Part IE.1.h.
85. Comment.’ Two commentors
suggest revising Permit Part llI.A.6. to
include detailed reclamation procedures
to ensure that seasonally or permanently
abandoned mines do not pollute the
receiving waters. -
Response: Permit Part IILA.6. was
included in the GP pursuant to 40 (YR
122.44(k)(3). This regulation requires
NPD S permits to contain B! s that
serve to control or abate the discharge
pollutants when the practices are
reasonably necessary to achieve effluent
limitations and standards or to carry out
the purposes and intent of the CWA. -
EPA does not believe that detailed
reclamation procedures are reaaonabh-
necessary. The requirement of the GP
does carry out the purposes and intent
of the CWA.
86. Comment: Several commentors
object to the reporting requirements for
arsenic that require any measurement
less than the detection level to be
reported as zero, anything between the
detection level and the minimum level
t4j to be reported as ½ the minimum
level or 2 and anything over the
minimum level to be reported as the
actual number.
Response: This reporting requiLement
was based on draft policy that has
changed since the proposed GP was
public noticed. The GPnowreflects the
- latest draft policy from EPA
Headquarters which states that a
minimum’ level (ML) can be calculated
from a method detection Level (MDL).
For arsenic in this GP. the MDL of I pig!
L is multiplied by 3.18. The product is
rounded to 3 and this becomes the ML.
Samples measuring less than the ML are
to be reported as 0 pig/L while analysis
greater than the ML should be reported
as the actual measure. The Fact Sheet
(page 13) and the GP in Permit Part
H.D.1.d. state: “This reporting threshold
does not authorize the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limitation.” - -
87. Comment: One comnientor
suggests that EPA give some
consideration to the 1989 Alaska -.
Supreme Court Decision regarding the
lowest measurement practical for
settleable solids.
Response: EPA believes that settleable
solids can be measured with an lmhoff
cone accurately to 0.2 mI/l. However,
Permittees are asked to estimate
readings below this level even though -
they are less accurate. If ADEC does not
agree that this is protective of WQS and
specifies it in their Section 401
Certification. EPA would make the
required changes to the CP. The Section
401 Certification has been waived
according to the timefraine specified in
40 CFR 124.33.
The following comments were received
on the EA from National Marine
Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of
NaturaLJ esources and Alaska Miners
Association. These comments have not
been addressed in the above responses.
86. Comment: One commentor
suggests that the Purpose and Need for
Action section of the EA covering
cumulative impacts does not do so
properly.
Response’ Cumulative effects will be
more specifically addressed in the EM
which will continue to be prepared for
the individual new source NPDES
permit actions (i e., in the context of
site-specific conditions and those
cumulative effects associated with a
proposed project). Where the potential
for significant cumulative impact exists.
an environmental impact statement will
be required. The proposed general
permit action evaluated in the EA will
not alter the methodology by which
cumulative effects are assessed under
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA’) prior to the permit decisions.
89. Comment: One commentor
suggests that DO!. Mineral Management
Service be lnTc!uded in the section on
Placer Mining Regulatàry Programs
since it administers leases and permits
mining activities within Alaska’s Outer
Continental ShelL
‘Response: This additional information
will be incorporated into the LAs
prepared for new source projects. It
should be noted that the final GP does
not cover those offshore operations (see
Comment #74i
90. Comment: One commentor
suggests that discussion of the Army
Corps of Engineers regulatory program
for placer mining be expanded
especially regarding general permits and
specific activities which fall under their
jurisdiction.
Response: SeO response 89.
91. Comment: Onecommentor
suggests that no additional discharges
into water quality limited segments be
authorized until TMDL determinations
are completed. -
Response; EPA will continue to assess
potential for exceedances of water
quality standards for all new source
projects subject to NEPA review
(regardless of their location) prior to the
decisions whether or not to authorize
the discharges. Permit limitations would
also reflect TMDLs for any stream
segment for which a ThIDL is prepared
.92. Comment: One cornmentor
requests clarification of how mitigative
measures would be handled under the
GP. - ‘ -
Response: Additional mitigation
measures which EPA may impose as
permit conditions, ass result of the
NEPA (LA or S) review, are limited to
those authorized by the NPDES
program. and therefore must be
reasonably necessary to carry out the
purposes and intent of the CWA. CWA-
related conditions other than those
already in the general permit which am
determined in an EA or EIS to be
necessary in order to avoid the potential
for significant impact to water quality
can be incorporated into an indi . idual
NPDES permit. The general permit
includes a provision allowing for the
drafting of an individual permit as
necessary. EPA may issue or deny an
rsIPDES permit taking into consideration
all impacts (discharge related or other)
disclosed in the NEPA review, and the
extent to which potentially significant
adverse impacts can be mitigated.
Mitig tlon may also be developed by the
applicant or be required by the land
management agency or other agency
regulatory program with jurisdiction
over the project.
93. Comment: One commentor claims
there is a typographical error in the
-------
28080
feuM al Rr I !JcL 59,, . r03 I Tues ay, M 31, 19$S I r’ kes
section Da5Cr1On ’P7OPe6eIL
A t in . Pe it Cov.e ” that t
phrase intake leseIh 4 inc
should _________
& onse The phra ss irath ed in
the list of facilities not antbod dby
this C?. The C? only m i suction
dredges wLth intakes &rv t r than 4
inch the phrase in theEA is
con .
94. CemmegL Dee commentor
suggests that there will be gni5csnt
unpacts beaus. the permit wifl hke y
force some opecatoes out of business or
forc. them to risk being charged with
non-compliance, fined and charged a
criminaL due to the aeienic limitation in
thepropecedC
Response: The GP limitation for
arsenic is the sameas it ismn the
Individual pn uts that have been
Issued since the mendu enrs to the
Water Quahty Standards Re atfon
Compliance with CWA Section
303(c)(21(B); Final Rule” (57 FR 60g4
Thesday. December 22. tggZI went info
effect. Therefore, there is no change in.
impact.
AUTHORIZATION TO ISQ4AR UNOER
THE NATICP(ALPOLUflASIT D SC34AP GS
ELJIIINAT1ON SYSTEM FOR 4 .ASMAI4
PLACER MINERS -
(General Permit ? - A -G-3 --O0GOL
In compliama* with the psovisionz of
the Clean Waser Act (CWAI. 33 USL .
1251 et seq.. anamen by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100—4.
the “Act”,
Owners and operators of facilities
engaged in the processing olp r gold
are authm4 4 to &scharge to watei of
the United Slates, in aurndmwe with
effluent [ imitation. mi ’ntcring
requirements. and ether ditions set
forth herein,
A Copy of This General Permit Must
be Kept atth .Sit. Where Discharges
Occur.
This permit shall become effecti,,
June 30. 1994. This pennit and the
authorizanon to discharge shall expke S
years from the effective date otthe
permit
Charles a Flnd?ey,
Director. rDir,rmn. Region 10 US’.
Tabi. o(Conteniz
Cover
I. Coverage (Jade, This Parnut
A. Coverage a nd ffltgxbillty
B. Authorized Placer Mining Operar o
C AddiH e1 Requirement,
D. Prohi
E. Requiring an Individual Peam
F. Notificatio* Peqvireinantz
C. Permit Exp rai ioa
IL Effluent
A. CTiadifloosl
Stulc lngJ
a
CSumims1 .dg i ng
P. Maiutarezg Ro urau
ia Pre _ r .- 1 , .
A. Mechanical Op ,il md flydru iJic
Removal ci Ovs,bwde,t
B. wtt.- . E ed ’jre
C. Ot1 r
ft Ska!m F 11 ’?’ hee
IV. )4seilcñng aid Repor ng R. uemene
A. wSainpffag
B Reporffig of Moth oriog Results
C. M iiMnng P , Ji
0. AdthUc .sh b ’ the Pbrmiflee
S. R—nt Cai mtz
F. Retm s.eó . erd ,
C. Netica of N ciw . p!i mcv Rep 1ing
IL Other t.Mn mplt .i Reperting
I. Inspec on an4 Entry
V. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty toCcmpJ .
B. Penalties for Vtohe cfPtseijI
Conth
C Nesdiolieltor R Acrintymta
Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
E. Proper Op Thhfln aid Me neaca
!‘ Removed SnL, t zwp ”
C. eypass ofDua nent Facilities
H. UprConditions
I. Toxic Poltetantr
VI. tjeneral aqulrwents
A.Thanges in fliwhagg eETeaic Stthst
B. Planned ( ng s
C. Anticipated &t impI.a
0. Permit A cn .
a m t to Re y
F. Duty to Provide frr ymatfau
C. Other ln ,rmatloe
H. Signatory Requirements
I. Maibbthty o Repor
J. Oil and Haiardoua S ab.tance Liahihty
K. Property Rlg its
L Severability
M.Slate Laws
VII. FA ’ npi ’n r Clause
VIIL Definition,
DL Special Condixiars—Efflueni Limits
Below Detection Levels
A. Reporting Levels
B. Reporting DeviLs
Attachment I
Attachment 2
Attachn nt3
Appendix A
L Coverage Under Thin Permit
A. Coverage’ and E!i bzhty
1. Evstwg Focilitie Existing
faalitlec Ithose lmniities having
individual National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPUESI pernntsj
are authorized under the terms and
conditions cii this permit Upon the
submittal o(a Nct. of Intent (NO!) to
gain. a vem e under this permit.
covera .ws1Pbegese*eJ .mordinir’-
Permit Pto tPt
a Pead AppF en Jpew
subidt l oi.,NC , all fedlities wInch
have su niUed appi atIm ’ uv
accordance with 40 R 22.21(a1 are -
aeItIur izd i drrth t... arid
conditici of this ‘L Coverege will
be 3 ruuled acourding tol% l Parr F..t.
3. NewFerilltfes New facilities that
are eteruizied to be new unthvr
the CWA will be req,uired to have an
Environm l Asuessmeat (EAr
completed pwvuant to the Nationat
Envirunarental Pbficy Atx Cl ZEPAL. A.
finding ofno significant t mpact C}T IS!)
by E PA is necessary prior to receiving
co v under this permii if there will
be a significant impact, the ta Ety will
requhu an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). a llGea detnrn”ned tc
be new disthsrg ra wilt becux by
the terms and cowiltiaaa of this permit
If they meet all the necessary
requirem ni ot covera .
4. £ paedingFacz1itig Facilih that
conteniitato exp rn 4 in shall submit a
new NOI that desathes. the new
diacharga. The oarreel permit will be -
terminated and anew pasmi -flectiag
the duinges, , issued iz its place if the
facility meets all the noressasy
requlr nisnt ’t of covereRe..
5 Cn tnI (Jfl Facil ties FacLL
located La the a t 1 zone as
determinedLy the ! da ka Ci tal Zone
Managpm i t Act, shall submit, with
their Notica of Intent CNO1 , an
individual consistency determination
from Alaska Division czfGavesuznental
Coordination (ADGCJ wiIessADGC
makes an overall determination on this
General Permit after its issuance.
a A r ttcthed PloeierAi5ning ()peretfons
1. Fac ties that mine and process
gold placer ores using gravity
separatiownethods to recover the gold
metal contained in the ore..
a. Cipen-cat gotd placer mines except
those op .cut min that. mine tees
than 1.SOOcublc yards olplai r ore per
mining season.
b. Mechanical dredge gpId placer
mines (not suction dredgeel except
those dredges that remove less than.
50,000 cubic yards of placer ore per
mining season or cfredge in open waters.
2, Suction dredges with intake hoses
of great than 4 inches.
3. Operations utilizing hydraulic
removal of overburden.
C. Adthtx,,w .zt Reqtzuanse.zn’x
1. Many sfleains and stream rear
in Alaska have been designated as
of the federal wild and scenic rivers
system eras Cerreerveticri System Lhiits
(CSUs) by the federal government.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31, 1994 1 Notices
28039
Permittees should contact the district.
nifices of the federal agencies that
administer the designated area for
additional restrictions that may apply to
operating within the area.
2. Many streams in Alaska where
placer mining occurs have been
designatedby the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) as anadromous
fish streams. Placer mining activities in
these streams require an ADF&G Fish
Habitat Permit which may include
additional restrictions. The “Atlas to the
Catalog of Waters Important for the
Spawning. Rearing, or Migration of
Anadromous Fish” lists the streams in
the State which require prior ADF&G
authorization. In additioa, placer
mining activities In resident fish
streams require an ADF&G FIsh Habitat
Permit If the proposed activity wIIr
block or Impede the efficient passage of
fish. Permittees operatingin.
anadromous or resident fish streams
should contact he ADF&G to determine
permitting requirements and additional
restrictions that may app) .’ -
D. Prohibitions -
Discharges from the following
beneficiation processesare not- -
authorized under this permit Mercury
amalgamation. cyonldatlon, froth
floatation, heap and vat leaching. •‘
E. Requiring an Individual Permit -
1. The Regional Administratoi may
require any person authorized by this
permit to tppiy for and obtain an.
individual NPDES permit when: -
a. The single discharge or tho
cumulative number of discharges is/are
a significant contributor of pollution: -
b. The discharger Is not In compliance
with the terms and conditions of the
general permit: -
c. A change has occurred in the
availability of dernonstiated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
source:
d. Effluent limitations guidelines are -
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit:
e. A Water Quality Management plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point sources is approved or
1. An Individual Control Strategy (ICS)
is required under SectIon 304(L) of the
Act, or
g. A Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) and corresponding wastetoad
allocation has been completed for a
waterbody or a segment of a waterbody.
or
h. A review of the facility shows that
it is subject to the State of Alaska’s anti.
degradation policy.
• I. There are other federal or State
legislation, rules or regulations
pertaining to a site directly or indirectly
related to water quality.
2. The Regional Administrator will
notify the operator in writing by
certified mailthat a permit application is
required. II an operator fails to submit.
in a timely manner. an individuaL
NPDES permit application as required.
then any applicability of this general
permit to the Individual NPDES
permittee Is automatically terminated at
the and of the day specified for
application submittal.
3. Any owner or operator authorized
by this permit may request .to be - -
excluded from the coverage of this
permit by applying for aaindividual
permit The owner or operator shall
submit an individual application (Form
land Form.ZCor 21)) with reasons
•supportlng therequest to the Regional
Administrator no later than 9Q days
afierthaeffetlvedateofthepeivnit.
4. When an. individual NPDES permit
is issued to an owner or operator
otherwise covered by this permit, the
applicability of this permit to the
facility is automatically terminated on
• the-effective date of the Individual
permit .• . - • - -.
5. .When an individual NPDES permit.
is denied to an owner or operator
otherwise covered by this permit, the
• permittee Is automatically reinstated
under this permit on the date of such
• denial, unless otherwise specified by
the Regional Administrator. A new
facility can receive coverage under this
general permit by submitting an NO!.
See Permit Part LA.3. for details.
6. A source excluded from a general
permit solely because it already has an
Individual permit may request that the
lndivid l permit be revoked and that It
be covered by the general permit. Upon
revocation of the Individual permit, the
general permit shall apply to the source.
F. Notification Requirements
lOwners or operators of facilities
authorized by this permit shall submit
an NO! to be covered by this permit.
The Information required for a complete
$01 is in Appendix of this permit.
Notification must be made:
a. Within 90 days of issuance of this
permit: or
b. By lanualy 1 of the year of
discharge from a new facility or a
facility established since 1988 subject to
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) that has not previously been
covered by a permit or
C. 90days priorto discharge froma
new facility not subject to NSPS: or
d. OO4ays prior to the expiration of
an existing Individual permit. or
e. 90 days prior to discharge for any
other facilities, Authorization to
discharge requires written notification
from EPA that coverage has been
granted and that a specific permit
number has been assigned to the
operation.
2. The NO! shall be signed by the
owner or other signatory authority in
accordance with Permit Part VI.H.
(Signatory Requirements), and a copy
shall be retained on site in accordance
with Permit Part IV.F. (Retention of
Records). The address for NO!
submission to EPA is: United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10. 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD—134,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
-. 3.Acopy of the NO! must alsobesent
to the regional office of the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) that has -
jurisdiction over the mine. The
addressee are:
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, 410 Willoughby. Suite
-105. Juneau, Alask , 99801 -
Alaska Department of Environments?
- Conservation, Northern Regional
Office. 610 University Avenue. - -
Fairbanks, Alnckn 99709
Alaska Department of Environmental -
Conservation. Southcentral Regional
Office. 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1350, -
- Anchorage, Alaska 99503:; - -•
4. A copy ofthe general permit will -.
be sent to the permittee when it is
determined that the facility can be
granted coverage under this general
permit. 11 it is determined that coverage
cannot be granted under this permit, the
applicant will be informed of this in
wri t lng. -
C. Permit Expiration - -
This permit will expire five (5). years
from the effective date. For facii t as
submitting a new NO! 90 days prior to
expiration of this general permit. the
conditions of the expired permit
continue in force until the effective date
of a new permit. -
IL Effluent Limitations
A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional
Sluicing) (Not including Suction
Dredgesi
During the term of this permit, no
wastewater discharges are authorized
except as specified below. -
1. Effluent Limitations
a. The volume of wastewater which
may be discharged shall not exceed the
volume of infiltration, drainage and
mine drainage waters which is in excess
of the make-up water required for
operation of the beneficiation process.
-------
F d Rm MIe IVo&. 5 p 163 1 Thesday ?by 31. Th9 t
h.Th.
not exceed the Zlowin
• Efttuent domcteth c
ri
Settteab e Solids ._
Turb dit ..._...___.
Arsemc, Total Recc
em
02 mu.
5 NTUs above na i
rat backg aunc t’
(I) 0.T8pq(t.
t2 nafta bocfe-
—.
‘Subject b Twbi ty Modr 5ca±$on outlln lo
Permit Part VttI.T.
25 Pemit Pe,t &ai.& for detads.
2. Effluent discharges are prehibited
during periods when flew wutar is
allowed to enter the plant site.
Additionally, there shall be no
discharge as a re uft of the intake of new
water.
B. Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
Daring the fern! of this permit, no
westewater discharges ate authorized
except as specified below.
a. The wiZi .n o aste eater which
may be discharged shall n exceed the
volum. of lnflkrsZlelr drainage and
mine drainage watees which is in
of the make-up wetar required far
oporation of the hydraulicking proce .
b. Tha wastawater discharged shall
nc exceed the Ioilcwing
Emuerit ChaW.SIrIStIC
Set eab4e So&te ...._.
Tuitidity
Arsenic, T IRecu.
erab
.
03 milL
5 N1Ur above na u ’
rat backgrm d
(1J 0.19 p L
(2)anDjsattanM-
—
peT t Tidfty Modiftcatfon owitned In
— See Peord Pert LD .I. for deta .
2.Efflueet discharges are prckihited
dining pthads when new water is
allowed to tw the plam aite.
Additionally. tb.esr shall be no
a result of the intake’
water.
C SuctkaL erig i ng
1. At any paint in the receiving stream
500 feet downstream of the dredge’s
discharge point, the maximum
allowable inceose in turbidity over the
natural receiving , tream turbidity while
o arating is 5 TUs.
2. A visual Increase in turbidity (any
cloudiness or muddiness) 500 feet
downstream of the suction dredge
during operations would be considered
a viobtina of the $ NTU limit..
3.Ueoticaable turbidity does occur
50G feet dowa eem of the work site,
oporatitni of the suction dredge must
decrease or cees that a violation as
definii oee does not exist.
aMzrnitodng Hequirements
1. Mech uth l Operations and
Hydraulic Remuva k of Overburden
a. Duthug the period beginning on the
e i,s datu of this permit and hating
until the expiration data. following
monitoring shall be conductedi
The Permittee shalt institute a
comprehensive visual ir 1 .spectloa
program to facilitate proper operation
and maintenance of the recycle system
and the wastawatar treatment system.
The Permittee shall rnnrhw’t
inspection of the site once per day.
while on site. during the mining cn nn
The Perutittee shall , wniuitajn records of
all informati on resuh1ng . frcxn .any visual
inspections. These records shall include
an evaluation of the condition of all
water control devices such as
structures and berms and all qnliitg
retention structures induding . but not
limited to. berius. dikes, pond
structures. and dams. The records shall
also include an assessment of the
pre ice of sediment buildup within
the settling ponds The Fermittee shall
examine all ponds for the occurrence of
hQrt ortiuting.
c. Turbidity Monitoring
The P enutten shall rnesu tar the
turbidity values of the effluent eam
arid the natural background turbidir
values of the receiving stream then
compare the two samples. The sample
results shall be reported an the annual
Discharge Monitoring Report DMR1.
The Pennittee shall takø one sample at
a point that is representative of the
discharge prior ta entering the receivIng
stream. The Permnittea shaLl take another
sample above the discharge point at a
location that is considered to be the
“natural” background of the receiving
stream aa defined in Permit Part VI]LL
EPA has racog izad the coniplex nature
c i i d it tr nin ing the point above
“natural” background and upon request
will determine this. point fo the miner.
In determining the sample point. EPA
will consider, with the input of the
permittee and/ar the Alaska Division of
Mining, geologic factors, drainage
patterns, a ess. awl the location of
active and histaric 12r,nwle
disturban . Both samples shall be
taken within a reasonabla time frame.
Monitoring shall be corzdur ed in
accordance with cce pied analytical
procedures. See attadimunt I for
cam plin protocol.
Arsenic samples shall be
vpr m . iveaf the discharge and shn
be takesMapoint piiortoanbirirzg the
receiving stream. Arsenic samples takez
to determine uabiml” backgrc*md aba
be represonta1i . of the ru vzng water
upstream fram any man-made
distwhances as d amiinsd above for
turbidity. Monitoring shall be
c _id in accordance with ptec
analytcal Foceduier. The P ittee
shall report the sample results on
DMR. See a nd vt iit 2 for sampling
protocoL
The effluent limitation for total
recoverable arsenic is riot quantifiable
using the EPA approved analytical
method. EPA method 206.2. Thus. EP.’
has set forth reporting thresholds to
meosuve the highest acceptable
quantification leve l for this para -
This reporting threshold does n
authonze the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limeitatiorm. For more information. tee
spci•ial conditions in Permit Parr IX.
ihell 1. Elflueet Limitations
EIffUeat dWa..tdvi$bC
Monttoci lov ’ ”r
M img W aency
- S j t o
SeIt1eabIe SolidS 0u 1 .l
Tigbidlty ($TUI .
Arsenic (j iglkl taL ceccvsr te
Flow (gpml.. —
— -._..._
E ueot natural ba qead —
‘E ers natural bactqound —
E uent .
Once per day ead day al ala-
.
Once per s ’ ’
Once per season ——
Gab..

Grab
2 Gr
k e aieaue
‘Only wfle cti)OSiflO OØon (2
AnalyZeC by EPA Method 2062 th a da ction flurat at * aaJL
3 See Part ltD.?.?. fbr*tads.
-------
Federal Register
e. Settleable Solids Monitoring
Settleable solids samples shall be
representative of the discharge and shall
be taken at a point prior to entering the
receiving stream. Monitoring shall be
conducted in accordance with accepted
analytical procedures (Standard
Methods. 17th Edition. 1989). The
Permittee shall report the sample results
on the Annual DMR. See attachment 3
for sampling and analysis protocol.
1. Flow Monitoring
Emuent flow shall be measured at the
discharge prior to entering the receiving
water. Effluent flow shall be measured
at least once per day, for continuous
discharges, or once during each
discharge event If discharges are
intermittent. If measurement is
impractical, the operator must make a
good faith effort to estimate seepage
discharging to waters of the United
States each day that seepage occurs. The
flow shall be measured in gallons per
minute (gpm)..The flow measurements,
the number of discharge events, and the
duration of each discharge event shall
be reported in the Annual DMR for each
day of the mining season.
2. Suction Dredges
a. Suction Dredge operations shall
visually monitor for turbidity as
described In Permit Part ILC. once per
day of operation. The Permittee shall
maintain records of all information
resulting from any visual inspections.
b. The Permittee will report the
period of suction dredging on the DMR.
Visual violation occurrences will also be
reported on the DMR along with the
measures taken to comply with the
provisions of Permit Part 1LC3.
III. Management Practices
A. Mechanical Operations and
Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
1. The flow of surface waters (i.e.,
creek, river, or stream) into the plant
site shall be interrupted and these
waters diverted around and away to
prevent incursion into the plant site.
2. Dorms. including any pond walls,
dikes, low dams, and similar water
retention structures shall be constructed
in a manner such that they are
reasonably expected to reject the
passage of water.
3. Measures shall be taken to assure
that pollutant materials removed from
the process water and wastewater
streams will be retained in storage areas
and not discharged or released to the
waters of the United States.
4. The amount of new water allowed
to enter the plant site for use In material
processing shall be limited to the
minimum amount required as makeup
water for processing operations.
5. All water control devices such as
diversion structures and berms d all
solids retention structures such as
berms, dikes, pond structures, and dams
shall be reasonably maintained to
continue their effectiveness and to
protect om failure.
6. The operator shall take whatever
reasonable steps are appropijate to
assure that, after the mining season, all
un.reclaimed mine areas, including
ponds, are in a condition which will not
cause degradation to the receiving
waters over those resulting from natural
causes.
B. Suction Dredges
1. Dredging in waters of the United
States is permitted only within the
active stream channel.
2. Wherever practicable, the dredge
shall be set to discharge into a quiet
pool, where settling of dredge spoils can
occur more rapidly.
3. Care shall be taken by the operator
during refueling of the dredge to prevent
spillage Into public waters or to
groundwater.
C. Other Requirements
Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic
Removal of Overburden
The operator shall maintain fuel
handling and storage facilities In a
manner which will prevent the
discharge of fuel oil into the receiving
waters or on the adjoining shoreline. A
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermea e Plan (SPCC Plan) shall
be prepared and updated as necessary in
accordai cb with provisions of 40 CFR
Part 112 for facilities storing 660 gallons
in a single container above ground, 1320
gallons i the aggregate above ground,
or 42,000 gallons below ground.
The permittee shall indicate on the
DMR If an SPCC Plan is necessary and
in place at the site and if changes were
made to the Plan over the previous year.
D. Storm Exemption
The permirtee may qualify for a storm
exemption from the technology-based
effluent limitations in Permit Part
ILA.1.b. and U.B.i.b. of this NPDES
general permit if the following
conditions are met:
1. The treatment system is designed,
constructed and maintained to contain
the maximum volume of untreated
process wastewater which would be
discharged, stored, contained and used
or recycled by the benefloation process
into the treatment system during a 4-
hour operating period without an
lncreas in volume from precipitation or
infiltration, plus the maximum volume
28091
of water runoff (drainage waters)
resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour
precipitation event. In computing the
maximum volume of water which
would result from a 5-year, 6-hour
precipitation event, the operator must
indude the volume which should result
from the plant site contributing runoff to
the individual treatment facility,
2. The operator takes all reasonable
steps to maintain treatment of the
wastewater and minimize the amount of
overflow,
3. The source is in compliance with
the Management Practices in Permit Part
aA.
4. The operator complies with the
notification requirements of Permit
Parts NC. and IV.H.
IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Representative Sampling
All samples for monitoring purposes
shall be representative of the monitored
activity, 40 R 122.41 ( . To determine
compliance with permit effluent
limitations, “grab” samples shall be
taken as established under Permit Part
liD. Specifically, effluent samples for
settleable solids, turbidity, and arsenic
shalibecollected fromthesetthngpond
outlet or other treatment systems’ outlet
• prior to discharge to the receiving
stream. Additionally, turbidity and
arsenic (for Option 2j samples shall also
be taken above the discharge point at a
location that is representative of the
receiving stream’s natural background.
Samples for arsenic and turbidity
monitoring must be taken during
sluicing at a time when the operation
has reached equilibrium, For example,
samples should be taken when sluice
paydirt loading and effluent discharge
axe Constant,
B. Reporting of Monnonng Results
Monitoring results shall be
summarized each month and reported
on EPA Form 3320-1 (DMR). The DMR
shall be submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10. 1200
Sixth Avenue, Enforcement Section
WD—135, Seattle, Washington 9810 1—
3188, no later than November 30 each
year.
If there is no mining activity during
the year or no wastewater discharge to
a receiving stream, the perruittee shall
notify EPA of these facts no later than
November 30 of each year.
The DMR shall also be sent to the
regional office of ADEC that has
jurisdiction over the mine. The
addresses can be found In permit part
I.F.3.
/ Vol. 59, No. 103 I Tuesday, May 31. 1994 / Notices
-------
28092
Federal Register! Vol. 59, No. O3 / Tuesday. May 31. 1994 I Notices
C. 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.
D. Additional Monitoring by th
Perrnittee
If the permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
by this permit. using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR part 136 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
Records of monitoring information
shall include:
1. The date, exact place. and time or
sampling or measurements;
2. The individual(s) who performed
the sampling or measurements;
3. The date(s) analyses were
performed:
4. The individual(s) who performed
the analyses:
i. The analytical techniques or
methods used: and
6. The results of such analyses.
F. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of
all monitoring information. includ ing
all calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings (or
continuous monitoring 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 three years from
the date of the sample. measurement.
report or application. This period may
be extended by request of the Director
orADEC at any time. Data collected on
site. copies of DMRs. and a copy of this
NPDES permit must be maint,ained on-
site during the duration of activity at the
permitted location.
G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
1. Any noncompliance which may
endanger health or the environment
shall he reported as soon as the
permittee becomes aware of the
circumstance. A written submission
shall also be provided in the shortest
reasonable period of time after the
perrnlttee becomes aware of the
occurrence.
2. The following occurrences of
noncompliance shall also be reported in
writing in the shortest reai.onable period
oltinie after the perimitee hix oniec
awari’ of the cin.iiinstaru t”i:
a. Any unanticipated bypass which
eiceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit (See Permit Part V.G.. Bypass of
Treatment Facilities.); or
b. Any upset,which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit (See
Permit Part V.H.. Upset Conditions.).
C. Any violation of the effluent
limitations in Permit Parts [ l.A. and U.S
3. The written submission shall
contain:
a. A description of the noncompliance
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
corre.tecl. and
d. Steps taken or planned to reduce.
eliminate, and prevent reoccurTence of
the noncompliance.
4..The Directorniay waive the written
report on a case-by-case basis if an oral
report has been received within 24
hours by the Enforcement Section in
Seattle. Washington. by phone. (2061
553—1213.
5. Reports shall be submitted to the
addresses in Permit Part IV.B..
Reporting of Monitoring Results.
H. Qther Noncompliance Reporting
Instances of noncompliance not
required to be reported in Permit Part
IV.C. above shall be reported at the time
that monitoring reports for Permit Part
IV B are s ibmitted. The reports shall
contain the information listed in Permit
Part IV G 3.
I. fni pi ction and Enti
The permiltetr shall allow the
Director. ADEC, or an authorized
representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of
the Administratorj, 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. 1-love access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit.
3. Inspet.t at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipmentl.
praitit.es. or operations regulated or
required under this permit; and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable -
times. For the purpoce of assuring permit
corn pli .uu.o or as otherwise authorized
by the Act, any substances or
lianu rers at any location.
V. 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 reissu4iice
or modification: or for denial of a permit
renewal application. The permitte 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. Penc1ti s for Violabons of Permit
Conditions
1. Admmistrative Penalty. The Act
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing Sections
301. 302. 306. 307. 308. 318. or 405 of
the Act shall be subject to an
administrative penalty. not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each violation.
2. Civil Penalty. The Act provides thai
any person who violates a permit
condition implementiri Sections 301.
302.306. 307. 308. 318: or 405 of the
Act shall be subject to a civil penalty.
not to e.’iceed $25,000 per day For ’
violation.
3. Criminal Penalties:
a. Negligent Violations. The u
provides that any person who
negligently violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307. 308. 318. or 405 of the Act sh ill be
punished by a fine of not less than
82.500 nor more than 525.000 per day
of violation. or by impnsonment for noi
more than 1 year. or by both.
b. Knowing Violations. The ALL
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307. 308. 318. or 405 of the Act shall bt-
punished by a fine of not less than
55.000 nor more than 550.000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for no
more than 3 years. or by both.
c. Knowing Endangerment. The At I
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307, 308. 318. or 405 of the Act, and
who knows at that time that he thereb
places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily iniur
shall, upon conviction, be sub ect to a
fine of not more ihan 8250.000 or
imprisonment of not more than 15
years. or both. A person whiLh’
organization shall, upon convi
violating this subparagraph. be s. rt
to a line of not more than $1,000,(JUO
d. False Statements. The Ai.1 pmvzdi
thai .iiiy person who knciwiri Fy in ik
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 103 / Tuesday , May 31. 1994 / Notices
28093
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 this Act, shall upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more that $10,000, or by imprisonment
for not more than 2 years, or by both.
Except as provided in permit
conditions in Permit Part V.G.. Bypass
of Treatment Facilities and Permit Part
V.11., Upset Conditions, nothing in this
permit shall be construed to relieve the
permittee of the civil or aiminaj
penalties for noncompliance. -
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not
a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
perrnittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessazy to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
D. Duly 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.
E. Proper Operation and Main tenance
The permittee shall at alt times
properl raperate 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
permit.
F. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, or other pollutants
removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be disposed
of in a manner so as to prebent any
pollutant from such materials from
entering waters of the United States.
C. Hypass of Treatment Facilities
1. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee ma)’ allow any bypass to
occur which does not cause effluent
limitationc to be exceeded, hut only ii
It also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this
section.
2. 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
Permit Part IV.G., Notice of
Noncompliance Reporting.
3. 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 facihties, 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
judg)nent to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance: and
(3) The perinittee 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 rn ,pet the three conditions listed
above in paragraph 3.a. of this section.
H. Upset Conditions
I Effect of an upset. An upset
constitutes an aflirmative defense joan
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology based permit effluent
limitations if the requirements of
paragraph 2 of this section are met. An
administrative review of a claim that
noncompliance was caused by an upset
does not represent final administrative
action for any specific event. A
determination is not final until formal
administrative action is taken for the
specific violation(s).
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 e idern.e that:
a. An upset occurred and that the
permittee n identify the cause(s) of
the upset:
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly opeiated;
c. The permittee submitted notice of
the upset as required under Permit Part
IV.G., Notice of Noncompliance
Reporting and
d. The permittee complied with any
remedial measures required under
Permit Part V.D., 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 proof.
I. Toxic Pollutants
The permittee shall comply with
effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 30 7(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.
VL General Requirements
A. Changes an Dischai e 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 exceed the highest of the following
“notification levels”: —
a. One hundred micrograms per liter
(too pg/I):
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter
(200 pg/I) for acrolein and acrylonitnle;
five hundred micrograms per liter (500
pg/I) for 2.4-dinitrophenol and for 2 .
methyl-.4, 6-dinitrophenol: and one
milligram per liter (I mg/I) for
antimony:
c. Five (5) times the ma.dmum
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
122.44(fl.
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 titer
(500 pg/I);
b. One milliCram per liter (1 mg/I) for
anhin :on ,;
-------
28094
Federal_Register I Vol . 59. No. 103 / Tuesday. May 31. 1994 / Notices
C. Ten (10) times the maximum
concentrati on value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in
accordance with 40 Q’R 122.21(g)(7); or
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 R
122.44( 1 ).
B. 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 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); 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 Permit
Part VLA.1. . -
3. The alteration or addition will
significantly change the location, nature
or volume of discharge or the quantity
of pollutants, subject to the effluent
limitations, discharged.
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. -
D. 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 Reapply
if the permittee wishes to continue an
activity regulated by this permit after
the expiration date of this permit, the
permittea must apply for and obtain a
new permit. The NO! should be
submitted at least 90 days before the
expiration date of this permit.
F. Duty To Provide Infonnotion
The permittee 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
Dir tnr or ADEC. upon request, copies
of records required to be kept by this
permit.
C. Other Information -
When the permittee 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. : -
H. 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 responsible
corporate officer. -
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor, respoctivoly.
c. For a-municipality, state, federal, or
other public agencyi 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 if: - - -
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 IV.H.2. is
no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility,
a new authonzation satisfying the
requirements of paragraph V1.H,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.
4. Certification. Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the following certification:
“1 certIfy under penalty of law that
this document and all attachments wer
prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a sysL
designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evalirate -
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 kriowledgiand
belief. thie. êccu ate, and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties
for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment far knowing violations.”
I. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR Part 2. all
reports prepared inaccordanco with the
terms of this permit shall 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. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be -
construed to preclude the Institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittr
from any responsibilities, liabilities,
penalties to which the permittee is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
Act.
K Properly 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.
L. Sevembilily
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. 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 urn.
authority preserved by Section 510 of
theAct. -
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31. 1994 / Notices
28095
N. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on 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
submission made for the NPDES permit
program under the provisions of the
CWA.
V I I. Reopener Gauss
If effluent limitations or reqturements
are established or modified in an
approved State Water Quality
Management Plan or Waste Load
Allocation and if they are more stringent
that those listed in this permit or control
a pollutant not listed in this permit, this
permit may be reopened to include
those more stringent limits or
requirements.
vm. Definitions
A. “Active Stream Channel” means
that part of the channel that is below the
level of the water.
B. “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams around any
portion of a treatment facility.
C. “Drainage Water” means incidental
surface waters from diverse sources
such as rainfall, snow melt or
permafrost melt.
D. “Expanding Facility” means any
facility increasing in size such as to
affect the discharge but operating within
the permit area covered by its general
permit.
E. A “Grab” sample is a single sample
or measurement taken at a specific time.
F “Infiltration Water’ means that
water which permeates through the
earth into the plant site.
C. ‘ Instantaneous Maximum” means
the maximum value measured at any
time.
H. “Mine Drainage” means any water,
not associated with active sluice water,
that is drained, pumped or siphoned
from a mine.
I. “Mining Season” means the time
between the slail of mining ma
calendar year and when mining has
ceased for that same calendar year”
J. “Monitoring Month” meant the
period consisting of the calendar weeks
which begin and end in a given calendar
iponth.
K. “Natural” Background” means the
level upstream from all mining and
other man-made disturbances.
L “New Facility” means a facility
that has not operated in the area
specified in the NO! prior to the
submission of the NO!.
M. “NTU” (Nephelometric ‘rurbidity
Unit) is an expression of the optical
property that causes light to be scattered
and absorbed rather than transmitted in
a straight line through the waler.
N. “Make-up Water” means that
volume of water needed to replace
process water lost due to evaporation
and seepage in order to maintain the
quantity necessary for the operation of
the beneficiation process.
0. “New Water” means water from
any discrete source such as a river,
creek, lake or well which.is deliberately
allowed or brought into the plant site.
P. “Plant Site” means the area
occupied by the mine, necessary
haulage ways from the mine to the
beneficiation process, the beneficiation
area, the area occupied by the
wastewater treatment storage facilities
and the storage areas for waste materials
and solids removed from the
wastewaters during treatment.
Q. “Receiving Water” means waters
such as lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, or
any other surface waters which receive
wastewater discharges.
£. “Severe property damage” means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substaptial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur ui the absence of
a bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
S. “Short circuiting” means
ineffective settling ponds due to
inade uate or insufficient retention
characteristics, excessive sediment
deposition, embankment infiltration!
percolation, lack of maintenance. etc.
T. “Turbidity Modification” means
the procedures used to calculate a
higher turbidity limit based on a mass
balance equation which relates
upstream receiving water flow and
turbidity to effluent flow and turbidity.
The basic form of this equation is:
QC,+Q C 2 =Q,C,
where C =upstream turbidity;
( =effiuent turbidity;
C 3 =downstream turbidity after mixuig
where the allowable increase is 5
NTU above background IC 5
NTU);
Q’ =streazn flow downstream from any
diversion and upstream from the
discharge;
Q =effluent flow’; and,
Q =tota1 stream flow downstream from
discharge after complete mixing.
• A default value of 10 galtons per
minute (gpml will be used if the
NOl states that zero discharge ivill
be achieved,
U. “Upset” means an exceptional
incident in which there is unjnternion I
and temporary noncompliance with
technology .basad perxrni effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the perminee.
An upset does not include
noncompliance ta the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
V. “Wastewater” means all water used
in and resulting from the beneficiation
process (including but not limited to the
water used to rtiove the ore to and
through the beneficiation process, the
water used to aid in classification, and
the water used in gravity separation),
mine drainage, and infiltration and
drainage waters which commingle with
mine drainage or waters resulting from
the beneficiation process.
IX. Special Conditions—Effluent Limits
Below Detection Levels
A. Reporting Levels
1. For purposes of reporting, the
Permittee shall use the reporting
threshold equivalent to the Interim
mtrumum level ( [ ML). The IML is
defined as the concentration in a sample
equivalent to the concentration of the
lowest calibration standard analyzed in
a specific analytical procedure.
assuming that all the method.speci fled
sample weights, volumes and
processing steps have been followed As
such, the permittee must utilize a
standard equivalent to the concenlralion
of the [ ML for arsenic which is 3 18 pg/
L
2. For the purpose of reporting on the
DMR. actual analytical results should be
reported whenever possible. All
analytical values at or above the IML
(rounded to 3 iig/L) shall be reported as
the measured value. When the results
cannot be quantified, values below the
[ ML shall be reported as zero (0 pg/L)
B. Reporting Details:
In the “Comment” section of the
DMR, the perm lttee shall report the
lowest calibration standard used and the
ML achieved.
Attachment I
Turbidity Swnpling Protocol
1. Grab samples shall be collected.
2, Samples shall be collected in a
sterile one liter polypropylene or glass
container.
3. Samples must be cooled to 4
degrees celsius (iced),
4. Samples must be analyzed within
48 hours of sample collection.
-------
o e
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 103 1 Tuesday. May 31, 1994 1 Notices
Attachment 2
Azsen - ing PPoa owi
1. Crab samples shall be collected.
2. Samples shall be collected in a
sterile one liter polypropylene or glass
container.
3. Samples must be cooled to 4
degrees celsius (icedi.
4.Sainples must be sent to a
laboratory for analysis as soon as
possible.
S pies mustbe acidified with
nitric acid (UNO3L to a pH Less than 7.
upon receipt at the laboratory.
6. Samples must be acidified for at
least 16 hours prior to analysis.
Att ”i” 3
Settteabte Solids Sam pling Protocol
1. Grab samples shailbe collected.
2. Sampler shell be collected in a
sterile one liter polyprupylene or glass
container.
3. Samples must be cooled to 4
degrees celsius (iced7. if analysis is not
performed immediately.
4. Samples must be analyzed within
48 hours of sampln collection.
Seflieabfe Sdiá Analysis Protocol
1. Fit! an Imhoffcone to the liter mark
with a thoroughly mixed sampl&
2. Settle for 4 minutes. then . gently
stirthe sides oltl ie cone with arodor
by gently spinning the cone.
3. Settle 15 minutes longer, then
record the volume of settleable matter in
the cone as milliliters per litur. Do not
estimate any floating materiaL The
lowest measurable level on the Inihoff
cone i 0.I mi/l. Any settleable material
below the 0.1 mI/l mark shall be
recorded as trace.
Ap 1 ii .tdi h—Notice of Intent
Infimnation
Permittee Name
Address & Phone Number (Summer)
AddressL Phone Number (WInIerJ
Operator Name Gfdifrerent than
parinitteel
Address & Phone Number ($ummer)
Address & Phone Number (Winter)
Facility Name
Facility Location (NeazeetTown)
Mining District
Latitude and Longitude
Township. Section. Range
Previous NPDES permit number
Receiving Water
Maximum Effluent Flow
Summer Lowf!ow stream flow
Type olOperation (Traditional, Suction
Dredge. Hydraulicking)
Amount of Material processed
Signature and Date (certified according
to permit part VT H.4.7
A drawing or sketth of the opurirtion
(FR Doc. 94-13099 FI 4 5-27-94 &45 eel
men
ECUAL EltqpLoyMENloppoRTuNffy
COMMISSION
Recordkeep4ng and Reporting Under
Titte VU an me ADA
AGENCY Equal Employment
Opportunity Corission (EEOC).
acnoi s Extension of Expiration Date of
Currently Approved Collectiut Witheat
Any Change Ueder the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission is v .ihmittlng
to the Office ofManagjrn nt and Budget
a request that it approve the extension
of the expiration data of its collection
requirements under its Recozdkeeping
and Reporting Regulations at 29 CFR
part 1602. No change is being made to
the existing regulations. Organizations
or individuals desiring, to submit
comments for consideration by 0MB on
these information colf . .ifnit
requirements should address them to
the Office ofrjiforinntfnn and Reaulaaory
Affairs. 0MB Room 3(i02..New
Executive Office gujM;n Washington.
DC Z0503 Attention: losepk r. -b y .
For the Coøiires . - -
Kassie A. Billlngsley ,
Acting Directcr. 0flkec/M u.u ewIt
IFR Dec. 94-128 4 Fifed 5-V-4 845 enf
cme eno
FEDERAL COMMUNiCATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information CoWectlon
RequlrqmentsSubrnifted to Omce
Management anti Bedget for Renew
May 24, 1 4.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the
following information collection
requirements to 0MB los review and
clearance . .nrlør the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 LL&C. 3507).
Copies of’ these submissions may be
purchased. from the Commissions copy
contractor, international Transcription
Service. Inc.. 2100 M Street. NW.. suite
140. Washington. DC 20037. (202) 857—
3800. For further information on these
submissions contact Judy Belay. Federal
Communications Commission. (202)
632—02.76.. Persons wishing to comment
on these information collections- should
contact Timothy Fain. Office of
Management and Budget. room 3221
NEOB, Washington. DC 2o503.(20a)
395- 3S6t
0MB Number. 3060-0514.
Title: Secton 43.21(c) Holding Corn pasty
Annua l Report.
Action: Revision of currently approved
cofl rt inn
Respondent-s. Businesses or other for.
profit
Frequency of Response: Annual
reporting requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 20
responses; 1 hour average l mlen per
nisponsa; 20 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Uses The Commiss oa has.
adopted a Report and Order
eliminating the requirement that
rnmrnnn camaxs file pension and
benefits. documents. The Order also
revises the revenue threshold for
certain affiliates to file the Secunties
and Exchange Commission Annual
Form. 10-K reports with the FCC. The
FCC issued this Order to fulfill its
oblig$ion to ievrew reporting
mq u.rnments as they meet current
regulatory needs. The change will
result in savings to the peblin by
reducing industry reporting burduns
end to the Commission by reducin
ihe cost of processing these filingi
and ‘ m 1iit2 ning them in storage. ‘1
information filed pursuant to Section
43.21(c) is used by FCC staff members
to regulate and. monitor the telephone
industry and hy the public to analym
the industry. Selected information is
compiled and peblished in the
Commission’s annual common carrier
statistidal puhilcelion.
0MB Number 3060-0040.
Title: Application for Aircraft Radio
Station License and Tem xna,y
Aircraft Radio Station Operating
Authorrty.
Actio.: Extension of a carrendy
approved collection.
Form Nunrber FCC Form 4041404-A.
Respondonts. Individuals or-
households, state or local
governments and non.profit
institutions. businesses or other for
profit (including small businesses).
Frequency of Respoosm On occasion
reporting requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 28.00()
responses; .33 hours average burden
per respoose 9 . 24 O hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Usee FCC Rules require that
applicants file the FCC Form 404
a new station license, renewal. 0
modification of an existing heens..
An applicant filing bra new station
license may operate the aircraft radio
station pending issuance el-a station
-------
—. — a

= __
—
=
=
a - —
‘ - —.=
S
= - .
— —
-. n
= =
— a

‘— —
— — a
-a
a
1
AçrW f 4
Environ mentat
Protection Agency
Fh,al NPDES GeneraL P mlis for N-
C n(act Co.oflhg Water D ch rges ME,
MA N Nodce
I-
a
a
-------
22048
Federal Register I Vol. 59 , No. 81 / Thursday, Apr11 28, 1994 / NotIces
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON -
AGENCY -
(FR L-4817-eJ
Final NPOES General Permits for Non-
Contact Cooling Water Discharges in
the States of Maine, Massachusetts,
and New Hampshire
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACflON: Notices of final NPDES general
permits—MAG250000, MEGZ50000.
and NHG250000.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator
of Region I is issuing final National
- Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permits for noncontact
cooling water discharges to certain
waters of the States of Maine.
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
These general NPDES permits establish
notice of Intent (NOl) requirements,
effluent limitations, standards,
prohibitions and management practices
for facilities with discharges authorized
by the permit.
Owners and/or operators of facilities
discharging non-contact cooling water
will be required to submit to EPA,
Region I, a notice of Intent to be covered
by the appropriate general permit within
180 days of the effective date of this
permit and will receive a written
notification from EPA of permit
coverage and authorization to discharge
under one of the general permits.
DATES: This general permit shall be
effective on May 31, 1994 and will
expire five years from the effective date.
The authorization to discharge shall
become effective upon notification by
EPA that the operator Is covered by this
permit.
ADDRESSES: Notices of intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permits should be sent to: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
NPDES Program Operations Section,
P.O. Box 8127, Boston, Massachusetts
02114.
The submittal of other information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should
be sent to the above address.
FOR FURThER INFORMAT iON CONTACfl
Sharon Leitch, U.S. EPA Region L
Wastewater Management Branch. Water
Management Division-WMN. John F.
Kennedy Federal Building. Boston. MA
02203. telephone: 617—565—3566.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Regional Administrator of Region
I is issuing final general permits for non-
contact cooling water discharges to
certain waters of the States of Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
This notice contains two sets of
appendices. Appendix A summarizes
EPA’s response to major comments
received on the draft general permits
published on September 15, 1992 (57 FR
42572). Appendix B contains the final
general NPDES permits including Part
II, Standard Conditions. -
• U Coverage of 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 Elimination System (NPDES)
permit unless such a discharge is
otherwise authorized by the Act.
Although such permits to date have
generally been issued Individual
discharges in Region I. EPA’s
regulations authorize the issuance of
“general permits” to categories of
discharges (See 40 R 122.28(48 FR
14146. April 1. 1983)). EPA may issue
a single, general permit to a category of
point sources located within the same
geographic area whose permits warrant
similar pollution control measures.
The Director of an NPDES permit
program is authorized to issue a general
permit if there are a number of point -
sources operating 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. In the opinion of the Regional
Administrator, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
under individual permits. -
Violations of a condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the
Clean Water Act and subjects the
discharger to the penalties in Section
309 of the Act.
Any owner or operator authorized by
a general permit may be excluded from
coverage of a general permit 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 90
days after publication by EPA of the
final general permit in the Federal
Register. The Director may require any
person authorized by a general permit to
apply for and obtain an individual
permit. Any interested person may
petition the Director to take this action.
However, individual permits will not be
issued for sources discharging non-
Contact cooling water covered by these
general permits unless it can be clearly
‘demonstrated that-inclusion under the
general permit is inappropriate.
The Director may consider the
issuance of Individual permits when.
1. The discharger is not In compliance
with the terms and conditions of the
general permit;
2. A change has occurred In the -
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
- of pollutants applicable to the point
source: -
3. Effluent limitations guidelines are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general NPDES
permit; -
- 4. A Water Quality Management plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point sources is approved; or
5. Circumstances have changed since
the tUne 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;
8. The discharge(s) is a sigiuficant
contributor of pollution.
In accordance with 40 CFR
122.28(b)(3)(lv), the applicability of the
general permit is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the
Individual permit.
III. Description of Non-Contact Coi
Water Discharges
The proposed general permits are for-
(1) Massachusetts operators of any
facilities with non-contact cooling water
discharges: (2) Maine operators of
facilities with non-contact cooling water
dIscharges; (3) New Hampshire
operators of any facilities with non-
contact cooling water discharges.
Non-contact cooling water is water -
used to reduce temperature which does
not come Into direct contact with any
raw material, intermediate product.
waste product (other than heat) or
finished product. Non-contact cooling
water discharges are similar in
composition even though they are not
generated by a single industrial category
or point source.
The similarity of the discharges has
prompted EPA to prepare this general
permit. When issued, this permit will
enable facilities to maintain compliance
with the Act and will extend
environmental and regulatory controls
to a large number of discharges and
reduce some permit backlog. The
issuance of this general permit for the
geographic areas described below is
warranted by the similarity of (a)
environmental conditions, (b) State
regulatory requirements applicable to
the discharges and receiving waters, and
(c) technology employed.
-------
V I eg hr P VbL 59 . &I / Thtir y, ApilT 28. 7 94 P P k
In

esti mtnd thA th& j j.s.thei
have d r
the Sta are iiai au s c5á g
water. In the &NwM ipâ rs.
there ale 178 inthstzie appt ear
perinittees. It is estimi tM thaL ar 3
of the industries that have direct
discharges to the water! a? the State are
strictly noff-centac? coofthgwater hr the
af ssachnset there
are 651 industrial ap!ftcanteor
permlttees. ft is e tim t that avurZ
of the industries that have direct
discharges to tha eiat at t Steteare.
strictly non conxau cooling water.
IV .. mdifr d theG ,aZLQ ES
A. Geogrnpfzic Arena
Maine MMLN(L M QØQ A
of the Ii’ . . .Ltug ta ________
general N UES p r t
locate thaStata
watessofd a gzll ethwwi
restrict t ti e b rticle4- .
Water C Pt’ogmm.
revi
M’’ kKo . .
r e J dtha r ta .
author byt geimir NP per
for dischargers the C imncnwae1th ’ if

Commt alth ari ssotharwf
restrictoá th set $uthc.
WaQuslley 5ta rd
(or asrevtmd . incui og314Q
4.a4(3 Proo on o tstan g
ResouWatepa.
Near p erm N
NH 5 nO0 ..AI of the. d&d vsVeI,e
authv b by g. e af Nvs. p v i
fordis ha grs.im SaIe etPtew
Hampthira ixt a w e cf the
State ofNewa hi urrZ s
otherwise w xteá b -the Sla ’ Water
Quality Starrd ds. Wew Ffee pshieRSA
485—& (op . f J).
H. NotificaLio n by P nnii*’
Operatn of
discharge. ar c g .u
cooling w d hi ___
lomtad. us geographicarees
described in P s PtP.. abcw may
submit to &egfo 1 thaPor
Regina. L.a aetica of in ai to Lecaveped’
by the ap wu(u 1u geaemL permit’
withza. 18Osoh vfle thrs da o(
the g era1 permiL.Ths iiuL&i
riotUiza czz the c ear’s, or
operat ’s t adthear the
facnlity ra aadad themzrnber
and type afi_rili tQIer cov ed the
faciiny it 4s a tizp phAe map
(or other r i atop,grapMcmapks
not avaL b *m tthg the facii ty
lothenareføoltb, , ‘,
waters into whith dizfml!&wj
a determinatio as.tai thepog na&the
facility discharge will advemaI agact&
listed or proposed to be. listed.
enduii ,rn,d or threat iuwZ species or its
cr1tk d bit 1 t (See Part Ej’..arnf in the’
State of Maine. onFy. a rpeth!ffst of
water ta Lu ut d mice sused’ the
facility.
Faci Tnt- t [ a C tic t5Q5
Ness mpcFlirA thttit I
coveredimifp, this gf nPv*I
alsa submila farmaL tiTh e with
the notice oEintanLthaLne n i a1
addithtes.amu d.iathnic ne coatact
cooling water sys ms.
Each facility must also certàt that the
disdm ’ga laly of
cooling wateir. aather eate re 1
discharges will bepemriaaEitfr b -this.
generab permit..
Eaó £ riIity sux also mt. er
of the. i,r i ee’of i -toee S
authority as eppro riata (sen individual
state permits for appropriate authority
am adthe . -
The thurlzedttr &scFxarge
under the finePgen ? pwwit wriT
receive w tt noti1 tFun . from EPA.
RegionL with
FaiFtueti, s thrmTh ‘&& uu l .a
noticq’ of intent te c - d andfor
failure t rec ive ETh wdt1u
notifi tian afpem iitcovnraga. means.
that the f’aci y is notauxhorized to
dischzrge rmderthi eeerar perznft.
c. Effliwo Limitations
1. Statu th wein .
The CJqaa WataeMt(theh
prohibits.thedischar af t.1 i .
waters of the Th iM States w a
Natfc r ai PoHntantfli
EliminMion Sy ari ( ,bJPI]ES ,
unless such adisdgat
authd by the Etct. NPfES
Perrni t hemechanmm a ±to.
lmplem t technology er wrp ty
based effluent. linthat±eiia ai uth
requiremon jflrbirb ,g rzdmgand
reporting. The Spermit was.
developed in. a d ncawntk armes
statutory and negulabity- aethnuiti— .
e hbsed pn xiant to The
regulauans mgtheEP A. NPDES.
Permit progra genemily &zin?i at
40 parts 1 1Z4.. and t36..
EPA is i quired to. consideir
technology and waterqeel ty
requirements when dev&op ig peu’mft
limits. 4 Q R pert fl5 Sohper! A s
the criteria and stai d k,. the EPA muse
use to d i-lit iiie which tt Lziurogy-
based requilemento. requirements lErder
Se r( o the Act andiotr
requirini bestebilshed on ecase -byi
case esfe-esdersr 1 -42 f ’,J o?the
Act. th uF d’tii isy the , 1 1 t
The Cl sji hterAct’ requn res that aZ
discharges, at a minimeer. masrmeat
effluent lim based er the
techgica pal ill*y of char e,s
to tr J
Secti . 30 1a) a?the Act reqnires
the
C .....h,.I 1ethnc1 Caszent iZ I.
( P1) with thectattztozy eiflma for
compliance bait Ju yi. T. wüw
ot eirth by the its .
Section 301(b 2 off the ri’ the
applicati of B C ka
.Co T nohrgy (u )far
conventional mfletents.andlB
Available1edn im i r ricaIl
Anhievth3e i -omveatinnaI
and toi poth M . The cempilacce
deadliafargci ac BAT ue as
eapedit a1 acpmctii b1a in an
case later than three jeerea rthe dater
such lieritetlens are i iiila d sad. in
no c late, thais Merth 31.. 1.98&..
2. Tea!o’ use5EflTnerir
Llm s
EPA has. ant pmmitTg ii N tfnn T
Effluent. Guidelines. far nnn-conta
coolThg water dtc hnrges. For a.____
where Guid flneshaye baeo..
prmtLTg itAd ..suth as amm nT ,M’tri
gPl1A c tfnnc (see4fl Epait
4Z3T. the iici,nni ,t of
permitfor th . irJlIlTgPc wauldbe mare
appropriate (See 40 CFR
128QñC3Uj1(C l. therefore as.
prov [ ded in section. 4QZCalLlj of tim Act.
EPA.has deterrninecttn issue. this.
general mit utilLzing heat
professionar 1g unent. ( BFTI to meet . tim
above stated citteria for BAI7BCn .
described in. section. 304(bl Qrthe Act
The piT has. been defined as a
conventional pollutant. A review of’ the
BCT regulat m eais the cast ar
inappropriate becausa (11 The pH is net
adjusted as nnthing.buz heat is. added to
the discharge and no chemical addftioxi.
unless approved by the State of! (aine.
or treatment is provided, and (Zi pIT.
even though It is a.conventi’ona}
pollutant. is not measured in pounds as
the other cOnventional pollutants.
3. WacerQualfty fflnent
Limitations
Thrder5ecrion t( T(xl(C7 of the Act
discharges art subject to efiruent
linntatrons based air arqnallry
stancfards and te the conditiuns of State
certification under sectrorr40? of the
Act. 1 caiving ’seean qunren1en are
estaelied accerdc g te mmrericaf and
narrative standards adopted understate
and/or f deral law for each strealit use
classification TheCWA requires that
EPA obtaiir State’ certificatioiv wFzfch
-------
22050
Federal Register I - VoL 59. No. 81 / Thursday, April 28, 1994 / Notices
The conditions of the permit reflect
the goal of the CWA and EPA to achieve
and maintain water quality standards. -
The environmental regulations
pertaining to the State Antidegradation
Policies which protect the State’s
surface waters from failing below State
standards for water quality are found in
the following provisions: Maine Title
38. Article 4-A, Section 464.4.F.;
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
314 Qv 4.04 Antidegradation
Provisions: and New Hampshire policy
RSA 485—A:8, VI Part Env•Ws 437.01
and Env-Ws 437.02.
This general permit will not apply to
any new or increased discharge unless
it can be determined that such
discharges will result in insignificant
effects to the receiving waters. This
determination shall be made in
E. Endangered Species
Non-contact cooling water discharges
that may adversely affect a listed or
proposed to be listed endangered or
threatened species or its critical habitat
are not authorized under this general
permit without the written approval of
the Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
The FISh and Wildlife Service has
Indicated that the dwarf wedge mussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon), a Federally
listed endangered species, occurs in a
stretch of the Connecticut River from
Lebanon. New Hampshire to
Weathersfleld Bow, Vermont, in the
Ashuelot River in Keene, New
Hampshire, and historically from a
number of rivers in Massachusetts. Any
facility whose discharge may adversely
effect the mussel or any other
threatened or endangered species or its
habitat is required to contact the Fish
and Wildlife Service at the following
address in order to make a formal
determination: United States
Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 400 Ralph Pill
Marketplace, 22 Bridge Street, Concord,
New Ham ,sbire 03301—4901.
The National Marine Fisheries Service
has indicated that the endangered
shortnose sturgeon (A ci penser
brevirostrum) inhabits certain sections
of the Penobscot, Kennebec and
Androscoggin Rivers in Maine, and the
Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers in
Massachusetts. Any facility whose
discharge may adversely effect the
sturgeon or any other threatened or
endangered species or its habitat is
required to contact the National Marine
Fisheries Service at the following
address: United States Department i
Commerce, National Oceanic and
• Atmospheric Administration, Nati
‘Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat and
Protected Resources Division, One
Blackburn Drive, Gloucester,
Massachusetts 01930—2298.
F. Other Requirements -
The remaining conditions of the
permit are based on the NPDES
regulations 40 G’R parts 122 through
125 and consist primarily of
management requirements common to
all permits.
V. State (401) CertificatIon
• SectIon 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or permit, including
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge Into
navigable waters shall be granted until
the State in which the discharge
originates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of sectIons 301. 302, 303,
306, and 307 of the CWA. The section
401 certificatIon process has been
completed for all States covered by
today’s general permit. The following
summary indicates where additional
permit requirements have been added as
a result of the certification process.
The following changes apply tot
States. Part III (Part IB.1. in the dra.
• permit) Description of Non-Contact
Cooling Water Discharges has been
changed to include non-contact cooling
water Instead of just cooling water in
the description. Part IV.A. (Part ILA. in
the draft) Geographic Areas has been
changed to include specific reference to
all state water quality standards which
would apply to the discharges covered
under the permit. Part IV.B. (Part ILB. in
the draft) Notification by Permittees has
been modified to Include specific State
requirements (see final permit).
Massachusetts: see Appendix B,
Massachusetts General Permit. Under
Part I.A.1. (Appendix A.. Number i, Part
LA.1. in the draft) the State has
Included a provision for the flow
requirements in the final permit. The
provision allows for a discharge flow of
greater than I MGD to be covered under
the general permit on a case by case
basis as determined by the State (see
footnote in final permit). The discharge
limitations for pH have been modified
to include the requirements specific to
each water classification type (see Part
LA.i. or j. in the final permit). LC 50 & C.
NOEC, the testing requirements for
whole effluent toxicity (WET), have
been changed. WET testing will onl)
required upon request by EPA andJor
the State (see Part LA.i.k. of the final
permit). Parts I.A.1.b, c, d & e have been
states that all water quality standards accordance with the appropriate State
will be satisfled. Ragu1atlons governing Antidegradatlon Policies. -
State certification are set forth in 40 CFR
§ 124.53 and 124.55. D. Monitoring and Reporting
Section 101(aX3) of the Act Requirements
specifically prohibits the discharge of Effluent limitations and monitoring
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The requirements which are included In the
States of Maine, Massachusetts, and general permit describe the
New Hampshire have similar narrative requirements to be imposed on the
criteria in their water quality regulations facilities to be covered.
(See Maine Title 38, Article 4—A, section Facilities covered by the final general
420 and section 464 4 .A(4) permits will be reouired to submit to
Massachusetts 314 CVIR 4.05(5)(e); d EPA, Region 1, and the appropriate State
New Hampshire Part Env-Ws authoritY, a Discharge Monitoring
432.02(c)(4)) that prohibits such Report (DMR) containing effluent data.
discharges. The permit does not allow The frequency of reporting is
for the addition of materials or determined in accordance with each
chemicals in amounts which would State’s provisions (see the individual
produce a toxic effect to any aquatic life. State permits).
Nevertheless, toxic effects may stiii The monitoring requirements have
occur as a result of toxic source water been established to yield data
or due to dissolution of the piping In the representative of the discharge under
cooling water systems. authority of SectIon 3 08(a) of the Act
Non-contact cooling water discharges and 40 R § 122.41(j) 122.44(i) and
do not contain or come In contact with 122.48, and as certified by the State..
raw materials, intermediate products,
finished products, or process wastes.
Therefore, it could be assumed that the
discharges do not contain toxic or
hazardous pollutants or oil and grease.
However, based on the previous
statement regarding potential source
water toxicity, these discharges may
violate water quality criteria established
for toxic or hazardous pollutants in -
whIch case an indlvidualpermit would
be required. -
Water quality standards applicable to
non-contact cooling water discharges
covered by this general permit include
pH and temperature. EPA has reviewed
the water quality standards for pH and
temperature of each of the States and
has incorporated the appropriate
effluent limitations Into each permit.
4. Antidegradatlon Provisions
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 81 / Thursday , April 28, 1994 / Notices
22051
added to the final permit, these
provisions are specific to the
temperature exceedence allowances in
accordance with the State water quality
standards. Any requirements referring to
Class C or SC water bodies found In the
draft general permit have been deleted
since there axe no Class C or SC
segments in the State.
New Hampshire: see Appendix B,
New Hampshire General Permit. Under
Part LA.1. (Appendix A., Section c., Part
LA.1. in the draft) the temperature limit
and designation for a warm water
fishery have been added under Part
LA.1.a. The reference for pH has been
changed to Include specific State permit.
conditions (see Part LB. of the final
permit). LC5o & C ’NOEC, the testing
requirements for whole effluent toxicity
(WET), have been changed. WET testing
will only be required upon request by
EPA and/or the State (see Part LA.1.f. of
the final permit).
VL Adminisfrative Aspects
A. Request To Be Covered
A facility is not covered by any of
these general permits until It meets the
following requirements. First, it must
send a notice of intent to EPA and the
appropriate State indicating It meets the
requirements of the permit and wants to
be covered. And second, ft must be
notified in writing by EPA that It Is -
covered by this general permit. -
Any facility operating under an
effective individual NPDES permit may
request that the individual permit be
revoked and that coverage under the
general permit granted, as outlined in 40
CFR 122.28(b)(3)(v). If EPA grants
coverage under the general permit. EPA
will so notify the facility and revoke the
individual permit.
Facilities with expired individual
permits that have been administratively
continued in accordance with § 122.6
may apply for coverage under this
general permit. When coverage is -
granted the expired Individual permit
automatically will cease being In effect.
B. ThiCoastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZM.A). 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., and
its implementing regulations 1 15 CFR
Part 9301 require that any federally
licensed activity affecting the-coastal
zone with an approved Coastal Zone
Management Program (CZMP) be
determined lobe consistent with the
CZ . EPA. Region I. has determined
that these general NPDES permits axe
consistent with the CZNP. EPA has
received consistency from the
Massachusetts, Maine, and New
Hampshire coastal zone agencies for a
determination that these three permits
are consistent with their respective State
policies.
C. The Endangered Species Act
EPA Region I has concluded that the
existing discharges that obtain coverage
under this general NPDES permit wilF
not affect or jeopardize the continued -
existence of any endangered or
threatqhed species or adversely affect its
a’itical habitat. EPA has submitted a -
“no-effect” determination t’o th U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to
confirm this conclusion.
D. Envrronmenloi Impact Statement
Req wremesits
The general permits do not authorize
the construction of any water resources
project or the impoundment of any
water body or have any effect on
historical property, and are not major
Federal activities needing preparation of
any Environmental Impact Statement.
Therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, 16 U.S.C. §S 1273 et seq., the
National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, 16 U.S.C §S470 etseq.. the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 —
U.S.C. fi 661 at seq., and the National
Environmental Policy Act, 33 U.S.C.
§S 4321 et seq., do not apply to the
Issuance of these general NPDES
its , -
V II, Other Legal Requirements -.
A. Economic Impact (Executive Order -
12291)
EPA has reviewed the effect of
Executive Order 12291 on this draft
geneisi pémit and has determined that
it Is note major rule under that order.
This regulation was submitted
previously to the Office of Management
and Budget for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. The Office of
Management and Budget has exempted
this action from the review - - .
i’equlrements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of.that Order.
B. Paper.vork Reduction Act -
EPA has reviewed the requirements
Imposed on regulated facilities by these
draft general NPDES permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. The information
collection reqwrements of these draft
permits have already been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
under submissions made for the NPDES
permit program under the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. No comments from
the Office of Management and Budget or
the public were received on the
information collection requirements in
these permits.
C. The Regulator, 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. § 605(5), that these permits do
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the draft permits will reduce
a significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Dated. April 6, 1994.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Adminzstretoz.
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the September 15,
1992, Draft General Permits
One commenter expressed concern that the
general permits eliminate all effective water
treatment programs for non-contact cooling
systems and that the permits surmised that
additives used to control biological growth
• (biocides) are inherently toxic to aquatic life.
The commenter su ested that EPA more
fully review all the technical aspects of
operating and maintaining cooling tower
systems before issuing the permit
As stated In the permit, the purpoee of -
general permits Is to extend envizumnental
and regulatory controls to a large number of
discharges and reduce some permit backlog.
It as m han1i ’ through which the Region
can properly regulate manyof the minor non
contact cooling water discharges, It can
provide quick coverage toe large number
facilities, Time end resources do not allow
for individual review of eash of the facilities
cooling water systems and the types of
additives used. If a facility wishes it may
apply for an individual permit which can
address this Issue separately. -
One commenter from New Hampshire
expressed concern regarding the pH
requirements for the permit, the cornnlenter
was concerned that excursions of pH caused
by precipitation or Intake water are not
allowed. . - -
The final permit requirements for New
Hampshire do allow for pH excursions due
to natural causes as part of the State Surface
Water Quality Regulations (see the New
-. Hampshire general permit. Past B, State
Permit Conditions).
- Appendix B—Final General Permits
Under the National Pollutant Discharge
VIimii ation Syetczn (NPDES).
Nete The following three general NPDES
permits have been combined for purposes of
this Federal Register. Parts LA. and LB. of
the permits are specific for each state. Parts
LC. and LD. are common to all three permits
Massachusetts General Pennzt. Permit No.
MAC250 0 00 -
In compliance with the provisions of the
Fedesel Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C § 1231 at seq.: the “C.VA? ’i. and the
Massachusetts Clean Waters In
Massachusetts, which discharge solely non-
contact cooling water, as previously defined
in Pert Ill, to the classes of waters as
designated in the Massachusetts Water
-------
Fedmd Rmg ster I VoL 59. No. 81 / Thursday, April 28, 1994 / NotIces
Quality 4.00 at — sir
authorized to discbaigs to all waters. unlese
othecwlse rU d . in aaairdance with
effluent ilmitasinni . monitoring equireinents.
andohercondltfoasset faith banlu. -
This permit shall bsc.. — .e effective when
Issued. --.
This permit and the authcdzedon to
discharge expire at mkhulght. five years frem
the effective date of the Federal Register
publication.
Operators of facilities within the general
permit area who fail to notify the Director of
their intent to be covered by this general
permit and receive written notification of
permit coverage, or those who are denied by Part I
A. Effluent Uniilettons and Manftnthrg
-Requiiements -
1. During the period beginning effect
data and lasting through expiration, the
permitte. is anthomied to discharge frees
each outfall of nan-contact cooling water to
a drainage basin classified as a warm or cold
water fishery as designated below.
a. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the peuuee as specified
below:
b. Ther lse in temperature thi, to.
discharge to Class A waters shall not ed
1.5’F (O.8CJ: and animal seasuasi and daily
variations shall be maintained (314 OAR
4.O5(3Xa32 .
c.The nselntemperatureduetoe
discharge to Class B waters shall act exceed
3’? (i.PCJ in rivers and siI w S designated
as cold water fisheries non S’P (Z.S CJ in
rivers and saeams designated as warm water
fisheries (based on the mlalmwn expected
flow for the month) In lakes and ponds the
rise shall not exceed 3’? (L7 ’C La the
epllirnnion (based on the monthly average of
maximum daily temperatuxe) and natural
seasonal and daily variations shall be -
maintained (314 CMR L0 3 ) (b)2).
d. The rise in d i i . to
discharge to Class SA wa shall net exceed
1.5’? (0.8°C. and natural seasonal and daily
variations shall be maintained (314 OAR
4.05(4fla)23.
a. The rise in temperature due to a
discharge to Class SB waters shall not exceed
1.5°F (0.8°C) during the summer months (July
through Septemberi nor 4°F (2.2°C) durIng
the winter months (October through June)
and natural seasonal and daily variations
shall be maintained 314 C (R 4.05(4KbJ2.
L This permit prohilata the addition of any
water treatment chemical for any parpose to-
the non-contact cooling water system.
g. There shall be no discharge of floating
solids or visible foam in other than ttace
amounts.
h. Samples taken In compliance with the
monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the point of discharge.
L The pH of the effluent for discharges to
Class A and Class B waters shall be in the
range of 6.5-8.3 standard units and not more
than 0.5 units outside of the back&ound
range. There shall be no change from
back onnd conditions that would Impair
any uses assigned to the receiving water
Class.
J The pH of the effluent for discharges to
Class SA and Case SB waters shall be mm cbs
range of 8.5-8.5 standard unite and not more
than 0.2 units outside of the normally
occurring range. There shall be no change
from background conditions that would
impair any uses assigned to the receiving
water Class.
k. One chronic (and modified acute)
toxicity test shall be performed on the non-
contact omilng water discharge by the
kermittee upon request by EPA and/or
MADEP. Testing shall be perfermed in
accordance with EPA toxicity protocol to be
provided at the Lime of the request. The test
shall be performed on a 24 hour composite
sample to be taken during normal facility
operation. The results of the test (C-.NOEC
end LC 1 ,) shall be forwarded to State end
EPA within 30 days after completion.
The test methods to follow are those
recommended by EPA far the particular
discharge In:
Weber. C. 1. et al., 1989. Short Term
Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity
of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms. Second Edition.
Office of Research and Development.
Cincinnati. 0 * 1, EPA-600I4-59--O01.
Peltier. W.. and Weber. Cl.. 1985. Methods
for Measuring the Acute Toxialty a/Effluents
to Freshwater and Marine C ganzszris. Third
Edition. Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA/800/4-851013 ,
Weber, C. I. at aL. 1988. Short Term
Methods for Estimating the Oironk Toxicity
of Effluezits o.nd Receiving Waters to Marine
and Estuarir.e Organisms, Office of Research
and Development. Cincinnati, 0*( EPA-600/
4—871 &
B. State Permit Conditions
1. ThIs Discharge Permit is issued Jointly
by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) end the Dupeitmnant of
Environmental Protection under Federal and
State law, respectively. As such, alt the terms
and conditions of this permit are hereby
Incorporated Into and constitute a discharge
permit Issued by the Dtrect of the
Massachusetts Office of Watershed
Management pursuant to hLG.L Chap. 21.
543.
2, Each Agency shall have the independent
right to enforce the tories and conditions of
this Permit Any modification, suspension or
revocation of this Permit shall be effective
only with respect to the Agency taking such
action, and shall not affect the validity c
status of this Permit as issued by the oth
Agency, unless and until each Agency has
concurred in writing with such modification,
suspension or revocation. In the event any
the Dk ct em act erzthosl d under s
ger al permit todisebarge 6ees those
facilities to the receiving waters or area
named.
SIgned thIs 6th day of AprIl. 1994.
De ’idA.Fte sm.
Dherfor. Water Management DMsion.
EnvmerstelPmiec iion Agesicy Baiter ?.
M t
Andrew Cottileb,
Dfrnctor, Office of Watershed Management.
Bureau of Resource Thotect,on.
Com,norn,reolth of Ma emclwsetfs, Boston,
MA. -
.
Effluent characteristic
•
Discharge 6tnut tt other iseta (specify)
u .dtC . . . .Q re mements
.
Avg. MonU y
Max. Daily
M
r
Sample type
Flow —— .
Temperature:
Warm water fishefy —
-
Cost water fishery ’
pH
-
LC,, & C-NOEC. % .....
1.0 MGO -
83 ’ ?(2&3’C) —
or
(‘) —
(2)
Quartedy —-
Quarterly
- -
Quarterly
—
Totalfzed daily.
4 s. reporlmng max ,-
mum nedaverage.
4 grabs reporting maxi-
mum and mramwn vat-
uea.
24-hciir composite.
.-__
( ‘)
-
(I) .__
‘The State may allow coverage isider the general permit for 5charges greater than 1.0 UGD on a case by case basis.
The definition at a cold or warm waler fishery can be lotmd in the Massactiuselts Surface Waler Quality SlandeidS. 314 CMR 4.06(1)(d)6.
end 41)6(1 Mi., respectveiy. The design on at a cold or warm w r fistiery sha8 be that which is pronded is the Water Quality Standards
314 CMR 4.0643), - -
‘See pert LA.1J or
2SeO pail LA1J(. .
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 81 I Thursday , April 28. 1994 I. Notices
- 22053
portion of this Permit Is declared invalid,
illegal or othaiwt e Issued In violation of
State law such permit shall remain In full
force and effect underFederal law u sa
NPD Permit issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. In the
event this Permit Is declared Invalid. illegal
or otherwise Issued In violation of Federal
law, this Permit shall remain In full force and
effect under State law as a Permit Issued by
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Maine General Permit, Permit No.
MEC250000
In compliance with the provisions of the
Federal Clean Water Ad, as amended, (33
U.S.C. SS 1251 et seq.; the “CWA , operators
of Industrial facilities discharging solely non.
contact cooling water, as previously defined
In Part Ill, located In Maine are authorized
to discharge to all waters of the State unless
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements
1. DurIng the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through expiration,
the perraittee Is authorized to discharge from
each outfall of non contnet cooling water (as
defined In Paragraph LA.1.L below) Into
fresh and marine water.
a. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
b. The pH shall not be less than 6.0
standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard
units and shall be monitored monthly with
4 grabs. reporting maximwu values (see
LA.1.L below).
c. There shall be no discharge of floating
solids or visible foam In other than trace
amounts. -
d. The effluent limitations are based on the
State water quality standards and certified by
the State.
a. Samples taken In compliance with the
monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the point of discharge.
t Definitions: -,
Non.contoct cooling water Is water used to
reduce temperature which does not come
into direct contact with any raw matenal.
intermediate product, waste product or
finished product
Non.tox,c water treatment additives are
chemicals used in cooling water system.
primarily to control corrosion or prevent
deposition of scale forming materials which
do not exhibit any residual toxic effect on the
receiving waters.
g. Discharge Temperature and Volume
The temperature and volume of the
discharge shall not exceed 120 F and 30
millions gallons per day (MCD ) The
acceptability of the total or combined eon-
contact cooling waters from each facility
must be determined using the graph on
FIgure 1. The intersection of the maximum
effluent temperature and the dilution ratio
shall be In the “acceptable” range shown on
Figure 1, tItled “Effluent Temperature!
Dilution Creph” for coverage by the General
Permit Program. If the Intersection falls
within the “nonacceptable” ama. the facility
must be covered by the Indiv idual NPDES
Permit, not the General Permit Program.
The effluent temperature Is the maximum
daily temperature. The dilution factor Is the
sum dfthe 1Q10 low stream flow at the
facility site and the daily maximum affluent
flow divided by the daily maximum effluent
flow ,For facilities with multiple outfalls, the
daily maximum effluent flow shall be the
sum of the flow from all outmalls.
h. Water Treatment Additives
Non•toxic water treatment additives are
allowed In non contact cooling water
systems. The State of Maine will review each
Identified chemical to determine Its
acceptability. Additives used to control
biological growth in such cooling systems are
prohibited due to their Inherent toxicity to
aquatic life.
Residual chlorine discharges resulting from
the use of potable water supplies will be . -
exempt from this provision.
The following water treatment additive
biological and chemical data must be
supplied in the letter of Intent to be covered
by this general permit
(1) Name and manufacture of each additive
used.
- (2) Maximum and average daily quantity of
each additive used on a monthly basis, and
(3) The vendors reported aquatic toxicity
of additive (NOAEL and/or LC in % for
typically acceptable aquatic test organisms)
All substitutions to the accepted water
treatment chemicals must be approved by the
State prior to their usage.
I. pHControl
The p11 of the effluent shall be between 6.0
to 8.5 standard units (s.u.) unless the sole
causepf exctirsion below 6.0 s.u. is due to
predpitatlon or the low pH of the Influent
water.
J. Total Residual lonne
Potable water supply sources used for
cooling water supply shall not contain Total
Residual Chlorine (TRC) at concentration
levels that induce a toxic impact upon
aquatic life within the receiving waters. The
instream waste concenuat .on of TRC based
on the ratio of the effluent flow stream flow
io the 7Q10 low flow of the stream shall be
less than the appropnate water quality
oriteria for the receiving waterway.
- coos ius,r
otherwise restricted by TItle 38. ArtIcle 4-A. Signed thIs 6th day of April 1q94.
Water Classification Program, in accordance jd A. Fie ra.
with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements and other conditions set forth Director, WoterManagernentDiv jon ,
herein. No discharge Into lakes Is authorized EflVltoIWiefltoJ Pret ction AgenCy. Boston. -
by this permit. MA.
This permit shall become effective when
Issued. P 171 I
This permit and the authorlzetlon to
discharge expire at midnight, five years from
the effective date of the Federal Register
publl atlon.
Operators of facilities within the general
permit area who fail to notify the Director of
their Intent to be covered by this general
permit and receive written notification of
permit coverage, or those who are denied
coverage by the DIrector are not authorized
under this general permit to discharge front
those facilities to the receiving water, or
areas named.
.
- Emueet characteristic
Discharge kmatabons other tm#s (specify)
Monitonng
Avg. monthly
Max. daily
Flow (see lA1.g) -
Terrçerature (see IA1.g4 ’
•
Total Resicioal Chlorine (see IAI.J.)
See Figure 1
See Figure 1
. -
Report
Monthly -
Monthly
Ouartirty
Daily average.
4 grabs, reporting max ,-
mis and averages.
.
.
P4on contact cooling water may be clscharged only Into Class B, C. SB, and SC waters that hav, a ó’ainage area larger trian ten (10) square
milesm aceordance with Maine Slate Law See Paragraph l.A.1.g. lot details or detelTnflng it the specific ctscharge s) have acoeptabie ctlubon
-------
zz
x
I
[ I,
1•
I
I
I
L
0•
(IQU I Ii t
—
- — ‘ -
Ih I
E(fluonr.
Temp.
( • F)
FIGURE 1
fruiuent TempOrAtur• bL1uLfonGxapi )
I .
120
110
100 -
90
80
10
60
0
1 i —
50 LOÔ 50 200 250 300 3 0 400 450 500 550
Dilution • (7Q10+Effl. Y low)/EU I. Flow
-------
F d 1 Regf t r / VoF. 59. No. I Thursday.. April 2& t9 4 I notices
Dep ’tuxrec and New of Envirunmenta? Ser,ti . W t Supp’y and a. The discharge shad be Lfm I and.
Pollution C noor Dlvfsfon. monitored as specified beIow
EMuent thasa oalic
Ciscbaige en ta (s e if
h —
M

.
San pe
FlOW. gpti — —— .. .. ..
._ ____
(I) ........._____
Report ...._
C
F ra.3 1 c _
- . . . .
Monflity ... ....
Mon y
-
Nori u
Total daay.
4 s
jre aid
4 qv ,epor ”q m i-
end
Terepe
Cc w er
WanD er t ry —____
pit .. ... ..______ .
.
LCio & C-* EC. % —— —..—---—--.
..—.- -——.—.
.....____..__
-
• Aa. determined by th Neie Pwe Fisl and Gan pa, rt
‘See Part i.B.l.a.
ZSee Part LA.1.f.
b. This peri thies not allow the
addition o( any bi t ch nd kNassy
purpo to tbewa .
C. Theansha lk ____
floMag .aoisdLvlsihle kia . s oik e
visible pollutants..
d. The effluent limitations for tempe wra
and pH are based on the state water quality
standand5 and ate ce,tlfied by the
I. Samples ?aka in mpllare wills the
monitoring requ m.ubspedfnd abe ie -
shall betek sstb. peinto?dischwge
I.. CMe chronic and modified ecute*
toxicity teia shall be p . w,d OQ
conta oling wa dtacb gebyilse
permitteen queer by EPA and/er the
N}EZS T zn shell hi p rf . ed in -
ac danc. with EPA tmi,dty pr .4 ., . .ol b be
provided at the time of the raq t Thn t t
shall hi performed on a. 24-bout composite
sample to be taken diningnormalfaalfty
operation. The resut otthe test (C-l’lO
and LC,o? shag be forwarded to the State and
EPA within 30 days after completion.
The test methods to follow az those
recommended by EPA for die partTcu!ar
dischm ge im
Wehir. CLI . 798ft. 1 Term
Method ferEsLmoiLmg the Chs Thcidty
of EfjJi ienza mid Becawzng Woles
Freshwater Or “ - S n4 Edition..
Office of R q nh and. Developmant
Oncinnad. Oil. EPA-iOW489IOGi
Peltier. W.. and Weber. CL. 1S8&M oda
for Meoswwg the Ac’.Ae T .wdy cfEfjhiente
to Fr shw rcmdMa C gaa&sarc. Ths
Edition. Office of Research and Devalc ment.
Cincinnati. OH. EPAI6OW4-85/013.
Weber, C.!. et aL. 1988. Short Thmp
Methods f a r E.gt akroeiciIy
of Efftuenta and ltecesv8vg Wa 5WA nrie
and Estuorine Oz’gonssws Offiouo( Research
and EPA-Gaol
4—87/028.
B. S1aWP cuuL CoeJ2b . ., .j -
1. The Pi .z . Atte shalT cemply with the
follow ge t1cnswLharwfocloded ar
State Certificetfon requfremev
a. The pH for cissa B shell be 5.5-
8.OS.U orarnatilyomursfethe
receiving water. TheS 5-5.0 SLY. range-Irrast
be achieved in the final effluent unless the
perinittee can demoestiate to the Dwision
that: (liThe range should be widened due to
natimily iPriag c’ ” ’ -in I -
receiving water or (2 the natiiraUy rrnz.wig
source water pH Is unpiia,ed by
permittees operations.. The scope of any
den su..tiu . profetm trecetce FiCT
approval from the Division. In no cam shall
the . ..lm. . pft
rsU ree than any 6 .h
effluent limit gin.1 _ k; . _ . .. .
2. ThroNPD Di .ir h
by the thS FL..t... 11 A y
under Fedemi law. Upan è
issuance by thoEPA. the New Hampsls* .
Deparumot of Envbvnmsaml Srvnae ,
Water Supply and Pt liaiou C’-” lRvl ce
may adopt this xnit.iacludisigall t
and cpnditlons. as a state permit pursuant to
RSA 485-A 13.. E A cy s ik have the
Independent nght to enforce tha. terma and.
conditions of this Pernut. Any modification..
suspensiooorivvecatian otthis 1’ ai1 shall
be effective only with ic t to the Agency
taking such action, and elm!? nor affect the-
validity or sratur of the P rnrlt ar Issued by
the citlrerAgerrcy. unless and until each
Ageiyfscoucorrad In writii wrth such
mothfI itar,, suspension or ’r v tfon. in
the event my poition of this Permit Is
declared invafid. illegel wotherwim in
vlolati p ofStata law.such permit shall
remain th full force and effect under Fbdernl
law as an NPDEP P TUIILLSSUm! by tha. US.
Envirournantal Protection Ageccy rn.tha
e$ent th s Permit is declared nvalid. illegal
or otherwise issued in violation of Federal
law, this Permit. if adopted ase stale permit.
shall remain in full force and effectoader
State law as aF uxiit Lsaued.by die State of
New Hampshire.
C Consmoe ElementejbrAil Pes,nit
Monstonag and Reporting Ileq iWonwnts
Mnne arid Massachusetts: Monitoring
results o ined .L dua ,the previmrafl
months shall be simirnarized for each cLuarter
end reported on separate Dtmhargp
Monitoring. Report Fonnfg? postmai*M no
later than the tsth day of the mouth
following the o,mpletedrepcrthig period.
The pu [ ti . am due an the 15th day of
January and Tu?y. The strepostmay -
Include i r an their 6 months LJti -wiitton.
New Hampslme Monitoring results
obtained dm mg the previous mouth. shall be
for each month and on
separate Dtschaxge Monitoring Report
Form(s) postmar*ed no later than the rstk
day of the month foE?OWIIig the ammplered
zrlrrgpeLherepcr are due on the
15th day of thenth fol!awtngthe
re .tiu period.
Sl ied copies of these, and all other
repartr inqidied herein, shalt be submitted to
the and the appropriate State at the
following ad4xesses .
1. EPA alLa ul . a Copy ofAlLRepoda
Requsred. iem
U.S. Envia . .rutel P ,t ikjO AgerEy.
NPDES Program Operations Section. ,er
Office Box 8127,. B on, MA 011 14
2. Mnc rhii st Depert ni of
Env . n tel Pro e t
a.. The R*eaI es wheseit, the
disc g, occws . shall receives cop7of ’all
report r.qizfred herein
Massadrzraetts De ofEnvfrurirueneal
Pr tion. Division of Wato Poflution
Control. Western Regional Office. Post
OIflce !us -z no. SpthiguIeld. MA aT TOT
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Pli tu i . Division of Water Poflutfon
Cntmt.Southeastern Regional Officn .2C
R.iversfde Drive. Lakavilte. MA 02347
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection. Division of Water Pollution
ControL Northeastern RegionaL Office. U)
Commerce Way. Wobam, MA 01801
Massz .r n c .Ils flepartmsotoiflnvuvrnnentel
Proteaion. Division of Water Pollistion
Control. Central Rag onal Office. 75 Grove
Street.. Worcester, MA 91605
b All notifications and reports required. by
this permit shall also be submitted to the
State at
Mn c4ui , att& Department of Environmental
Protection.. Office ofWatezshad
Ms narTnPnt P.O .. Box. ü8.North Gmflnri.
,MA01536
3. MaIne D .t. ,...,t of EavtaL
Protection
SIgned enpv oFall reports red by
this permit shallbesent othe ’Steteat
Maine Department ofEnvironmantal
Protection. Operation and Maintenance
DIvision. State Rouse. Station 17. Augusta.
ME O4m
-------
22056
Federal Register / Vol 59, No. 81 / Thursday, April 28. 1994 / Notices
4. New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services -
Signed copies of all reports required by
this permit shall be sent to the State at:
New Hampshire Department of -
Environmental Services. Permits and
Compliance Section. P0. Box 95,6 Haxen
Drive. Concord. New Hampshire 03302-
0095
D. Additional General Penn it Conditions
1. Notification Requirements
& Written notification of commencement
of operations, Including the legal name and
address of the owner and operator nd the
locations, number and type of facilities andl
or operations covered shall be submitted:
(1) For existing discharges within 180 days
after the effective date of this permit, by
operators whose facilities andJor operations
ore discharging Into the general permit area
on the effective date of the permit or
(2) Fornew discharges 30 days priorto
commencement of the discharge by operators
whose facilities andlor-operations commence
discharge subsequent to the effective date of
this permit
b. Operators of facilities and/or operations
within the general permit area who fail to
notify the Du’ector of their intent to be
covered by this 8efleral permit and obtain
wntten authorizetlon of coverage are not
authorized under this general permit to
4lscharge from those facilities into the named
receiving waters.
2. Termination of Operations
Operators of facilities and/or operations
authorized under this permit shall notify the
Director upoa the termination of discharges.
The notice must contain the name, mailing
address, and location of the facility for which
the notification is submitted, the NPDES
permit number for the noncontact cooling
water discharge Identified by the notice, and
an indication of whether the non.contact
cooling water discharge has been eliminated
or the operator of the discharge has changed.
Th. notice must be signed in accordance
with the signatory requirements of 40 Q ’R
5122.22.
3. Renotification
Upon reisauance of a new general permit.
the permittee is required to notify the
Director of his intent to be covered by the
new general permit
4. When the Director May Require
• Application for an individual NPDES Permit
a. The Director may requite any person
authorized by this permit to apply for and
obtain an individual NPDES permit Any
Interested person may petition the Director to
take such action. Instances where an
individual permit may be required include
the foilowiog:
(1) The discharge(s) is a significant
contributor of pollution:
(2) The discharger is not in compliance
with the conditions of this permit:
(3) A change has occurred in the
availability of the demonstrated technology
of practices for the control or abatement of
pollutants applicable to the point source;
(4) Effluent limitation guidelines are
promulgated for point sources covered by
this permit - -
(5) A Water Quality Management Plan
containing requirements applicable to such
point source is appravedi or
(6) The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longeri - -
(a) Involves the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
(b) Discharges the seine types of wastes;
(C) Requires the same effluent limitations
or operating conditions:
Cd) Requires the same or similar
monitoring, and -
(e) In the opinion of the Director, is more
appropriately controlled under a general
permit than under an individual NPDES
permit.
hi The Director may require an individual
permit only if the permittee authorized by
the general permit has been notified in
writing that an individual permit is required.
and has been given a brief explanation of the
reasons for this decision.
S. When an Individual NPDES Permit May Be
Requested
a. Any operator may request to be excluded
from the coverage of this general permit by
applying for an individual permit
hi When an individual NPDES permit is
issued to an operator otherwise subiect to
this general permit. the applicability of this
permit to that owner or operator is
automatically terminated on the effective
date of the individual permit
Part IL Standard Ceiiditlaee
Section A. General Requirements
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 reissuance. or modification;
or fordenlal of a permit renewal application.
a. The permittee shall comply with effluent
standards or prohibitions established under
Section 307(a) of the CWA for toxic
pollutants and with standards for sewage
sludge use or disposal established under
Section 405(d) of the CWA 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
hi The CWA provides that any person who
violates Sections 301. 302. 306, 307, 308,
318. or 405 of the CWA or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of
such sections in a permit issued under
Section 402, or any requirement imposed in
a pretreatment program approved under
Sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the CWA is
subject toe civil penalty not to exceed
325,000 per day for each violation. Any
person who negligently-violates such
requirements is subiect to a fine of not less
than 82.500 nor more than 825.000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not more
than 1 year. or both. Any person who
knowingly violates such requirements 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 mare than 3 years. or
both. Notei See 40 R § 122.41(aj(2 )
addilionaj enforcement oriteria.
C. Any person may be assessed an
administrative penalty by the Administrator
for violating Sections 301.302, 306. 307. 308.
318. or 405 of the CWA. or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of
such sections in a permit issued under -
Section 402 of the CWA. Administrative
penalties for Class I violations axe not to
exceed 810.000 per violation, with the
maximum amountof any Class I penalty
assessed not to exceed $25,000. Penalties fo
Class U vioiations are not to exceed $10,000
per day for each day during which the
violation continues, with the maximum
amount of any Class U penalty not to exceed
3125.000.
2. 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.
3. Duty To Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Regionai
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 perrr ”t.
The permittee shall also furnish to thi
Regional Administrator, upon request. es
of records required to be kept by this permit
4. ReopenerClause -
The Regional Administrator reserves the
- right to make appropriate revisions to this
permit in order to establish any appropriate
effluent limitations, schedules of compliance
or other provisions which may be authorized
under the CWA In order to bring all
discharges into compliance with the CWA.
3.011 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 permittee is or may be subject
under Section 311 of the CWA, or Section
106 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 ( RCLA).
6. Property Rights -
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort, nor
any exclusive privileges.
7. ConfidentialIty of Information
a. In accordance with 40 G’R Part 2. any
information submitted to A pursuant to
these regulations may be claimed as
confidential by the submitter. Any such
claim must be asserted at the tune of
submission in the manner presaibed or’ ‘ie
application form or instructions c i ’. in
case of other submissions, by stampln
words “confidential business information”
on each page contaIning such information if
no claim is made at the Lime of submission,
-------
F ’3. L Re&.’ n - I VoL 59 t / Th r ay. April 23, i i I P t e
EPA may make
the pabh wt oii*fiuiikei tk Ifs d
is asserted. the information will be treated In
accordama with p d aaaaIn 4 C ft
Part Z (P lic t lorma±1on3..
b. del £aaFula. . mI y
following infnhn wilib.danj.d
(i .l The name and addres&oI any pe *
applicant or permi&tee
(ii) Permit appLicatioa.s..pe ita. and
effhia daLaasdo .ned ln4O ’
§ 2.302 aJ ZL
c. nfoznatioa . rcquimd.by 1 WDF
appbc ftnn fozmn provided b the Ra j L
Adrmni c r under 122.21. may ne*be
claimed n 4e H L fljg zwtai 4
information submitted on the &
themselves end any attachments used to
supply information required by the forms.
8. Dirty-Ta Rupply
If the permuittee wishes to tym
activity regulatedby this perml&a its
expiration data.. the pesmissee muot apply he
and ohtthn . anew penniL The permmee ehall
submit a onw applicat a&laaa& 18 days
before thzexpirnti .d eohe th .ting
permit. unless r!n .caiaa foi a I ev d bee
been grantedb the Regional Ado nimtintci.
(The Reg ma1 Mmbustxatoe shall nnt pant
perTnis6 Go for appL tbesuLsnizted
later then the esp&r a n date of Lb. ania&in
permit.)
9. State Authorities
Nothing In Pa 122.122. ci fl4 pei lLI& 4 ae ,
more sthngeniStsta rega2asloa of any activity
covered by thma regiaLztkm wbeth ror
under an.applnvof 3 te
10. Other Laws
The issuance o(a permitcfoes.not
authorize any in tuy to persons ot property
or invasion afother private rights, nor does
It relieve the permitteeof its ohli tLon to
comply with any other applicable Federuf.
State. and Icca? laws and regu?ations.
Section B. Opemtion and Ma intenance of
Pollution ConeeAs
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permi±tee. shelL && all tones prepeñy
operate and m2IntaIn alt faciLities end
systems of treatmentand. co of (and misted
appurtenan nsL which ma Latealleder med
by the permitter teachia 1ff 9 th50c 8 with
the C ndiLions of this permit and with the
requirements of norm water p1tuii n
preveuLao plans. Proper ops and
marntpn n a1sc ni1uil
laboratory ri infr k and appropriate qjaahzy
assurance procedures. This provsios
requires the operation ofback-up or auxiliary
facilities or c rni hr systems only when the
operation is necessary to achieve coaphance
with the coudThcns of the p .r rnt
2. Need To Haltor Radner NcgaD fp,vu
It shall notbeadefensefora permnittee in
an enforcement ectio that It would have
been necessary to halt erreduce the
permitted activity in order In m nThin
compliancewith the conditions of this
per!??.
3. Duty To Mitigate
The permitteeshall takeeU re ,ii ilu .
steps to pcav anydiacbarge
ot1 ad isci d. 1 .aLtevicla angthlg
permit w la a th
adversely ffaii1 .rn. .m } 1i
envir n”
4.Bypew
a. Defuulians_
(xrBypass,’ the Inthntirm 2 l
diversion of wasIn sPri ’-n n from any poitic
of a tzsemmnnf clIIty.
(21 property rhan ” m n .
substani physical dnm t ’ °’ y.
dnm ige to the tieatinent. cflItian iikIcb
causes them to become us
substantial and p t nniient of.±url
resoerma which ca v iint hry heiwp irt d
to occur in the nhcent’ii ofahypasa.. Sa ean
property “ nng does not mn eco” ’
loss caused by delays In production.
b Bypass not excerding “ “°‘ The
permirtee may allow any bypass to az-
which does not cause pff iu.nk Iim(i.ii g
be exceeded, but only If [ I alan riaf
malntpnRr ’A te SiU affiris ii npArDtI . .
These bypasses are not iF jp t to the
provisions olParagapb.s. L4 . .c aid. 4A of this
sec on. -
c. Notice.
(1) AnlIcrpafedb)pass.
If the perririttee Lnows In adv oi the
need for a bypass. ft shal l subnn ’t prior
notice, if possible at least tee days before the
date ofthe bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass.
The pesmittee shall submit notice ofan.
unenticipatedbypass as required in
Para aph D.1.e (24-hour notice).
d. Prohibition of bypass.
(11 8 pass is prohibited. and the Re onsl’
Administrator may take enforcement action
agalnita pvriuitte habypas onloss:
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, persona? injury, or severe property
damage:
(b) There were na fonsible alternatives to
the bypass. suth as the use of auxiliary
treaeneht faciflties retention of untreated
wastes. ur utriiew during normal
periods of uqu wcut duwutI ue.Th1s
condition Is not satisfied if ac qunta back?up
equipment should have been fristalledin the
exercise freesunab1e ii izzevdu lt d 6 wuut
top a bypass hJi urred during
normal periods of equ utdow th 1 e or
preventive mamntenence and
(c)(i) The permittee submitted notices an
required under Para aph 4.cof this section.
(ii)fle R Au t1lztuL - may
approve an anticipated bypass , after
considen rig its adveri i ef as . if the Regional
Administrator determines that it will meet
the three conditions listed above hr
Paragraph 4 cI of this section.
5. 1.1 sat
a. £Jefieitibn. “Upser m an
exceptional incident na which there is
unintentional and lempomsy non.cemplianca
with technology-based permit effluent
limitations of fec sbeyoed the
reast h1a c iesn of the permirtee. An upset
does not include noccwnphance to the
extent t d by operational error.
bnproperly i d treatment facilities.
Inadeqonte treatment faclities, lack of
preventive tenance . orcamelesa or
irnprop operation..
an affirmative defense toan ethos bese i4
for a.”- h.e wR rich technology-
based perm*efl ueet I itetioos If the
LM c o(Pteigii.pb B.5 c of this
sectios. —s mat.. N. dehIieIIV , made
dunag sththzlmeii,, miew ofcisi sttiet
fl1 ’ - - - pRanc.waiimdb rupeit and
before an he eancompllamice. La Real
ad? nnt ritmv, action ant rct to judithP
review.
C. Condibwsarce iuyfcre
dr . J’ -’ upaet. A psraiffte. whe
wishes In Lbheb the a rmatlve defense of
upset sheik demcn eto. dnough property
signed. contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the
permittee I Ul y the orme(sl of the
upset: ________
(2) The p arn ttcJ facility was at the time
being up t J .
(3) The permitre submitted notice of the
upset as required in P& 1 [ D.t.a and i.e
(24-hour notice); and
(4) The perme , lTdd with any
remedial meesinas inquired tmderR3.
d iro’esr of proof
proceethng the p the seefang tnestebflsb
the oererree of en apses the burden of
proof. -
C. 3(onitoithg ead Rmierds
1. Monltoriigan8R s
a. mid measurements taken for the
purpose ofuwul(uriugshalt be representative
of the monitored ii ti ty .
La Esc ffr 1 J 5 of ruonftorfng
information icqu d bythis permit related to
the perinittee’s sewage sludge use and
disposal activities. which shalt be , inød
for a period of at least five years (or longer
as required by 40 C’R Part 5031. the
permi shall retain records of all
mom5ori Inkmsmatos. kududingelJ
calibrat e med m iziteivince and aP
original strip chart iecrsdinge fmccotfnoo ms
monitonngJtw otati arpieso(alf
reports required by this permit and rOwrrls
of all data seed tocoeeeflplkaelon
forthisperimI. for .petiodofas)eestYyeurs
from the date of the sampte. meesnimnout.
report or application except frmrt e’
infoiii 4,. concemè,g storms woter
discherges wln ’cfr ,rrust be retuimdJ n tees!
of 6 your,. ThIs tatentruft period amy
extended by request of the Regiuuid
Administrator at any time
c. Records of monitoring UIIJTUIatIOe shall
include?
(1 The ’date exact place. and thneof
sampling ormeesuralnents
(2) The indivf iiml(s who performed the
sampling am-meesoremermts;
(3) The date(s) analyses were
(4) The indIvidual(s) whir pv f m . .d the
analyee
(5) The mm4ytlcal techniques ormethods -
used; and
(5) The results of such analyses.
d. Monitoring results must ho conducted
according to Pest procedures a, d tmder
40 R Pert 136 ov iii the cese’olsludge use
or dispoeaP, appenied under 4O R t 136
unless otherwise specified nt 40 R Pert
-------
22058
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 81 / Thursday, April 28, 1994 / Notices
503, unless other test procedures have been
speofled La the permit.
a. The clean Water Act provides that any
person who falsifies. tampers with, or
knowingly render, 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 520.000.
or by imprisonment for not more than 2
years, or both. Uaconvlctlon of a person is
for a violation committed after a first
conviction of such person under this
paragraph. punishment is a fine of not more
than $20,000 per day of violation, or by
Imprisonment of not more than 4 years. or
both.
2. Inspection and Entry
The permiltee shall allow the Regional
Administrator, or an authorized
representative Includlng an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of the
Administrator), upon presentation of
eredentlals and other documents as may be
required by law, to:
a. Enter upon the perinittee’s premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted, or where records must
be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy. at reasonable
times, any records that must be kept under
the conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities.
equipment (including monitoring and control
equipmentL 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 0. Reporting ltsq drements
1. ReportIng Requirements
a. Planned changes. The permittee shall
give notice to the Regional Administrator as
soon as possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted
facility. Notice is required only when:
(I) The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may tneet one of the
aiterla for determining whether a facility is
a now source In 40 Q ’R 122.29 (b): or
(2) The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or lnaease
the quantity of pollutants discharged. This
notification applies to pollutants which are
subiect to the effluent limitations In the
permit. nor to the notification requirements
under 40 R 122.42(alll).
(3) The alteration or addition results in a
significant change in the permittee’s sludge
use or disposal practices. and such alteration.
addition or change may justify the
application of permit conditions different
from or absent In the existing permit.
Including notification of additional use or
disposal sites not reported during the permit
application process or not reported pursuant
to an approved land application plan.
b. Anticipated noncompliance. The
perrnittee 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.
c. Transfers. This permit Is not transfarable
teeny person except after notice to the
Regional Administrator. The Regional
Administrator may require modification or
revocation and reissuance of the permit to
change the name of the permittee and
Incorporate such other requirements as may
be necessary under the Clean Water Act. (See
S 122.51: In some cases, modification or
revocation and reissuance is mandatory)
d. Monitoring reports. Monitoring results
shall be reported at the intervals specified
elsewhere in this permit.
(1) Monitoring results must be reported on
a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR} or
forms provided or specified by the Regional
Administrator for reporting tesults of
monitoring of sludge use or disposal
practices.
(2) If the perruittee monitors any pollutant
more frequently than required by the permit
using test procedures approved under 40 ( ‘R
Part 136 or. In the case of sludge use or
disposal. approved under 40 R Part 135
unless otherwise specified in 40 R Part
503. or as specified in the permit. the results
of this monitoring shall be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data
submitted In the DMR or sludge reporting
form specified by the Regional
Administrator.
(3) Calculations for all limitations which
require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise
apecdled.by the Regional Administrator In
the permit.
e. TWenty-four hour reporting.
(1) The peamittee shall reportany
noncompliance which may endanger health
or the environment. Any Information shall be
provided orally wIthin 24 hours from the
time the pennittee becomes aware of the
circumstances.
A written submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the
permutes becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission shall
contain a desaiption of the noncompliance
and its cause’, the period of noncompliance.
Including exact dates and times, and if the
noncamuptiance has not been corrected. the
anticipated time It Is expected to contanum
and steps taken or planned to reduce,
eliminate. and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance.
(21 The following shall be included as
Information which must be reported within
24 hours under this paragraph.
(a) Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation In the permit.
(See § t22.41(gJ)
(bI Any upset which exceeds any effluent
limitation In the permit.
Ic) Violation of a maximum daily discharge
liniitation for any of the pollutants listed by
the Regional Administrator in the permit to
be reported within 24 hours. (Sea
5 122.44 (g ).)
(3) The Regional Administrator may waive
the written report on a case-by-case basis for
reports under Paragraph 0.i.e if the oral
report has been received within 24 hours.
f. Compliance Schedules. Reports of
compliance or noncompliance with, or any
pregress reports on. interim and final
requirements contained in any compliance
schedule of this permit shall be submmttei.
later than 14 days following each schedul
date.
g. Other noncompliance. The pi- e
shall report all instances of noncompuanc
not reported under Paragraphs D.1.d. D.l
and D.i.f of this section. at the time
monitonog reports are submitted. The rer
shall contain the information listed In
Paragraph D.1.e of thIs section.
hi Other information. Where the penn
becomes aware that it failed to submit an
relevant facts in a permit application. or
submitted Incormct information in a perrr
application or In any report to the Region
Administrator. It shall promptly submit st
facts or information.
2. Signatory Requi.rement
a. All applications. reports. or informati’
submitted to the Regional Administrator
shall be signed and certified. (See § 122.22
b. The CWA provides that any person
knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any recor
or other document submitted or required tc
be maintained under this permit. 1nc1udin
monitoring reports or reports of cornplianc’
or non-compliance shall, upon conviction.
punished by a fine of not more than S10.OC
per violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 6 months per violation, or by bo
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under Paragraph A.8. above. a
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available
public Inspection at the offices of th a
water pollution control agency and
Regional Administrator. As required by the
CWA. effluent data shall not be considered
confidential. Knowingly making any false
statement on any such report may result to
the imposition of auninal penalties as
provided for in SectIon 309 of the CWA.
Section E Other Conditions
1. Definitions for purposes of this permit
are as follows:
Adnurnstrototnieans the Administrator of
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, or an authorized representative.
Applicable standards and limitations
means all State, interstate, and Federal
Standards and limitations to which a
“discharge” or a rotated activity is subject to
Including water quality standards, standards
of performance, toxic effluent standards or
prohibitions. “best management practices.’
and pretreatolent standards under sections
301, 302. 303, 304. 308, 307. 308. 403, and
405 of CWA.
Applicotion means the EPA standard
national fOrms for applying far a permit.
including any additions, revisions or
modifications to the forms: or forms
approved by EPA for use in “approved
States.” Including any approved
modifications or revisions.
Averege The arithmetic mean of values
taken at the frequency required for each
parameter over the specified period. Fcr -ral
andlor fecal coliforms. the average stu
the geometric mean.
Averege monthly discharge limitation
means the highest allowable average of
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 81 / Thursday. April 28, 1994 / Notices 22059
“daily discharge,” over a calendarmooth, Discharge of a pollutant means: or coastal oil and gas exolorstory drilling rig
calculated as sam of all daily discharges (a) Any addition of any “pollutant” or or a coastal oil and gas developmental
measured during a calendar month divided combination of pollutants to “waters of the drilling rig) such as a seafood processing rig.
by the number of daily discharges measured United States” from any “point source,” or seafood processing vessel, or aggregate plant,
during that month. - (b) Any addition of any pollutant or that begins discharging at a “site” for which
Averege w€41y discharge limitation means combination of pollutants lo the waters of the it does not have a permit and any offshore
the highest allowable average of “daily “contiguous zone” or the ocean from any or coastal mobile oil and gas exploratory
dischalBes”overa calendar week, calculated point source other than a vessel or other drilling rig or coastal mobile oil and gas
as the sum of all daily discharges measured ..oating cult which ii being used as a means developmental drilling rig that commences
during a calendar week divided by the of transportation, the discharge of pollutants after August 13,
number of daily discharges measured during This definition Includes additions of 1979, at a “site” under EPA’s permitting
that week, pollutants into waters of the Unlt d States jurisdiction for which it is not covered by an
Best Management Practices (BMPs) means .. m: s\arfaca runoff which is collected or individual or general permit and which is
schedules of activities, prohibitions of channelled by man: discharges through located in an area determined by the
practices, maintenance procedures, and other pipes. sewers, or other conveyances owned Regional Administrator In the Issuance of a
management practices to prevent or reduce , a State, municipality, or other person final permit to be an area of biological
the pollution of “waters of the United which do not lead to a treatment works; and concern, In determining whether an area is
States,” BMPs also Include treatment discharges thro ipes, sewers, or other an area of biological concern, the Regional
requirements, operating procedures, and conveyances I Into privately owned
practices to control plant site runoff, spillage tr t w . Administrator shall consider the factors
specified In 40 0 ’R Sections § 125.1221all1)
or leaks, sludge or waste disposal. or This term does not Include an additlonof ,,throuqJi(io).
drainage from raw material storage. pollutants by any “Indirect discharger.” An offshore or coastal mobile exploratory
Best Prof essionol Judgement (DPI) means a Effluent hnutot ion means any restriction drilling rig or coastal mobile developmental
case-by-case determination of Best Imposed by the Director on quantities, drilling rig will be considered a “new
Practicable Treatment (BP’fl, Best Available discharge rates, and concentratlonzof discharger” only for the duration of its
Treatment (BAT) or otherappropnate “pollutants” which are “discharged from
standard based on an evaluation of the - “point sources” into “waters of the United dlschar e In an area of biological concern.
New source means any building. structure.
available technolo p to achieve a particular States,” the waters of the “contiguous zone.” facility, or installation from which there Is or
pollutant reduction, or the ocean. may be a “discharge of pollutants,” the
Composite Sample—A sample consisting Effluent limitations guidelines means a construction of which commenced:
of a minimum of eight grab samples collected regulation published by the Administrator - (a) After promulgation of standards of
at equal intervals during a 24-hour period (or under Section 304(b) of CWA to adopt or performance under Section 306 of CWA
- lesser period as specified in the section on revise “effluent limitations.” ‘ which are applicable to such. .. -
Monitoring and Reporting) and combined . - EPA means the United States - - (b) After proposal of standards of
proportional to flow, ore sample - “Environmental Protection Agency.” performance in accordance with SectIon 306
continuously collected proportionally to flow Cnth Sam plo—An individual sample ‘ of CWA which are applicable to such source,
over that same time period. . , co lected In a period of less than 15 mInutes. but only If the standards are promulgated In
Continuous Discharge means a “discharge” - Hazardous Substance means any substance . accordance with Section 306 within 120 days
which ocows without Interruption ‘ “ ‘ - designated under 40 R Part 118 pursuant, of their proposaL -
throughout the operating hours of the facility fo Section 311 of CWA. - -‘ - - -. NPDES means “National Pollutant
except for infrequent shutdowns far ‘ liloximum doily discharge limitation ‘ . Discharge ElImInation System.”
maintenance, process changes, or similar means the highest allowab e “daily : Non-Contact Cooling Water is water used
activities. . dIscharge.” to reduce temperature which does not come
GVA or “The Act” means the Clean Water Municipality means a city, town, borough, in direct contact with any raw material,
Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water county, parish. district, association, or other intermediate product, a waste product or
Pollution Control Act or Federal Water - public body created by of under State law finished product.
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) and having jurisdiction over disposal or Owner or operator means the owner or
Pub. L 92-500, as amended by Pub. I.. 95- sewage. Industrial wastes, or other wastes, or operator of any “facility or activity” subject
217. Pub. L 95-576, Pub, 1 ., 96-483 and Pub. - an lndiap tribe or an authorized Indian tribe to regulation under the NPDES programs.
L 97—117; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. ‘ . organization, or a designated and approved Perm it means an authorization, license, or
ily Discharge means the discharge of a management agency under sectIon 208 of equivalent control document issued by EPA
pollutant measured during a calendar day or CWA. or an “approved State,”
any 24-hour period that reasonably No onal Pollutant Discharge Elimination Person means an individual, association,
represents the calendar day for purposes of System means the national program for partnership, corporation, municipality, State
sampling. For pollutants with limitations : issuing. modifying. revoking and reissuing. ox Pederal agency, or an agent or employee
expressed In units of mass, the daily - terminating, monitoring and enforcing ‘thereat
discharge is calculated as the total mass of - permits, and Imposing and enforcing - Point source means any dIscernible,
the pollutant discharged over the day. For pretreatment requirements, under sections - confined, and discrete conveyance, including
pollutants with limitations expressed in 307, 402, 318, and 405 of CWA. The term - but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel,
other units of measurements, the daily ,. Includes an “approved program.” - tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure,
discharge is calculated as the average -. New discharger means any building, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal
measurement of the pollutant over the day. structure, facility, or installation: - feeding operation, vessel, or other floating
Duector means the person authorized to -,, (a) From which there is or may be a craft, from which pollutants are or may be
sign NPDES permits by EPA andlor the State. “discharge of pollutants”; discharged. This term does not Include
Discharge Monitoring Report Form (DMR) (b)That did not commence the “discharge return flows from Irrigated agriculture.
means the EPA standard national Form, of pollutants” at a particular “site” prior to Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste.
including any subsequent additions, August 13 1979 Incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage,
revisions, or modifications, for the reporting (C) Which is not a “new source”: and garbage, sewage sludge. munitions, chemical
of self-monitoring results by permlttees. Cd) Which has never received a finally wastes, biological materials, radioactive
DMRs must be used by “approved States” u effective NPDES permit for discharges at that materials (except those regulated under the
well as by EPA. EPA will supply DMRs to “site”. Atomic Eaer ’ Act of 195-4. as amended (42
any approved Slate upon requestS The EPA This definition Indudes an “Indirect U.S.C. § 2011 at seq )), heat, wrecked or
national forms may be modified to substitute discharger” which commences discharging ,dlscarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt
the State Agency name, address, logo, and into “waters of the United States” after and Industrial, municipal, and agricultural
other similar information, as appropriate, in August 13. 1979 It also includes any existing waste discharged into water It does not
place of EPA’s, - mobile point source (other than an offshore mean.
-------
F 1 I l g4cf / VoL 59, No.81 / Thureday, April 28, t4?Notlces
(e) Saws fiom ___
(b) W , , er matesüI which Is
Ln eded bite e wail to QH te pioductionof
oil er s. ccw serder4 ,ed b
with oil end gas prodadhas sail d6pu o l of
in awefi. if the w,fl med either to facilitate
production or for disposal purposes Is
approved by authority of the State in which
the well Is located, and If the State
determine, that the Injection cc disposal will
not reselt in the degradatioaof ground or
surfase water resoian
Thimar, indw ycu& 5 ,i , mains any
lndus y . tv y Listed In the MRDC
settlement ,w iflI (l w Rerouces
DefemieCcam&etcI.v. 1 whi.8E.R .C 2120
(D.D.C. 1979). modifIed 12 E.R.C l 33
(D.D C. 19791); also listed (a AppendIx A of
40a’R Part 122.
Process wastewcter means any water
which, during nuf’actnxlng 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.
Regional Admzws a1or” ” the
Regional Mmin’ ’n ’ . Region I,
Boston. Mas, 1 ’iaxett*.
State means any of the 50 State.. the
District of Columbia, G .
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. the Vbgln
Islands. Aznei’icon . cm a . the Thast Territwy
of the Pec iflcls laads . -
Secondwy lndusbyCoSe ciymesna any
Industry egos which Is note simery
tndus y cote eay.
Toxic poilubsist means any poflutasit listed
as toxic In Appendix I) of 4O(YR Past 122, ‘1
%iflderSectkm3 ofl,)mcfCWA. -
Urcontxeróriatnd stems isnteris
precipitation to which no pofititsats have
been added and haa not come Into direct
contact with say r aw material, intermediate
product, waste product or finished product. -
Waters tithe thirfeil States zeenn
(a) All waters which era curs -andy used.
were used (ii the pest, or may be susceptthle
to use In 1iit i t 4 tv or foreign comme ,
including all waters which era subject to the
ebb and flaw of the dde
(b) All Interstate waters, Including
Interstate “wetlands.
(a) All other waters such as Intrastate Iake
rivers, streams (Including Intermittent
streams), mudflate, sandflats, “wetlands,’
sloughs. prairie potholes. wet meadow
playn lakes, or natural ponds the use,
degradation, or destruction of which would
affect or could affect Interstate or foreign
cornznemi, Including any such waimsi
(1) Which are orcould be usedby
Interstate or foreign travelers for raaeational
orother purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or
could be taken and sold In interstate or
foreign ccnenarce or
(3) Which ore used or could be used for
Industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce
(d) All Impoundments olwaters otherwise
defined as waters of the United States under
this definition;
(a) Tributaries of waters Identified in
paragraphs (a)-(d) of this dnRnlflnn
(I) The t ttnrIa see and
(g) Wetlands ad)aceat to watma (other
then waters that axe tbemeelven wadands)
Identified In paragraphs (a)-U ) of this
definition,
YThole Eflhiaeflt Toxicity (W 7 means the
a ogate toxic effect clan 5 mupn messared
dlrecdy by a toxicity test.
Wetland, r ’ those areas that are
Inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to suppait, end that under nnm J
thcumstancns do support. a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil nñifln,w Wetlands generally
Include swamp., marshes, bogs, and . .ma1 r
aroa&
2. AbbreviatIons when used in this permit
are defined bolaw:
Cu. M/day cc M’/dsy—cobic metes per day
mgfl-mil1 per li
ug/l- .m1a ami per Ls
lbs/day—pounds thy
kaJday-isksgrams perday
Tamp. ‘C—temperature In degxeei Centigrade
Temp. ‘P—4amperatme in d. iees Fahrenheit
Turb - bldity measured by the
Nephelomatric Method (1(111)
pH—a ‘ rv of th. hydrogen ion

a’s-cubic feet per seomd
MCD—millioe geilces per day
Oil & Gce.—Fruen ectabIe material
ml/l— .inilhillter(sJ liter
(F l Dec. o - a Filed 4-2s-g &45 ans i
seee
-------
Tuesday
Aprtt 1 4
Part VII
Environ mental
Protection Agency
combined Sewer Overflow (CSO Control
Poucy; Notice
-------
18686
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19. 1994 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(FRL ,-4732-T3
Combined Sower Overflow (CSO)
Control Policy
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final policy.
SUMMARY: EPA has issued a national
policy statement entitled “Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy.”
This policy establishes a consistent
national approach for controlling
discharges from CSOs to the Nation’s
waters through the National Pollutant
Discharge FliminAtion System (NPDES)
permit program. -
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT
Jeffrey L.ape, Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance. MC —
4201. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 260—7361.
SUPPUMENTARY INFORMATION: The main
purposes of the CSO Control Policy are
to elaborate on the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National
CSO Control Strategy published on
September 8. 1989, at 54 FR 37370, and
to expedite compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). While implementation of the
1989 Strategy has resulted In progress
toward controlling CSOs. sjgniflcant
public health and water quality risks
remain.
This Policy provides guidance to
permittees with CSOs. NPDES
- authorities and State water quality
standards authorities on coordinating
the plnnning, selection, and
implementation of CSO controls that
meet the requirements of the CWA and
allow for public involvement during the
declslon.making process.
Contained in the Policy are provisions
for developing appropriate, site-specific
NPDES permit requirements for all
combined sewer systems (CSS) that
overflow as a result of wet weather
events. For example, the Policy lays out
two alternative approaches—the
‘demonstratlon” and the
• presumption” approaches—that
provide communities with targets for
CSO controls that achieve compliance
with the Act, particularly protection of
water quality and designated uses. The
Policy also includes enforcement
Initiatives to require the immediate
eliminntlon of overflows that occur
during dry weather and to ensure that
the remaining CWA requirements are
complied with as soon as practicable.
The permitting provisions of the
Policy were developed as a result of
e ’densive Input received from key
slakaholders during a negotiated policy
dialogue. The CSO stakeholder,
Included representatives from States,
environmental groups. municipal
orgsniratlons and others. The negotiated
dialogue was conducted during the
Summer of 1992 by the Office of Water
and the Office of Water’s Management
Advisory Group. The enforcement
i n itiatives, including one which is
underway to address CSOs during dry
weather, were developed by EPA’s
Office of Water and Office of
Enforcement
EPA Issued a Notice of Availability on
the draft CSO Control Policy on January
19. 1993, (58 FR 4994) and requested
comments on the draft Policy by March
22. 1993. Approximately forty-one sets
of written comments were submitted by
a variety of interest groups including
cities and municipal groups,
environmental groups. States,
professional organizations and others.
All comments were considered as EPA
prepared the Final Policy. The public
comments were largely supportive of
the draft Policy. EPA received broad
endorsement of and support for the key
principles and provisions from most
coinmenters. Thus, this final Policy
does not include significant changes to
the major provisions of the draft Policy,
but rather, It includes clarification and
better explanation of the elements of the
Policy to address several of the
questions that were raised in the
comments. Persons wf hlng to obtain
copies of the public comments or EPA’s
summary analysis of the comments may
write or call the EPA contact person.
The CSO Policy represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities, permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities and the public engage In a
comprehensive and coordinated
plRn fling effort to achieve cost effective
CSO controls that ultimately meet
appropriate health and environmental
objectives. The Policy recognizes the
site-specific nature of CSCs and their
impacts and provides the necessary
flexibility to tailor controls to local
situations. Major elements of the Policy
ensure that CSO controls are cost
effective and meet the objectives and
requirements of the CWA.
The major provisions of the Policy are
as follows.
CSO permittees should immediately
undertake a process to accurately
characterize their CSS and CSO
discharges, demonstrate implementation
of minimum technology-based controls
Identified in the Policy, and develop
long-term CSO control plans which
evaluate alternatives for attaining
compli!mce with the CWA. Including
complbinrii with water quality
standards and protection of designatec
uses. Once the long-term CSO control
plans are completed, permittees will b
responsible to Implement the plans’
recommendations as soon as
practicable.
State water quality standards
authorities will be involved In the long-
term CSO control plAnning effort as
well. The water quality standards
authorities will help ensure that
development of the CSO pennittees’
long-term CSO control plans are
coordinated with the review and
possible revision of water quality
standards on CSO-Impacted waters.
NPDES authorities will issue/reissue
or modify permits, as appropriate, to
require compliance with the technology-
based and water quality.based
requirements of the CWA After
completion of the long-term CSO
control plan. NPDES permits will be
reissued or modified to incorporate the
additional requirements specified in the
Policy, such as performance standards
for the selected controls based on
average design conditions, a post.
construction water quality assessment
program. monitoring for compliance
with water quality standards, and a
reopener clause authorimng the NPDES
authority to reopen and modify the
permit If it Is determined that the CS(
controls fail to meet water quality
standards or protect designated uses,
NPDES authorities should commence
enforcement actions against permittees
that have CWA violations due to CSO
discharges during dry weather. In
addition, NPDES authorities should
ensure the implementation of the
min4rnum technology-based controls
and Incorporate a schedule into an
appropriate enforceable mechanism,
with appropriate milestone dates, to
implement the required long-term CSO
control plan. Schedules for
Implementation of the long-term CSO
control plan may be phased based on
the relative importance of adverse
impacts upon water quality standards
and designated uses, and on a
permittee’s financial capability.
EPA is developing extensive guidance
to support the Policy and will announce
the availability of the guidances and
other outreach efforts through various
means, as they become available, For
example. EPA Is preparing guidance on
the nine minimum controls.
characterization and monitoring of
CSOs. development of long-term CSO
control plans, and financial capability
Permittees will be expected to corr
with any existing CSO-related
requirements in NPDES permits,
-------
_ , 2I ke is t F VoL 59, Ne. 75 / Tuee fay. ApiiP 19. ? 4 Notfce
rI t}p it Stj s’ toe pe Iia
the reqturemeet, of the Cleen
Water ct CWh) While
lrmp3entatiear oEthe 1909 Straegy ba
resulted in pro&rv s towned ..vnUuilfug-
CSOs. sigufi ntwarcuaf±tyr
r em e n.
A ce bined sewei y tes cSS is-a
wastewater &Iictlcnsystvui owi edby
a State ot municipality (a! de€ned b 1
section5OZ 4) oFtheCW/t)wbicb
conveys sanitary wustewatE (doznestf ,
commercial and ustriarwasrewaters)
and storm watEr through a single .pZQe
system to aFubliclyOwued’Treatmen!
Works tPOTWI TkeatmentP!eni (as
defined In 40 4 3tpTh A C Ois.
the discharge from a CSS at a point prior
to the PQTW TreeimenzPlant C are.
point sourona subfe to IPDES pet
requirements inth .cI g Soth
technology-based, an d water quality-
based req uimznenis of the CWA. CSO&
ar not ubject ta secondary treat nt
requirementa appficable to PO.tWs.
cs con t. of mi,d.utos QE d m C
sewagp. d stnat and rnnimc .rciaL
waste .walers. and. storm waler runoil
CSOs a.ffen cozt±ainhig leeela of
______ susnended gJji g patho&enic.
ie ised trabe cenmstofltwith .th13 ?ollqi
The pallcy s ai p’ an
LIne ,ductfne .
A. Purpose màPtincipFee
B pptu den ?olic
C. Effect onCurreot CSO C nmI 1Tnyt
D. SmalL System Cidemtions
plomvous b i1i*1e,
F: Pohcy Development
U EPA Objectiver 1 Peittnea
k Overview
W. hnpleinenreticu.otthe Nine Mrnlmum
C. Lesg-Temi -tSO otPhn
t barec tine. Monilaving and ’
Modelingctth C mhzned .S ewor
Systems
2. Public Pacticipatica.
3. Consideration oLSeoeiIiv Aems
4. Evaluanos. ofAltamnauves
5. Cost/Ferfoñnanca Cderatlon
6. Operottm al Ptaa
7. M imi ng Treanneut arthaExisxin&
POTW Tresenect Pleat
8.. lrnplernemation Scbedule ’
9’. Po .se .Consin&cttcir CompUanc.
Mon itonn .Prvgrain
I lL Coerdinatioo With State WatenQu lt i
Standards
A.. Qvsr uaw -
B. Water Quaht Standardi Rev a.
IV. Expectations for PermIttin_gAuthnritiA
A. Overview
B. NPDES PeftRelremerits
1. nit -Rmmen fir
tlemonetraeomof the’ Nine Mfninn
Controls ned Uei ’elopmerzt of the tong-
TeQr, , [ Plazp
2..Phaa U Pemu —Reqrnv ’m ee r
tm 1arneoiauon.of a Lon*jtermCSO
ControL Plan
3. PhastngCi ueiem&iooa.
V EafoxcerdE and Compliance
A. Overview
B. Enforcement of O Thy Weather
Discharge Prohibition.
C. Enforcement of Wet Weather CSO
Requirr inectr
1. E.nlocement flrCeie theace Wtth Phase
I Par ta
2. Enfoscemeer C pI iwi W th Phase
ft Permit,
0. PenaltIes.
List of Subjects 4 ft Parr 122
Water poltut.ibn. nntml .
Auth . .Cleao. Water Act 3 SC 2252L
etseq.
ed. Aprr 8... i
Carol M D uar.
Admgnistroiw.
Comhine Sewer Overflow ( Ol
ContrnLPclicy
I. Introduction
A.. Punposa and Pdncipl
The’mnin .purp o. th 2uL &B

ombmed SewerOe awr(cSD)
Contmè Stretegy ptthhth d am.
t98 at * FR 3737U
organ i. me t ua pQtha
floatables. mitrb nt oxygen. .djurn.andin
organic compoumls. oil and .gmase and
other pplturnnt.c . CSOa.eamcausa
exceedanees. of water quallLy atandarr
(WQS . Such exceedances .ma r pose
risk an.heaith, threaten q ins 1 c
life and its habits m a i r theirs .
and en oymen.t oltlmNalinn’&
waterways..
This Policy ntended.tnprucida
gwdant e to e ittees. with Os,.
onal Fi,lTut t Discharge
Film inatin . System LPDESLp t ug.
authorities.. State wates. quality
stand rrt -authoflbes, e mant
authorities. The. purpose of the Fo1lc is.
to coordtni ti the: p6nnins I ticin.
design. and. implementation. ciLCSQ
niana emanI , practI s . and. controls .
meet the requir m ntsoL the W1 and.
to involve tha .pubUcfnliydiJ.nn the’
cta einn ,nafr ng procosa.
This Policy retterat .the oh ectives at
the 198k Snre y
1. To ensure that iLCSOs o tz. they are
only as a result of wet wea&her
2. To bring all wet weather CSO
discharge ponrtslnto wiupliSUcO with
chnoAi y .basad a water
q i hs d.reqQirewefl cL the
CW end
3. ter inrmi water qimhtp. equatIc’
and. hirt health. unpacta from.
CsO
This CSC Contro) PolIcy represente a
corn venathrnal ttegyt
enem e that municlpelities. permstting
airthothies, water q3rallty stendarcfs
autharfties and the public engaga in-a
comprehensive and coo nated
jñaiuting eilbrtto achieve cost-eflhctlve.
CSO controLs that u1krimat !y meet
appropriate health and. an.vixoninental
obj ctivea and. requirements.. ma Policy
recognizes the sfta-cpeci& t a ’oL
CSOs and their impacts. an&providee
the necessary ffeuhffity to. taller
controls to ee cthtatini a Four key
pnncipi’ea of the Policy ev.swn that.CSO.
controls are cost.-effi tive and.meez the
objectives of the CMA.. The. key
principles are
1. Pzv idlog , clear levels. of ceetro that
would be presumed ta meets
appropriate- health and eeyannnion
obtectives;
2 P kdugsufflcient -ffe dbility to
tan I alitias eepecialiy ftnancially
rz cnTnmlmitles , , to.
d i the sate-specific nature of
CSOs end.ts daterm ne ’the ’ most cost-
effective means ofreducmg pollutants
andrneatingCeYA ctivesend
mqu i r enian
3. Alwing aphasedappreedtto
implemantattozsol CSO.coinrolo
considering ecommunir eb Snenc±ar
cepability; and
4. Review ne i l revIsion, appropriate.
of water quality-standards-arid their
Imp lementathur pmceduree when
do eloping C Ocontro pIensto
reflect the sl -spoelffc wet weather
lnrpact of CSO..
This Polk is being Issuedin support
o EPA’ regniations and policy
iuitiut1ves This PbIlcy is Agency
guid x only and does nor establrsh or
affectle jI ’rmghts orobIIg tions. does
not establish a biu&ng . norm audis not
finally detarrninath’e of the issues.
addreseccL gency decisions in any
particularcaso wilrbe made-by applying
the law andregjzia ons on the basis of
spectffc ctaw4ien perants.am issued.
The Admirnctration has recommended
that the r99 thnents to the CWA
endorse this final Policy.
a. Applianthr Policy
The pei £uittis ruvisionsor tijis
POhCTSPPly in aft CSSs that overflow
as arestritof storm wirer flow,
lncl ng sa ow melt if (4 ( 1 GR
l22.26(b3fi3fl. Discharges from CSSs
durnrg dr westher are prohibited h 1
the CWA. .Aeeordln y, the permitffng
pzuvmiuuaofthii Polity do notapplyto.
CS thithrg-thy weather. Diy weather
floirjstheffoirlria eanibinad sewer
that rend & d e tlc sewage.
groundwater mflltratron .commercral
and liidustrialwastnwnters and any
othornou-predpltntlozr related flows.
(e.g.. tidal infiltration). In addition to
-------
18690
Federal Register / Vol 59, No. 75/ Tuesday, April 19, 1994 / Notices
the permitting provisions. the
Enforcement and Compliance section of
this Policy desaibes an enforcement
Initiative being developed for overflows
that occur during dry weather.
Consistent with the 1989 .Strategy. 30
States that submitted CSO permitting
strategies have received EPA approval
or, in the case of one State. conditional
approval of Its strategy. States and EPA
Regional Offices should review these
strategies and negotiate appropriate
revisions to them to implement this
Policy. Permitting authorities are
encouraged to evaluate water pollution
control needs on a watershed
management basis and coordinate CSO
control efforts with other point and
nonpoint source control activities.
C. Effect on Current CSO Control Efforts
EPA recognizes that extensive work
has been done by many Regions. States.
and municipalities to abate CSOs. As
such, portions of this Policy may
already have been addressed by
permittees’ previous efforts to control
CSOs. Therefore. portions of this Policy
may not apply, as determined by the
permitting authority on a case-by-case
basis, under the following
circumstances:
1. Any permittee that, on the date of
publication of this final Policy, has
completed or substantially completed
construction of CSO control facilities
that are designed to meet WQS and
protect designated uses, and where It
has been determined that WQS are
being or will be attained, is not cov red
by the initial planning and construction
provisions in this Policy; however, the
operational plan and post-construction
momtoting provisions continue to
apply. If. after monitoring, it is
determined that WQS are not being
attained, the peimittee should be
required to submit a revised CSO
control plan that, once implemented.
will attain WQS
2. Any permittee that, on the date of
publication of this final Policy. has
substantially developed or Is
implementing a CSO control program
pursuant to an existing permit or
enforcement order, and such program is
considered by the NPDES permitting
authority to be adequate to meet WQS
and protect designated uses and is
reasonably equivalent to the treatment
objectives of this Policy, should
complete those facilities without further
planning activities otherwise expected
by this Policy. Such programs. however.
should be reviewed and modified to be
consistent with the sensitive area.
financial capability. and post-
construction monitoring provisions of
this Policy,
3. Any permittee that has previously
constructed CSO control facilities In an
effort to comply with WQS but has
failed to meet such applicable standards
or to protect designated uses due to
remaining CSOs may receive
consideration for such efforts In future
permits or enforceable orders for long-
term CSO control planning, design and
Implementation.
En the case of any ongoing or
substantially completed CSO control
effort, the NPDES permit or other
enforceable mechanism, as appropriate,
should be revised to include all
appropriate permit requirements
consistent with Section IV.B. of this
Policy.
D. Small System Considerations
The scope of the long-term CSO
control plan, including the
characterization, monitoring and
modeling, and evaluation of alternatives
portions of this Policy may be difficult
for some smali CSSs. At the discretion
of the NPDES Authority, jurisdictions
with populations under 75,000 may not
need to complete each of the formal
steps outlined in Section [ IC of this
Policy, but should be required through
their permits or other enforceable
mechanisms to comply with the nine
minimum controls (l1.B), public
participation (U.C.2). and sensitive areas
(ILC.3) portions of this Policy. In
addition, the permittee may propose to
implement any of the criteria contained
In this Policy for evaluation of
alternatives described In 1 1C4.
Following approval of the proposed
plan, such jurisdictions should
construct the control projects and
propose a monitoring program sufficient
to determine whether WQS are attained
and designated uses are protected.
In developing long-term CSO control
plans based on the small system
considerations discussed In the
preceding paragraph, permittees are
encouraged to discuss the scope of their
long-term CSO control plan with the
WQS authority and the NPDES
authority. These discussions will ensure
that the plan includes sufficient
Information to enable the permitting
authority to identify the appropriate
CSO controls.
E. Implementation Responsibilities
NPDES authorities (authorized States
or EPA Regional Offices, as appropriate)
are responsible for implementing this
Policy. it is their responsibility to assure
that CSO permittees develop long-term
CSO control plans and that NPDES
permits meet the requirements of the
CWA. Further, they are responsible for
coordinating the review of the long-term
CSO control plan and the development
of the permit with the WQS authority tr
determine if revisions to the WQS are
appropriate. In addition, they should
determine the appropriate vehicle (i.e..
permit roissuance. Information request
under CWA section 308 or State
equivalent or enforcement action) to
ensure that compliance with the CWA is
achieved as soon as practicable. -
Permittees are responsible for
documenting the implementation of the
nine minimum controls and developing
and implementing a long-term CSO
control plan. as described In this Policy.
EPA recognizes that financial
considerations are a major factor
affecting the implementation of CSO
controls- For that reason, this Policy
allows consideration of a permittee’s
financial capability in connection with
the long-term CSO control planning
effort, WQS review, and negotiation of
enforceable schedules. However, each
permittee Is ultimately responsible for
aggressively pursuing financial
arrangements for the implementation of
Its long-term CSO control plan. As part
of this effort, communities should apply
to their State Revolving Fund program.
or other assistance programs as
appropriate, for financial assistance.
EPA and the States will undertake
action to assure that all permittees wit’
CSSs are subject to a consistent revie
in the permit development process,
have permit requirements that achieve
compliance with the CWA, and are
subject to enforceable schedules that
require the earliest practicable
compliance date considering physical
and financial feasibility.
F. Police Development
This Policy devotes a separate section
to each step involved in developing and
Implementing CSO controls. This is not
to imply that each function occurs
separately. Rather, the entire process
surrounding CSO controls, community
planning. WQS and permit
developmentfrevision . enforcement/
compliance actions and public
participation must be coordinated to
control CSOs effectively. Permittees and
permitting authorities are encouraged to
consider innovative and alternative
approaches and technologies that
achieve the objectives of this Policy and
the CWA.
In developing this Policy. EPA has
included Information on what
responsible parties are expected to
accomplish. Subsequent documents will
provide additional guidance on how ti-
objectives of this Policy should be m’
These documents will provide furthe
guidance on: CSO permit writing, the
nine minimum controls, long-term CSO
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 1994 / Notices
18691
control plans, finane4al capability,
sewer system characterization and
receiving water monitoring and
modeling, and appllcatfon of WQS to
C impacted waters. For most CSO
control efforts however, suffident detail
has been included in this Policy to
begin immediate implementation of its
provisions.
fl EPA Objectives for Peimiftees
A. Overview
Permittees with CSSs that have CSOs
should immediately undertake a process
to accurately characterize their sewer
systems, to demonstrate implementation
of the nine minimum controls, and to
develop a long-term CSO control plan.
B. Implementation of the Nine
Minimum Controls
Perm.ittees with CSOs should submit
appropriate documentation
demonstrating implementation of the
nine minimum controls, Including any
prOposed schedules for completing
minor construction activities. The nine
minimum controls are:
1. Proper operation and regular
maintenance programs for the sewer
system and the CSOs;
2. Maximum use of the coUectf on
system for storage;
3. Review and modification of
pretreatment requirements to assure
CSO Impacts are minlmi, A
4. Maximization of flow to the POTW
for treatment:
5. Prohibition of CSOs during dry
weather ’
6. Control of solid and floatable
matenaLs in CSOs;
7. PoUution prevention;
8. Public notification to ensure that the
public receives adequate notification
of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts:
and
9. Monitoring to effectively characterize
CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO
controls.
Selection and implementation of
actual control measures should be based
on site-specific considerations including
the specific CSS’s characteristica
discussed under the sewer system
characterization and monitoring
portions of this Policy. Documentation
of the nine minimum controls may
include operation and maintenance
plans. revised sewer use ordinances for
Industrial users, sewer system
Inspection reports. infiltration/inflow
studies, pollution prevention programs,
public notification plans. and facility
plans for maYImillng the capacities of
the existing collection, storage and
treatment systems, as well as contracts
and schedules for minor construction
programs for improving the existing
system’s operation. The perimttee
should also submit any information or
data on the degree to which the nine
minimum controls achieve compliance
with water quality standards. These data
and information should include results
made available through monitoring and
modeling activities done In conjunction
with th development of the long-term
CSO control plan describedin this
• Policy.
• This documentation should be
submitted as soon as practicable, but no
later than two years after the
requirement to submit such
documentation Is included In an NPDES
permit or other enforceable mechanism.
Implementation of the nine minimum
controls with appropriate
documentation should be completed as
soon as practicable but no later than
January 1, 1997. These dates should be
Included in an appropriate enforceable
mechanism.
Bemuse the CWA requires Immediate
compliance with technology-based
controls (section 301(b)), which on a
Best Professional Judgment basis should
include the nine minimum controls, a
compliance schedule for implementing
the nine minimum controls, if
necessary, should be Included In an
apprqpnate enforceable mer hmiicm.
C. Long-Term CSO Control Plan
Permlttees with CSOs are responsible
for developing and implementing long-
term CSO control plans that will
ultimately result in compliance with the
requirements of the CWA. The long.
term plans should consider the site-
specific nature of CSOs and evaluate the
cost effectiveness of a range of control
options/strategies. The development of
the long-term CSO control plan and Its
subsequent implementation should also
be coordinated with the NPDES
authority and the State authority
responsible for reviewing and revising
the State’s WQS. The selected controls
should be designed to allow cost
effective expansion or cost effective
retrofitting If additional controls are
subsequently determined to be
necessary to meet WQS, including
existing and designated uses.
This policy identifies A’s major
objectives for the long-term CSO control
plan. Pennittees should develop and
submit this long-term CSO control plan
as soon as practicable, but generally
within two years after the date of the
NPDES permit provision, Section 308
information request, or enforcement
action requiring the pennittee to
develop the plan. NPDES authorities
may establish a longer timetable for
compIe lon of the long-term CSO
control plan on a case-by-case basis to
account for site-specific factors which
may influence the complexity of the
plnnning process. Once agreed upon,
these dates should be included in an
appropriate enforceable mechariicm.
EPA expects each long-term CSO
control plan to utilize appropriate
Information to address the following
minimum elements. The Plan should
also Include both fixed-data project
implementation schedules (which may
be phased) and a financing plan to
design and construct the project as soon
as practicable. The minimum elements
of the long-term CSO control plan are
described below
1. Characterization, Monitoring, and
Modeling of the Combined Sewer
System
in order to design a CSO control plan
adequate to meet the requirements of
the CWA, a perrnittee should have a
thorough understanding of its sewer
system, the response of the system to
various precipitation events, the
characteristlor of the overflows, and the
water quality Impacts that result from
CSOs. The permittee should adequately
characterize through monitoring,
modeling, and other means as
appropriate, for a range of storm events,
the response of Its sewer system to wet
weather events Including the number,
location and frequency of CSOs,
volume, concentmtlon and mass of
pollutants discharged and the impacts
of the CSOs on the receiving waters and
their designated uses. The permittee
may need to consider Information on
the contribution and Importance of
other pollution sources in order to
develop a final plan designed to meet
water quality standards. The purpose of
the system characterization, monitoring
and modeling program initially is to
assist the permuttee in developing
appropriate measures to implement the
nine minimum controls and, if
necessary, to support development of
the long-term CSO control plan. The
monitoring and modeling data also will
be used to evaluate the expected
effectiveness of both the nine minimum
controls and. U necessary, the long-term
CSO controls, to meet WQS.
The major elements of a sewer system
characterization are described below.
a. R inf 1I Records—The permittee
should examine the complete rainfnll
record’for the geographic area of Its
existing CSS using sound statfsticai
procedures and best available data. The
permittee should evaluate flow
variations In the receiving water body to
correlate between CSOs and receiving
water conditions.
-------
18692
Federal Register I VoL 59.. No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 1994 / Notices
b. Combined Sewer System
Qiaracterizatlon—The permittee should
evaluate the nature and extent of its
sower system through. evaluation of
available sewer system records, field,
Inspections and other activitiex
necessary to understand the number,
location and frequency of overflows and
their location relative to sensitive areas
and to pollution sources in the
collection system, such as indirect
significant Industrial users.
c. CSO Monitoring—The permittee
should develop a comprehensive.
representative monitoring program that
measures the frequency, duration, flow
rate, volume and pollutant
concentration of CSO discharges and
assesses the impact of the CSOs on the
receiving waters. The monitoring
program should include necessary CSO
effluent and ambient in-stream
monitoring and, where appropriate.
other monitoring protocols such as
biological assessment, toxicity testing
and sediment sampling. Monitoring
parameters should include, for example.
oxygen demanding pollutants. nutrients,
to,oc pollutants. sediment
contaminants. pathogens.
bacteriological indicators (e.g..
Enteiucocciis. E. Coli). and toxicity. A
representative sample of overflow
points can be selected that Is sufficient
to allow characterization of CSO
discharges and their water quality
impacts and to facilitate evaluation of
control plan alternatives.
d. Modeling—Modeling of a sewer
system is recognized as a valuable tool
for predicting sewer system response to
various wet weather events and
assessing water quality impacts when
evaluating different control strategies
and alternatives. EPA supports the
proper and effective use of models.
where appropriate, In the evaluation of
the nine minimum controls andtha
development of the long-term CSO
control plan. It is also recognized that
there ate many models which may be
used to do this. These models range
from simple to complex Having
decided to use a model. the permittee
should base its choice of amodelon the
characteristics of Its sewer system, the
number and location of overflow points.
and the sensitivity of the receiving
water body to the CSO discharges. Use
of models should include appropriate
calibration and verification with field
measurements. The sophistication of the
model should relate to the complexity of
the system to be modeled and to the
information needs associated with.
evaluation of CSO control options and
water quality impacts. EPA believes that
continuous simulation models, using
historical rainfall data, may be the best
way to model sewer systems. CSOs. and
their Impacts. Because of the iterative
nature of modeling sewer systems,
CSC)s, and their impacts. morntoring
and modeling efforts are complementary
and should be coordinated.
2. Public Participation
In developing its long-term CSO
control plan. the permittee will employ
a public participation process that
actively involves the affected public in
the decision.making to select the long-
term CSO controls. The affected public
Includes rate payers, industrial users of
the sewer system. persons who reside
downstream from the CSOs, persons
who use and enjoy these downstream
waters, and any other interested
persons.
3. ConsideratIon of Sensitive Areas
EPA expects a perinittee’s long-term
CSO control plan to give the highest
priority to controlling overflows to
sensitive areas. Sensitive areas. as
determined by the NPDES authority in
coordination with State and Federal
agencies, as appropriate, include
designated Outstanding National
Resource Waters, National Marine
Sanctuaries, waters with threatened or
endangered species and their habitat.
waters with primary contact recreation,
public d.rinking water Intakes or their
designated protection areas, and
shellfish beds. For such areas, the long-
term CSO control plan should:
a. Prohibit new or significantly
Increased overflows;
b. L EI1minAIA or relocate overflows
that discharge to sensitive areas
wherever physically possible and
economically achievable, except where
eliminntfon or relocation would provide
less environmental protection than
additional treatment or
I I. Where elimination or relocation Is
not physically possible and
economically achievable, or would
provide less environmental protection
than additional treatment. provide the
level of treatment for rnm .Ining
overflows deemed necessary to meet
WQS for full protection of e ostlng and
designated uses. In any event, the level
of control should not be less than those
described in Evaluation of Alternatives
below and
c. Where elimination or relocation, has
been proven not to be physically
possible and economically achievable,
permitting authorities should require.
for each subsequent permit term, a
reassessment based on new or improved
techniques to eliminate or relocate, or
on changed circumstances that
Influence economic achievability.
4. EvaluatIon of Alt ,’,mt{ve
EPA expects the long-term CSO
control plan to.consider a reasonable
range of alternatives. The plan should.
for example, evaluate controls that
would be necessary to achieve zero
overflow events per year, an average of
one to three, four to seven, and eight to
twelve overflow events per year.
Alternatively, the long-term plan could
evaluate controls that achieve 100%
capture, 90% capture, 85% capture,
80% capture, end 75% capture for
treatment. The long-term control plan
should also consider expansion of
POTW secondary and primary capacity
In the CSO abatement alternative
analysis. The analysis of alternatives
should be sufficient to make a
reasonable assessment of cost and
performance as described in Section
ILC.5. Because the final long-term CSO
control plan will become the basis for
NPDES permit limits and. requirements,
the selected controls should be
sufficient to meet CWA requirements.
In addition to considering sensitive
areas, the long-term CSO control plan
should adopt one of the following
approaches;
a. “Presumption” Approach
A program that meets any of the
criteria listed below would be presumi
to provide an adequate level of control
to meet the water quality-based
requirements of the CWA, provided the
permitting authority determines that
such presumption is reasonable in light
of the data and analysis conducted in
the characterization. monitoring, and
modeling of the system and the
consideration of sensitive areas
described above. These criteria are
provided because data and modeling of
wet weather events often do not give a
clear picture of the level of CSO controls
necessary to protect WQS.
I. No more than an average of four
overflow events per year, provided that
the permitting authority may allow up
to two additional overflow events per
year. For the purpose of this criterion.
an overflow event is one or more
overflows from a CSS as the result of a
precipitation event that does not receive
the minimum treatment specified
below: or
u. The eliminntion or the capture for
treatment of no less than 85% by
volume of the combined sewage
collected in the CSS during
precipitation events on a system-wide
annual average basis; or
lii. The eliminAtion or removal of n
less than the mass of the pollutants,
Identified as causing water qualiflr
Impairment through the sewer system
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19 , 1994 I Notices
18693
characterization.. monitoring. and
inodeling effort. for the volumes that
would be elininnted or captured for
treatment under paragraph ii. above.
Combined sewer flows remaining after
implementation of the nine minimum
controls and within the iteria
specified at fl.C.4.aJ or U, should
receive a minimum of
• Primary claxificaUon (Removal of
floetables and settleable solids may be
achieved by any combination of
treatment technologies or methods that
are shown to be equivalent to primary
clarification.);
• Solids and floatables disposal; and
• Disinfection of effluent, if
necessary, to meet WQS, protect
designated uses and protect human
health, including removal of harmful
disinfection chemical residuals, where
necessary.
b. “Demonstration” Approach
A permittee may demonstrate that a
selected control program. though not
meeting the criteria specified in fl.C.4.a.
above Is adequate to meet the water
quality-based requirements of the CWA.
To be a su ssful demonstration, the
permittee should demonstrate each of
the following:
1. The planned control program is
adequate to meet WQS and protect
designated uses, unless WQS or uses
cannot be met as a result of natural
background conditions or pollution
sources other than CSOs; -
II. The CSO discharges remaining
after implementatIon of the planned
control program will not preclude the
attainment of WQS or the receiving
waters’ designated uses or contribute to
their impairment. Where WQS and
designated uses are not met in part
because of natural background
conditions or pollution sources other
than CSOs, a total ma,amum daily load,
Including a wasteload allocation and a
load allocation, or other means should
be used to apportion pollutant loads;
iii. The planned control program will
provide the maximum pollution
reduction benefits reasonably attainable;
and
iv. The planned control program is
designed to allow cost effective
expansion or cost effective retrofitting if
additional controls are subsequently
determined to be necessary to meet
WQS or designated uses.
5. Cost/Performance Considerations
The permittee should develop
appropriate cestiperformance curves to
demonstrate the relationships among a
comprehensive set of reasonable control
alternatives that correspond to the
different ranges specified in Section
ILC .4. This should include an analysis
to determine where the Increment of
pollution reduction achieved in the
receiving water dirniniches compared to
the increased costs. This analysis, often
known as knee of the curve, should be
among the considerations used to help
guide selection of controls.
6.OperatlonalPlan
After agreement between the
permittee end NPDES authority on the
necessary CSO controls to be -
Implemented under the long-term CSO
control plan, the perinittee should
revise the operation and maintenance
program developed as part of the nine
minimum controls to include the
agreed-upon long-temi CSO controls.
The revised operation and maintenance
program should maximize the removal
of pollutants during and after each
precipitation event using all available
facilities within the collection and
treatment system. For any flows in
excess of the criteria specified at
ILC.4.a.l., 11. or Ill and not receiving the
treatment specified in ILC,4.a. the
operational plan should ensure that
such flows receive treatment to the
greatest extent practicable.
7 Maximizing Treatment at the Existing
POTW Treatment Plant
In some communities, POTW
treatment plants may have primary
treatment capacity in excess of their
secondary treatment capacity. One
effective strategy to abate pollution
resulting from CSOs is to maximize the
delivery of flows during wet weather to
the PPTW treatment plant for treatment.
Delivering these flows can have two
significafit water quality benefits: First.
inaeased flows during wet weather to
the POTW treatment plant may enable
the permittee to eliminate or minimim
overflows to sensitive areas; second, this
would ina dmize the use of available
POTW facilities for wet weather flows
and would ensure that combined sewer
flows receive at least primary treatment
prior to discharge.
Under EPA regulations. the
intentional diversion of waste streams
•hom any portion of a treatment facility.
including secondary treatment, is a
bypass. EPA bypass regulations at 40
CFR 122.41(m) allow fora facility to
bypass some or all the flow from its
treatment process under specified
limited circumstances. Under the
regulation, the pemnuttee must show that
the bypass was unavoidable to prevent
loss of life, personal Injury or severe
property damage. that there was no
feasible alternative to the bypass and
that the permittee submitted the
required notices. in addition, the
regulation provides that a bypass may
be approved only alter consideration of
adverse effects.
Normally, It is the responsibility of
the pernilttee to document, on a case-by
base basis, compliance with 40 CFR
122.41(m) in order to bypass flows
legally. For some CSO”related permits.
the study of feasible alternatives in the
control plan may provide sufficient
support for the permit record and for
approval of a CSO-related bypass in the
permit itselL and to define the specific
parameters under which a bypass can
legally occur. For approval of a CSO-
related bypass, the long-term CSO
control plan, at a minimum, should
provide justification fo! the cut-off point
at which the flow will be diverted from
the secondary treatment portion of the
treatment plant, and provide a benefit-
cost analysis demonstrating that
conveyance of wet weather flow to the
POTW for primary treatment Is more
beneficial than other CSO abatement
alternatives such as storage and pump
back for secondary treatment, sewer
separation, or satellite treatment. Such a
permit must define under what specific
wet weather conditions a CSO-related
bypass Is allowed and also specify what
treatment or what monitoring. and
effluent limitations and requirements
apply to the bypass flow. The permit
should also provide that approval for
the CSO-related bypass will be reviewed
and may be modified or terminated if
there is a substantial increase in the
volume or character of pollutants being
introduced to the PCTW. The CSO-
related bypass provision in the permit
should also make it clear that all wet
weather flows passing the headworks of
the POTW treatment plant will receive
at least primary clarification and solids
and floatables removal and disposal,
and disinfection, where necessary, and
any other treatment that can reasonably
be provided.
Under this approach. EPA would
allow a permit to authorize a CSO-
related bypass of the secondary
treatment portion of the POTW
treatment plant for combined sewer
flows in certain Identified
circumstances. This provision would
apply only to those situations where the
POTW would ordinarily meet the
requirements of 40 G ’R 122.41(m) as
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, there must be sufficient data
in the administrative record (reflected in
the permit fact sheet or statement of
basis) supporting all the requirements in
40 CFR 122.41(m)(4) for approval of an
anticipated bypass.
For the purposes of applying this
regulation to CSO permittees, “severe
property damage” could include
-------
18694
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notices
situations where flows above a certain
level wash out the POTW s secondary
treatment system. EPA further believes
that the feasible alternatives
requirement of the regulation can be met
if the record shows that the secondary
treatment system Is properly operated
and maintained, that the system has
been designed to meet secondary limits
for flows greater than the peak dry
weather flow, plus an appropriate
quantity of wet weather flow, and that
it is either technically or financially
infeasible to provide secondary
treatment at the e dsting facilities for
greater amounts of wet weather flow.
The feasible alternative analysis should
include, for example, consideration of
enhanced primary treatment (e.g..
chemical addition) and non-biological
secondary treatment. Other bases
supporting a finding of no feasible
alternative may also be available on a
case -by-case basis. As part of its
consideration of possible adverse effects
resulting from the bypass. the
permitting authority should also ensure
that the bypass will not cause
exceedances of WQS.
This Policy does not address the
appropriateness of approving
anticipated bypasses through NPDES
permits In advance outside the CEO
context.
8. Implementation Schedule
The permittee should include eli
pertinent information in the long term
contiol plan necessary to develop the
construction and financing schedule for
implementation of CEO controls.
Schedules for implementation of the
CEO controls may be phased based on
the relative importance .of adverse
impacts upon WQS and designated
uses, priority projects identified in the
long-term plan. and on a permittee’s
financial capability.
Construction phasing should
consideri
a. Eliminating overflows that
discharge to sensitive areas as the
highest pnority
b. Use impairment:
c. The permittee’s financial capability
including consideration of such factors
as:
i. Median household income:
ii. Total annual wastewater and CEO
control costs per household as a percent
of median household income;
iu. Overall net debt as a percent of
full market property value;
iv. Property tax revenues as a percent
of full market property value;
v. Property tax collection rate:
vi. Unemployment; and
vii. Bond rating;
d. Grant and loan availability;
a. Previous and current residential.
commercial and industrial sewer user
fees and rate structures; and
I. Other viable funding merhaniama
and sources of financing .
9. Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Program
The selected CEO controls should
include a post-construction water
quality monitoring program adequate to
verify compliance with water quality
standards and protection of designated
uses as well as to ascertain the
effectiveness of CEO controls. This
water quality compliance monitoring
program should include a plan to be
approved by the NPDES authority that
details the monitoring protocols to be
followed, including the necessary
effluent and ambient monitoring and,
where appropriate, other monitoring
protocols such as biological
assessments, whole effluent toxicity
testing. and sediment sampling.
III. Coordination With State Water
Quality Standards
A. Overview
WQS are State adopted. or Federally
promulgated rules which serve as the
goals for the water body and the legal
basis for the water quality-based NPDES
permit requirements under the CWA.
WQS consist of uses which States
designate for their water bodies, criteria
to protect the uses, an anti-degradation
policy to protect the water quality
improvements gained and other policies
affecting the implementation of the
standards. A primary objective of the
long-term CEO control plan is to meet
WQS. including the designated uses
through reducing risks to human health
and the environment by eliminating.
relocating or controlling CSOs to the
affected waters.
Slate WQS authorities. NPDES
authorities, EPA regional offices.
permittees, and the public should meet
early and frequently throughout the
long-terth CEO control planning
process. Development of the long-term
plan should be coordinated with the
review and appropriate revision of WQS
and implementation procedures on
CEO-impacted waters to ensure that the
long-term controls will be sufficient to
meet water quality standards. As part of
these meetings, participants should
agree on the data, information and
analyses needed to support the
development of the long-term CEO
control plan and the review of
applicable WQS, and Implementation
procedures. if appropriate. Agreements
should be reached on the monitoring
protocols and models that will be used
to evaluate the water quality Impacts of
the overflows, to analyze the
atts innhility of the WQS and to
determine the water quality-based
requirements for the permit. Many
opportunities exist for permittees and
States to share information as control
programs are developed and as WQS are
reviewed. Such information should
assist States in de r nining the need for
revisions to WQS and implementation
procedures to better reflect the site-
specific wet weather impacts of CSOs.
Coordinating the development of the
long-term CEO control plan and the
review of the WQS and implementation
procedures provides greater assurance
that the long-term control plan selected
and the limits and requirements
included in the NPDES permit will be
sufficient to meet WQS and to comply
with sections 301(b)(1)(C) arid 402(a112)
of the C’vVA.
EPA encourages States and permittees
jointly to sponsor workshops for the
affected public in the development of
the long-term CEO control plan and
during the development of appropriate
revisions to WQS for CEO-impacted
waters. Workshops provide a forum for
including the public In discussions of
the implications of the proposed long-
term CEO control plan on the water
quality and uses for the receiving wate
B. Water Qj.iallty Standards Reviews
The CWA requires States to
periodically. but at least once every
three years. hold public hearings for the
purpose of reviewing applicable water
quality standards and, as appropriate.
modifying and adopting standards.
States must provide the public an
opportunity to comment on any
proposed revision to water quality
standards and all revisions must be
submitted to EPA for review and
approval.
EPA regulations and guidance provide
States with the flexibility to adapt their
WQS. and Implementation procedures
to reflect site-specific conditions
Including those related to CSOs. For
example. a State may adopt site-specific
criteria for a particular pollutant if the
State determines that the site-specific
criteria fully protects the designated use
(40 O R 131.11). In addition, the
regulations at 40 R 13L10(g). (h). and
(j) specify when and how a designated
use may be modified. A State may
remove a designated use from its water
quality standards only if the designated
use is not an existing use. An existing
use is a use actually attained in the
water body on or after November 28,
1975. Furthermore. a State may not
remove a designated use that will be
attained by implementing the
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 75 / Tuesday , April 19, 1994 / Notices
18695
technolo ..based effluent Ilnuts
required under sections 301(b) end 306
of the CWA and by Implementing cost-
effective and reasonable best
management practices for nanpoint
source controls. Thus, if a State has a
reasonable basis to determine that the
current dengnated use could be attained
after Implementation of the technology.
based controls of the CWA, then the use
could not be removed.
In dotermlniiig whether a use is
attainable and prior to o g a
designated use, States must conduct and
submit to EPA a use attainability
analysis. A use attainability analysis Is
a structured scientific asseennent of the
factors affecting the use, including the
physical, chemical, biological, and
economic factors described in 40 CFR
131.10(g). As part of the analysis, States
should evaluate whether the designated
use could be attained if C O controls
were Implemented. For example, States
should examine if sediment loadings
to bury spawning beds, oh
biochemical oxygen demanding materiaJ
In the e luent orthetoxicity of the
effluent could be corrected so as to
reduce the acute or chronic
physiological eso an or
bloaccumulation potential of aquatic
organisms.
In reviewing the attainability of their
WQS and the applicability of their
Implementation procedures to CSO.
impacted waters, States are encouraged
to define more explicitly their
receatiosmi and aquatic life uses and
then, if appropriate, modify the criteria
accordingly to protect the designated
uses.
Another option Is for States to adopt
partial uses by dafining when primary
contact recreation such as swimming
does not exist, such as during certain
seasons of the year in northern climates
or during a particular type of storm
event In making such adjustments to
their uses, States must ensure that
downstream uses are protected, and that
during other seasons or after the storm
event has passed, the use is fully
protected.
In addition to defining recreational
uses with greater specificity, States are
also encouraged to define the aquatic
uses more precisely. Rather than
“aquatic lila use protection,” States
should consider defining the type of
fishery to be protected such as a cold
water fishery (e.g., trout or salmon) or a
warm weather fishery (e.g., bluegill or
large mouth bass). Explicitly defining
the type of fishery to be protected may
assist the permittee in enlisting the
support of citirang for a CSO control
plan.
A water quality standard variance
may be appropriate, In limited
circumstances on CSO-impacted waters-,
where the State Is uncertain asto
whether a standard can be attained and
time Is needed for the State to conduct
additional analyses on the attainability
of the standard. Varient are short.term
modifications in water quality
standank Subject to EPA approval,
States,wjth their own statutory
authority, may grant a variance to a
specific discharger firs specific
pollutant. The justification for a
vailance j ciniilar to that required for
a permanent change In the standard,
although the showings needed are less
rigorous. Variances are also subject to
public participation requirements of the
water quality standards and permits
programs and are reviewable generally
every three years. A variance allow, the
CSO permit to be written to meet the
“modified” water quality standard as
analyses are conducted and as progr
is made to improve water quality.
Justifications for variances are the
same as those Identified In 40 R
l31.10(g) for modifications in uses.
States must provide an opportunity far
public review and comment on all
variances. If States use the permit as the
vehicle to grant the variance, notice of
the permit must dearly state that the
variance modifies the State’s water
quality standards. If the variance Is
approved, the State appends the
variance to the State’s standards and
reviews the variance every three years.
IV. Expectations for Permitting
Authorities
A.
CSOs are point sources subject to
NPDESpermlt requirements Including
both teainology-based and water
quality-based requirements Qitha CWA.
CSOs are not subject to secondary
treatment regulations applicable to
publicly owned treatment works
(MontgonieiyEnvzronmentoj Coalition
vs. Costle. 648 F.2d 568 (D.C. Cr.
1980)).
AU permits for C Os should require
the nine minimum controls as a
minimum best available technology
economically achievable and best
conventional technology (BAT/BCTJ
established on a best professional
jud ent (BPJ) basis by the permitting
authority (40 R 125.3). Water quality-
based requirements are to be established
based on applicable water quality
standards.
This policy establishes a uniform,
nationally consistent approach to
developing and Issuing NPDES permits
to permittees with CSOs. Permits for
CSCls should be developed and issued
expeditiously. A single, system-wide
permit generally should be i ied for all
discharges, including CSOs, from a CSS
operated by a single authority. When
different parts of a single ( S are
operated by more than one authority,
permits issued to each authority should
generally require joint preparation and
implementation of the elements of this
Policy and should specifically define
the responsibilities and duties of each
authority. Permittees ehould be required
to coordinate system-wide
implementation of the nine minimum
controls and the development and
ImplementatIon of the long-term C O
control plan.
The Individual authorities are
responsible for their own discharges and
should cooperate with the permiuee for
the POTW receiving the flows from the
CSS. When a C O Is permitted -
separately from the POTW, both permits
should be cross-referenced for
Informational purposes.
EPA Regions and States should
review the CSO pernuthng priorities
established In the State CSO Permitting
Strategies developed In response to the
1989 Strategy. Regions and States may
elect to revise these previous priorities.
In setting permitting priorities, Regions
and States should not just focus on
those permittees that have Initiated
monitoring programs. When setting
priorities, Regions and States should
consider, for example, the known or
potential Impact of CSOs on sensitive
areas, and the extent of upstream
Industrial user discharges to the CSS.
During the permittee’s development
of the long-term CSO control plan. the
permit writer should promote
coordination between the permittee and
State WQS authority in connection with
possible WQS revisions. Once the
perrnittee has completed development
of the long-term CSO control plan and
has coordinated with the permitting
authority the selection of the controls
m ’ .v seJy to meet the requirements of
the CWA., the permitting authority
-should include in an appropriate
enforceable mechanism, requirements
for Implementation of the long-term
CSC) control plan. Including conditions
for Water quality monitoring and
operation and maintenance.
B. NPDES Permit Requirements
Following are the major elements of
NPDES permits to implement this
Policy and ensure protection of water
quality.
-------
18696
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 75/Tuesday, April 19, 1994 / Notices
1. Phase I Permits—Roquirement.s for
Demonstration of Implementation of the
Nine Minimum Controls and
Development of the Long . ’Term CSO
Control Plan
In the Phase I permit Issued/modified
to reflect this Policy, the NPDES
authority should at least require
permittees to:
a. Immediately implement SAT/BC’ !’.
which at a minimum includes the nine
minimum controls, as determined on a
BPJ basis by the permitting authority;
b. Develop and submit a report
documenting the implementation of the
nine minimum controls within two
years of permit Issuance/modification;
c. Comply with applicable WQS, no
later than the date allowed under the
State’s WQS, expressed in the form of a
narrative limitation; and
d. develop and submit, consistent
with this Policy and based on a
schedule in an appropriate enforceable
mechanism. a long-term CSO control
plan as soon as practicable, but
generally within two years after the
effective date of the permit issuance!
modification. However. permitting
authorities may establish a longer
timetable for completion of the long-
term CSO control plan on a case-by-case
basis to aceount for site-specific factors
that may influence the complexity of the
planning process.
The NPDES authority should include
compliance dates on the £astest
practicable schedule for each of the nine
minimum controls in an appropriate
enforceable mechanism Issued In
conjunction with the Phase I permit.
The use of enforceable orders Is
necessary unless Congress amends the
CWA. All orders should require
compliance with the nine minimum
controls no later than January 1, 1997.
2. Phase 11 Permlts—Requizements for
Implementation of a Long-Term CSO
Control Plan
Once the perinittee has completed
development of the long-term CSO
control plan and the selection of the
controls necessary to meet CWA —
requirements has been coordinated with
the permitting and WQS authorities, the
permitting authority should include, In
an appropriate enforceable mech ni cm,
requirements for implementation of the
long-term CSO control plan as soon as
practicable. Where the permittee has
selected controls based on the
“presumption” approach desaibed In
Section ll.C.4. the permitting authority
must have determined that the
presumption that such level of
treatment will achieve water quality
standards is reasonable in light of the
data and analysis conducted under this
Policy. The Phase II permit should
contain:
a. Requirements to Implement the
technolo -based controls including the
nine minimum controls determined on
a BPJ basis:
b. Narmtlve requirements which
insure that the selected CSO controls are
implemented, operated and maintained
as desaibed in the long-term CSO
control plan;
c. Water quality-based effluent limits
under 40 CFR 122.44(d)(i) and
122.44(k), requiring, at a mfnimu ,
compliance with, no later than the date
allowed under the State’s WQS, the
numeric performance standards for the
selected CSO controls, based on average
design conditions specifying at least one
of the following: -
I. A maximum number of overflow
events per year for specified design
conditions consistent with 1I.C.4.a.i: or
ii. A minimum percentage capture of
combined sewage by volume for
treatment under specified design
conditions consistent with 1I.C.4.a.il; or
ui. A minimum removal of the mass
of pollutants discharged for specified
design conditions consistent with
li.C.4.a.ili or
iv. performance standards and
requirements that are consistent with
ILC.4.b. of the Policy.
d. A requirement to Implement, with
an established schedule, the approved
post-construction water quality
assessment program including
requirements tQ monitor and collect
sufficient information to demonstrate
compliance with WQS and protection of
designated uses as well as to determine
the effectiveness of CSO controls.
e. A requirement to reassess overflows
to sensitive areas in those cases where
alimin tion or relocation of the
overflows is not physically possible and
economically achievable. The
reassessment should be based on
consideration of new or improved
techniques to elIminate or relocate
overflows or changed circumstances
that Influence economic achievability;
f. Conditions establishing
requirements for rna,dmi iig the
treatment of wet weather flows at the
POTW treatment plant, as appropriate.
consistent with Section ILCJ. of this
Policy;
g. A reopener clause authorming the
NPDES authority to reopen and modify
the permit upon determination that the
CSO controls fall to meet WQS or
protect designated uses. Upon such
determination, the NPDES authority
should promptly notify the permittee
and proceed to modify or reissue the
permit. The perrnittee should be
required to develop, submit and
implement, as soon as praaicable, a
revised CSO control plan which
contains additional controls to meet
WQS and designated uses. If the initial
CSO control plan was approved under
the demonstration provision of Section
II.C.4.b., the revised plan, at a
minimum, should provide for controls
that satisfy one of the citeria in Section
IIC.4.a. unless the permittee
demonstrates that the revised plan is
clearly adequate to meet WQS at a lower
cost and It is shown that the additional
controls resulting from the criteria in
Section II.C.4.a. will not result in a
greater overall improvement in water
quality.
Unless the permittee can comply with
all of the requirements of the Phase II
permit, the NPDES authority should
include, in an enforceable mechanism,
compliance dates on the fastest
practicable schedule for those activities
directly related to meeting the
requirements of the CWA. For major
permittees, the compliance schedule
should be placed in a judicial order.
Proper compliance with the schedule
for implementing the controls -
recommended In the long-term CSO
control plan constitutes compliance
with the elements of this Policy
concerning planning and
Implementation of a long term CSO
remedy.
3. Phasing Considerations
Implementation of CSO controls may
be phased based on the relative
Importance of and adverse impacts
upon WQS and designated uses, as well
as the permittee’s financial capability
and its previous efforts to control CSOs.
The NPDES authority should evaluate
the proposed Implementation schedule
and construction phasing discussed in
Section ILC.8. of this Policy. The permit
should require compliance with the
controls proposed In the long-term CSO
control plan no later than the applicable
deadline(s) under the CWA or State law.
If compliance with the Phase II permit
is not possible, an enforceable schedule,
consistent with the Enforcement and
Compliance Section of this Policy.
should be issued In conjunction with
the Phase II permit which specifies the
schedule and milestones for
Implementation of the long-term CSO
control plan.
V. Enforcement and Compliance
A. Overview
It Is Important that permittees act
immediately to take the necessary sto . ..
to comply with the CWA. The CSO
enforcement effort will commence with
-------
Federal Register! VoL 59, No. 75 / Tuesday. April19, 3994 p’ Notices
18697
an initiative to address CSOs that
discharge during dry weather, followed
by an enforcement effort in con unct1on
with permitting CSOs discussed earlier
in this Policy. Success of the
enforcement effort will depend In large
part upon expeditious action by NPDES
authorities in issuing enforceable
permits that include requirements both
for the nine minimum controls and for
compliance with all other requirements
of the CWA. Priority for enforcement
actions should be set based on
environmental Impacts or sensitive
areas affected by CSOs.
As a further inducement for
permittees to cooperate with this
process, EPA is prepared to exercise its
enforcement discretion in determining
whether or not to seek civil penalties for
past CSO violations If permittees meet
the objectives and schedules of this
Policy and do not have CSOs during dry’
weather.
B. Enforcement of CSO Dry Weather
Discharge Prohibition
EPA intends to commence
immediately an enforcement Initiative
against CSO permattees which have
CWA violations due to CSOs during dry
weather. Discharges during dry weather
have always been prohibited by the
NPDES program. Such discharges can
create serious public health and water
quality problems. EPA will use its CWA
Section 308 monitoring, reporting, and
Inspection authorities, together with
NPDES State authorities, to locate these
violations, and to determine their
causes. Appropnate remedies and
penalties will be sought for CSOs during
dry weather. EPA will provide NPDES
authorities more specific guidance on
this enforcement Initiative separately.
C. Enforcement of Wet Weather CSO
Requirements
Under the CWA, EPA can use several
enforcement options to address
permittees with CSOs. Those options
directly applicable to this Policy are
section 308 Information Requests.
sectIon 309(a) At!m nistiative Orders,
section 309(g) Mmtnistratlve Penalty
Ordois , section 309 (b} and (d) Civil
Judicial Actions, and sectIon 504
Emergency Powers. NPDES States
should use comparable means.
NPDES authorities should set
priorities for enforcement based on
envlxoiimental impacts or sensitive
areas affected by CSOs. Pexmlttees that
have voluntarily Initiated monitoring
and axe progressing expeditiously
toward appropriate CSO controls should
be given due consideration for their
efforts.
1. Enforcement for Compliance With
Phase I Permits
Enforcement for compliance with
Phase I permits will focus on”
requirements to implement at least the
nine minimum controls, and develop
the long-term CSO control plan leading
to compliance with the requirements of
the CWA. Where immediate compliance
with the Phase I permit Is Infeasible, the
NPDES authority should Issue an
enforceable schedule, in concert with
the Phase I permit. requiring
compliance with the CWA and
Imposing compliance schedules with
dates for each of the nine minimum
controls as soon as practicable. All
enforcement authorities should require
compliance with the nine ivinimum
controls no later than January 1, 1997.
Where the NPDES authority is issuing
an order with a compliance schedule for
the nine minimum controls, this order
should also include a schedule for
development of the long-term CSO
control plan.
Ifs CSO pemlittee fails to meet the
final compliance date of the schedule.
the NPDES authority should Initiate
eppropriate judicial action.
2. Enforcement for Compliance With
Phase II Permits
The main focus for enforcing
compliance with Phase II permits will
be to incorporate the long-term CSO
control plan through a civil judicial
action, an administrative order, or other
enforceable mechanism requiring
compliance with the CWA and
imposing a compliance schedule with
appropriate milestone dates necessary to
Implement the plan.
In general, a 1 udicial order is the
appro riate mechanism for
Incorporating the above provisions for
Phase II. Administrative orders,
however, may be appropriate for
permittees whose long-term control
plans will take less than five years to
complete. and for minors that have
complied with the final date of the
enforceable order for compliance with
their Phase I permit. If necessary. any of
the nine minimum controls that have
not been implemented by this time
should be included in the terms of the
1 udicial order.
1). Penalties
EPA Is prepared not to seek civil
penalties for past CSO violations, if
permittees have no discharges during
dry weather and meet the objectives arid
schedules of this Policy.
Notwithstanding this, where a perrnlttee
has other significant CWA violations for
which EPA or the State Is taking judicial
action. fienalties may be censidered as
part of that action for the following:
1.. CSOs during dry weather.
2. Violations of CSO-retated
requirements in NPDES permits;
consent decrees or court orders which
predate this policy; or
3. Other CWA violations.
EPA will not seek penalties for past
CSO violations from perimttees that
fully comply with the Phase I permit or
enforceable order requiring compliance
with the Phase I permit. For permittees
that fail to comply. EPA will exercise its
enforcement discretion in determining
whether to seek penalties for the time
period for which the compliance
schedule was violated. If the milestone
dates of the enforceable schedule are not
achieved and penalties are sought,
penalties should be calculated from the
last milestone date that was met.
At the time of the 1 udlclal settlement
Imposing a compliance schedule
implementing the Phase U permit
requirvmenth. EPA will not seek
penalties for past CSO violations from
permittees that fully comply with the
enforceable order requiring compliance.
with the Phase I permit and lithe terms
of the judicial order are expeditiously
agreed to on consent. However,
stipulated penalties for violation of the
judicial order generally should be
included in the order, consistent with
existing Agency policies. Additional
guidance on stipulated penalties
concerning long-term CSO controls and
attainment of WQS will be issued.
Paperwork Reduction Act
—The information collection
requirements in this policy have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq
and have been assigned 0MB control
number 2040—0170.
This collection of information has an
estimated reporting burden averaging
578 hours per response and an
estimated annual recordkeeping burden
averaging 25 hours per recordkeeper.
These estimates include time for
reviewing instructions, searching
edsting 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 Street SW. (Mail Code 2136);
Washington. DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and
-------
18698 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 1994 / Notices
Budget, Wi chington. DC 20503, marked
“Attention: Desk Officcr for EPA.”
IFR Dcc. 94—9295 Filed 4—18-94; 8:45 aml
M -
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
9933
40 CFR Part 233
RL-4834-23
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy
Section 404 PermIt Program Approval
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of State
program.
suu av: The State of New Jersey has
submitted an application under section
404(g) of the Clem Water Act for the
approval of a program to regulate the
discharge of dredged or fill material into
certain waters of the United States
within the Statu After careful review of
the application and comments received
from the public, the Agency has
determined that the State’s program to
regulate discharges of dredged or fill
material meets the requirements of
section 404(h) of the Act. Therefore, this
application Is approved.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval will
become effective at 1 p.m. eastern
daylight time on March 2. 1994. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed In this approval Is
approved by the Director of the Federal
‘gister, as of 1p.m. on March 2. 1994,
a ordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mario Del Vicano, Chief, Marine &
Wetlands Protection Branch, Water
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 11,28 Federal Plaza, New York.
NY 10278 or by telephone at (212) 264—
5170. Copies of EPA’s responsiveness
summary are available from the above
address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.. hereinafter the CWA”)
established the section 404 Permit
Program. under which the Seaetary of
the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). may issue permits for
the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States at
specified disposal sites. Section 404(g)
of the CWA provides that the Governor
of any state desiring to administer its
own individual and; general permit
program for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United
Slates (other than those waters which
are presently used, or are susceptible for
use in their natural condition or by
onab1e improvement as a means to
lsport Interstate or foreign commerce
shoreward to the ordinary high water
mark, including all waters which are
sub ject to the ebb and flow of the tide
shoreward to their mean high water
mark, or mean higher high water mark
on the west coast, including wetlands
adjacent thereto) within its jurisdiction
may submit to theMministratorof the
USEPA a full and complete description
of the program it proposes to establish
and administer under State law.
including a statement from the State
Attorney General that the laws of the
State provide adequate authority to
carry out the described program. The
Administrator is required to approve
such submitted program unless the
program does not meet the requirements
of Section 404 (h) of the CWA. Among
other authorities, the State must have:
(1) Adequate authority to issue
permits which comply with all
pertinent requirements of the CWA,
including the guidelines developed
under section 404(b)(1); (2) adequate
authority, Including civil and n1inAl
penalties, to abate violations of the
permit or the permit program; and (3)
authority to ensure that the
Administrator, the public. any other
affected State, and other affected
agencies, are given notice of each
application for permit and are provided
an opportunity foes public hearing
before a ruling on each audi
application. The regulations
establishing the requirements for the
approval o(the 404 Permit Programs
were published at 53 FR 20764 on June
6,1988(40 R parts 232 and 233).
On June 15, 1993 the State of New
Jersey completed the submission of an
application uhder section 404(g) for
EPA approval of a program
administered by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy (NJDEPE) to regulate the
discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States within the
State. On July 9. 1993 EPA published
notice of its receipt of the application.
requested public comments, and
scheduled three public hearings on the
State’s submission (FR Doc. 93—16307).
The public hearings were held
throughout the state on August 1G. 11.
and 12, 1993.
After careful review of this
application. I have determined that the
State of New Jersey’s Program submitted
by the NJDEPE to regulate discharges of
dredged or fill material meets the
requirements of sectIon 404(h) of the
CWA, and hereby approve it. The effect
of this approval is to establish this
program as the applicable regulatory
program under the CWA for discharges
of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States in New Jersey that are
not presently used, or susceptible for
use in their natural condition or by
reasonable improvement as a means to
transport commerce shoreward to the
ordinary high water mark. induding
wetlands adjacent thereto.
Since this approval, in large part,
simply ratifies State regulations and
requirements already in effect under
State law, EPA is publishing this
approval, effective immediately. This
will enable New Jersey to begin
immediately regulating discharges of
dredged or fill material under the
Federally approved program.
List of Subjects in 40 G’R Part 233
Environmental protection.
Administrative practice and procedure,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergoverninentai relations. Water
pollution control.
Dated: January 25. 1994.
William J. Muuynskl.
Acting Regional Adcwzim’otor.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, chpater 1. title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations Is amended as
follows:
PART 233—404 STATE PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 233
is revised to read as follows
Authority 33 U.S.C 1251 er seq.
Subpart H—Approved State Programs
2. Part 233 is amended by adding
§ 233.71 to subpart H to read as follows:
5233.71 New Jersey.
The applicable regulatory program for
discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States in New
Jersey that are not presently used, or
susceptible for use in theLr natural
condition or by reasonable improvement
as a means to transport interstate or
foreign commerce shoreward to the
ordinary high water mark, including
wetlands adjacent thereto, except those
on Indian lands. is the program
administered by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy, approved by EPA. pursuant
to section 404 of the CWA. The program
becomes effective March 2,1994. This
program consists of the following
elements, as submitted to EPA in the
State’s program application:
(a) Incorporotion by reference. The
requirements set forth in the State
statutes and regulations cited in
paragraph (b) of this section are hereby
incorporated by reference and made a
part of the applicable 404 Program
under the CWA for the State of New
fersey. for incorporation by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 52(a) and I CFR part
-------
9934 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No . 41 I Wednesday, March 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
51. Material is incorporated as t exists
at 1 p.m. on March 2, 1994 and notice
of any change in the material will be
published In the Federal Register.
(hi Copies of materials incorporated
by reference may be Inspected at the
Office of the Federal Register. 800 North
Capitol Street, NW.. suite 700.
Washington, DC. Copies of materials
incorporated by reference may be
obtained or inspected at the EPA OUST
Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington.
DC 20480, and at the Library of the
Region 2 Regional Office, Federal Office
Building, 28 Federal Plaza, New York.
NY 10278.
(1) New Jersey Statutory
Requirements Applicable to the
Freshwater Wetlands Program, 1994.
(2) New Jersey Regulatory
Requirements Applicable to the
Freshwater Wetlands Program, 1994.
(ci Other laws. The following statutes
and regulations, although not
Incorporated by reference, also are part
of the approved State -administered
PTdnilnistrative Procedure Act,
NJ.S.A. 52:14B—1 et. seq.
(2) New Jersey Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules.
N.J.A.C. 1:1—1.1 et. seq.
(3) Open Public Meetings Act,
N.J.S.A. 10:4—8 et. seq.
(4) ExamInation and Copies of Public
Records. N.J.S.A. 47:IA-1 at. seq.
(5) Environmental Rights Act. 4JS.A.
2A35A—1 et. seq.
(8) Department of Environmental
Protection (and Energy), N.J.S.A. 13:11 )—
let. seq.
(7) Water Pollution Control Act.
N.J.S.A.. 58:1OA—1 at. seq.
(d) Memoranda of agreement. The
following memoranda of agreement,
although not Incorporated by reference
also are part of the approved State
administered program:
(1) The Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA Region 11 and the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, signed by the
EPA Region U Acting Regional
Administrator on June 15, 1993.
(2) The Memorandum of Agreement
between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy, signed by the Division
Engineer on March 4, 1993.
(3) The Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA Region U the Now Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy. and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, signed by all parties on
December 22. 1993.
to) Statement of legoi authority. The
following documents, although not
incorporated by reference, also are part
of the approved State administered
program:
(1) Attorney Genera?s Statement.
signed by the Attorney General of New
Jersey. as submitted with the request for
approval of The State of New Jersey’s
404 Program.
(2) The program desciption and any
other materials submitted as part of the
original application or supplements
thereto.
(FR Doe. 94—4651 Flied 3—1—94; 8:45 am)
coos ssas
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47CFR Part76
(MM Docket No. fl-265 CA 94-1641
Cable SeMces Cable Television Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correction of
effective date.
SUMMARY: The Conunission corrects the
January 10. 1994. effective date for
adoption of its rules regarding carriage
agreements between inultichamiel video
programming distributors and video
programming vendors (47 0R 78.1300-.
78.1302). The effective date for this rule
adoption Is now January 26. 1994. The
rule adoption was published on
Tuesday, November 16, 1993 (58 FR
60390).
EFFECTIVE OATE January 26, 1994.
FOR FURThER INFORMAt iON CONTAC1
Diane Hofbauer, 202-418-0807.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission, issued a Second Report
and Order in MM Docket 92—265.
which, In response to the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 presaibed
regulations governing carriage
agreements between multlchannel video
programming distributors and video
programming vendors. As part of this
action, the Commission adopted 47 G’R
76.1300-78.1302. These regulations
tnduded adoption of complaint
procedures requiring approval by the
Office of Management and Budget. That
approval was received on January 26.
1994. AccordIngly, the January 10. 1994,
effective date for the adoption of 47 CFR
76.1300—76.1302 as published in FR
Doe. 93—27880. on November 16. 1993
(page 60390. column 2) is corrected to
be January 26. 1994.
Federal Communications Commission’
WIUIam F. Cetea,
Acting Secietary
(FR Doe. 94—4458 Piled 3—1—94; 8:45 am)
U1LuNO Cool 1fl2-Oi -d
47 CER Part 78
(MM Docket No.92-204; CA 94-1601
Cable Services; Cable Television Ac
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correction of
effective date.
SUMMARY: The Commission corrects th
January 10. 1994. effectIve date for an
amendment to Its rules regarding limit
on the carriage of vertically integrated
cable programming (47 CFR 76.504).
The effective date for this amendment.
now January 28, 2994. The rule
amendment was published on Monday
November 15, 1993 (58 FR 60135).
EFFECTIVE CATE: SectIon 76.5 04 Is
effective January 26. 1994.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTAC’
Rita McDonald, 202—632—5414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT iON: The
Commisclon, Issued a Second Report
and Order In MM Docket 92—284.
which. In response to the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 presaibed
national subsaiber limits and limits on
the number of dinnnels.that can be
occupied on a cable system by a video
programmer hi which the cable operator
has an attributable Interest. As part of
this action, the Commission added 47
GR 76.504. This addition included a
recordkeeping obligation requiring
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget. That approval was received
on January 28. 1994. AccordIngly, the
January 10, 1994. effective date for the
addition of 47 G’R 76.504 as published
In FR Doc. 93-27630, on November 15,
1993 (page 60135, column I) is
corrected to be January 28. 1994.
Federal Communications Coznznissioa.
William F. Cafes.
Acting Secretary.
(FR Doc. 94-4457 FIled 3—1-94:8 45 am)
es. a coos wa -ai -
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59. Mo. 25 / Monday. February 7, 1904 F Notices
559g
kilowatthour of the scheduled or
delivered kilowaithours at the paint of
delivery, established by contract:
payable monthly.
Step Twor Nonfirm Transmission
Service Charge 1.52 mills per
kilowatthour of the scheduled or
delivered kilowatthours at the point of
delivery, established by conn’act
payable monthly.
Adjustments
For Reactive Power
None. There shall be no entitlement to
transfer of reactive kilovolt-amperes at
points of delivery. except when such
transfers may be mutually agreed upon
by contractor and contr f ng officer or
their authorized representatives.
For Losses
Capacity and energy losses incurred
in connection with the trRn’m ission and
delivery of capacity and energy under
this rate schedule shall be supplied by
the customer In axordance with the
service contract.
IFR Doc. 94—2730 Filed Z-4—9t 8:45 aral
BILliNG E S 6S ’ -P
ENViRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON
AGENCY
(FRL-4834-71
Notification of Request for Research
Assistance; Program Development and
Evaluation Environmental Monitcuing
and Assessment Program Estuaries—
Loulsianlan and West Indian Provinces
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Environmental Research
Laboratory. Gulf Breeze. Florida.
ACT Ot*: Notification of Request for
Research i tslnr fi ,
SUMMARY: The EMAP—Estuaries (EMAP—
E) research program develops strategies
to define its monitoring program.
interpret results, and tv tripolate the
findings of the experimental monitoring
systems to different time and spatial
scales as well as various pollutant!
environmental scenarios. Assistance is
requested of cooperating institutions to
develop indices of estuarine condition
and evaluate effectiveness of the
imposed sampling and processing
regimes. Each area of cooperation also
presents additional research
possibilities that extend beyond the
basic EMAP concept.
Areas of Research: (One cooperative
agreement is expected to be awarded
for each area.)
—Validation of the EMAP Benthic Index
and joint development of alternate
benthic indices. far the Luisisiimrn
Province (LI’). The goal is to further
develop the relationship between
abiotic and biotic benthic ors. This
research incorporates the collection of
biotic and ahiotic data on benthic
samples (i.e.. sediment toxicity.
abundance and diversity of
organisms, silt/clay content) from
each EMAP-LP site and correlation of
the information with other field data
collected.
—Evaluation oflevels of contaminants
in sediments and fish tissue to
determine nominal and subnnminj I
levels of contazninnlion and
identification of which contaminant is
most prevalent and of most ecological
concern, and adjustments of raw
concentration based on environmental
condition. The joint development of
an index of contaminant stress is
strongly desired. This extends to both
organismal and system-level
assessments. -
—Joint development of an index of the
trophic state of estuarme systems.
This includes the selection of
parameters to be measured (s.g..
nutrient levels. productivity, stable
isotope ratios) end the development of
protocols for sample collection and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON:
Cooperative agreements are intended to
promote collaborative interaction with
EPA researchers. Selectees will be
expected to collaborate with EMAP
personnel and other EMAP researchers
in their areas of research. The ongoing
research may require the combination of
all analytical insults towards the
development of new condition indices.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Janis Kurtz, U.S. EPA, ERL/GuIf Breeze,
1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL
3256 1. Proposals should be postmarked
by February 28, 1994.
Dated. January 31. 1994.
Cail Gether,
Acting Assistant Admirustrator for Research
and Development.
(FR Doc. 94—2705 Filed 2—4—94. 8.45 aml
awse coos - •,u r
RL-4834
Notice of Open Meeting of the
Superfund Evaluation Committee of
the National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT)
Under PL 92463 (the Federal
Advisory Committee Act). EPA gives
notice of a meeting on February 11.
1994 of the Superfund Evaluation
Committee. The Superfund Evaluation
Committee is a subcommittee of the
National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
(NAL Y [ ), an advisory committee to the
Administrator of the EPA. The
Subcommittee will offer comments on
the proposed Superfund legislation and
discuss its role in the reauthorization
process. The meeting will take place at
the Hyatt Regency Hotel (2799 Jefferson
Davis Highway, (Crystal City) Arlington.
Virginia) from 1.00-5.00 p.m. Interested
parties may cal! the RQWSuperfund
Hotline at 1-800 ’-424—9346, 703—920—
9810, or 1—800—486—3323 (TDD) for
copies of the materials EPA is providing
to the Committee.
The Deputy Administrator of the EPA
has called this emergency meeting on
short notice to solicit timely input from
Committee members. Written comments
of preferably not more than 25 pages (at
least 25 copies) may be provided to the
committee up until the meeting. Those
Interested In attending must contact
Abby Pirnie (U.S. EPA 401 M Street.
SW.. Washington, DC 20460. mail code.
1601 or phone. 202—260—7567. or fax,
202—260—3682.
Dated: February 1. 1994.
Abby J. P
NACEPT Designated Federal Official.
(FR Doc. 94—2697 Filed 1—4—94.8:45 aral
BaliNG
(FRL-4834-67
Revision of the Kansas National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program To
Authorize the Issuance of General
Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Approval of the
NPDES General Permits Program of the
State of Kansas.
SUMMARY: On November 24. 1993. the
Regional Administrator for the EPA.
Region VU, approved the State of
Kansas’ NPDES General Permits
Program. This action authorizes the
State of Kansas to issue general permits
in lieu of individual NPDES permits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Donald C. Toensing. Chief, Permits/
Compliance Section, Water Compliance
Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region V I I. 726 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101,
(913) 551—7034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
-------
5600
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No . 25 I Monday, February 7, 1994 / Notices
permits to regulate discharges of
Wastowater which result from
substantially similar operations, contain
the same types of wastes, require the
same effluent limitations or operating
conditions, require similar monitoring,
and are appropriately controlled under
a general permit rather than individual
permits.
Kansas was authorized to administer
the NPDES Pernut Program in 1974. As
previously approved, the State’s
program did not indude provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
are several categories of discharges
which could appropriately be regulated
by general permits in Kansas, including
storm water. Therefore, the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment
requested a revision of its NPDES
program to provide for issuance of
general permits.
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 or
each general permit.
IL Discussion
The State of Kansas submitted, in
support of its request, a Program
Desa’iption and revised NPDES
Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA and the State, as well as copies of
relevant statutes and regulations. The
State also submitted a statement by the
Attorney General certifying, with
appropriate citations to the statues and
regulations, that the State has adequate
legal authority to administer a general
permit program consistent with the
Alabama
Adum
California
Cc lcrado..
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii ..
llIin o
Indiana
lowa _...
Kansas
Ken lucMy
Maryland.
M igan
Minnesota
Mississippi.
Missoun
Montana
iJ A . ,..I , . .
applicable federal regulations. Based
upon Kansas’ submission and its
experience in administering an
approved NPDES program. EPA has
concluded that the State will have the
necessary approved procedures and
resources to administer 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
Kansas of general permit authority is a
non-substantial revision 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
similar point sources.
Moreover, under the approved
program, the State retains authority to
issue individual permits where
appropriate, and any person may
request the State to issue an individual
permit to a discharger otherwise eligible
for general permit coverage. While not
required under 40 R 123.62, EPA is
publishing notice of this approval action
to keep the public informed of the status
of its general permit program approvals.
10 / 19/79
11/01/86
05/14/73
03/27/75
09 /26/73
04/01/74
06/28/74
11/28/74
I 0123/77
01/01/75
08/10/78
06/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17/73
06/30 /74
05/01/74
10130/74
06/10/74
06/12/74
09/19/75
04/13182
UI. 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 State NPDES permitting
authonty throughout the country.
Today’s Federal Register notice is to
announce the approval of Kansas’
authority to issue general permits.
IV. Review Under Executive Order
12281 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 riles 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
Permit Program_will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Approval of
the Kansas NFDES State General Permit
Program establishes no new substantive
requirements, nor does it alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. Approval of the Kansas
NPDES State General Permit Program
merely provides a simplified
administrative process.
Dated December 20. 1993.
William W. Rlr ,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region V I!
06/26191
11/01186
09)22189
03/04183
03/10192
10123192
01/28/91
09/30/91
01/04 /84
04/02/91
08112192
11/24/93
09130/83
09/30/91
11/29/93
12/15187
09/27/91
12/12 /85
04/29/83
07/20/89
07/27192
04/13/82
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
112 10/931
Approved State
lP0ES permit
program
Approved to regu-
late federal facth-
ties
approved State
prelrenlrnent
gram
A roved general
permits program
10119179
11/01/88
05/05/78
01/09/89
12/08160
05/01179
09120/79
12109/78
08/10/78
08/28185
09/30/83
11/10187
12109/78
12109178
0 1128/83
06128/79
06/23/81
11/02/79
08/31/78
04/13182.
P4gw Jersey
10119/79
11/01/86
06103181
03112/81
08/1 2 183
06103/81
09/30/83
09 / 30/85
04/16185
07116 ,79
05/13/82
06/03/81
09/07/84
04/13/82
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No . 25 / Monday. February 7, 1994 1 Notices
5601
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS—Continued
112)30/931
Approved State
NPDES permit
program
Approved to regu.
late federai facth-
ties
Approved State
pretreatment p .
grain
Approved generaJ
pmuts program
New Yoik .. ............ .. .. .. ..
10/28(75
10/19175
06/13/80

10/15/92
North Carobna .... .... .
......
North Dakota .
Ohio
06/13175
03/11/74
09/26/73
06/30/78
09/17/84
06/10175
12/30/93
12(28(77
07107/87
03/11/74
06/30/76
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
02 (04/74
01/30/75
09/28(84
oii jgo
01/28(83
03(02(79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/26/80
12/30/93
09/30186
07/07/87
.. ....,,
. .... ........
02109/82
,..,,
05/10/82
11/26/79
05/18/81
06/14/82
. .....
07/27183
03/12 (81
...........
09/17/84
04/09182
12130/93
08/10/83
07/07/87
03/16/82

4 /1 4/89
O°J30/ 8 6
05/10/82
12/24180
09/06ig
01/22190
08/17192
02/23/82
08/02191
09/17/84
09103/92
‘12/30/93
04/18/91
07/07/87
08/26/93
..
05/20/91
09/25/89
05/10/82
12119/56
...... .. .......
Oregon .. ..
Pennsytvania ....._.....
....... ..
Rhode Island ._.....,.. .. .. . . . . . . .
South Caro1iria ........
South Dakota
Tennessee .._ , ,......,. .. .
.....
utat ..,. .,. ., .. , ,..
Vermont
— ..
lslan
Virginia ._...,........ .. ... .......
Washington ....... .,..... .. ..
West
Vu inia .. . .. ...,,,.. . ,, .
Wisconsin . . . .. . .• . . .
Wyoming ._............... ..
. .. ..
40
35
- ......
09/24/91
Nunter of Fully Authonzed Programs (Federal Faokees, Pretreatment Generi Perrruts).25
‘New.
IFR Dcc. 94—2696 Filed 2—4—94: 8.45 aml
u o ones
FEDERAL FINANCIAL INS1T UTIONS
EXAMINATION COUNCIL
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act;
Census Data for Disclosure
Statements and Aggregate MSA
Reports
AGENCY: Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council
(FFIEC) announces the availability for
purchase of census data that the F’FIEC
will use in preparing the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
individual disclosure statements and
aggregate reports for calendar year 1994.
The FFIEC’s 1994 census data file.
which reflects data from the Bureau of
the Census’s 1990 deceniual Census of
Population and Housing. includes
information on the population, income.
and housing characteristics of census
tracts that fall within the geographic
boundaries of metropolitan statistical
areas (MSAs) that were established by
the Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) in its announcement of June 30,
1993. These census data are used by the
FFIEC to prepare tables for individual
disclosure statements relating to the
disposition of mortgage loan
applications based on the characteristics
(racial composition, income
characteristics, and income and racial
composition) of the census tracts to
which the loan applications relate The
census data also are used to prepare two
tables in the aggregate reports. Lending
Institutions covered by HMDA do not
need the FFIEC’s census data file to
prepare their loan register data
submissions, but institutions may find
the census data useful for conducting
analyses of their institution’s lending
activity
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Glenn B. Canner, Senior Economist,
2021452—2910. Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System,
Washington, DC 20551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act requires
lending institutions located in
metropolitan areas to report annually
information on the geographic
distribution of their home purchase and
home improvement loans, and also to
provide certain information about loan
applicants and borrowers. Covered
lenders submit a loan application
register to their supervisory agency (the
Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the Office of
Thrift Supervision, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, the
National Credit Union Administration,
or the Department of Housing and
Urban Development) on which they
record the location of the property to
which the loan or application relates
(MSA. state, county, and census tract)
for metropolitan areas in which they
have an office, as well as information
about the race or national origin, sex.
and income of applicants and borrowers
for such applications. The Federal
Reserve Board, on behalf of member
agencies of the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council and
HIJD, processes the data and prepares
individual disclosure statements for
reporting institutions and also prepares
aggregate reports for all lenders in each
metropolitan area. The individual
disclosure statements are made
available to the public by each covered
institution and by central data
depositories in each MSA; the aggregate
reports are available at the central data
depositories.
The census data now available from
the FFIEC are the data that the FFIEC
will use to prepare Tables 7—1 through
7—6, which are contained both in the
individual disclosure statements and in
the aggregate reports, and to prepare
Table 9 and Table 10 of the aggregate
reports. Lending institutions do not
need the FFIEC’s census file in order to
prepare their HMDA—LAR for
submission to their supervisory
agencies, but they may obtain the
census data if they plan to conduct
statistical analyses examining the
demographics of the census tracts in
which they make loans.
Included in the FFIEC’s 1994 census
file is information on the median family
income of each census tract together
with an estimated median family
income for each MSA. These data were
obtained by the FFIEC from the 1990
-------
siga
Federal fi ekr / VoL 59. No. 23 / Thursday, February 3. 1Q94 F Notices
Date& )aauary 27. 2994.
Paul Lap.1. ’,
Director. Regu1atczyMano mentDivmeL
(PR Dec. 94-2439 Flied 3-1.44; 845 arni
fFRL-4e33-2)
Michigan; Ctean Air Act Section 182 )
NO. RACT Exemption Petition
AGENCY: United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US A).
AC1 ONt Notice of availability .
SUM1 ART The USEPA isannouncing
that the State of Midugan has filed a
petition proposing that the southeast
Michigan moderate ozone
nonattainrnent area be exempted from
the requirement to implement oxides of
nitrogen NOx) Reeconahiy AYuilabIII
Control Technolo r (RACI’) controls
pursuant to section 182 ( 1) of the Clean
Air Act (Act). This petition is available
for public review.
FOR FURThER eIFORMA11ON CONTACT:
Daniel Meyer. Air Toxins and Radiation
Branch. Regulaton Development
Sectum (AT-18fl, United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region S. ( icago. Illinois 60604. (312)
886-4401.
SUPPLDIENTARY ItWORMAT)0N On
November 15, 1993 the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources-
a’jbmitted a petition proposing that the
outheast Michigan moderate ozone
nonaftainment area be exempted from
the requirement to implement NC ).
RACT controls pursuant to section
182U) of the Act. More specifically, this
exemption request is being made
according to provisions cited in a
USEPA memorandum dated Seytwuber
17. 1993 from Michael Shapiro. to the
Regional Offices. The exemption request
is based on monitoring data which
demonstrates that the ozone standard
has been attained in this non ftz rnment
area for the past 3 years. 1991 through
1993.
Dated.: Demmb 30.1993.
Valdis V. M kn .
RegjonoiAdnurs .eVi it or.
[ FR Don 94-2442 F lIed 2-2-91: 8:45 aml
Change In Solicitation Procedures
Under liii Small Business
Competitiveness Demonstration
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. -
ACTION! Notice.
StiM ARY: Title VII of the ‘Business
Opportunity Dnvelopmant Act of 1988.’
(Pu’b. 1.. 100-8581 i tnhIkhiid mstl1
Business Competitiveness
Denv ctratiou Program and designated
tea (1.01 agencies. including the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA ). to conduct the program over a
four (4) year period from January 1.
1989 to December 31. 1992. The Small
Business Opportunity Enhancement Act
of 1992 (Pub. L. 102.—368) extended the
demonstration program until September
30, 1996. and made certain changes is
the procedures for operation olthe
demonstration program.
The law designated four (4) industry
groups for testing whether the
competitive capabilities of the specified
industry groups will enable them to
compete successfully on an unrestricted
bans. The four (4) industry groups arec
Construction (except dredging);
architectural and engineering (A&E)
services (including surveyuig and
mapping); refuse systems and. related
services (limited to trash/garbage
collection services); and non-nuclear
ship repair. Under the program. when a
particIpating agency does not meet its
small business participation goal, small
business sat-asides must be reinstated In
the particular industry group. U small
business goats are achieved in
subsequent quarters. the agency may
cancel the set-asides and return to full
and open competition. The small
business goat is 40 percent of the total
contract dollars awarded for
construction, trash/garbage collection
services, and non-nuclear ship repair
and 35 percent o(the total contract
dollars awarded for architect-engineer
services. The program reserves for
emerging small businesses
procurements under 325.000 for
construction. trashigarbage collection
services. and non-nuclear ship repair,
ntd und i ssQ.aoa far architect-
engineer services.
This notice announces modifications
to EPA’s solicitation practices under the
demonstration program based on a
review of the Agency’s performance
during the per!od from Tuly 1. 19fl to
June 30. 1993. Modifications to
solicitation practices are set forth in the
- Supplementary information section
below and apply to solicitations issued
on or after the date of publication of thIs
notice.
EF ECTWE OATE This notice is effective
upon publication in the Federal
Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward N. Chambers at (202) 260—6028.
SUPPLEMENTARY afomlATloli
Construction Services in SIC Codes
1629. 1761, and 1796
1. Procurements over 325.000 for
these SIC codes will be set aside for
small business when there is a
reasonable expectation of obtaining
competition from two or more small
businesses. If no expectation exists, the
procurements will be conducted on an
unrestricted basis.
2. Services (All PSC
Codes Under the Demonstration
P m
Procurements over 550.000 for all
architect-engineer services will be set
aside for small business when there is
a reasonable expectation of obtaining
competition from two OT more small
businesses. If no expectation exists, the
procurements will be conducted on an
unrestricted basis.
Dated: January4. 1994.
BettyL Bailey.
Director. Office of Acquisition Ma ncgement.
IFR D cc. 94—2438 F Iled 2—2—94; 8:45 suit
ac.u o c c c i
Revision of the Vermont National
Pollutant Discharge Ellmlnadon
System Program To Authorize the
Issuance of General Permits
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit
Program of the State of Vermont .
SUMMARV: On August 26. 1993. the
Regional Adauustretor for the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Region 1, approved the State of
Vermont’s Natirnial Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit Program. On April 22. 1993. the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
(Vermont ANR) submitted 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
Vermont to issue general permits in lieu
of individual NPDES permits. Based on
its review of Vermont’s legal authonty.
EPA determined that no statutory or
regulatory changes were necessary for
the State to administer a general permit
program. EPA has thus determined
Vermont’s program modification to be
non-substaz it.iaL
FOR FURThER t$FORM&TION CONTACT:
William Wandle. U.S. Environmental
-------
Fed al Kagistes’ / VoL 59, No 23 1 Thnreday , February 3, 1994 / Nt*lces
5199
Protection Agency. Regf on I (WMN),
John F. Kennedy Federal Building,
Boston, Massachusetts 02203, (617)
563—3585.
5UPPL TAfiY AmN:
L Background
‘AreguIat1oasat40 CTR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
pelTnhts to regniate the discharge of
wastewater which results from
substantially qhiiilj, , operations, are of
the same type wastes, require the same
effluent Limitations or operating
wndltlons, require sunilar monitoring
and me more appropriately con olled
trnrinr a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Vermont was authorized administer
the NPDES progrem on March 11, 1974.
As previou ly u ,ruved . the State’s
program did not indnde provissons for
the issuance of g nnral permits. A
number of categories of discharges can
be appropriately regulated by general
permits. For these reasons, the Vermont
ANR requested a revision of the State’s
NPDES program to provide for the
Issuance of general permits. The
categories proposed for coverage under
the general p”lt program Leclude
Storm water discharges, nancontact
cooling water. non-pollution discharges
and classes of d1 bazges where
Individual permits for ch a class
would be c1ih thntlaUy sinuLaL
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review and iryp vaI as provided
by 40 R 128.44. Public notice and
opportunity to request a heartu is also
provided for each general permit
The State of Vei aat submitted In
auppoat of Its request a program
desafptlon, an Amendment to the
Memorandum of Agreement, and copies
of the relevant statutes and regulations
for implmnmting the program. In
addition, the State iihriiitt v1 a
statement, dated November 20, 1992, by
the Attorney General certifying, with
appropriate citations to the statutes and
regulations. that the State has adequate
legal authority to administer the general
permit program as required by 40 0’R
123.23(c). The program desaiption
supplementing the original application
forthe NPDES program authority to
administer the g nArj%l peit program
Includes the authority to perform each
of the activities set forth In 40 G ’R
122.28. The Amendment to the
Memorandum of Agreement bet ’ vven
the State of Vermont ANR and A,
P ginn I di igr ’ites the procedures
through whlth general permits will be
Issued and administered by the State.
Based upon Vermont’s program
desaiption and upon Its experience In
adniIn stenng an approved NPDES
program. EPA has concluded that the
State will have the ne ix dures
and to nalmml *er the general
— F
m. F er J Register tice pr.val
of State M’DES Programs r
! .4ngDfi ,.flnn .
Today’s Federal Register notice
o” the eppruv l of Vermont’s
authority to teene general permits . EPA
provides Ftaderal Register n oe of
actions by the Agency approving or
modifying a State NPDES program. The
lob Wing table provides the public with
a current listing of the status of NPDES
permitting authority throughout the
countly.
W. Review Under Executive Order
12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has znpu d this rule from the review
requirements of Executive thder 12291
pwsuant to sectIon 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
IlrndhillXy Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
iub tautlal 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
Permit Program will not have a
siguiflomt impact on a subsfimtl l
number of samil wit2ties . Approval of
the Vermont NPDES State General
Permit Program establishes no new
substantive requirements, nor does it
alter the regulatory central over any
Industrial category. Approval of the
Vermont NPDES Slate Gc .nRnil pørmit
Program merely provides a simplified
admmim*ive pr
Dated January 25. 1994.
PsnidsLM
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATI
) er. d
A içraved te
Ared
— n.
gem
ss wa
-
C mm -
c -
c u a
De -
G a
HaweA
Ke*sty —
11
‘%01s74
74
I t $174
01 U75
08/1 0178
v74
185 /74
75
30174
05 i1 174
1030174
0&1W74
0612!74
M .
.l_ —a—
1W19 179
Iv0v
OWr s83
1
0813
O6 183 $
07 /16/79
1011 8 179
1118i
12 9 /78
3O 1 83
11110187
12 8178
12 T5
01f281
08123181
1 V 79
38 /31/78
11101186
01128191
Oti 4
91
. 11124m
9l
12115 1 87
09127 191
2185
04128183
07 120/89
07/27/92
-------
5200
Federal Register 1 VoL 59, No. 23 1 Thursday, Februaiy 3, 1994 / NotIces
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STA1US—ConhifliJed
12103193
pa
Af %o od
pre ea nent
New Jersey — ........_.. , .....
New Vod ........_....__ --_.. -__-—-_
Noth Caro4 na -..—-—--
North Dalcota —
04/13 /82
10128(75
10119(75
06/13175
03111 (74
09/26173
0613017$
09)17/84
09110175
12128(77
07 / 07 /87
03/11114
06 1 30/76
03/31115
11/14 173
05110/82
(2(04174
01130/75
04/13(82
06 /13180
09 1 28 /84
01/82 ( 90
01128183
03(02(79
06130178
09117184
09128 ( 80
09/30188
07/07187
02109/82
06110/82
11128(79
05(18181
04 /13(82
06114182
07127183
03/12181
09117/84
04)09/82
08/10/83
01107187
03/1 9 )82
04/14/89
09/30/86
05/10/82
12124/80
04 /13/82
10/15/92
09)06/91
01182/90
08/17/92
02123/82
08/02 /91
09117(84
09)03/92
04/18/91
07/07187
08126/93
05/20/91
09/25/89
05110/82
12/19/88
09/24 /91
Ohià
Oregon
Pennsytv9n a
Rhode Island
Soi i Cwohna
Tennessee —
Utah .- — —V
Vermont . - -. ..... —
V n Islands -.
Wg a .——
Was hington —. V V
West V1rgin a ._ .
W’econsin. . .. ._
Wycnsng .-_______________________
TOTA%.S .
39
34
27
38
Nunter of FuU Authorized Pm ams (Federal Faolibea. Preneatment. General Perrnrla) -25
‘New.
bTh Ac o
(FR Doc. 94—2436 Flied 2—2-94; 3:45 aml
ccc i sesa-.o—
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Requirements Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for RvIew
January 27. 1994.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the
following Information collection
requireutenu to 0MB for review and
deerence under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of these submissions may be
purchased from the f tlon ’s copy
contractor, International Transcription
Service. Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, WashIngton. DC 20037. (2023 857—
3800. For further information on these
submissions contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, (202)
632—0276. Persons wishing to comment
on these information collections should
contact Timothy Fain, Office of
Management and Budget, room 3235
NEOL Washington. DC 20503, (2023
395—3561.
0MB Number 3060-0157.
Title: SectIon 73.99, Presunrlse
Service Authoriz.atlon (PSRA) and
Pos*sunset Service Authorization
(PSSA).
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (Including small businesses.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requireineni
Estimated Aruiual Burden: 360
responses .25 hours average burden per
response; 90 hours total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: Section 73.99(e)
requires the licensee of an AM broadcast
station Intending to operate with a
presunrise or postsunsat service
authorization to submit by letter the
licensee’s name, call letters, location,
the intended service, and a description
of the method whereby any necessary
power reduction will be achieved. Upon
submission of this Information.
operation may begin without further
authority. The letter Is used by FCC staff
to maintain complete technical
Information about the station to ensure
that the licensee is in full compliance
with the Commission’s rules and will
not cause interference to other stations..
0MB Numbee 3060-0240.
Title: Section 74.651. Equipment
1anges.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (Including small businesses.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement
Estimated Annual Burden: 24
responses; 1 hour average burden per
response; 24 hours total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: Section 74.651 (b)
requires licensees of TV auxiliary
broadcast stations to notify the FCC in
writing of equipment changes which
may be made at licensee’s discretion
without use of a formal application
fonts. The data Is used by FCC staff to
maintain complete technical rOcords
regarding a licensee’s facilities.
0MB Number 3060-0241.
Title: Section 74.633, Temporary
Authorization.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for.
profit (including small businesses.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 60
responses; 2 hours average burden per
response 120 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Uses: Section 74.633
requires that licensees of television
au dliary broadcast stations submit an
Informal request for special temporary
authority to operate that station on a
temporary basis under certain
circumstances. The data Is used by FCC
staff to ensure that interference will not
be caused to other established stations.
0MB Number 3060-0242.
Title: Section 74.604, Interference
Avoidance.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (Including small businesses.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
-------
= - •:
=
S
Friday
January 14, 1994
Part VI
Environmental
Protection Agency
Notice of Proposed General NPDES
Permit for Placer Mining In Alaska
S
—
—
-------
2504
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 10 / Friday. January 14. 1994 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
(FRL-4826-Q1
Proposed General NPOES Permit for
Placer Mining in Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 10.
ACTiON: Notice of a proposed general
permit.
SUMMARY: This proposed general permit
is intended to regulate placer mining
activities in the state of Alaska. EPA,
Region 10 has issued almost identical
individual permits to these facilities in
the past and intends to relieve some of
the administrative burden of issuing
individual permits by issuing this
general permit. When issued, the
proposed permit will establish effluent
limitations, standards, prohibitions and
other conditions on discharges from the
covered facilities. These conditions are
based on existing national effluent
guidelines and material contained in the
administrative record. A description of
,the basis for the conditions and
requirements of the proposed general
- permit is given in the fact sheet
published below.
DATES:
Public Comment Penod: Interested
persons may submit comments on the
draft general permit to EPA, Region 10
at the address below. C omients
be received in the regional office by
February 14. 1994.
Public Heanngs: Publk hesnn ce
the permit rnnrl tin I RA
Anchorage and Fairbanks. The
Anchorage bearing wilt be held on
February 7. 1994. at the Federal
Building. 222 W 7th. room 137. from
6:30 pm until all persons have been
heard. The Fairbanks hearing will be
held on February 9. 1994 at the
Fairbanks North Star Borough (Noel
Wien) Library. 1215 Cowles Street. also
from 6:30 pm until all persons have
been heard. Persons interested in
obtaining information on the hearings
should contact Cindi Godsey at the
address below.
Request for Coverage’ Written request
for coverage and authorization to
discharge under the general permit shall
be provided to EPA. Region 10, as
described in Part I E. of the draft permit.
Authorization to discharge requires
written notification from EPA that
coverage has been granted and that a
speafic permit number has been
assigned to the operation.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
general permit should be sent to Cindi
Godsey; U S. EPA. Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avea WD—134; Seattle.
;(W i oa9R1Ol.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CON
Cindi Codsey at the Seattle eddeess
above or by telephone at (2063 553—
1755. -,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT1OP
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budgei
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Exectdive Order
12866 pursuant to section 6 of that
order. -
Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice printed above. I herthy certify
pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this general NPDES permit
will not have a significant ii ct on a
substantial number of small ities.
Moreover, the permit ieducas a
significant administrative bun on
regulated sources. - -
Dated January 7, 1994
(larks E. Findley.
Director, Water Division.
FACT S 1 T
United States Env oninental Proteaioa
A acy. Rtegiaa 10.1200 Sixth Aw .
WD-134. Seattle, Washington 96101. (206)
553—1214.
General Permit for Placer Miners Na.. AXG—
37- O -
Proposed Issuance of a General
National PolluL. t Discharge
Elanmatioa System (NPDES) Permit To
Discharge Pollutants Pursuant to the
Provisions of the Clean Water Ad
fCWAI for Alaska Placer Minei
(Excq*Thase ldermnfledinPartrflof -
This Fact Sheet)
This fact sheet includes (a) the
tentative determination of the -.
Environmental Protection Ag cy (FPA3
to issue the permit, (b) information on
public comment, public headngs d
appeal, (c) the description of the -
industry and proposed discharges. (dl
other conditions and requirc .n .rt+
Persons wishing to comm the
tentative determinations conta4ned in
the proposed general permit may do so
before the expiration date of the Public
Notice. All written comments should be
submitted to EPA as described m the
Public Comments Section of the
attached Public Notice.
After the expiration date of the Public
Notice. Ihe Director, Water Davisson.
will make a final determination with
respect to issuance of the permit.. The
tentative determination contained in the
proposed general permit will become
final conditions if no substantive
comments are received during public
comment period.
The permit will become effective 30
days after the final determination is
made, unless a request for an
evidentiary hearing is submitted . ithin
30 days after receipt of the final
determination An evidentiary hearing
request must meet all the requirements
of 40 CFR 124 74 and set forth material
ues of fact relevant to the permit
issuance. The proposed NPDES general
permit and other related documents are
on file and may be inspected and copies
made at the above address any time
between 8 30 a m. and 4 p.m.. Monday
thsvugh Friday Copies and other
information may be requested by
writing to EPA at the above address to
the attention of the Water Permits
Section. or by calling (206) 553—8332.
This material is also available from the
EPA Alaska Operations Office, room
537. Federal Building. 222 West 7th
Avenue, Anchorage. Alaska 995 13—7588
or Alaska Operations Office. 410
Willoughby Avenue, suite 100. Juneau,
Alaska 99801 or the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation.
Northern Regional Office. 610
University Avenue. Fairbanks. Alaska
99709.
Technical Information
I. Background Information
A. Permit Coverage
1. General Permit a. Section 301 (a) of
the CWA provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except in
accordance with a National Pollutant
Disç asge Elimination System (NPDES)
pelThit. Although such permits have
been issued to individual dischargerc.
EPA’s regulations do authorize the
Issuance of “general permits” to
categories of discharges (40 CFR 122.28)
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:
(33 Discharge the same types of
wastes;
(4) Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions.
(5) Require the same or similar
monitoring re uiremenIs, and
(6) In the opinion of the Director, are
more appropriately controlled under a
general permit than under individual
permits.
b. Like individual permits. a violat
ofacxindition contained in a general
permit constitutes a violation of the At
and subiects the owner or operator of
the permitted facility to the penaities
specified in section 309 of the Art
-------
FvJcr.J registEr f Vol. 5g No. IU / Pnday, J itit ry t 94 £ kLices
cA Notice of ant (NCI7to be
covered under this General Permit is
required (4OCFR 1.28(bX2I8FI. The
requirements are outhned in Phit I.E. of
the permit. An Annuet Placer Mining
Application would be acceptable if it
contains alt the items specified in the
permit.
d. Coverage under this permit will
expire five (5) years froni the date of
-. is uartce . It is EIWs positIon (40 (7R
12Z.2 bflti? that an expired general
permit continues in force and effect
until a new general permit is LssuecL
Only those facilities authorized to
discharge under the expiring general
permit and submit an NO! 90 days prior
to the expiration of this general permit
• are covered by thu umtinued permit.
2. Types of Placer Mine Opemiaons
Covered by the PermiL EPA Le proposing
to issue a General i wor s permit rc
Alaska placer mining operations which
are facilities that mine and process gpld
placer ores using gravity separation
methods to recover tIm gold metal
contained in the ore. Thi permit
applies to all open-cut and mechanical
dredge (not suction dredgesl gold placer
mines except those open-cut utines that
mine less than 1.500 cobic yards of
placer ore per mining season and
dredges that remove less than 50.000
cubic yards olptacer ore per mfmn&
season. These operations are covered by
the effluent guidelines and. described in
40 G ’R 44cLr4otbl. EPA has completed
a literature research project considering
the envirunniental effects of all suction
dredge operation and potential controls
that could be placed on them. Based
this research.. EPA has concluded that
suction dredges with intake hoses of
greater than 4 Inches wW be covered by
this permit.
Operations utilizing hydraulic
removal of overburden are covered by
this permit.
This permit does not authan.m
discharges resulting from beneficiari on
methods utitthng cyanidation. froth
ifotanon. heap or vat leaching and
mercury amiilgaTTiatiOiL
3. Limitatwre on Coveroge. Many
streams and stream reaches in Alaska
have been designated as pert of the
federal wild and scenic rivers system or
as a Conservanon System Unit 1CSU by
the federal government. Additional
conditions may be required by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Came in
resident and anadromous fish streams.
“The Atlas to the Catalog of Waters
Important for Spawning. Rearing or
Migration of Anadromons Fish’ lists the
streams fri the State which require a
Habitat permit from the Alaska
Department of flsh and Came. Because
this permit does not relieve a perrnlttee
source;
d. Effluent limitations guidelines am
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit
e. A Water Quahty Management plait
containfag requirements app ilceble to
such point sources Is approved or
1. The requirements fisted In the
prev loes paragraphs are not met.
B. De.cnptmnolthelndustry
1. Med ankoI (Jperations (Trudibona!
Sluicing) Placer arming involves the
mining and extraction of g ild or other
heavy metals and rrnnerah primarily
from elkwial deposits. These deposits
may be In existing 3t beds or
ancient often buried stream deposits. I.e.
paleo or fossil placers. Many Alaskan
placer deposits consist of
unconsolida ted day, sand. gravel.
cobble and boulders that contain very
small amounts of native gold or other
precious metals. Most are stream
deposits and ur along Fesent stream
valleys or benches or terraces above
existing str flis . Beach placer deposits
have been and continue to be important
prod ucers in Alaska. These deposits.,
most notable near Moms, include both
submerged and elevated beach placer
deposits.
of the requirements of other applicable rssend L compm nia of placer
federal, state or focal laws. psrmitteen mining include overburden rewcwal.
should contact the appropriate state or mining of the old placer FavsLs ar4
Federal agencies to inquire about’ pzocessin , ._ recovery).
additional permits that may be required. a. Ove urden RemovaL Various types
4.fnMduaIPemits.Owners e r ofoverbudertindndebarrenathz
operators authorized by • general permit gravels, broken slide rock or glacial
may be excepted from rage by a deposits.. In some parts of Ahi cki the
general permit by applying to . - pay gravels are overlaid by silty.
Director ui the NPDE5 pro m fo organicrnck deposits o(barren. frozen
individ’ual permit. This roc ist maybe material genera ycomprisad of wind-
made by su mn1tting an NPI & permit - blown parades ). Particularly high
application. with Ice amtent Is common. Most facilities
docuinentatian for the request no later utilize mechanical methods for removal
EP of overburden because they generally
of the final gocieral permit lit use the same excavating equipment for
Federal Register, or 1.80 days pkw to
the coinmer enI of opezatiu of a urden can also be removed by
new source or new discberger. The h 1 dratthckirig. lycbuulfcking consists
Directormey require any parson ° by
anthorize I tiiy a genersi permit to app’y deljv’ i d ender pressure through a
for and obtain an IDdiVidueZ permit. a, hydraulic giant (monltor . The material
any in rested person m. J)etI*ICfl then flows. usually b gravity , to the
Director to taica tine act n. a sluice box if the uvv ui l u lste be
may consider the iseuencs o( vid pro ed with the mineral bearing
permits when: ni al below. Overburden ams&ing
a. Thecirng i&scbarguorthe . olbarren material maybe edawu
from th, sluice box so that only inmate
a significant cootrllsdor• of pcU icn bearing material Is processed in the
sluice.
Tb. discharger is net hi UanpPI ice b hilning Methodr. Placer muting
with the tame 6fl4 CCDdIIhSiS of the . methods range from dredging systems to
general puzwiL - . -
C. A thango bed ooeuned in the • systems
lic or medianicel.
availabelity of de OD stTSIed t CheOk 7 depending ocr the methods of th fvg. A
or practices he the Cuntrul or tssnen1 fl ig dredge consists eta sepporting
of pollutants applicable tO PO 1 hull with amndng control system.
excavating end lifting mechanism, gold
recovery circuits. and waste disposal
system. They are all designed to wa,k as
a unit to dig, classify. beneficiate ores
and dispese of waste. Suction dredges,
the most conuimmi hydraulic dredging
system. ere quite popular in Alaska with
the small or recreational gold placer
A bucket-line dredge has been the
traditional gold placermechethcal
dredging too4 in Alaska Excavation
equi ent consists of • chain of
buckets. traveling continuees azound
a tr or plate-grrdeT ladder. iscoop
up a lord as they are forced agoiest the
mining face while piv*iil armmd the
lower tumbler and then dump or they
pwot around the upper tumbler. The
dder is raised or lowered as required
by a large hoisting winch through a
system of cables and sheaves. About six
placer miners operate bucket-line
dredges in Alaska.
c. gMethode.Alsrge
percentage of the present gold placer
mining operations use some type of
sluice x to perform the primary
processing function. benefic.ation. An
increasing number of jig plants are also
being used. Many operations make use
of feed size classification which
-------
2506
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 10 / Eriday, January L4, 19941 Notices
- - .
involves the physical separation of large
rocks and boulders from smaller
materials such as gravel and sand. The
object of classification is to prevent the
processing of large-sized material which
Is unlikely to contain gold values.
Commonly used classification
equipment includes: grizzlies, trommels
and static or vibrating sa’eens. The most
common gold recovery method is
sluicing. A sluice is a long, sloped
trough into which water is directed to
effectuate separation of gold from ore. A
s1urr of water and ore flows down the
sluice and the gold, due to its relatively
high density, is trapped in riffles along
the sluice.
2. Suction Dredging. A suction dredge
is a mechanical device which floats on
the stream surface and which pumps
stream water and stream bed material
through a suction intake conduit to a
sluice box from which gold or other
minerals may be recovered.
The discharge from suction dredges
consists totally of stream water and bed
material. These discharges are becoming
numerous in the state. The discharge
limits and monitoring requirements are
identical for the majority of these
discharges. This category of discharges
meets the qualifications of 40 CFR
122.59 for the issuance of General
Discharge Permits. This general
discharge permit will expedite
processing the numerous applications
and provide the same regulatory
controls over the discharges as an
individual permit would.
if. Effluent Characteristics
Discharges from placer mining
operations consist of water and the
naturally occurring materials found in
the alluvial deposits (e.g. sand, silt, clay.
trace minerals and metals, etc.). Some of
the elements measured in placer mine
effluent are derived principally from
sulfide, oxide, carbonate, and silicate
mineral species. and include antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, copper. iron, lead.
mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc. Most
of these parameters are found in trace
amounts and are of little significance.
Based on review of sampling data
collected by EPA and upon evaluation
of Alaska Water Quality Standards
(WQS), EPA has concluded that the
pollutants of primary concern are
settleable solids, turbidity. and arsenic.
Arsenic is the only toxic pollutant of
concern due to its naturally occurring
abundance in most Alaskan soils.
Ill. Basis for Effluent Limitations
A. Background
Effluent limits required in this permit
for the control of pollutants are
published in 40 CFR part 440. Subpart
M—Golcj Placer Mine Subcategoiy,
which was promulgated May 24. 1988,
‘in 53 FR 18764. Additional information
regarding the basis for establishing the
effluent limits is summarized in the
EPA publication titled “Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Ore
Mining and Dressing Point Source
Category—Cold Placer Mine
Subcategory” (May 1988).
This final rule establishes effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
based on the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT), and
new source performance standards
(NSPS) based on the best available
demonstrated technology. The BAT and
NSPS limitations represent the
minimum technology required to be in
place for all placer mining operations
covered under 40 CFR part 440, subpart
M.
Section 402(0) of the Act stipulates
that NPDES permits may not be reissued
to contain effluent limitations that are
less stringent than comparable water
quality standards and technology based
effluent limitations in the previous
permit. EPA has determined that this
general permit complies with these anti-
backsliding provisions of the Act.
B. Technology-Based Limitations
1. Mechanical Operations. The CWA
requires industries to apply treatment
technology representing BAT that is
economically achievable. The BAT
requirements specify the use of settling
ponds plus total recirculation of process
wastewater as the selected treatment
technology. However, the regulation
does allow the discharge of incidental
waters (including waters that enter a
mine through precipitation, snow melt.
drainage water, ground water
infiltration and the melting of
permafrost) which have commingled
with process waters, provided that these
incidental waters are in excess of the
make.up water required. are treated in
settling ponds and do not exceed 0.2
mI/l settleable solids prior to discharge.
For the purpose of this permit.
discharged wastewater consists of
incidental waters commingled with
process waters used to move the ore to
and through the beneficiation process.
water used to aid in classification, and
water used in gravity separation.
Pursuant to 40 FR 440 143. BAT
requirements are as follows:
a The concentration of settleable
solids in wastewater discharged from an
open-cut mine plant or a dredge plant
site must not exceed an instantaneo
maximum of 0.2 mill.
b. The volume of wastewater whit.
may be discharged from an open.cct
mine plant or dredge plant site must not
exceed the volume of infiltration,
drainage and mine drainage waters
which is in excess of the make-up water
required for operation of the
beneficiation process.
These technology-based requirements
are specified in Parts U A.1.a. and b. of
the proposed permit.
The effect of requirement HA 2. of the
proposed permit is to prohibit the
discharge of any wastewater during
periods when new water is allowed to
enter the plant site.
C. Water Quality Based Limits
In addition to the BAT effluent
limitations, the permit includes effluent
limitations which are required to ensure
compliance with WQS (Alaska
Regulations 18 AAC 70). These
standards vary with the beneficial use
they are established to protect. In water
bodies with more than one designated
beneficial use, the more restrictive
‘itena apply.
The WQS protect most fresh water
sources for use in drinking, agriculture.
aquaculture and industrial water
supply. contact and secondary
recreation, and the growth and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and other
aquatic life (Alaska Regulations 18 AAC
70.050). All permits being issued in this
round of permitting must protect for all
the above uses.
EPA has concluded, based on review
of the WQS and available sampling data,
that the parameters of turbidity and
zs iilc must be limited in order to meet
the State WQS. Also, the sediment
standard must be applied to discharges
from operations utiliz.ing the hydraulic
removal of overburden. The arsenic.
turbidity and sediment limits were -
established pursuant to section
301(b)(1)(C)oftheCWA. which requires
imposition of• • • any more stringent
limitation, including those necessary to
meet water quality standards. • or
required to implement any applicable
water quality standard established
pursuant to this Act.” The NPDES
regulations, at 40 CFR 122.44(d). require
NPDES permits to include conditions to
“Achieve water quality standards
established under section 303 of CWA
• a a ‘.
1. Turbidity a. Mechanical and
Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
According to the WQS. the most
restrictive turbidity criteria applies t.
fresh water sources classified for water
contact recreation uses. These criteria
(18 AAC 70 020(b)(1)(B)(t)(4)) state that
-------
Federal R2gidi.r ’ a’ Vet g Nc 10 1 Friday. int ry 4, jgg I ____
2507
turbsdiry Shaflnote ae(J 5 .
NT?) above natural condltlon when the
natur f turbidity Is 50 rITTU0T fess end
more than 10% inaease in turbid ity
when the natersi condition Is more than
50 NT?). not to exceed a meximum
ifl(J -d of t5 r L The proposed
draft permit contains a turbidity Limit
that would assure compliance with
wates quality s?andaxth under worst
case conditions. That is. the turbidity in
the effluent must not exceed 5 NTtJs
above the background turbidity level ía
the receiving xeam.. This condition -
accounts let naturally occurring
turbidity in the receiving ter and
• allows the effluent to coatuin an
additional S NTUiolUixbidity where
the receiving w ex is nati Lky turbid.
The permit rtwiti does aetaccouat
for those situations where anruraily
• occurring turbidity wildailowaa
increase of up to 15 NTUs.nor does it
account for the dAgion effects of the
receiving struauL The iea for
•assimung worst case coedaicea is that
EPA does n have current siL specific
• informat ioato *abL i shend.of.p ipe -
limitations for each of the permits being
processed.
Although word cnsecoedazonsare
assumed es the proposed àeft pwmxt.
EPA wiLA coneidei modifying the NTU
limitation to unt for the chhitioe -
effects oi the rei. vwg wii . U’A
• approach insetti ng bagherturbithty -
dependein upon re ipL of
the 1’lOt ieith informatma from the
perrnmee or horn the A ka
Departmental ? twal Resources
(ADNR) awng an behaLf of the
permittee domonstretug that the
dilution effect oithe r ervimg water
justifies a se sfringant tout EPA is
opernt -tng ux the auumpzIon that the
permit apph nt bears the borden of
providing information necess ’y to
issue the permit kOaR 12485 a 1Ø.
Where the appdc iz does n provide
the rite-specific iskirmoncn that woeld
lustily a less stnngent turbidity Limit.
the permit iomed toe site will ccmtaim
the turbidity bm proposed in the draft
permit. -
The procedines used to ca?culate a
higher turbidity Pfrrirt are the sarno.as
those used ur the pIe erreining per rxits
issued since 7986. The turbidity Limit is
based orv utiLizing a mass balance
equation which relates up ts uzu
receiving water flow and turbidity to
effluent flow and turbidity. The basic
form ofthisequatimrts
QC..Q C 1 —Q 3 C .
where
C i = upsneemftthidity
C 2 = effluent mrbidiry
C 3 = downstream turbidity albir mixing reduction in LeveLs of arsenic in placer
where the allowable increase is 5 mining efibient a&& result of re&w ing
NTTJ above background (C 5 • settleable scuds tool mill. EPA has
NTUI. • coTiriu ed that these reduced Leveis of
= stream flow downstream from any arsenic are c consistently adequate to
diversion and upstream from the achieve WQS.
discharge; • . In establishing the arsenic limit, the
= effluent flow ;and, • ‘Ameodments to the Water Quality
= total stream (low downstie jn frniii Stendai ds ReguIai ion Compliance with
discharge after complete nuxing. CWA section 3U*XZIW); flnat Lile”
A default v.haeof . (57 FR 6084. Tuesday. December 22.
inmute gp , 1992] are used This rulam iking
state, _ .lt promulgated the chemical-specific
achieved, The inicnmntim numeric criteria for priority ic
subsaM d by the p mi to pollutants n c=ry to bring all .tj%t
the appropriate turbidity bred 10(0 CO fl h1 hh1 With the Ui ’S
of the CWA section 303(cJ(2)(B). The
facility ’S the ffh*flt Dd ___ primary focus of the rule is tb.
Stre a tt me • Inclus ion o(the federal water quality
flow rate nu be measured upstr m • criteria for poJhi%anltsJ in State
from the discber POint end -• standazdsasn rricen y tosuppoit water
dowrirrieain hon an diversions • • control
Receiving mani flow va)uee.cam, be -, NPDES p rmitsf. The ri ±sd of
Obtained fronu the ADt ZR .. Divimon 0.18 igIl letat recoverebta arsenic
Mining. upen reque by the appi.icaigo to J 1a . = aeii t usuund ier
ADNR methodology for deterwi inng. ‘ • ‘• o derive the-end -oljiqie
upsU im flow uses equations deve1op d cira ta.
by Mhtoo and Carlem (1984?. The Mixing “ ‘ axe allowed uiidur the
maxiinnm effluent discharg, flow m Alaska standards for some pollutant
be esurneted by the permfttee’ arid ions? Pioweve: Ø3
account rthe effects ofaU excess ‘states’ “ln applying the watar
i.ncirital waters. • ‘. quality criteria set out in. this chapter.
Permmees requesting a the department will, upon appLication
turbidity limitation must snbmft the in its
necessary infrirmatiori to PA with the • per.nits ox certikations a volume of
NOL This appLies to at? difut ion for an ø1flu ij
inchrdingthose who have sab iTUttOd within aracmvlng wa ler unless
this rypeafuifcrination in the past. in olhrtants disc isrgedarnLd
order to a ure that all site-specific persist in
information is up-to-date. the enviroamont iaa carcinogenic.
b. Suci,oo Dredg,ng.Tbe daily visual mutagic .ortexatogemcei ,or
inspection during operation of an area a risk to hum in
downstream of the suction dredge S hen lth “ Arsenic I , a carcinog a.
based on research published in (be a letter. dated March 24, 1992.. horn
scientific Literature (Griffith and the Alaska Department of
Andre s 1981 Hassle, at aL 1986, Conservation
Harvey 1986, Huber and B [ anrK it 1992. Commissioner, John Sandor. to EPA
Thomas 19851 and an monitoring done Water Division Director, Char les
by Alaska Department c i Environmental Findley, the State hes Interpreted this to
Conservation ADEQ (Rim McAlister. mean that “ a mixing iw nisy be
ADEC. permnal COremtm iI L x i prescnbed where there is no nsil ’ ila
most Cases, water quality recciver t expectation of m adverse effect on
rapidly below the dredge. ADEC found human hthqchfo ,baaedon
that turbidity war elevated I to 45 NTU site-specific. d pmcaL physical end
.500 feet downstream cLan operating 10 biological characteristics,” EPA not -
inch dredge. The daily visual inspection proposing a mixing zone for arsenic tot
dunng operation should assure that the would in hi 3e a mathod for
water quuhry standard for turbidity is - determining a mixing zone in the permit
met. if the Department determines that such
2. ArserTic—Mechanicat and a rn&xmg moe appropruat. and is in
HydraaffcRemovalofOierburdem. EPA compliance with WQS.
has concluded, based an available Twa options are given to the
sampling data, that arsenic is commonly permittee to determine the arsenic limiL
associated with placer mining wastes. If the natural” background is not
Locally, it Is the most abundant toxic measured, the effluent limit is set
metal present. Par this reason. EPA has according to federal standard as 0.18 jig!
determined that arsenic is a pollutant of L The other otitign depends en the
concern. Additionally. although several ‘naturar bacLground levels of arsenic
studies by EPA have indicated a present in the receiving water. The
-------
2508
Federal Register / Vol . 59, No. 10 / Friday, January 14. 1994 / Notices
“natural” background is defined as the
total recoverable arsenic level upstream
from all mining and other man.rnade -
disturbances. The WQS. 18 AC -
70.010(a). states that “ (nb person may
conduct an operation that
contnbutes to a violation of the Water’
quality standards “ If the
‘natural” background levels are already
above the federal standard, any
discharge at or below the “natural”
background level will not elevate the
existing concentrations in the stream
thus not contributing further to a
violation 0IWQS. The “natural””
background data must be provided with
the annual Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR). -
Because the effluent limitation of 0.18
pg/L is not quantifiable using the EPA
approved analytical method (206.2).
EPA has set a reporting threshold to
measure the highest aixeptable
quantification level for this parameter
When results cannot be quantified.
values below the method detection level
(1 iig/L) shall be report as zero and
values above the method detection level
but below the minimum level (4 iig/L)
reported at ½ the minimum level or 2
pg/L This reporting threshold does not
authorize the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limitation.
3. Sediment, The sediment standard
(18 ACC 70.020) is a narrative standard
which reads, “No ino ease in
concentration of sediment, including
settleable solids, above natural
conditions.” The method indicated for
measuring sediments is the use of an
rmhoff cone. The detection limit, the
L west measurable value, of an Imhoff
cone is 0.2 mIll. Therefore the
maximum limit for sediment will be 0 2
mi/l measured as settleable solids for
operations utilizing hydraulic removal
of overburden,
I V. Basis for Monitoring and Reporting
Reqwrement.s
- A. Monitoring. All salf.monitoring
requirements considered the remoteness
of the mining operations, the magnitude
of the pollutants discharged. and the
practicability of maintaining a valid
quality assurance program.
1. The measurement of settleable
solids is an indication of overall
treatment eilkioncy The permit
requires monitoring for settleable solids
once per day during periods of
discharge. II there is a discharge to
waters of the United Sates. perrnlttees
are required to sample for settleable
solids on a daily basis, even if sluicing
. ces not occur. This is required because
the operator Is responsible at all times
for the condition of the wastewater
entering the receiving stream. Also, the
results from settleable solids sampling
can give the operator an immediate
indication of the overall effectiveness of
the treatment system and thus allow
advanced planning for treatment system
maintenance.
2. EPA has concluded that the
monitoring frequency for turbidity and
arsenic will be once per season.
Monitoring for these pollutants have
been established at less frequent
intervals because sampling and analysis
(‘or these parameters are more difficult
and costly. Samples for monitoring
purposes must be taken during sluicing
or discharge at a time when the
operation has reached equilibrium. For
example. samples should be taken when
sluice paydirt loading and effluent
discharge are fairly constant.
3. Effluent flow monitoring is also
required in the proposed permit. The
purpose of this requirement is to assess
the pollutant loading discharged into
the receiving water.
4. The visual inspection provision in
Part 11.0.1. of the proposed permit is
required to assure against discharges
resulting from structural failure of
berms. dikes, dams and other water
control structures. A visual inspection is
an effective tool for assuring proper
operation and maintenance,
5. Monitoring provisions for turbidity.
arsenic. settleable solids, and flow (in
Parts 1I.D.l.c.. di. e., and f., respectively)
are included in the proposed permit.
These provisions are included to
explain how, when, and where to
collect these samples.
B. Reporting 1. Reporting of effluent
violations is required in writing within
a reasonable time period This is ?ouii’
in Permit Part IV G 2.c.
2 Reporting of’. .i’iudl violations from
suction dredges is required in writing
within a reasonable time period. This is
found in Permit Part 11.0 2.b.
3. The results of all monitoring or
notice of no discharge must be reported
to EPA by November 30 of each year.
This is found in Permit Part IV.B.
V Best Management Practices (BMPs)
A. Mechanical and Hydraulic Removal
of Overburden
1. BMP conditions in Permit Parts
m.A 1. to 111 A.5. of the proposed permit
were tiew oped pursuant to section
t iu C\VA These BMPs are
establ ‘h d n 4f ‘FR 441) ‘t48 and are
necessary fur md tri’atment of
the r rarn. e and infiltration water at
gold placer mines .izid to prevent solids
and toxic metals from being relcased to
the receiving streams
a. The intent of Permit Part lILA. !. is
to avoid contamination of nonprocess
water, reduce the volume of water
requinng treatment and maximize tl’
retention time anà the settling capac.
of the settling ponds. The diversion
must totally circumvent any gold
recovery units, treatment facilities, etc.
Any mine drainage sources that pass
through the actual mining area and are
subiect to transporting pollutants must
be treated prior to discharge.
b. Permit Part 11I.A 2. is required to
assure that water retention devices are
constructed appropriately. This may be
achieved by utilizing on-site material in
a manner that the fine sealing material
(such as clays) are mixed in the berms
with coarser materials Berms should be
toed into the underlying earth.
constructed in layers or Lifts and each
layer thoroughly compacted to ensure
mechanical and watertight integrity of
the bernis. Other impermeable material
such as plastic sheets or membranes
may be used inside the berms when
sealing fines are unavailable or in short
supply The side slope of berms should
not be greater than the nat’,r il an !e of
repose of the rnaienats uced in the
berms or a slope ut 2 1. wnichever is
flar’e
c. The intent of Permit Part lll.A 3 is
to ensure that the investment in
pollution control pay the maximum
benefit in terms of reduced pollutant
volumes reaching water of the Unitea
States. These measures may include
location of the storage ponds and
storage areas to assure that they will not
be washed out by reasonably predictable
flooding or by the return of a relocated
stream to it original stream bed.
Materials removed from settling ponds
sbauW. 5 be t Laced in bermed areas where
c.n he materials c innoI low
nvtji .ind ‘ . i i t e tJru,ed States
It may be nccessary. ifl sOflit ’ Ca. &s.
collect such liquids and pump or divert
them back to the settling pond for
treatment. This requirement applies
both during the active mining season
and at all other times until reclamation
is completed.
d. Permit Part I11.A ,
assure that the amouni .it . ,ct viit,r
that is discharged is ‘kept to d minimum
e. The provisions i i’e’ ntt Part
lfl.A.5. will ensure that w,g er c.ontroi
devices are adequately maintained. This
sperifies that structures should be
mnsziertm-d on a regular basis for any
smgi s ot tructural weakness or incipient
failure. Whenever such weakness or
incipient failure becomes evident, repair
or augmentation of the structure to
reasonably ensure against catactrophi
failure shall be made immediately
2. BMP condition Permit Part III .\ 6
of the proposed permit is required
pursuant to 40 CFR 122 44(k)(3). The
-------
2509
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 10 I Friday, January 14. 1994 / Notices
purpose of this requirement is to assure Vi. Other Requirements’
that all reasonable measures are taken to
decrease the amount of pollutants being ‘ Spill Prevention Contr il and
Containment (SPCC) Plan.
discharged to waters of the United
States. . Pail Ill C. of the proposed pehnit was
3. The same BMPs are required of established in accordance with 40 (YR
operations utilizing hydraulic removal 122.44(k)(3). The purpose of this
of overburden pursuant to 40 (YR requirement is to control the potential
122.44(k)(3). The purpose of these discharge of pollutants, resulting from
requirements is to assure that reasonable fuel spills, from entering receiving
measures are taken to decrease the waters. -
amount of pollutants being discharged
to waters of the United States.
permit. Part IILD.Ofthi iroposed -. ‘ ‘ -
permit establishes the specific
conditions which must be met In order
to be eligible for the storm exemption.
This exemption is designed to provide
an affirmative defense to an
enforcement action. Therefore, the
operator has the burden of
demonstrating to the appropriate
authority that the above conditions have
been met.
VIII. Prohibitions
A. Part LC. has been Incorporated into
the proposed permit to further clarify
the discharges that will be authorized
under this permit. ,-‘,
B. Part ILA.2. of the proposed permit
Is required to assure corn haiice with -
the technology-based requirements
established In Part ILA.1.a. of the
proposed permit. -
- L New Source Performance Standards
I.(NSPS)
B. Suction Dredging .. ‘ - -.
‘ B. Endangered Species
‘A species list was provided by the’
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
.
.
The BMPs are required pursuant to4O state of Alaska. The recommended
CFR 122.44(k)(3). - protection measures for the species of
1. Dredging is permitted only in the concern during the nesting period
active stream channel where the prohibits alterations of limited, high
dredging spoils are relatively clean and quality habitat which could .
will cause minimum turbidity when detrimentally and significantly reduce
returned to the stream. The material that prey availability. Since this general
runs through a suction dredge flows . water discharge permit is written to
downstream and settles among gravel .‘ protect aquatic life or human health
and rocks in the streambed. Too much , criteria (whichever Is more stringent).
silt and send make it difficult for the - no alterations of habitat due to water
salmon to dig suitable gravel nests -‘ -.
(redds) and can also smother fish eggs :
already deposited.
2. Wherever practicable. the dredge
shall be set to discharge into a quiet -‘
pool where settling of dredge spoils can
occur more rapidly. This will cause in-
stream turbidity to be minimized and
localized to the general area of the -
dred ing activity. ‘
3. he purpose of this requirement is
to control the potential discharge of
pollutants, resulting from fuel spills,
from entering receiving waters.
4 Dredging is not permitted during
the periods that fish eggs could be in the
discharges authorized by this perni i( -
should occur. Because of this, EPA has
determined that formal consultatien for
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
is not necessary for existing facilities.
Environmental Assessments will be
completed for each new source - “
discharge as Is stated in Part LA.3. of the
perthit. Any consultation necessary to
comply with the Endangered Species
Act will be performed at this time.
Vii. Storm Exemption -•
Pail flI.D. of the proposed permit
establishes a storm exemption provision
which authonzes exceedences of
gravel at the dredge site. The greatest
single effect a su ction dredge has on the
environment is the danger it poses to
fish. The dredge pump forces water and
gravel through the nozzle and hose. Fish
eggs taken up with gravel cannot ‘
technology-based effluent limitations
and standards provided that the
permittee meets curtain design and
operational criteria. This provision is
requfl’ d pursuant to 40 R 440.141(b).
this provision allows for the
survive the shock, pressure, and .. .
battering and pounding that comes with.
moving through the hose and sluice. If -
a fish egg should somehow survive the
hose and sluice, the chances for being ‘
buned in the gravel at the right depth .
and in the correct gravel composition
unavoidable exceedence of technology-
based effluent limitations during storms
of intensity greater than or equal to a 5-
year, 6-hour storm event. The storm
exemption will be allowed provided -
that (1) the settling ponds are designed.
constructed, and maintained to contain
necessary for incubation are
nonexistent. “The Atlas to the Catalog of
Waters Important for Spawning. Rearing
or Migration of Anadromous Fish” lists
the streams in the State which require
a Habitat permit from the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. This
catalog is quite extensive but is
available for viewing at many agencies
including Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the Anchorage Operations
Office of EPA.
the volume of process water generated
during four hours of normal operation
plus the drainage water resulting from a
5-year, 5.bour storm event. (2) the
operator takes all reasonable steps
possible to maintain treatment of the
wastewater and minimize overflow from
the settling ponds. (3) the permittee
must be in compliance with the BY Ws
In Part III.A. of the proposed permit.
and (4) the operator complies with all
the notification requirements for
bypasses and upsets as established in
Pails 111G. and H. of the proposed
: Pursu uit to section 301 of the CWA,
NSPS (40 ( YR. 440.144) were -.
promulgated for gold placer mine -
facilities. NSPS apply to new mines
determined to be new sources by virtue
of their activities occumng after
- promulgation of the rule (May 24. 1988).
The NSPS for gold placer mining
fucilitles are based on the same -
treatment technology as BAT, which -
consists of simple settling plus
redrculation of all process water. Since
BAT is based on the most stringent
demonstrated technology that i5
available for treating gold placer mine
wastewater, those mines which are new
sources will not be subiect to controls
more stringent than those applicable to
existing mines. .
In accordance with section 511(c)(1)
of the CWA, NPDES permits for new
sources are subject to the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NEPA requires that, prior to the
Issuance of an NPDES permit to a new
source facility, an Environmental
Assessment (EM must be prepared to
determine the potential for any
significant impacts on the quality of the
human environment resulting from
operation of the new source. Permit part
I.E.i. requires that new facilities submit
a notice of intent by January 1 of the
year of discharge. This will allow
adequate time to complete EAs for each
new source pnor to the mining season.
If the EA indicates that significant
adverse environmental impacts may
occur, then the applicant must prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). However, if the EA indicates that
significant impacts are not anticipated,
a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FNSI) shall be issued and the facility
-------
F 1 aI i er I. V L . r . 161 Ft day, Jamiary 14, 1994 F Not s
will be Odbythei ir4dIi niirn1
permit. TheFN a y hsI iiLth 1.
on i uized psi it ?lrni.
miti doa y to
the r nmnee d elternathe - -
envuoninentafly e aqAeb1e.
X. State fz i
Section )WLQ thha Act
requires that an NPDES permit t nthin ,
conditions which ensure compliance
with applicable State water qeersty
andarda Thu IIm!t tinT g
for tmi*1ity e kwe
estJ l4 il pn .aet to WQS 1
federal standards. respectZ 4y. S ion
401 req iree t 1 States ceitify that
Federefly esued pvunit ere in
complw -wrth St e sw. No purxu ls
can be issued tiI the zeqi.ñremenls of
Section 401 are satisfied.
These e pvrwib for pvriath fl2
discharging to waters (Inland waters) of
theStatuof4’J ‘A1 mr ae as
State offlc1a 10 rseiew astd pn uiide
appropr c t1fi to these draft
permits pw uaeit tO 40 v t24.53.
U. Ref ereo .s
A,b10LW. d&C hee. 1954.
Deux aedSaeu I eqseacy
and As dSbseae flow
With Bo wA FIth r&... Tl. .- .
Roadway as Stis es.-
dT. anapor tiaa 4 Paib&
_______ • - -
Cnfflth.J.S. dfl . .Andzawe. 1 8L ffn-* .
of a smafl su n dredge on fisbee e
aquatic I wubr.e.z In Idaho sfreems.
Nceth Anieilcan 1u 1 of Fisheries
ati—ze.
Ha,a1er.T .. W.L S& c. d C L S we.
1986. Impacts of suction ás L . . —
aba a 8sh. ut es4
t y Q k.caLthx. a.
C C p. Fi*. Rae. U .. U..ã. .,lik
. oI. Uaw y.
A iu at No. 1 6- I 6- O9—1547.
WorkCb ierN12Spages’
Harvey. aC 2988. ctaofpr i ,ld
diadging on flab and tastes In two
CaIl1u i1j IIa . forth Pamettmn
journal at F . ,li Menagemees 4C1-
Huber.C 4 0. thsL 1912. Weler
q liiy a *em wet p 4 a
Keaul 19 6-4Q91. U.S. Fczset
Service. ch N looaL Fore A laska
2rgwn. 74 pagea.
McCanegliaa. K. and tE. Johnson. 1983.
Suction dredge 1d mmingin the
mother lode region of California.
Calif r 4a 1 puitm it of Tht end Came,
E&wiy qsemai S . ,. Sreecb .
A4 ibet1 Report 13—t.
• La im.at e L riiwm res ch pre e .
Minahall. C.W.. D A. Andiew , and CS. -
Manuai-Fat er. 1983. Application of
island b, lc’I&uy 10 dtivu . ‘
maaolnventhest. t o1eel tse the-
Talon RI or. 1dah . Mi J . . Barnes asadG.
W. L4inthall t m j rnL .
Appfl lon and tasting e(geaeral
alog1cal thioiy. Plenum Press. New
&dnmA. PC. 1556 Effects ofeiavet 1
sec6ineet levels frees placer inrnmg on
survival and behavior of Immature Arc1
gray hog. Masters thesis. University of
- Alaska. Fairbanks. Alaska. USA. 93
Soawr. W i. and TJ. Hanior . 1992. E&cU d
suZian-dsed ld asm i an benthic
inv sab iea atLojtbein Calskrnia
Strasni. North Aman Jnitr .isl of
Fiahenes M u pnl 1Z.244-25L
Thomas. V C. 1985. Exp& 1 mentafly
determined bepac of a smnfl. suction
gald dredge -oim a Mon a ij-cnzn . North
A — es
5 9S-4 5&
U.S. Army Csxpod Ez neart 1Ois W
5 i .il CpLs.4 U.SAzmyC p.d
EnWliaor, . A iqnerqu. £bstiict. P.1 ).
Box £580. ADiaquarque. New Mex ico
ZTI03
U S. Euv1wuLM ztaI Protection Agency. 1951.
Reg&etoiy sirM for vHing smell
asmeauvW and ,eaestinanl placer
d ILL Ra *e
Pmtect A et&I1d W .
2800 Qye l 0m Qy al Stet .
Crya*aJ CIty. Vwgmnas ‘ fl’° ’ ‘A -
C ’ No. 88-C8-4 )68. W.A. 9. LUC
Project No. 1-853-03-830- . 73 pagee.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988.
Development Doce Effl 4
Limitations GuIdelines and New Source
.. ca Standards for the Ore
rnamg end Point Source
ategory-Gold r Mining
Ut Envu
Prote vy.O esdW

Terk. 4ogy Dwisesn. Wasbingloe. DC
2J1460. ’A44Wl-88- i.
Finding ofNo Significant isapad - -
To all interacted govornn t enc es,
public g cups. and A iwidiials
In wxiordaern with the nviz taL
Protas A y (EPM pzvcedwes fer
complying with the f4stuww J
Envuonmeotal Pobcy Act (N A3. 40
CFR part 8. uh ert F. kPA has
complded en envuunnanital review of
the following proposed on Jitww
of a Genscul N iomtal Pollutant
Discharge Eiiminatum SydMn (NPL S)
Permit tie. A1—G—37—0000 A ”
Placer Miners.
The pmpcoed action is issuance ofa
Geranal NPDES Permit covering both
existing and new chiiian in
Alaska which mine and procese. using
gravity separation methods. gold placer
ores. The pnsposod effluent linaitatmoos.
monitoring provisions, and c her
conditions as e specified in the draft
General NPCES 1 ,ernut . The Fact Sh
a , .upanying the draft pewnit.
describes the basis (twtheeo
requirements. The proposed General
NPDES Pernut wotaM replace the
existing individual N& u s pem-tits.
An ecMr m nta assessment CEArof
this proposed action hasbeen
completed (enclosed). Based on the EA.
and in aaordante wth the guidelines
for determining the significance of
proposed federal actions (41) O R
1508.27) and EPA criteria initiating
an environmental impact sta1 ient
(EIS) (40 CFR 6.605). EPA baa
concluded that the proposed Get arsl
NPDES permit wail not result in a
signillcant efkct on the human
environment. flie prnpn ced pernaii & i1l
not sgm&antiy effect land use pauazas
or population. wetlands or floodplains ..
thrc . d or andangered species.
f l r . 4c ecologically astical areas,
histor c resources, air quality. water
quality. noise lavals. £th and wildlsfe
rescuicas, nor wall it cooflict with loca l.
regional. or state land tisa plans or
policies. The proposed permit conforms
with all applicable federal statutes and
ev hve orders.
The proposed Ceunmi P ut
includes the came tj ,-based
permit limits. ei .diJ cli ad by r iLat 4
(40 CFR part 440. subpart Ml. as the
inth ldtml nifs ameantly do. fl
rearail an wa w is -
reqwrtal saul o entzlethle l xh -‘
concentration ettbeallosvs.ble discharge
(i.e. ter$ is lima to (12
maUhlilers per liter. Waler t h1y-based
liinitsase also iothided in the pniç. i
The proposed permit
ad on to conventional open—cut
pcerngperaliooz. placer mining
operations utilinsig hydranlic methods
to remove overbwdon. — cUoma
dredges. The proposed permit limits for
the hydmu& oewbuxdou semoval
operatims em b.. 51 ,d an the ete -
se iimnnt ctandard mel beat psamonal
judgm em the c e as the limits
for tim ooav ,ccal operate. The
limits for the smaiian dredge operations
would be based on beat prolesoonel
jedgmeat . . . ..
The propoend Coneral Permit would
reduce the yserly administrative burden
of EPA a .wa ied with the processing of
numet as individual permits. Because
the propoend Ceneral Peiinsl end
individual permits lochid. essentially
the ssme requirements, the primery
impact r&e(.dtupermiltypeis
expected to he administrative. No
negative impacts to EPA. other agencies
or operators are expected.
-------
Federal_Register / Vol. 59, No. 10 I Friday, January 14, 1994 / Notices
2511
The proposed General NPDES Permit
may contribute to an improvement in
environmental conditions because it
would reduce the permitting
administrative workload thus making
available limited time that could be
used for higher priority activities, such
as permit compliance and inspections.
The inclusion of suction dredge
operations in the General Permit will
improve the monitoring and compliance
of these operations.
Under the proposed action, the new
source placer mining proposals
requesting coverage under the General
Permit would continue to be subject to
individual NEPA reviews. This will
enable EPA to evaluate the site-specific
and cumulative impacts associated with
the individual projects. Where an EA
concludes that significant impacts are
not anticipated, a Finding of No
Significant Impact would be issued and
the new source project would be granted
coverage under the General Permit. If
EPA determines that significant impacts
from a proposed new source project may
occur, an EIS would be prepared prior
to EPA ’s final permit decision.
Therefore the site-specific impacts of
those projects would continue to be
evaluated and considered prior to the
permit actions. An individual permit
may also be required by EPA in lieu of
coverage under the General Permit.
For the above reasons EPA has
determined that an EIS will not be
prepared for the proposed action.
Comments pertaining to this Finding
of No ’STgnificant Impact may be
submitted to. Rick Seaborne,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Review Section. 1200
Sixth Avenue, WD—126, Seattle. WA
98101.
No administrative action will be taken
for at least 30 days after the release of
this Finding of No Significant Impact.
EPA will fully consider all comments
before taking final action.
Sincerely. -
Charles E. Findley.
Director. Water Division.
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System for Alaskan Placer
Miners
IGeneral Permit No.. AK—G-37 .0000l
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act (CWA), 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
placer gold are authorized to discharge
to waters of the United States, in
accordance with effluent limitation.
monitoring requirements. and other
conditions set forth herein.
A COPY OF THIS GENERAL PERMIT
MUST BE KEFI AT THE SITE W)IERE -
DISCHARGES O(XXIR.
This permit shall become effective 30
days after final publication. This permit
and the authorization to discharge shall
expir 5 years after the effectiye date of
the permit: Director, Water Division,
Region 10. U.S. Environmpntal
Protection Agency. . ‘•
Table of Contents - -
Cover Page
I Coverage under this permit
A. Coverage and Eligibility
B Types of Placer Mine Operations
Covered
C. Limitations on Coverage
D Prohibitions
E. Requiring an Individual Permit -
F. Notification Requirements
C Permit Expiration . -
Ii Em n limitation,
A Mechanical Operation (Traditional
Sluicing)
B Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
C. Suction Dredging
D. Monitoring Requirements -.
UI Management practices
A. Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic
Removal of Overburden
B Suction Dredges .
C. Other Requirements. ._ ‘
D. Storm Exemption
I V ‘Monitoring and reporting requirements
A. Representative Sampling
B Reporting of Monitoring Results
C. Monitoring Procedures
D Additional Monitonng by the Permittee
E. Record, Contents
F Retention of Records
C. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting
I. Inspection and Entry
V Compliance responsibilities
A Duty to Comply
9. 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. Removed Substances
C 9 ypass of Treatment Facilities
H Upset Conditions
I. Toxic Pollutants
Vt. General requirements
A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic
Substances
B. Planned Changes
C. Anticipated Noncompliance
D Permit Actions
E. Duty to Reepply
F Duty to Provide Information
C. Other Information
H. Signatory Requirements
L Availability of Reports
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K. Property Rights
L SeverabilIty
M. State Laws
VII. Reopener clause
VflI. Definitions
IX. Special cond itlon, . . . ..Effluent limits below
detection levels
A Reporting Levels
B Reporting Details
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Appendix A
1. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Coverage and Eligibility
1. Existing Facilities Existing
facilities (those facilities having
individual NPDES permits) are
authorized under the terms and
conditions of this permit upon the
submittal of a Notice of Intent (NO!) to
gain coverage under this permit.
Coverage will be granted according to
Permit Part E.4. . -
2. Pending Applications: Upon
submittal of an NO! all facilities which
have submitted applications in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(a) are
authorized under the terms and
conditions of this permit. Coverage will
be granted according to Permit Part E.4.
3. New Facilities: New facilities that
are determined to be new sources under
the CWA will be required to have an
Environmental Assessment (EA)
completed pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A
finding of no significant impact (FNSI)
by EPA is necessary prior to receiving
coverage under this permit. U there will
be a sigmflcant impact, the facility will
be required to submit, to EPA. an
Environmental Impact Statement (US).
Facilities determined to be new
dischargers will be covered by the terms
and conditions of this permit if they
meet all the necessary requirements of
the coverage.
4. Expanding Facilities: Facilities that
contemplate expanding shall submit a
new NO! that describes the new
discharge. The old permit will be
terminated and a new permit issued in
its place if the facility meets all the
necessary requirements of the coverage.
B. Types of Placer Mine Operations
Covered -
1. Facilities that mine and process
gold placer ores using gravity separation
methods to recover the gold metal
contained in the ore.
a. Open-cut gold placer mines except
those open-cut mines that mine less
than 1,500 cubic yards of placer ore per
mining season.
b. Mechanical dredge gold placer
mines (not suction dredges) except
those dredges that remove less than
50.000 cubic yards of placer ore per
mining season.
2. Suction dredges with intake hoses
‘of greater than 4 inches.
-------
___ • - 2 b.r 1 Y 1. 59 . No I Fziday, J inhiary i& 1994 i1ces
3. Operations utilizing hyd u&
removal of overburden. . , ,. ‘:
C. Limitations on Cverage ‘
Many streams and stream reethesia
Alaska have been designated as past of
the federal wild and scenic rivers -
system or as C s viion system Unts
(CSUs) by the federal government.
Permittees shonid contact the district
offices of the em1 rr l-,es thnt
administ the d g tiei.i4
additional zestY l!Hn! th may appiy to
operating within t mea. Many ar
in Ala a wb e pIac mining
ham n i n d by M a
Department of Fish and Cane tM ’GI
ganAGt . ed
with additional restrictions. TI Miss
to the Catalog ti Waters fmputhu.it for
Spawning. R ring Igintian of
Anadrom Fish’ I ts d stz s in
the a e wbith ireeI gat
permit. -
D.Prohibitinn.s -.
Disd erges from ibe following
b mn e net
authm, undm’ • pennit Merrsiry
amalgam ion. cyan.id n. fr
floatatieri.. p azxl vg bw ii 11 g
E. Bequinng an Tndividual Permit
t The Regi al Arbeth z may
r me y p a hzi by this
per ttnapply zandr I*aman .
individual N 4innal nhintY 1i Di mv e
Eliininatiui System (NPDESI p..ri 4
when: - •
alngledisdiaigncrtbe
cumulative £.rn r of disd i n /n w
a sigiit& mnt uutmbil1Ct d xiLhitiixz
b. The discharger is not In nplinnw
with th t ms and conditions of the
general permit-
c.Achehanmxurrediethe --
availability ‘of demonstrated tethno4ogy
orpanctices for the control or ahetement
of pollutants applicable to the point
d. FJJlu”nt
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit;
a. A Water Quality Management pl
containing requirements applicable to
such point suun s is approved: or i
£ An I ndividual Control Strategy TCS)
is required undersection3O4 L) of the
Act.
2 .The Regional Administrator will
notify the o axar ut writing hats
permit application is required. U an
operator ai]s 10 submit in a timely
manner an individual NPDES permit
application as required, then the
applicahilily of Ltu.s general permit to
the individual NFDES peruuttee is
automatically terminated at the end of
- the day specified Tar application
submittal.
3. Any owner or ‘operator anthorized
by this p uit may request to be
excluded from the coverage of ifils
permit by applying for an individ ual
permit. The owiw or operator sliaU
su nrt an individ ual thcaii*xs (Farm
I and Form 2Cer with muons
suppoitrag the reqeest lathe Regirmal
Administrator no later then 90 days
after the effective date of the permit
4. When an individual N.PDES permit
is issued to an owner or operator
otherwise covered by this permit, the
applicability of this permit to the
facility is automeficafly terminated an
the effective date of the individual
permit. -
5. When an individual I LP3ES pemiil
is denied to in owner or operator
otherwise covered to this permit, the
permittee is automatically Teinstated
under this permit on the date of such
denial, unless otherwise specified by
the Regimial M ‘strajor. A new
facility can receive coverage under this
general permit by sizbmiinng .NOL See
Permit Part l.A.3. &wdateils.
6. A so nca errluderi fri a
permit solely becauee it already has en
individual permit may 1 .e t that the
individual permit be revoked and that it
be covered by the gen rnl permiL Upon
revocation of the individual permit. die
• general permrl shall apply to the soorca.
F. Narifit irinn Requirements
1. Owners or operators of facilities
authorized by this permit shall sutmiit
a NOl to be covered by this permit. The
information required far a complete NOl
is in appendix A of this permit.
Notification must be made:
a. Withui9Gdays ofim ance of this
permit; or
b. By J naxy I of the yearuid
discharge from a new facility era
facility established since 1996 that has
not previonsly been .uvv d by a
permit; or
C. Ninety 90) days prior to the
expiration of an existing individual
permit. Authorization to discharge
requires written noi& nn frern EPA
that coverage has been granted and that
a specific permit number has been
assigned to the opeintiori.
2. Thq NO! shall be signed by the
owner or other signatory authonty in
accordance with Part VLH. L gnathry
Requirements), and a copy shall he
retained on site in aooordarice with Part
IV.F. l Rete rm of R-ds ) of this
permit. The address for N(X submasgi i
to EPA is: United States Environmental
Proteclion Agency. Region 10.1200
Sixth Avenue, WD—134, Seattle,
Washington 08101.
3. Acopy ofthe NOl most also be Sr
to thexegionalofficeoftheAlaska -
Department of ‘Environmental
Conseruation fADE that has
jurisdiction aver the mine. The
addresses are: -
Alaska bepatmeat of Eawwnnineotal
Conservatiaa. 410 W Ilou hby. Suite 205.
juneau, Alaska 98O1
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Northern Regional Office.
610 University Avenue, Varrban1 s, Aliska
99709
Alaska Department C,fELWIrmiThemaI
Regioaat Othce.
3601 C zeet Suite 1350. P ntherage.
Ala 995t
4. Acopy of thegeneral permit will
be sent to the perinillee when it is
determined that the facility can be
granted coverage under this general
permit. If it is determined that coverage
cannot be granted under this permit, the
applicant will be informed o!this in
writing.
C. Permit Expiration
Coverage under this permit wifl
expire five 15) years from the date of
issuanca, Far Facilities submitting a new
NO! 90 days prier in expiration of this
generel permit, the conditions of the
expired permit continue in force unti
the effective date ofa new permit.
fi. Effluent Umrtctiocas
A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional
SII iIaI*J . - -
During the term of this permit, rio
wastewater discharges me authorized
except as specified below.
)rEflfuent Limitations.
a. The volume of wastewater which
may be discharged shall net exceed the
voliwie o1infil aLi . drasn e and
mine drainage wait- S winch is in mass
of the maka.iip water required for
operation of the j rkai w n prnress.
b. The wastewater discharged shall
not exceed the following:
Effluent diaractensbc
Settleable So cls ..
Totidtty .....
- -
Arsens , Total Reco, .
erabla.
\
0.2 m L.
5 t ITUs ove natural
baclcground.
(1) 0.18 L
12) Natutal
g d
See Pal 110.4. Lw details.
2. Effluent discharges are prohibited
during periods when new water is
allowed to enter the plant site.
Additionally, there shall be no
discharge as a result of the intake of new
water.
-------
Fedual Register I VoL 59. No. 10 / F y. January 14. 1994 1 Noticee
• 2513
B. Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
Dunng the term of this permit, no
wasteweter discharges are authorized
except as specified below.
I Effluent Limitations. a. The volume
of wastewater which may be discharged
shall not exceed the volume of
infiltration, drainage and mine drainage
waters which is in exCess of the make-
up water required for operation of the
hydraulicking process.
b. The wastewater discharged shall
not exceed the following:
Effluent charesternoc teslarfl
Seieeab e Sdsds 0.2 n
Turbidity ....... .,..,. 5 P4Th above nab.sai
Effluent charactenstic
fl Jd
mien.
Arsenic, Totai Recov-
erable.
(1) a18 h G ’ 1 .
nabaai back-
.
See Pail U.D.4. lot detaás.
2. Effluent discharges are prohibited
during’periods when new wat r is
allow ed to eater the plant site.
Additionally, there shall be no
discharge as a result or the Intake of new
water. -
C. Suction Dredging
1. At any point jp the receiving stream
500 feet downstream of the dredge’s
discharge point, the maximum
allowable increase in turtudity over the
natural receiving stream turbidity while
operating is 5 NTUs.
2. A visual In ease In turbidity (any
doudiness or muddiness) 500 feet
downstream of the suction dredge
during operations would be considered
a violation of the S NTU limit.
3. If notk able turbidity does owir
500 feel downstream of the work site,
operation of the suction dredge must
decrease or cease so that a violation as
defined above does not exist.
D. Monitoring Requirements
- 1. Mechanical Operations and -
Hydraulic Removal of Overburden, a.
During the p iod hegim ing on the
effective date of this permit and lasting
until the expiration date, the following
monitoring shall be oonducte&
b Visual Inspection. The Permittee
shall institute a comprehensive visual
inspection program to bthlitate proper
operation and maintenance of the
recycle system and the wastewater
treatment system. The Perminee shall
cond,.rct-an inspection of the site once
per day during the mining season. The
Permittee shall maintain records of all
information resulting from any visual
inspections. These records shall
include, but are not limited to, an
evaluation of the condition of all water
control devices such as diversion
structures and bones and all solids
retention structures such as berms.
dikes, pond structures, and ‘ 4 am - The
records shall also include an assessment
of the presence of sediment buildup
within the settling ponds. The Perrnittee
shall examine all ponds for the
occurrence of short circuiting.
c. Turbidity Monitoring. The
Pernuttee shall monitor the tu.rbidity
values of the effluent stream and the
background turbidity values of the
receiving stream then compare the two
samples. The sample results shall be
reported on the Annual Discharge
Monitonng Report (DMR). The
Permittee shall take one sample at a
point that is representative of the
discharge prior to entering the receiving
stream. The Permiuee shall take another
sample above the discharge point at a
location that is considered to be the
“natuinl” background of the receiving
stream as defined in permit pert Vi.
Both samples shall be taken within a
reasonable time frama Monitoring shall
be conducted in accordance with
aa pted analytical procedures.. See
attachment 1 for sampling protocoL
d. Arsenic Morutoring. Arsenic
samples shaH be representative of the
discha e and shall be taken at a point
prior to entering the receiving stream.
Arsenic samples taken to determine
“natural” background shall be
representative of the receiving water
upstream from any man-made
disturbances. Monitoringshall be
conducted in accordance with erxepted
analytical procedures. The Perreittee
shall report the sample results on the
Annual DM2.. See auachment 2 for
sampling protocol.
The effluent limitation for total
recoverable arsenic is not quantifiable
using the EPA approved analytical
method, EPA method 206.2. Thus, EPA
has set forth reporting thresholds to
measure the highest acceptable
quantification level for this parameter. -
This reporting threshold does not
authorize the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limitation. For more information, see
special conditions in Part IX. of this
permit.
e. Settleable Solids Monitoring.
Sett’ieable solids samples shall be
representatve of the discharge and shall
be taken at a point prior to entering the
receiving stream. Monitoring shall be
conducted In accordance with accepted
analytical procedures (Standard
Methods, 16th Edition, 1985). The
Permittee shall report the sample results
en the Annual DMR. See attachment 3
for sampling and analysis protocol.
L Flow Monitoring. Effluent flow
shall be measured at the discharge prior
to entering the receiving water. Effluent
flow shall be measured at least once per
day, for continuous discharges, or once
during each discharSe event if
discharges are intermittent. The flow
shall be measured In gallons per minute
(gpm). The flow measurements, the
number of discharge events, and the
duration of each discharge event shall
be reported in the Annual DMR for each
day of the mining soasca.
2. Suction Dredges. a. Suction Dredge
operstions shall visually monitor for
turbidity as described in Part IIC. once
per day of operation. The Permittee
shall maintain records of all information
res ilfing frcrrn any visual inspections.
b. The Perrnittee will report the
period of suction dredging on the DMR.
Visual violation occurrences will also be
reported on the DMR along with the
measures taken to comply with the
provisions of Permit Part ILC.3.
Effluent cflwactensOc
Monitonng locatun
MoniEiwig frequeacy
- See e type
Setiteable So1 ii (mUL.) .. ... .
Turbidity (NTU)
Arsenic (pghl) Tulat recoverable ..
Fow(gpm)..__._... , ..
EfflUent ._ _
Effluent naturai ckgrourid . ...
Effluent naturaJ baclgroiaid
Et ier* ...
Once per day each day of e-
charge. -
Once per season ._.,........,.,...
Once per seasen
c ”)
Grab.
Grab.
(3rab? ’
Instantaneous
Onty wten choosing Option (2)
Analyzed by EPA Method 206.2 with a detection IIrn of I pG’L
‘ See Past ILD.I.L for details. -
-------
i 2514
Federal Register I Vo1 59, N 10.1 Friday, J ’anuary 14. 1994 1 NotIces
ffl Management Pmctices -..
• A. Mechanical Operations and
Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
1. The flow of surface waters (i.e..
a’eek. river, or stream) into the plant
site shall be interrupted and these • -
waters diverted around and away to
prevent incursion into the plant site.
2. Berms, including any pond walls.
dikes, low dams, and swular water
retention structures shall be constructed
In a manner such that they are
reasonably expected to reject the
passage of water.
3. Measures shall be taken to assure
that pollutant materials removed from
the process water and wastewater
streams will be retained in storage areas
and not discharged or released to the
waters of the United States. -
4. The amount of new water allowed
to enter the plant site for use in material
processing shall be limited to the
minimum amount required as makeup
water for processing operations.
5. All water control devices such as
diversion structures and berms and all
solids retention structures such as
berms. dikes, pond structures, and dams
shall be maintained to continue their
effectiveness and to protect from failure.
6. The operator shall take whatever
reasonable steps are appropriate to
assure that, after the mining season, all
mine areas. Including ponds. are in •
condition which will not cause
additional degradafion to the receiving
waters over those resulting from natural
causes.
B. Suction Dredges
1. Dredging in waters of the Umted
States is permitted only within the
active stream channel.
2. Wherever practicable, the dredge
shall be set to discharge into a quiet
pool, where settling of dj edge spoils can
occur more rapidly.
3. Care shall be taken by the operator
dunng refueling of the dredge to prevent
spillage into public watOrs or to
groundwater.
4. Dredging is not permitted during
the periods that fish e s could be in the
gravel at the dredge site and harassment
of fish in the stream is prohibited. ‘ The
Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important
for Spawning. Rearing or Migration of
Anadromous Fish” lists the streams in
the State which require a Habitat permit
from the Alaska Department of Fish and
Came.
C. Other Requirements—Mechanical
Operations and Hydraulic Removal of
Overburden
The operator shall maintain fuel
handling and storage facilities in a
manner which will prevent the .
discharge of fuel oil into the receiving
Waters or on the adjoining shoreline. A
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan (SPCC PIanJ shall
be prepared and updated as necessary in
accordance with provisions of 40 CFR
part 112 for facilities storing 660 gallons
in a single container above ground,
1,320 gallons in the aggregate above
ground. or 42.000 gallons below ground.
The permittee shall indicate on the
DMR if an SPCC Plan is necessary and
In place at the site and if changes wore
made to the Plan over the previous year.
D. Storm Exemption
The perrnittee may qualify for a storm
exemption from the technology-based
effluent limitations in Part ILA.i.b. of
this NPDES general permit if the
following conditions are met:
1. The treatment system is designed,
constructed and maintained to contain
the maximum volume of untreated
process wastewater which would be
discharged, stored, contained and used
or recycled by the beneficiation process
into the treatment system during a 4- -
hour operating period without an
incease in volume from precipitation or
infiltration, plus the maximum volume
of water runoff (drainage waters)
resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour
precipitation event. In computing the
maximum volume of water which
would result from a 5-year. 6-hour
precipitation event, the operator must
include the volume which should result
from the plant site contributing runoff to
the individual treatment facility.
2. The operator takes all reasonable
steps to maintain treatment of the
wastewater and minimize the amount of
overflow.
3. The source is in compliance with
the Best Management Practices in Part
l ILA. of this permit.
4. The operator complies with the
notification requirements of Parts IV.G.
and H. of this permit.
IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Representative Sampling
All samples for monitoring purposes
shall be representative of the monitored
activity. 40 CFR 122.41 (j). To determine
compliance with permit effluent
limitations, ‘grab” samples shall be
taken as established under Part liD, of
this permit. Specifically. effluent
samples for settleable solids, turbidity.
and arsenic shall be collected from the
settling pond or other treatment systems
outlet prior to discharge to the receiving
stream. Additionally, turbidity samples
shall also be taken above the discharge
point at a location that is represents
of the receiving stream. Samples for
arsenic and turbidity monitoring must
be taken during sluicing at a time when
the operation has reached equilibrium.
For example, samples should be taken
when sluice paydirt loading and -
effluent discharge are constant.
B. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results shall be
summarized each month and reported
on EPA Form 3320-1 (DMR). The DMR
shall be submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency. Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Enforcement Section
WD—135, Seattle, Washington 98101—
3188, no later than November 30 each
year.
If there is no mining activity during
- - the year or no wastewater discharge to
a receiving stream, the permittee shall
notify EPA of these facts rio later than
November 30 of each year.
The DMR shall also be sent to the
egional office of ADEC that has
jurisdiction over the mine. The
addresses can be found in permit part
LE.3.
C. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approv
under 40 R part 136. unless other
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
D. Additional Monitoring by the
Permittee
If the permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
by ,jhls permit, using test procedures
4pproved under 40 CFR part 136 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.
Records of monitoring information
shall indude:
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 performed;
4. The individual(s) who performed the
analyses;
5. The analytical techniques or methods
used: and
6. The results of such analyses.
F. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records
all monitoring information, including
all calibratIon and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
-------
Federa Re ippr 1 VoL 59, No. 10 1 Friday. January 14. 19941 Notices
copi s of all eports required by this
ponnit. and records of all data u ed to
complete the application for this permit.
for a period of at least three years from
the date of the sample. measurement.
report or applicetion. This period may
be extended by request of the Director
or ADEC at any tame. Data collected on-
site. copies of DMRs. 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 hesith or the environment
shall be reported as soon as the
permittee becomes aware of the
circumstance. A written submission
shall also be provided in the shortest
reasonable period of time after the
permitlee becomes aware of the
occurrence.
2. The following occurrences of
noncompliance shall also be reposled in
writing in the shortest reasonable period
of time after the pernuttee ‘ i . u t
aware of the circumstances
a. Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit ( Part VC.. Bypass of
Treatment Facilities.); or
b. Any upset which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit (see
Part V.H.. Upset Conditions.).
C. Any violation of the effluent
limitations in Permit Parts ILA. and ILB.
3 The written submission shall
contetn -
a A desaiption of the noncompliance
and its cause;
b The period of noncompliance.
including exact dates and times
c. The estimated time noncompliance
is expected to continue if it has not been
corrected, 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 dan oral
report has been received within 24
hours by the Water Compliance Section
in Seattle. Washington. by phone. (206)
553—1213.
5. Reports shall be submitted to the
addresses in Part W.B.. Reporting of
Monitoring Results. -
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting
Instances of noncompliance not
required to be reported in IV.G. above
shall be reported at the time that -
monitoring reports for Part IV.B, are
submitted, The reports shall contain the
information listed in Pail IV.G.3.
I. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the
Director. ADEC. or an authorized
representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of
the Adnnnistrntor). upon the,
presentation of credentials and other
documents as may be required by law.
to: -
1. Enter upon the pennittee’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
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 permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized
by the Act, any substances or -
parameters at any location.
V Conipbance Responsibsiibes
A. Duty to Comply . -
The permiuee must comply with all
conditions of this permiL Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
oftheActandisgrowidsfoc -
etiforcement 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
requuements. -
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions
t Administrative Penalty. The Act
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing sections
301.302, 306.307.308.318,er405o1
theActshallbesubiecttoan
administrative penalty, not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each violation.
2. Civil Penalty. The Act provides, that
any person who violates a permit -
condition implementing sections 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.
3. Criminal Penalues a. Negligent
Violations. The Act provides that any
person who negiigentiy yinIatRS a
permit condition implemenling sections
301. 302, 306, 307, 308, 318. or 405 of
the Act shall be punished by a fine of
not less than 52,500 nor taos than
$25,000 per day of violation. or by *
ithprisonment for not more than 1 year.
or by both.
b. Knowing Violations. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition’
implementing sections 301. 302. 306,
307. 308. 318. or 405 of the Act shall be
punished by a fine of not less than
$5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 3 years, or by both.
C. Knowing Endangerment. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition
implementing sections 301, 302, 306.
307, 308, 318. or 405 of the Act, and
who knows at that time that be 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 subiect
to a fine of not morn than Si .000,000.
d. False St m vits. The Act provides
that any person who knowingkymi .ksi
any false material statement. -
representation, or certification in soy
application, record. repal. plan. or
•othar document filed orrequired tobe
maintained under this Act or who
knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or
inriders Inaccurate any monitoring
device or method required to be -
maintained under this Act, shall upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more that $10,000, or by imprisonment
for not more than 2 years. or by both.
Except as provided in permit
conditions in Pail V.G., Bypass of
Treatment Facilities and Part V.H...
Upset Conditions, nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the
permittee of the civil or aiminal
penalties for noncompliance.
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not
a Defense
U shall not boa defense fore
permittee in an enforcement M1i that
it would have been n saiy to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
D. Duty to Mitigete -
The permittee shall take all
reasonable steps to min.mi e or pw. 1
any discharge in violation of thin permit
which has a reasonable likehh of
adversely affecting human health or the
environment. . -
E Proper Operation and Maint n’
The peirnittee shall at all timer
properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenan )
which are installed or used by the
-------
2516
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 10 / Friday, January ’ 14. 1994 1 NotIces
permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate Iaboratoiy 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 perrnittee only when the
operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
F. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, or other pollutants
removed in the coui of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be disposed
- of in a manner so as to prevent any
pollutant from such materials from -
entering waters of the United States.
C. Bypass of Treatment Faa ities
‘1. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to
occurwhich 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 subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this
section.
2. 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 111G., Notice of Noncompliance
Reporting.
3. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass is prohibited and the
_Director or ADEC may take enforcement
action against a permlttee (or a bypass.
unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to’
prevent loss of life, personal injury. or
severe property dahiage
(2) There were no feasible alternatives
tothebypass.suchastheuseof ‘-•,,
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
Judgment to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance; and
(3) The perinittee 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 3 a. of this section.
H. 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 the requirements of
paragraph 2 of this section are met, An
administrative review of a claim that
noncompliance was caused by an upset
does not represent final administrative
action for any specific event. A
determination is not final until formal
administrative action is taken for the
specific violation(s). - -,
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 operated;
C. The permittee submitted notice of
the upset as required under Part I’/.C.,
Notice of Noncompliance Reporting:
and
d. The perininee complieu wnn any
remedial measures required under Part
V.D., 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 proof.
L Toxic Pollutants
The permittee shall comply with
emuent 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.
Vi General Requirements
A. Changes in Discharge 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
dischatge. 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 Mg/I):
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter
(200 Mg/I) for acrolein and acryLonitrilt
five hundred micrograms per liter (500
i*g/l) for Z.4-dlnitrophenol and for 2.
methyl .4, 6-dinitrophenol: and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/I) 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 G’R
122.44(f). -
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 Ievels’ :
a. Five hundred micrograms per liter
(500 Mg/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 l 22 . 21 (g)( 7 ), or
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(0,
B. 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 required only when:
1. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for determining whether a
facility i a new source as determined in
40 t R ’T2l29(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
effluen) limitations in the permit. nor to
notification requirements under part
VLA .
C. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall also give advance
notice to the Director and ADEC of any
pliinned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
D. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by the permittee
fora permit modification, revocation
and reissuance. or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
-------
Federal_Register I Vol. s , No. 10 I Friday, January 14. 1994 I Notices -
2517
E. Duty to Reapply ‘
lithe permittee wishes to continue an
activity regulated by this permit after
the expiration date of this permit, the
permittee must apply for and obtain a
new permit. The application should be
submitted at least 180 days before the
expiration date of this permit.
F. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee 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.
C Other Information
When the permittee 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.
H. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports or
information submitted to the Director
and ADEC shall be signed and certified.
I All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
a Fo a corporation by a responsible
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 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 if:
a. The authorization’is made in
writing by a person described above and
submitted to the Director :ind 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 ora 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
authonzation under paragraph IV.H.2. is
no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility,
a new quthorization satisfying the
requirements of paragraph V1.H.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.
4. Certification. Any person signing a
document 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 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 gathenog the informauoe, the
information submitted is. to the best of my
knowledge and belief. e’ue. accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information. including the possibility of fine
and inipnsonment for knowing violations.
I. 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
Director and ADEC. As required by the
Act, permit applications, permits and
effluent data shall not be considered
confidential
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
constsued to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the perrnittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the perrnittee 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
Li 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. •.,
M. 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.
N. 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 ef seq. The information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submission made for the 1 1PDES permit
program under the provisions of the
CWA.
Vii. Reopener Clause
If effluent limitations or requirements
are established or modified in an
approved State Water Quality
Management Plan or Waste Load
- Allocation and if they are more stringent
that those listed in this permit or.control
a pollutant not listed in this permit, this
permit may be reopened to include
those more sthngent limits or
requirements. —,
Viii. Definitions
A. “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams around any
portion of a treatment facility
B “Drainage Water” means incidental
surface waters from diverse sources
such as rainfall, snow melt or
permafrost melt.
C. A “Grab” sample is a single sample
or measurement taken at a specific time
D. “Infiltration Water” means that
water which permeates through the
earth into the plant site.
E. “Instantaneous Maximum” means
the maximum value measured at any
time
F. “Mine Drainage” means any water,
not associated with active sluice water,
that is drained, pumped or siphoned
from a mine
“C. “Monitoring Month” means the
period consisting of the calendar weeks
which begin and end in a given calendar
month.
H. “Natural Background” means the
level’upstream from all mining and
other man-made disturbances.
I. “NTU” (Nephelometric Turbidity
Unit) is an expression of the optical
property that causes light to be scattered
and absorbed rather than transmitted in
a straight line through the water.
-------
2511
FeJeTal Rfg x! VoL 59. Na. 101 F ithy. JPmrnry !4. 1 L tfce ... . - - - -
I. “Maka.iip W e,’a,esg that
volume of water needed to repLace
pro ss water l duo to
and seepa 1 order to maintaln the
quantity nacessaiy tbz operation of
the beneff iaifrmn process.
. WaCer’ e s waler &nzn
any cfisaeta sour zuch es a er.
aeek . lake or we wlikli s ____
allowed or 5ZOTI&JIL i a the plant sjt .
L PTant Site’ means the area
occupied by the wine. necessary
haulage waye frc the m the
benafi tinn pincau the ati ____
.oreo.thaa aea áedb th.
wastewater ti Ent ata€e 1as 1j e,
and the ste, aaas h w iais
and solids ze oeed fr the
waste d ilng tr.. i t
tvt oeME Waier __
such as laI • n s. #u..i. s ,
sey otber . W a wh&h i _____
wastowa d cs _
N. Severe property damage” mams ____
substantial physicel damage to property.
damage to the t atmeet f t es which
them b .w iooperahf.. er
substan md c i
natural rescin w c peeewtaM 1
be expec d te le
a bjpa property demoge doe,
eat mean 6CWU lea. d by
le
0. a.t th uithi( e - -
ineffedivo (1ffegpo,aJe ttes o -
inadequate or lnsuffiaent re1enfies - ____
characteristics, excessive
deposition, embankment la.flltrutIonJ ______
percul zian. 1eck of nance etc
P. Upear’ mc a an
incident us wfrkk there f tmhaT%1iQnaf
and tamparery aonump anca with
technology-based permit a L in (
limitations Attacbmesti
the rnn a,nAbls coatret aEtM permiOee.
An upaM does no LriduJa -
noncmuprtnnr isthe.xtaeac eaI
operathmal amor opex
treatment maci1I es 1 , Ln’f’.cyi1a
£ C{UI4 ’ tii 1 esveati,e
ma ateeaac.,, at walees at
operation. -
Q AttaChment Z
•usedmamdia.ekeifr the
beneficietkin pesem. (Iaàa but not
limited to the water used to e the
2. Samples sha]b beefld1nasteriT
3. m 1 J.. beceoleij 4
4. Sam ias& — -• l r
analysie aa soon . pessihle.
3. S plea. stb frkff .r1with D lC.
pH T SMth OZ.UpOD
receipt at the abonecry.
8. Samples e & b.acidi as leseti
hours prior to analysis.
SettIeabIe5o &ds
1. Gra& empl shad be l?ecred
2. Samples sfeEbeeoftecrerl In esresile
one stat poIypuep dra.a. es
1.lempuna ed ç
celsius (Eidl.
4. Saniples e eatbe soslyz.á iuv. 4&
Settk ieSolY Anef ,,pw. src.
1. PU! an Imboff cone to the liter mark wftti
a thoroughly mixed sampln. - .
-2. Settle r 45 rnLnuws. then gently stir the
tides ef th,evwe with e red or by genc?
3. 3ea IS zn ten hm r.
voiwne ci lenhl . —
1 ”tine. ar ’s ’ Tb. ineest ir
level on the Lmhoff eons is 0.1 mIll. Any
eattleable material below the 0.1 inf/T mai k
shall be rodcia .
Appendlz A—bMtkx dI
N.m. -
Ad & ?bow
Mdress & Phone Nwn iWla.g$
til tf — . t
Address & Phone Number —.—- l
Address & l bce Die
Facifity Locarlo. ( ii.. ...i TcwpJ
Latitude and L m .flu
Townthi 0 . artlnz 3an i
Previous Nrue permit numbes
Re tving Water
Maiuiiuus a ! uaifl P lo’. ,
Lawfb. s caw OW
Type cdOprvi&lv! fTrs&flone& Suetrn
Dred tagJ
___
Signature and Grm id i..uiid iti
permit pail VLH.4
A drewm€ ska4cbgt the epsca
ore to and th ls the benefidadon
proceer, thew nsedtua1dfn
£lassfi and th.watern . d in
gravity seij.irathmL mine cfratmgp. and
bth atfan and thüzage waters which
cozamingle with mine cfrainage or
waters rmufting &tun the benefidatfon

(. Speczoi
Bekr. cc2soa 1eve
:- -
1. For
parmitfa , shafi t re atm
thaeahold equiiafena the i ’— ’
level (MU. The &flk flIia4 the
concentration in a sample equivalent to
the con t Gcii of the luwast
iation standaxdanafymd faa
specific analytica! pzocedua.. nn irg
that afl the pa 4RQ 1 c fa
wa*j Lç w ’ . ’ a.ed p raei eps
have been k&liowed.. As s the
‘ sthaa i A , - -
vaZesii $o the cmet öaties, oJ the
- --
2. For tepwpeeed -ths enrh.
DMR. a 2tral analyffcal r I shauU be -
rep md whenever pos.ãbto. Alt -
anatytf 1 values at ov the
shall be reported as the measured value,
When the result, ciagies he quoedffed .
values belew the ulbod it
(1- iglL) shell pat mzeso p i
eaiá values e the a. iod . --
detesii level aed below the liE.. shell
B. -
In the Thmmais ’ c as( aCthe
DMR. the perinittee shaff report the
lowest calibration standard used antI the
7i jScuIpliugP ob co1
1. Grah sw 1ss . d be nl1ar
Z iTi i1ø sheA becel IA .frarsla
one &ar potypropykne or g aas axifainan.
lSampks Intbeceof fro4cfegrees
celsius (Iced).
4. Samples must be anadwghan4&
hours of sample collection..
Ar res nv ngPrelea
I. Ccnbsamplee eaI be
(FR Dec. 4-) 4 F led -fl-94 .; &5 im
u -
-------
Fedemi Register / Vol. 59, No. 7 I Thesday, January ii, 1994 I Notices
1535
nvlronmentally related data end
iiformatlon.
Three topics will be discussed during
the meetinç
1. A new EIA Committee project to
devise recommendations that may be
incorporated In the Information
Resources Management (IBM) Stiateg c
Plan EPA Is developing.
2. Previous EPA IRM planning efforts.
3.The status of current EPA IRM
programs.
Scheduling con aInts preclude oral
comments from the public during the
meeting. Written comments can be
submitted by mail, and will be
transmitted to Committee members for
consideration.
DATES. The public meeting will be held
on Wednesday. January 29, 2994, from
9a.m.to5p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written rnmvllents should
be sent to Mark Joyce 1601F. OJflCe of
Cooperative Environmental
Management. U.S. EPA. 401 M Street
SW., Washington. DC 20460.
The public meeting will be held at the
National Governor’s Association Mall of
the States, Room 333,444 North Capitol
Street, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACt
Aark Joyce. Designated Federal Official,
Oirect line (202) 260-6889, Secretary’s
line (202) 280—6892.
Dated December 22.1993.
Mark Joyce.
C signoted Federal Official.
IFR Doc. 94—629 Filed 1—10—94; 8.45 aznl
coos
(FRL-4824 -2)
CWA 303(d): EPA’s Intent To Approve
arid Availability of State LIat
SubmI ona
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IL
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) intent to approve the lists
submitted to the U.S. EPA pursuant to
Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d)
by the State of New York, the State of
N ew Jersey, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico on September 4, 1992. May
20. 1993, and November 18. 1993,
respectively. Please be advised that the
U S. Virgin Islands is not required to
submit a 303(d) list because there are no
vaterqualIty.lfmited segments In the
U S. Virgin Islands requiring Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). EPA
issued Its Intent to approve the New
York State September 4, 1992 lIst
submittal on May 18, 2993. With regard
to the New Jersey May 20, 2993 and the
Puerto Rico November 18,1993 list
submittals, although EPA has not yet
sent out approval letters, EPA does
Intend to approve both of these list
submittals an well.
In the case of the Puerto Rico section
303(d) list. it should be noted that
several modifications, which will affect
the Commonwealth’s sectIon 303(d) list.
have been agreed upon by the Puerto
Rico Environmental Quality Board
(PREQB) and EPA subsequent to the
November 28,1993 submIttal. These
proposed modifications reflect recent
negotiations between PREQE and EPA
regardIng 1994 permittIng priorities in
Puerto Rico. The current Puerto Rico
sectIon 303(d) list does not reflect these
specific modifications. Since the section
303(d) process is ongoing, another’
comprehensive review/revision of all
State sectIon 303(d) lists is scheduled to
take place In April. 1994. At that time
the Puerto Rico section 303(d) list will
be updated to Include all agreed upon
modifications.
EPA is soliciting public comment on
Its Intent to approve these 303(d) lists,
which, together with EPA’s tentative
approval documents, are available to the
public.
DATES Comments on EPA’s Intent to
approve these lists and the list
submittals, must be submitted to EPA
on or before February 10. 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the lists submitted
pursuant to 303(d) and EPA’S tentative
approval documents can be obtained by
writing to Mr. Wayne Jackson. Surface
Water Quality Brunch, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region U.
Jacob K. Javits Federal BuildIng, 26
Federal Plaza. New York, New York
10278 or calling (212) 284—5685.
Comments on these items should be
sent to Mr. Wayne Jackson at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER iNFORMATiON CONTACfl Mr.
Wayne Jackson. telephone (212) 284—
5685.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). as
amended by the Water Quality Act of
1987. requires every State to: Identify
those waters within its boundaries for
which the emuent limitations required
by section 301(b)(1J(A) and section
301(b)(1)(B) of the CWA are not
stringent enough to meet any water
quality standard applicable to such
waters. Each State is required to identify
the pollutants causing the impairment
of the listed waters. Section 303(d)
further requires the State to establish a
priority ranking for such waters, taking
into account the seventy of the
pollution and the designated uses of
these waters. Finally, the State Is
required to identify waters targeted for
TMDL development over the next two
(2) years. TMDLs establish the allowable
pollutant loadings necessary (or a
waterbody to meet applicable State
water quality standards. State 303(d)
lists and TMDLs are submitted to EPA
for approval or disapproval. The
deadline for submitting the above lists
to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was October
22, 1992 (See 57 FR 33047 (July 24,
1992)).
Consistent wIth 40 (YR 130.7. New
York. New Jersey and Puerto Rico
submitted to EPA, for approval, their
listing decisions under section 303(d)
on September 4, 1992. May 20. 1993.
and November 18, 1993, respectively.
EPA today notices Its Intent to approve
these lists and solicits public comment
on both the intent to approve and on the
lists. EPA Is soliciting comments on the
New York, New Jersey. and Puerto Rico
1992 CWA section 303(d) lists and
approvals. Al) future biennial
submissions of the 303(d) lists will
provide for public comment at the State
leveL
The lists and approvals me available
by mail or for public inspection at the
EPA Region 2 office by appointment To
request a copy of a list andior approval.
to make arrangements to examine the
lists, or to submit comments, contact the
Agency representative identified above.
Comments must be submitted within
thirty (30) days of the publication of this
notice.
Following the close of the wuuuent
period. EPA will make a final
determination on the State lists and will
issue a response to comments received.
A copy of EPA’s decision and response
to comments document will be sent to
all parties submitting comments in
response to this notice,
Datsé DeCember 27, 1993.
William J. Mi.zymki.
Acting RegwnoiAdminisfrr,tor.
(FR Dec. 94-620 FIled 1-20-94; 845 am)
(FRL-4823-8 )
Water Pollution Control; Approval of
Application by South Dakota To
AdminIster the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Approval of application.
-------
1 36
Federal Register f VoL 59. No. 7 I Tuesday. January 11, 1994 / Notices
SUMMARY: On December 30. 1993, the
Acting Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region VII I. approved the
application by the State of South Dakota
to administer and enforce the national
pollutant discharge elimination system
(NPDES) program for regulating
discharges of pollutants into waters
within the State.
EFFECTWE DATE: December 30, 1993.
FO FURThER INFORMAnON CONTACT:
Janet LaCombe at (303) 293—1593,
NPDES Branch, (8WM-C); IJ.S.E.P.A..
Region VIII; Denver Place, 999 18th -
Street, suite 0O; Denver, CO 80202—
2466.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATtON: The
application of the South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) was received by EPA
on April 28, 1993. Several modifications
were made to the application package.
based on discussions between the EPA,
the DENR. and the Office of the
Attorney General. The final changes,
including the signing of the
Memorandum of A eement by the
Governor, were completed on August
30, 1993.
South Dakota’s application was
described in Federal Register notices
dated September 1 and 9. 1993. at 58 FR
48145 and 47417, and in notices
published In the Rapid City rournal and
the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader on August
27 and September 10. 1993. in the
September 1, 1993 Federal Register
notice and the August 27. 1993
newspaper notices, EPA highlighted
three issues upon which it specifically
requested public comment. These Issues
concerned unsigned complaints from
the general public. penalty authority.
and citizen Intervention in enforcement
actions,
Copies of South Dakota’s application
package were available for public
review at the EPA Region VIII office and
at the DENR office In Pierre. South
Dakota. Copies also could be purchased
from the DENR at a cost of $10.00.
EPA provided copies of South
Dakota’s public notices toperinitted
facilities, tribal councils and tribal
environmental agendas, and
environmental groups in South Dakota.
The mailing list used is part of the
record of the program application and
review process. By letter dated August
25. 1993, EPA provided copies of Sout.h
Dakota’s application to the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and to the South
Dakota State Historic Preservation
Officer.
As part of the public comment
process. EPA conducted two public
hearings on South Dakota’s application.
The hearings occurred on October 14,
1993 at the Matthew Training Center.
Joe Foss Building. 523 East Capitol,
Pierre, South Dakota. beginrinag at 3 and
7p.m. The first hearing lasted
approidniately one hour, and the second
lasted about 45 minutes. The register of
those attending is contained in the
administrative record. In addition, until
October 22. 1993. EPA accepted written
comments from the public. All
comments or objections presented at
either public hearing or received in
writing by EPA Region VIII by October
22. 1993. were considered by EPA.
Comments were received regarding
the following issues: (1) Unsigned
complaints. (2) penalty authonty. (3)
citizen intervention. (4) jurisdiction
over indian Country. (5) pretreatment
program. (6) mechanisms for ensuring
protection of endangered and threatened
species. and (7) overall benefits or lack
of benefits resulting from authorization.
EPA response to all comments are
contained in this notice. Summaries of
the comments and EPA s responses
follow. The comments and hearing
record are contained in the
administrative record supporting this
notice.
L Unsigned Complaints
Federal regulations at 40 CFR
123.26(b)(3) and (4) reqizue a State
approved to administer the NPDES.
program to maintain a program for
Investigating information regarding
violations of applicable program and
permit requirements. to maintain
procedures. for receiving and ensuring
proper consideration of information
submitted by the public about violations
of applicable program and permit
requirements. to encourage public
efforts In reporting violations, and to
make available information on reporting
procedures.
As outlined In EPA’s September 1.
1993 Federal Register notice and
August 27, 1993 newspaper notices.
Section 34A—2—111 of the South Dakota
Codified Laws (SDC..) prohibits the
DENR from performing inspections or
conducting other investigatory activities
pursuant to SDCL Sections 34A—2-40,
34A—Z—44, and 34A—2-45 based on, or
as a result of, information received from
the general public unless the person
providing the information signs a
complaint, which is to remain
confidential with the DENR. The
statement by the South Dakota Attorney
General notes that information in
complaints from the general public
made to another agency orDENR
program and then referred to the DENR
NPDES program is not considered “as a
result or’ a complaint from the gener
public,
The State has described the means b
which it will consider and respond to
NPDES-related Information from the
general public and from other state
governmental agencies. The DENR will
investigate and respond to all citizen
complaints where a signed complaint
form has been received and will
investigate all complaints received from
other government agendas. At the time
an unsigned complaint is received.
DENR will determine whether
appropriate department authorities exist
under any state environmental statute to
handle the unsigned complaint. If not,
the citizen shall be referred to the South
Dakota Department of Emergency and
Disaster Services, the South Dakota
Department of Came, Fish & Parks, or
another appropriate State agency. The
appropriate State agencies shall receive
anonymous complaints and either
investigate under their authorities or
sign and refer the complaint to DENR.
The process used for investigating and
responding to unsigned complaints will
be published in major newspapers in
South Dakota and will be prominently
posted in the main office and the field
offices of the D B .
In its oversight role, EPA has
established a “botline” (1—800.-227—
8917) to receive complaints, both
identified and anonymous. regarding
NPDES.related activities in South
Dakota. To communicate this fact to the
general public, EPA will publish the
botline number in the Rapid City
“Journal” and the Sioux Falls “Argus-
Leader”, as well as sanding a notice to
public interest groups and permitted
facilities. The hotline number may be
used by callers who have Information
concerning a possible violation of an
NPDES permit or program requirement.
The caller will be referred to a staff
member of the EPA Region VIII NPDES
Branch. This staff person will record the
information received and make a
decision whether or not an Investigation
is needed. EPA may conduct the
Investigation or request that the DENR
Investigate.
A. Comments in Support f Sec. 34A-
2-UI -
Those supporting South Dakota’s
system for addressing unsigned
complaints induded the DENR.
municipal. agricultural, and mining
associations, municipalities, another
State agency. and industrial dischargers.
1. Several commenters questioned the
motives of peopie who submit unsigned
complaints and/or the merits of such
complaints. They referred to the right to
-------
face one’s accus Their wui8fltJ
included:
A few persons stated that unsigned
complaints result from feuds, annks, or
Compet itors,
Two expressed the opinion that If a
complaint is genuine, the person
making It should have the commitment
to sgn It. A representative of an
atwulgroup that Identified Itself
as the prime sponsor of Sec. 34A—2—iii
stated that “there should be a greet deal
of responsibilfty laid at the feet of those
people making the complalnt’’
ISouth Dakota Is) a stand-up place
* ‘South Dakota newspapers, by and
large, don’t a pt letters to the editors
that are unsigned. South Dakota State
agencies, by and large, do not a pt
letters of complaint or phone calls that
are anonymous. South Dakota Attorney
General’s office does not aompt
complaints that are anonymous, with
some eAwption s .’ Two comm eys
stated that a person is entitled to face
his accusers and is protected from
anonymous harassment. One of them
cited the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
2. Some comment Indicated that
the state government and the regulated
onimunJty should be protected from
unsigned coznplalnts
One dry official noted that unsigned
complaints can haves detrimental effect
upon an organization otherwis 8 trying
to work cooperatively to achieve
compliance.
-. * ‘an anonymous phone cafl or
letter is too easy a method to trigger an
environjn nt audit’ •
“ISectionj 34A—2—11l isa necessary
statute that help. to limit the
expenditwe of staff time on frivolous
personal grudge type complaints.”
3. Some commenters praised DENR’g
record In conducting investigations and
allowing for public participation. They
also noted the e,dstence of the EPA
“800” number, Their remarks lncluded
The Secretazy, D IR, asserted in his
written statement “To our knowledge,
since the passage of this law ISDCL
Section 34A—2—nij, this law has never
hindered our ability to address water
pollution inc.ldonts nor has It hindered
public involvement”
“ 1 ‘thecur ant SDQSectJon
34A-2—111 Is working very well. DE R
is very responsible In investigating
complaints and has a system In place to
guarantee that investigations take place
-‘ace a coni plaint arises and to keep the
entity of the party making the
.omplaint confidential.”
A low commenters referred to the fact
that EPA Is maintaining an “800”
number for persons not wishing to
communicate with the state.
4. Several commen er Indicated that
the state’s system provides sufficient
opportunity for public participation and
agency Investigeti on of complaints.
They supported this point by
identifying three ways in which Section
34A-2- .tfl was restricted In its
applicab Iflty
a. The prohibition applies to
complaints from the general public, not
to complaints made or passed on by
another federal, state or local level of
overflment. UDENR determines that It
lacks authority to investigate a
complaint, the complaint Is then
referred to another agency.
b. The prohibition does not apply to
the state’s mining laws, solid waste
laws, and hazardous waste laws. Most
complaints from factory workers will
relate to hazardous waste violations,
which are not covered by this
prohibition. —
c. The psohibiti on does not apply to
DENR’s right of entry, to the Issuance of
an emergency order, to determinations
cit responsibility for discharges, to waste
disposal into state waters, and to more
general authorities to investigate
violations of iapter 34A-2,
B. Comments Opposing Sec. 34A-2-x2j
Those opposing South Dakota’s
system for handling unsigned
complaints included envlrunnientaj
groups and individuals working in
municipal facilities.
1. Some cominenters stated that
people hesitate to sign complaints
because they fear raprisals
An anonyrnom individual who
desceibed himself or herself as a
employed in the wastewater
and pr eatnient field In the State of
South Dakota” stated, ‘Many times
people em reluctant to sign complaints
because of some type of repercussion,”
“It Is a reality that many individuals
are reluctant to report suspected or
obvious discharge violations for fear of
reprisal. Real or perceived, It isa
reality.”
An environmental group (which
stated that ft had recently concluded a
successful citizen’s suit against a mining
company in South Dakota) commented
that It had filed written complaints with
the D ’IR based on anonymous ups that
It, rather than the DENR, had received.
Citizens had been reluctant to file a
complaint even if it was considered
“confidential.” This group also stated
that It had never found any citizen
complaint to be frivolous or harassing.
2. Several commenters aiticnzed the
process for Investigating and responding
to unsigned complaints, desaibed In
Item E.4. on page 7 of the MOA. Their
comments Included:
1537
‘l’he MOA hou1d contain
unequivocal language setting forth a
specific procedure for SDD JR to
follow formaintaining (1) an
Investigation of violations and (2)
procedures for ensuring proper
consideration of lnlorrnatf on from the
public about violations,”

depth and timeliness of the
‘thv itlgation’ conducted by D ’4R
upon our flied complaints.
Investigations conducted several days to
weeks after a complaint is filed may
miss a violation.”
“In South Dakota, with its small
population and overlapping networks of
personal and business relationships,
unsigned complaints—if they are
seriously considered by SDDENR are
likely to be the most fruitful sources of
violation reporting.”
“It is not dear’ * whether
department authorities exist within
SDDENR to appropriately handle
unsigned citizen complaints if referred
by another State agency..,. We do not
consider It appropriate to burden other
State agencies whose administrative and
field staff are already clearly
overworkecj’.i
“Any unsigned complaint will simply
fall into the ciacks between agencies
and nothing will be done.”
“The Departments of Agriculture and
Game, Fish and Parks do not hove
authority or expertise for dealing with
complaints that are properly the
concern of SDDENR.”
3. Some commenters Indicated that
SDCI. prevented South Dakota’s
application from meeting pertinent
authorization requirements:
“We believe neither SDQ. 34A—2—111
nor EPA’s proposed solution meets the
requirements of Section 402(b)(ZY(B) and
Section 402(bj(7) of the CJean Water
Act, and 40 R Sections 123.26(bJ(3)
and (4 ) • . EPA should withhold
NPDES delegation until SDCI. 34A-2-
111 is repealed.”
“The requirements of forty (sic) G’R
Sections 123.26(b)(3 ) and (4) wIll not be
met under the MOA bacnusa of the
convoluted nature of provisions for
receiving and dealing with unsigned
complaints.”
4. Some commenterg stated that the
state’s procedure for handling unsigned
complaints aeated the impression that
the state favored special Interests over
the general public:
“If there’s a problem. Imost citizens)
want action, no matter whom they call.
For a citizen to be told they have to call
another agency to get a water problem
addressed Just confirms ftheJ citizen’s
view of government as controlled by
special interests who get laws like 34A—
Fedes J Register / VoL 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11 , 1994 / Notices
-------
1538
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 1994 / Notices
2—lllapproved • ,Stata
government should not be empowered
by EPA to cripple or make more difficult
and confusing citizens’ ability to work
directly with the proper state regulators
because of paranoia on the part of the
special interests who are regulated
under water quality laws.” Two
individuals commented in a letter that
they were “appalled of (sic) the manner
in which the State intends on handling
or rather not handling citizen
complaints and the legalese double talk
the State Attorney General’s office is
trying to portray as meaningful
procedures.”
C. EPA’s Response to Comments on Sec.
34A—2—l ii
The State has a program and
procedures for public reporting of
violations that ensures their proper
consideration, even though the
existence of § 34A—2--1 11 appears to
require a more cumbersome process
than is desirable. EPA might propose a
simpler program or procedures for a
hypothetical “model” state program.
However, under the Clean Water Act, a
State is provided flexibility in achieving
the inimmum requirements of the Act,
including those for public participation.
If approached by another state on
suggestions for public reporting. EPA
would recommend against inclusion of
a Section 111-type provision. EPA
encourages South Dakota to repeal
Section 111 as inefficient and having
the potential to limit the discretion of
the very state agency entrusted to
exercise enforcement discretion.
EPA doubts that facilities subject to
DENR investigations could use Section
111 as a means to avoid the
consequences for falling to comply with
§ 34A—2-40. -44, and -45. DENR
investigators are not reqtured byany
provision of state law to identify the
basis for the information leading to
investigation. Moreover. D ’1R has
authority to Initiate prosecution based
on verified Information.
Notwithstanding questions about
enforceability, DENR has Indicated its
intention to faithfully implement
applicable provisions of state law, as
well as to implement public
participation procedures to meet the
requirements of 40 C R 123.27(d). EPA
encourages DENR to periodically
evaluate the effectiveness of its public
reporting procedures in providing
public participation in the NPDES
enforcement program in South Dakota.
particularly In light of the existence of
SectIon 111.
The fact that the prohibition In 34A—
Z—111 does not apply to complaints
from governmental entitles or to other
State environmental programs provides
the State some options for the general
public to use in reporting concerns
about possible violation or problems
related to westewater treatment or
effluent. The description of the State
process will be published In major
newspapers in South Dakota and posted
in the DENR offices located throughout
the State. Therefore, mechanisms exist
to ensure proper consideration of
information from the general public and
are sufficient to meet the minimum
requirements of public participation
consistent with 40 CFR 123.26.
EPA acknowledges there may be some
delay in investigation of information
received from the genera! public
because of the requirement for a signed
complaint. South Dakota has explained,
however, that the requirement should
not unduly delay prompt Investigation
when the member of the general public
Indicates a willingness to identify
himself or herself and sign a complaint.
The volume of unsigned complaints
which are received by any one entity Is
not expected to be so great that it would
strain the resources available to that
organization. However, the DENR is
responsible for assuring whatever
resources needed to respond to
unsigned complaints are available, as
well as providing adequate resources to
administer the NPDES program as a
whole.
EPA notes that the adequacy and
effectiveness of DENR’s public reporting
requirements are easily verified, both by
EPA and the general public. If the
described procedures do not, in
practice, provide for adequate and
effective public reporting, DENR’s
compliance with public reporting
requirements may be reexamined.
Should subsequent administrative or
judicial interpretations of Section Iii
broaden Its scope from that described In
the program submission or otherwise
Impair ImplementatIon of the public
reporting procedures. EPA may
reevaluate whether the existence of
Section 111 yet enables DENR to
adequately administer the NPDES
program.
Motives of Anonymous Tipsters. Rights
of the Accused, and Complainant Fear
of Reprisal
EPA does not dispute that some
complaints may be submitted with
questionable motives or that signed
complaints may often be more credible
than unsigned ones. “Crank” calls may
be from disgruntled neighbors or
business competitors. However, a
statute is not needed to eliminate the
problems associated with frivolous
calls. The DENR has professionally
trained staff capable of screening out
such calls, based on the information
provided or not provided. Such calls are
also possible from persons who do sign
their names.
The fact that the prohibition applies
only to the general public and not to
other governmental entities allows the
NPDES program to use information
referred to it by these entities. This
information may be provided as
problems the entities have identified in
the course of their duties (including
accepting referrals). It may also come
from problems Identified by
complainants to other entities about
their programs which contain
Information also applicable to the
NPDES program.
Regarding the rights of the accused,
the Sixth Amendment right to face
accusers applies in criminal cases when
the testimony of an informant Is to be
used in thai. However, If an informant’s
tip is independently confirmed by a law
enforcement agency and the testimony
of the informant is not needed at trial,
then any rights under this amendment
have not been affected,
Fear of reprisal may occur even in
situations where a person does not have
to provide a name, since in small
communities it might be fairly easy to
figure out or at least narrow down the
persons likely to have reported the
information. In addition, employees
may fear reprisal from their employers
should they report possible violations of
NPDES statutes, regulations, or permit
conditions. However, such fears may be
diminished by the fact that SDCL 34A—
2—111 requires the Identity of the
complainant to be kept confidential.
Protection of Agencies and Regulated
Community/Favoring Special Interests
A frivolous claim may place a strain
on an orgathmtion trying to cooperate.
However, the potential for strain is
offset by the potential to promote the
general good which complaints may
provide the State in identifying and
correcting problems early on. Also, it
would seem that there would be few
Instances of complaints being merely
frivolous or harassing.
There is always the chance that
actions by governmental entities may be
misconstrued by the general public.
This is not a basis for determining a
program does not meet the requirements
for delegation. However, this is an issue
both the SDDENR and the EPA will be
sensitive to as they administer and
oversee the NPDES program.
The State of South Dakota Is a
sparsely populated state with relatively
few industries. Moreover, the existence
of overlapping business and personal
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 7 1 Tuesday. January u , 1994 / Notices
1539
ietworks provides an opportunity for
someone removed front a situation to
provide information instead of someone
concerned about retaliation from an
employer. South Dakota’s small
population and overlapping networks
may be productive sources of
information. These networks can work
to the advantage of the NPDES program
In that possible NPDES violations,
particularly those affecting surface
waters may be reported In connection
with information supplied to other
environmental programs. For example,
according to the DENR. the D 4R
Ground Water program has the lead on
spills and contacts the NPDES staff
when there Is a potential for surface
waters to be affected. The Mining
progjain will generally receive any tips
regarding mining problem spills/
discharges (e.g. cyanide) and share them
with the NPDES staff. Came Fish &
P&ksrecentlyreferreda 0ta
discharge without a permit to the DENR.
That agency also uses its own authority
when the discharge i in the area of a
fishery. AU of these programs are not
affected by the prohibition in SDCI.
34A—2—111 and, in the past, have
- ceived and forwarded complaints
1ch also related to NPDES-related
, ctIvitIes.
The concern expressed that
information may fall between the cracks
is a valid one. It is possible this could
occur litany process for receiving
information sources outside the
administering office. However, the
system established for investigating and
responding to complaints provides that
the IDENR will Investigate and respond
to all citizen complaints where a signed
complaint form has been received and
will investigate all complaints received
from other government agencies.
Conclusion
EPA determines that the procedure
South Dakota has established is
adequate to comply with the Clean
Water Act and with NPDES federal
regulations. South Dakota has
established a process to deal with issues
raised by the general public by
accepting signed complaints and being
required to keep the identity of the
source confidential and by referring
other complaints to another State
agency. The Governor, as a signatory to
the MOA. has committed to follow the
process for receiving and responding to
• itaij from sources outside the
ce NPDES program.
Though section 111 may not provide
an adequate program for public
reporting In other states or for other
programs. under the particular
circumstances of the DENR r4PDES
program. the state procedures are
adequate for the following reasons: (1)
South Dakota is not heavily
industrialIzed. (2) the prohibition
pertains only to water programs and not
other media programs. (3) the state is
sparsely populated for the most part. (4)
the right of entry ( 34 .A—2—46) is not
Impaired, (5) the prohibition provision
does not appear to be directly
enforceable by thschargers. and (6) the
State NPDES program retains the
authority to respond In emergencies (see
34A—2—68). to enforce against persons
causing pollution of waters (see 34A—2—
21). and to conduct investigations to
determine the responsible person for
causing a discharge which may cause or
has caused pollution of state waters (see
34A—2—71.1) regardless of the sourm of
information leading to these actions.
The situation In South Dakota-is such
that there are overlapping networks of
state agencies and there are active
environmental groups which will
Identify Issues on behalf of their
membership and of Individuals who
communicate Information end concerns
to their groups.
EPA notes that anonymous tips are
just. one source of complaints, albeit a
significant source. The statute does not
piece restrictions on any other sources
of Information or other activities than
those defined In 34A—2--40, .-44, and
EPA oversight includes an hotline
number (1—800—227—8917) to receive
complaints from all sources. Oversight
also includes monitoring the DENR
process and results from public
participation In compliance and
enforcement If there appears to be a
problem. EPA will revisit this aspect of
the program with DENR.
IL Penalty Authority
Section 402(b)(2)(B) of the CWA
requires an authorized state program to
have authority to inspect, monitor.
enter, and require reports to at least the
same extent as required by section 308
of the CWA. Section 402(b)(7) of the
CWA requires an authorized state
progratato have adequate authority to
abate violations of permits or the permit
program through penalties and other
means of enforcement EPA State
NPDES program requirements at 40 ( ‘R
123.27(8)(3)(i) provide that an approved
state program is to have the authority to
recover civil penalties for the violation
of “any NPDES filing requirement” and
“any duty to allow or cany out
Inspection, entry or xnomtoring
activities,” as well as for the violation
of any NPDES permit condition or any
regulation or order issued by the state
program director.
As outlined In EPA’s September 1,
1993, Federal Register notice and
August 27, 1993 newspaper notices,
South Dakota does not have direct
statutory authority to collect dvii
penalties, or criminally enforce, a
failure to comply with SDC 34A—2- .44
(reccrd .keeplng), 34A-2 -45 and -46
(inspection authorities). due to a lack of
citation to SDC. 34A—2—75 (penalty
provision) In these sections, However,
because the Department lof
Environment and Natural Resources)
can prosecute (both civilly and
aiminally) violations of permit
conditions and because it can set permit
conditions for recording, reporting.
monitoring, entry, and Inspection under
34A-2—40, It can enforce these statutes
for permitted facilities.
The Department can, with regard to
unpermitted facilities, obtain both the
records and entry for Inspections
pursuant to search warrants Issued on
the basis of the criminal provisions of
SDCL 34A—2—75 and the violation of
SDCL 34A-Z-38 (operating without the
required permit). Civil penalties for
failure to comply with SDQ. 34A—2-44.
-45. and —so by en unpermitted facility
are available only through violation of
on order issued by the Department
pursuant to SOCL 34A—Z--53.
A. Comments Favoring £xisting Penaity
Authority
The DENR and various members of
the regulated community expressed
opinions that the lack of a direct
suthority to Impose penalties for
violations of the cited statutes would
have little affect on the ability of the
State to exact penalties for failure to
comply with the statutes.
One commenter from the regulated
Community thought that no detrimental
effects would be expected and.
therefore, the system for collecting
penalties was adequate until such time
as the matter was corrected by the
legislative process. The Secretary of the
LIENR noted that the Attorney General’s
Statement indicated that reporting
requirements will be included in the
permit, and are therefore enforceable for
permitted facilities. As to unpermitted
facilities, the Secretary of the DENR
(who would be the party issuing orders)
stated that the DENR could issue an
nforcament order in a timely manner to
require any necessary reporting or
* . mpling and that the D JR could
tnforce these orders. The Secretary also
‘ited a recent water pollution
forcem.nt case settlement which
-4uded a penalty of $489,000 and was
w .omplished without the authority to
‘rce any NPDES condition or
.iremenl. He stated that deIe ation
-------
1540
Federal Re atar / Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tu day , January 11, 1994 1 NotIces
would oniy inaease the abilitiei of the
D R to enforce
envixonm nfal laws. Another state
agency noted that ft appears ‘
that the case where this EPA concern
would be applicable is for facilities that
are discharging without a permit and
not keeping records. For these facilities,
failure to have a permit would be a more
severe violation than the failure to p
records.”
One commenter thought that penalties
for items normally found in a permit
should not begin to a ue for an
unpermitted fat ilDy until after the state
Issues an order.
B. Comments Criticithrg Existing
Penalty Authority
Those who criticized the existing
authority were the pretreatment
coordinator for a municipal treatment
facility and one envbonmental group.
They questioned the ability of the
authority to stand up to judicial review
and the round-about means the D JR
would have to use to exer sa the
authority in colluirtlng penalties..
One ct mmmlter expressed the
opinion that the state’s authority to
collect penalties from unpermitted
facilities Is not clear, particularly In
light of the Freeman v. South Dakota
lawsuit In that case, the court found
that Mr. Freeman’s civil rights were
violated when, upon refusing State
health inspectors entry, he wen seived
with a closure order. The commenler
stated that the finding was made
because the citation under llcensuie
statutes failed to cite en enforcement
provision.
An environmental group Indicated
that the State’s roundabout legal
reasonfngto support Its authorityto
obtain records and entry to Inspect at
unpermitted facilities may be
overlooked by a judge faced with what
appears to bee clear failure to provide
for m ’im nrtl and civil sanctions for
re . wd -keeping or Inspection yj 0 b thmii
Specific penalty provision language
must be added to 34A—2—44. —45, and
-48 in order to comply wIth 40 R
l23.27 a)(3J(I).
Another environmental orgAnl ’trlrin
stated that the state should have direct
statut y authority to collect civil
penalties and to criminally enforce a
failure to comply with Sec. 34A-2-44.
They also noted that the MOA should
require South Dakota to adopt less
round-about methods to obtain records
and entry and to be able to do so
without the DENR having to Issue an
order. They believed that formal
Issuance of orders and search warrants
can take too much time.
( EPA’s Response to Comments on
Penally Authority
EPA’s authorization regulations
require dvii penalties to be recuvvrable
for the violation of any NPDES permit
condition; any NPDES filing
requirement; any duly to allow or carry
out Inspection, entry or monitoring
activities; or any regulation or orders
Issued by the Slate Director. See 40 CFR
123.27(a)(3)(j). The State ha s
demonstrated an adequate authority and
methodology for collecting penalties
from permitted and unpermitted
facilities. However, EPA would
recommend a legislative amendments to
34A—2 -44, —45, and —46 to define
failure to p1y with each as a
violation enforceable through 34A-Z- .
53. These amendments would allow a
more direct, and thereby more effective,
Implementation of the enforcement
program.
Adequacy of the Ability To Recover
Penalties
The State has shown that legal
medienl ms exist for exacting penalties
tied to permitted and unp wtted
facilities which fall to comply with
SDCL 34A—2—44, .-45, and —48. The
authorities used are not specifically
based on a violation of these statutes.
Howuvur , they do provide for ‘dvii
penalties to be recoverable’ for refusal to
allow or carry out inspection, entry or
monitoring activities, which Is what 40
R 123.27(a)(37(i1 requires.
The situation in Freeman v.South
Dakota does not apply to the Slate’s
authority to collect penalties for refusals
to allow the state to Inspect potAntlAl
water pollution violations. In that case,
State inspectors had summarily
terminated a campground’s license
because the campground’s operator
would not allow the state to Inspect
without a warrant. In Freeman, civil
rights were violated because the State
Inspectors lacked statutory enforcement
authority. In the Case of South Dakota
NPDES, SDDENR does have adequate
statutory authority to issue
arhnlnb4rutlve orders. The South Dakota
Attorney General has stated South
Dakota has adequate statutory authority
to Implement the program described..
Calculation of Penalties
%n.orance of the law is not an
argument for deferring pens ltiaq The
regulated community is notified through
public notice of the requirements for
permits, right of entry, etc. It is their
responsibility to be aware of these
requirements and be acoountable for
them from the time the requirements
become effective.
EPA agrees that the penalty for (ai i m
to hay, a permit might be more severe
than for a failure to p records by
Itself. However, both requirements are
normally available to the regulator in
taking enforcement actions. The
existence of a penalty for a discharge
without a permit does not, by itself.
offset the need for a mechanism to
collect penalties far failure to allow or
carry out inspection, entry or
monitoring requirements. As noted
earlier, such a mechanism exists.
Regarding the date at which a
violation begins. the State has asserted
that sdministratjve orders or search
warrants could be issued within one or
two days. Therefore, the number of days
of violation used to calculate penalties
for unpermitted facilities would be
almost the same as for permitted
facilities. In cases where a discharge
causes pollution of any waters of the
state, the penalty can be calculated for
each day the discharge o xurred as a
violation of 34A—2—21, subject to a
§ 34A—Z—75 order. The number of days
of violation is just one factor applied in
calculating penalties. The small
difference l.a the number of days of
violation between permitted and
unpermitted facilities could be offset b
the presence of other factors in
calculating and negotiating the final
penalty (e.g. the existence of another
violation .discharge without a permit).
Therefore, the Immediate revision of
SDQ. 34A-Z-44, -45, and -46 Is not
required. However, EPA does consider
such revisions desirable, so that the
State would have more direct remedies
for these violations.
ft should also be noted that EPA, in
Its oversight role, can take enforcement
action. Typically, EPA would send to
the State a Notice of Violation and give
the State 30 days to take action. lithe
State were not to take sufficient action,
Including not collecting a large enough
penalty, EPA could file an order and
collect penalties from the date the
violations started. Citizen suits are also
a means to assure appropriate penalties
are collected.
Conclusion
EPA finds that the penalty authority
and process for collecting penalties is
adequate and serves as a protection
Aojlinatnftnrompliance with water
pollution control law, rules, and
permits EPA’ s oversight role offers a
second level of protection. A third level
of protection Is offered by related
statutes, such as prohibiting discharges
which may cause or cause pollution of
waters of the state (see 34A—Z—21},
prohibiting discharge of waste or
polluta9ts without a permit (see 34A-2-.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 1994 / Notices
1541
36), and prohibiting reduction of
e dsting water quality (see 34A-2-22).
Therefore, the D R NPDES program
adequately meets the requirements for
recovering penalties.
III. Citizen Intervention
EPA’s September 1, 1993 Federal
Register and August 27, 1993
newspaper notices requested public
comment on South Dakota’s statutory
procedure for citizen Intervention In
administrative enforcement actions, as
required by 40 R 123 .27(d). South
Dakota has certified that It allows
intervention as of right In administrative
enforcement actions pursuant to SDCL,
Sec. 34A-10-2. It has indicated that
Sec. 34A—10—2, considered alone.
appears to grant merely “permissive
intervention”; that is, Intervention If no
other party objects). However. South
Dakota has also certified that 11 a citizen
is denied Intervener status In an
administrative case, he may file a
lawsuit In circuit cowl to have the court
order him to be named as a party in the
administrative proceeding, pursuant to
Sec. 34A—10- .5. Because of the
possibility for such a circuit court
proceeding, South Dakota’s Attorney
General construes SDCL 34A—10—2 to
allow mandatory Intervention In
administrative procedures. The
Memorandum of Agreement, a
document signed both by the State of
South Dakota and the EPA, states that
the SDDENR will allow intervention as
of right in dvii proceedings to at least
the same extent required by 40 G’R
123.27(d)(l) and shall not oppose
Intervention in administrative
proceedings as provided by § 34A-10-2.
A. Comments Favoring Existing
Intervent ion Procedure
Members of the regulated community
commented that the statutory procedure
afforded citizens an adequate right of
intervention. One specific comment,
made by a member of the regulated
community, was that the State
assurancein the MOA mnk 0 5 the citizen
right to intervention mandatory. This
commenter also noted that the Attorney
General Statement interprets SDCL
34A—10-2 to mean that the citizen’s
right to intervene Is mandatory.
B. Comments Opposing Existing
Thteivention Procedure
Environmental groups and Individual
citizens crltidzed the eidstlng
Intervention procedure and Its
application by the DENR.
1. Some coinmenters stated that
Intervention rights were not being
honored.
One environmental group stated that
It was ‘ ‘ especially concerned
about the problems posed * * by the
progressive subtle and not so subtle
deterioration of participation by citizens
and non-profit citizens organizations in
quasi.judiaal hearings.” It referred to
Individual citizens being Ignored at
public hearings, public documents
being unavailable for review and
comment before a contested case
hearing, and decisions beIng given little
publicity. One Individual commented
that at a public hearing in the Fall of
1992 ho “ * watched (and objected)
as B} ff Board members subverted the
rules of that hearing by allowing a
mining Industry lawyer take control of
the hearIng Board members allowed the
attorney to cross examine citizens as If
they were under oath when the citizens
were simply there to testify on their
own behalL The incidents are a matter
of record. They are also quill typical of
DENR.”
Mother environinentai group cited
Instances where It or Individual citizens
were excluded from permit
modification, remediation, and
negotiation processes.
Mother Individual citizen’s letter
provided comments whlch” *
centerfed) on the State of South Dakota’s
continued and specific efforts to stifle
and judicially dissuade individuals
from pursuing environmental Issues.
They concluded that ‘iOibviously, the
state of South Dakota has little
understanding of citizen participation
and rights to Involvement”
“Politically powerful applicants
regularly ‘short-circuit’ the contested
case procedure with active help from
the Attorney General and the DENR. In
several controversial cases DENR
and/or the applicant have used various
procedures to obtain ‘quickie hearings’
designed to thwart due process and a
fair hearing. One state board, at the
urging of the Attorney CeneraL *
carved out a novel justification, citing
SDCI. 1—22—27, that allows applicants
the right to short.circuit the contested
case process.”
“A circuit court remedy for denial of
Intervenors status Is NO remedy because
of expense and unwieldiness.”
2. Commenters expressed the concern
that public interest and environmental
groups must be represented by an
attorney at contested cases hearings.
An environmental group stated that
D 4R has denied them Intervention In
administrative hearings if they are not
represented by an attorney. They noted
that the State’s application does not
dearly state whether an attorney Is
required.
“Public Interest groups must be
represented by an attorney at contested
case hearings. Since hardly any of us
can afford such, the public interest has
rarely been represented in the past few
years.”
“The Board (of Minerals and the
Environmentj [ bias so decreed, and the
state Attorney General’s office has
rendered an opinion of agreement that
only attorney’s (sic) can present cases
before the Board If the group appearing
before the Board Is an association,
corporation, or other similar entity. The
Board has effectively prevented
environmental groups from appearing
before the Board without the
considerable expense of an attorney. It
Is our understanding that other State
Boards do not have the attorney
requirement”
C. EPA’s Response to Comments
Concerning Intervention Procedure
EPA has determined that DENR
Intervention authority and procedures
adequately meets the requirement of 40
R 123.27(d). CitIzen intervention
rights will be honored, There Is
currently no requirement for public
Interest groups to be represented by
attorneys at NPDES contested case
proceedings.
Honoring Intervention Rights
The great majority àf the comments
expressing concerns with the
application of Intervention rights
pertained to non-NPDES State program
topics (e.g. mining, sewage ash,
landfills) and a State board (Board of
Minerals and Environment) which will
not administer the NPDES program in
South Dakota.
South Dakota statutes, rules, and
program documents provide citizen
access to information. SDCL 1—27—i
specifically allows for open inspection
of all records and documents during
normal business hours. The MOA (page
7, Item E.1) provides public aocess to
NPDES files during normal working
hours. Public notice of proposed general
permits, major permits, and
pretreatment program applications is
pro ded for in the MOA (page 7, item
E.3) and the Program Description (page
9). South Dakota Rule 74:03:13:02
requires the DENR to public notice any
contested case hearing requested and
the reasons for the hearing. The public
notice of any proposed settlement of a
State enforcement action is required
only when the authority which allows
Intervention as of right is not
demonstrated (see 40 CFR 123.27(d)).
‘The Attorney General Statement
construes the language of SDCL 34A—
10—2 concerning Intervention to be
-------
1542
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 7 / Tuesday 1 January ii , 19941 Notices
mandatory. In addition, both the MOA
(page 3. item A.13) and the Prugrurn
Description (page 19) allow for citizen
Intervention as of right In ciVil
proceedings equivalent to that required
by 40 C R 123.26(d) (11.
Representation by an Attorney
The South Dakota Bar Association has
issued an ethics opinion that
appearance before administrative
agencies on behalf of corporations or
ass ’ dations must beby licensed
artcr ys. The niling concernrng
representation at contested case
hearings was in reibrence to contested
case hearings held by the Board of
Minerals and Environment. The
requirement for representation by an
attorney does not appear to apply to the
NPDES program. However, even in the
case of the Board of Minerals and
Environment, the Board does not
exclude individual citizens from full
participation at hearings, but applies the
requirement for legal representation of
organizations.
The DENR darified in an addendum
to the MOA regarding the NPDES
program that individual members of the
general public and nonprofit
organizations shall not be required to be
represented by attorneys In NPDES
program contested case hearings to the
extent allowed by the State Bar
Association and the State Supreme
Court. EPA believes that a state bar
assodatlon does not have the authority
to direct the policies and procedures of
a state agency which derives Its
authority from the state legislature. EPA
does recogmzs that a state bar
association can constrain the activities
of individual attorneys employed by a
state agency. In its oversight role, EPA
will monitor future rulings of the South
Dakota Bar Association and the State
Supreme Court regarding citizen
intervention and whether
environmental organizations are being
required to be represented by attorneys.
If either of these ocour, EPA will
consider the impact these niuings and
requirements have on the viability of the
State’s NPDES enfoicernent program.
Conclusion
EPA has determined that D IR
intervention authority and procedures
adequately meets the requirement of 40
G R 123.27(d).
IV. Jurisdiction Over indian Country
As outlined in EPA’s September 1,
1993 Federal Register and August 21.
1993 newspaper notices, EPA withheld
from NPDES program authorization
consideration those lands which were in
Indian Country or for which there was
significant controversy over whether or
not the laud was Indian Country. As
noted earlier, EPA provided copies of
South Dakota’s public notices to tribal
councils and tribal environmental
agencies. Tribal governments and
affected permittees were also provided
with copies of the list of perrnxtted
facilities which EPA would continue to
administer.
In withholding authorization for these
areas. EPA was not making a
detenninatlon as to whether or not
South Dakota had adequate jurisdiction.
This issue was considered deferred.
Nevertheless, a number of comments
were received regarding jurisdiction. No
comments were received from tribal
councils orthbal environmental
organizations.
A. Comments Regarding EPA ’s
Continued Administration of the NPDES
Pmgrnzn in Indian Country
One commenter, a member of the
regulated community, stated that EPA s
retaining authority within the identified
Indian Reservations should lighten the
load for SDDENR..
A number of cominenters however,
disagreed with EPAs administering the
program In Indian Country or land in
controversy. Some of the comments
were the following:
‘EPA Isassartinga
jurisdictional authority which it cannot
for regulatory and resource reasons,
carry out: the result Is inconsistent
environmental protection, and some
geographical areas left without
environmental protection’’ • If EPA
Insists that It carve out geographical
areas of the state which should not have
equal environmental protection, then I
want to make it very clear that the State
of South Dakota will further pux ie the
Issue of jurisdiction on non-Indian
lands within reservation boundaries.”
ro the extent that EPA retains
authority over facilities located on lands
other than retained Indian allotments.
we believe EPA Violates the holding
* ‘ (thatl exclusive tribal and federal
jurisdiction is limited to the retained
allotments’ • ‘We believe the better
policy, at least as it applies to former
reservation areas. Is to grant the State
authority unless the Thbe can show
authority fbr the dischargers being
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribe or faders! government.”
‘We feet South Dakota has
demonstrated its intent and ability to
administer programs fairly in the entire
state. Therefore, the SDDENR should
administer the NPDES program
throughout the State. The department
will need to work closely with tribal
governments. Splitting the non-Federal
responsibilities could result In.
Ineffective protection of the waters of
the state.”
A state agency expressed concern that
the split in administering the program
would cause confusion.
B. EPA’s Response to Comments
Regarding Jurisdiction Over Indi a n
Country
As noted in the public notIce, EPA
made the decision to withhold
authorization to administer the NPDES
program on “Indian Country.” as
defined In 18 U.S.C 1151. which
Includes lands inside reservation
boundaries and trust lands found
outside reservations. For the most part,
these include nine Federal Indian
reservations:
1. Cheyenne River Indian Reservation
2. Crow Creek Indian Reservation
3. Flandreau Indian Reservation
4. Lower Brule Indian Reservation
5. Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
6. Rosebud Indian Reservation (includes
Todd County and portions of
Millette and Gregory Counties)
7. Sisseton Indian Reservation
8. Standing Rock Indian Reservation
9. Yanktan Indian Reservation.
This Issue was deferred until a
satisfactory demonstration of
jurisdiction over Indian Country is
made by the Stale of South Dakota or
another governmental entity. Otherwise,
delegation of any part of the program
would have to be held up pending a
lengthy resolution of this complicated
Issue.
While a number of comments were
received regarding jurisdiction, this
issue Is deferred until such time as an
appropriate analysis is made of the
State’s authority to assert jurisdiction
over lands for which EPA La retaining
jurisdiction. EPA will specifically mail
copies of public notices of future
assertions to those who provided
comments, so they may make their
comments during the appropriate public
comment period.
It should be noted that EPA has
prepared a list of NPDES-permitted
facili ties which will continue to be
administered by EPA.. Operators or
owners of facilities subject to the
NPDES program which am located on
these Lands should continue to send
original or renewal permit applications
to EPA. They will be notified of this at
the time all perraittees are notified of
the program authorization decision.
Persons with questions as to whether
their facilities may be iii Indian Country
are advised to consult with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and the EPA.
-------
Federal Register! VoL 59 , No. 7 / Tuesday, January
11, 1994 ! Notices 1543
V. Pretreatment Prugrum
A state pretreatment program must
meet the requirements of 40 C R
403.10(0 before being approved for
program administration by the A.
Under 40 R 403.l0(fl(1)(i) and
403.3(j), an approved state program
must have the authority to require
industrial users to comply with
pretreatment standards for specific
industrial subcategories, as established
by A regulations in 40 CFR. Chapter
I. Subchapter N, ‘Effluent Guidelines
and Standards.” When South Dakota
submitted Its proposed program to EPA.
subchapter N had not been incorporated
into the State program. However,
incorporation was approved at the July
28. 1993. public hearing of South
Dakota Water Management Board and
became effective on September 5, 1993.
A. Comments Regarding the
Pretreatment Program
One commentel, a pretreatment
program manager, expressed concerns
and raised questions regarding the
clarity of the pretreatment program
procedures and the level of resources
needed by the DENR to administer the
pretreatment program:
“1. I feel D R must elaborate and
develop a procedure for entering into a
joint powers agreement with a
municipality in order for D 4R to run
a municipal pretreatment program.
There is nothing in the submission that
indicates the extent to which DENR will
administer the program, especially If a
large municipality requests the
Department run their program.
2. Does DENR have the authority to
flatly refuse to administer a municipal
pretreatment program?
3. If DENR issues a SW !) Permit to a
POTW and mandates the development
of a pretreatment program, can the
POT%V In turn request the State to
administer the program? If so. what are
the procedures for requesting that D JR
administer the program?
4. Assuming the State becomes
delegated, what is the tlmeframe for
previously approved pretreatment
prograinsto submit notice to the D ’JR
that the POTW wishes to continue
administering the program?
5. I honestly feel that if ONE of the
larger POVW’s (sic) request that DENR
administer their pretreatment program,
along with all of the other smaller
POTW pretreatment responsibilities the
state will assume, the Department will
not have enough personnel to
adequately administer this program.”
A second commenter proposed that
the following be added to the
administrative rules:
“74:0326—A POTW that intends to
discharge wastewater tea separate
POTW which is under a different
authority must submit a request for
approval to the Secretary at least 90
days prior to discharge. The Secretary
must evaluate the impact of industrial
user wastes on contributing POTW and
receiving PO .
The Secretary may choose one of the
fOllOWing options to protect both
POTWs from significant Industrial user
discharges:
(1) RequIre contributing jurisdiction
to establish a Pretreatment Program In
accordance to (sic) the requirements in
40 GR Part 403.8(a) and the State
provide direct oversight over program.
(2) State implement a POTW
Pretreatment Program in lieu of the
contributing jurisdiction as set forth In
40 ( R Part 4 03.8(e).
(3) Control all significant Industrial
users in the contributing jurisdiction
directly by conditions established In
74.1)3:26:03 to 74:03:26:14 and the State
of SD Pretreatment Program.”
B. EPA’s Response to Comments
ARSD Section 74:03:26:02 and
Section V of the Program Description
provide for development of a oint
powers agreement in cases where a
POTW required to develop a
pretreatment program has requested the
DENR to assume pretreatment program
requirements. This request is to be made
within 30 days of notification that the
State has been delegated the
pretreatment program or within 30 days
of the facility being notified that It Is
required to develop a pretreatment
program. In the latter case, this
notification would be made either at the
time of Issuance of an NPDES permit
with such a requirement or the
conclusion of an enforcement action
Lmposlng such a requirement.
EPA believes that any POTW can
request that the State assume
responsibility for a local pretreatment
program, subject to implementation of
an agreed-upon joint powers agreement
It appears that the DENR may refuse to
administer a program only if no joint
powers agreement is developed within
forty-five days after notification of
intent by the POVvV.
EPA agrees that the D ’JR should
provide more detailed instructions to
POTWs regarding the joint powers
agreement process. This can be done at
the time the POTW requests the DE2JR
to administer Its pretreatment program,
since the procedures may vary
somewhat depending on the extent and
content of local legal authorities and
procedures at each facility when the
request is received.
The DENR will be required upon
authorimtion to supply whatever
resources are necessary to ensure that
all pretreatment program activities are
fully implemented and enforced. DENR
staff are knowledgeable about the
resources required to implement a
program. SDCL. 34A—2—120 provides for
the DENR to collect annual fees from,
not only the POTW for which it
administers the pretreatment program
($35,000), but each pretreatment
industrial user ($800 plus up to $1,600
per process line for analytical testing).
These foes, plus any legislative
appropriations, would be the financial
basis for DENR administering the
overall state pretreatment program and
Individual programs with which it has
joint powers agreements.
Regarding the proposed rule changes.
EPA finds additional rules are not
needed to provide the State the
authority to require a POTW to develop
a pretreatment program or to request
that the D ’IR administer the program
in lieu of the POTW. The State is not
required to offer POTWs the option to
develop or have programs developed at
POTWa which do not meet the criteria
contained in 40 G’R 403.8(a), as seems
to be suggested by the second
commenter’s proposed rules.
Conclusion
The pretreatment program described
adequately meets the requirements of 40
CFR 403.10(fl. The Program Description
outlines the process for joint powers
agreements. EPA recognizes that the
specific steps for developing joint
powers agreements between the DENR
and an Individual POTW may vary
according to the situation at each
municipality. EPA will continue to play
a significant review and oversight role
In the development and implementation
of joint powers agreements.
VI. Endangered Species Act
In our August 25, 1993 letter to the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), EPA Initiated Informal
consultation under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) on EPA ’s
proposal to authorize the D R to
administer the NPDES Program under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act in
South Dakota. The FWS responded to
EPA on October 20, 1993. EPA
responded to that letter with a letter on
November 19, 1993 describing
permitting and variance procedures and
providing a biological assessment of the
impact of program authorization on
endangered and threatened species in
South Dakota delineated in the IWS
October 20th letter. The November 19th
letter also stated that EPA believed that
-------
1544
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday , January 11, 1994 / Notices
the delegation would have no effect on
the listed species. Responding In its
November 30. 1993 letter to the EPA,
the FWS indicated that it could concur
with our no adverse effect finding If
EPA agreed to four conditions.
EPA and DENR staff met with staff at
the FWS South Dakota Field Office in
Pierre to discuss the conditions. Based
on that meeting, the EPA and DENR
agreed to these conditions, as follows.
FWS concurred on EPA ’s Finding of No
Adverse Affect on December 15, 1993.
The MOA between EPA and South
Dakota on the administration of the
South Dakota NPDES program
addressed these conditions,
1. In each Individual public notice or
variance, the State shall make an initial
determination of effect on all federally
listed endangered and threatened
speaes that may occur in the project
area of influence.
• This information will be provided
to the Service as well as to the EPA with
sufficient time to review and, if
necessary, provide comments, as
reflected in the Memorandum of
Agreement signed between EPA and the
State of South Dakota.
• The State will communicate with
the Service, on a periodic basis, on the
permits that it will be Issuing. The
Service will work with the State to
Identify those permits for which there
are species in the project area. -
2. If It Is determined by the State that
the indlvlduai permit or variance to the
permit provided to the Service may
adversely affect any federally listed and/
or proposed endangered and threatened
species, the State will work with the
Service to eliminate the adverse affect,
3. If the Service does not concur with
the State’s “no affect” determination,
the State will work with the Service to
eliminate the adverse effect.
4. 11 any adverse effects cannot be
eliminated, the permit application or
variance will be held In abeyance and
the EPA, with their oversight
responsibilities, will require
consultation with the Service, alter EPA
has completed the formal objection
process and the permit has reverted to
EPA for issuance.
A. Comments Concerning Thformotion
Needed and the Consuitotzon Ptocess
One environmental organization
urged EPA to engage in formal
consultation with the FWS pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. Another environmental group
questioned whether EPA had complied
with requirements to consult with the
FWS and with the State Caine, Fish, and
Parks Department.
B. EPA ’s Response to Comments
The EPA successfully completed
informal consultation with the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service, as desaibed above.
Therefore, there was no need to engage
in the formal consultation process.
VU. Overall Delegation Issues
EPA received a number of public
comments regarding the overall
capability and intent of the D ’(R to
administer an authorized NPDES
program.
A. Comments Regarding the Benefits of
Delegation
1. Many commenters praised the
capabilities, competency, knowledge,
and past performance of the D 4R stalL
we have relied on the South
Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural resources as a resource for.
questions and concerns we have had
with the NPDES program. We have
found the DENR to be staffed by a group
of well-informed professionals
dedicated to the enhancement of water
quality. Their guidance and advice have
always been valuable *
“The DENR has established itself as a
very competent departnien and has a
very positive working relationship with
a variety of industries within the state.
The D JR will be very effective In
administering and enforcing the NPDES
program for the State of South Dakota
• we haven’t always agreed with
DENR on our positions, but let rae say
clearly we have always been treated
very fairly.” “To me, the State seems
very capable of making decisions and
taking action, while at the Federal level,
response does not occur with
promptness.”
“We are aware of the efforts the
Department made prior to and during
the 1992 State Legislative session to
secure funding needed to upgrade staff
capability to take over management of
the NPDES program.”
“ environmental regulations are
best administered at the state level.
State administration provides both the
permittee and the regulator better
opportunity for face to face
communication and for better
understanding of the specifics of an
operation through regular inspections.
Administration and enforcement are
both enhanced by having the regulators
in close proximity to the regulated
facilities.”
2. Numerous commenters emphasized
the advantages of regulation by an
agency actually in the State. Comments
included the following:
“EPA technical staff are normally
available by phone only, while state
staff are frequent visitors to the area a
are available for valuable on-site
assistance a a Our experience in
working with (a delegated state
regarding other facilitiesj has been one
where positive environmental benefits
have been achieved in an efficient,
timely manner. We deal directly and in
person with all the regulatory people
involved, which drastically reduces the
questions of interpretation, improves
timeliness of permit compliance and in
the end provides quicker, effective
solutions to environmental problems.”
“I believe that delegation of the
NPDES program for regulating the
discharges of pollutants into waters
within the State will mean a more
effective operation on both a
programmatic and cost basis.”
“We are as concerned for the
environment of our employees as much
as anyone else is, but we have a desire
for cooperation rather than dictation.”
“I believe a program administered by
the state of South Dakota, with regional
offices in efforts to help industry clean
up our environment, should we be
polluting it, would be a tremendous
benefit to all manufacturers.”
“Having the answers in state and
accountable to South Dakotans will
enhance businesses’ ability to comply.
“(The State Feedlot Program
Regulation Reviewj a * Committee
concluded that State management of the
NPDES program was needed to
accomplish effectIve regulation of
feedlot wastes In South Dakota.”
“The National Performance Review
recently cited recommendations to
aeate a system of program delivery that
works better and costs less. The very
first recommendation (EPAOI)
specifically states: ‘Improve
Environmental Protection Through
Increased Flexibility for Local
Government’, The United States
Environmental Protection Agency has a
real opportunity today to act on this
recommendation by approving South
Dakota’s applicationi’
“There are several reasons why the
Legislature supported this (Second
Century Environmental Protection I Act:
—State administration of the federal
program would enhance econonuc
development;
—Improved coordination would exist
between local and state governmental
agencies; and
—The state would better safeguard the
public health, safety, welfare and the
environment of this state through a
customer service approach.”
B. Comments Opposing Authorization
A number of commenters identified
problems associated with delegation.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 7 / Tuesday. January 11, 1994 / Notices
1545
‘TIn public participation issues and
ther areas:
“If Iprogram authorizatloni were to
happen, South Dakota citizens. although
they might not know it. would be
without protection.”
“D R’s activities last year
demonstrate clearly the agency’s
tendency toward advocacy for, rather
than regulation of, the entities it Is, by
law, required to oversee a a .• (This
groupi seeks denial of state delegation
until the philosophy of DENR changes
from that of advocate for the regulated
community to one of regulator.” An
environmental group criticized the
state’s commitment to enforcement An
environmental group requested that
EPA require monitoring data to be
submitted and housed at D JR. They
also suggested that Issued and denied
permits require equivalent levels of
clearances.
C. EPA’S Response to Comments on
Overall Authorization Issues
EPA noted and considered all public
comments considering the overall
advantages and disadvantages of
approving the NPDES program
administration by the State of South
‘kota.
. ,4any of the comments reflected the
advantage of State program approval
which the Clean Water Act envisioned:
the program can be administered more
effectively closer to the regulated
community when the agency and its
staff are competent and committed to
protecting the environment and public
health.
Resources to be used meet the
minimum requirements of the NPDES
program as it now exists. The State
would be responsible for devoting the
resources needed to maintain this
program and implement additional
requirements, as they occur.
EPA’s responses to public
participation Issues are found under the
sections on “Unsigned Complaints” and
“Citizen Intervention”.
EPA typically does not require
submission of monitoring data other
than discharge monitoring reports
(D s) when It administers the NPDES
program in a state. Therefore, it does not
require an approved state to do so.
It appeais that there are equivalent
levels of clearance for permit issuance
end denial. In both cases, the Secretary
makes that decision. This is noted in the
flow chart on page 9 of the Program
Des iptlon .
Conclusion
The State of South Dakota has
demonstrated that It adequately meets
the requirements for program
authorization as defined In the Clean
Water Act, 40 CFR part 123, and 40 QR
part 403. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service concurred with the EPA “no
adverse affect” determination regarding
program authorization. The State
Historic Preservation Office concurred
with the EPA “no effect” determination.
This authorization does not include the
sludge management program.
At this time, EPA is withholding
authorization to administer the NPDES
program on Indian Country located
within South Dakota, including lands
for which there Is significant
controversy over whether or not the
land Is Indian Country.
Federal Register Notice of Approval of
State NPDES Programs or Modifications
EPA must 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 is to
announce the approval of South
Dakota’s authority to atlniinister the
NPDES permit program. Including
regulation of federal facilities and
issuance of general permits and to
adminicter the pretreatment program.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STAtUS
Aoo eb

NPDES per-
m4 program
App ,ed to

—
State
pretreatment
program
—
generai por-
mra pro-
gram
Ataban
Arkansas
Caidornia
C orado.---
--
De laware
Georgia
l$awas
Ilhnoia.
In ana -
Iowa -
Kansas. - .
Kentucky
-
Mdugan
Minnesota
Mississ Ippi
Mussoufl
Mon a
Nebraska —.
Ne de --
New Jersey —
New York
Ne Ca rna
-_ Dakota -
too.
Oregon
P_ia -
Rhode Is land..
South Ca
10/19/79
11101186
05 (14/73
03/27175
04101174
06/28/74
11/28174
10/23/77
01101/75
08/10/78
06t2 8 174
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17173
06/30/74
05/01174
10/30/74
06/10174
06/12/74
08116175
04113/82
10/28(75
10/19/75
06/13/75
03/11174
06130(78
99/17/84
06110/75
10/19/79
11101/86
08106/78
01/09/89
12/08/80
06/01/79
09/20 ( 79
12/06178
08/10/78
08128/85
09 )30/83
11/10187
12/09178
12 1 09(78
01128 /83
06 / 26179
06/23(81
11102/79
08/31178
04113/82
06/13/80
09/28/84
01)22/90
01/28/83
03/02179
06)30178
09/17/84
09)26 / 80
10119/79
11/01/86
06/03/81
03/12/81
08/12/83
06103/81
09)30 1 83
09/30185
04116/85
07 /16179
08113/82
05/03/81
09/07/84
04113/82
06/14182
07)27 / 83
03/12181
09/17184
04109182
06)26191
11101/88
09 89
03/04/83
03110/92
10123/92
01/28/91
09/30/91
01104184
04102/81
08112/92
11/24/93
09/30/83
09/30/91
11/29/93
12/15187
09127/91
12/12/85
04129183
07/20/89
07/27/92
04113/82
10/15192
01/28/90
08/17/92
02/23192
08/02/91
09/17/84
09/03192
-------
1546
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 7 I Tuesday, January 11, 1994 / Notices
STATE NPDES PRoGRAM STATUS—COntinUed
AT Sd
NPOES per-
m program
A mvedte
erai tacat bes
A d
pretreaveetit
program
=
rmta pro-
gram
South Dakota — -_._ . .._._-
Tennessee ....... ._.. ..._..__—. —.. .............--———
Utah .______ -— •___.. ...__ -
Vemiont - . —. — —* —__________
Wg n Is lands. —_____________
12130193
12 / 2 6 /fl
07107187
03/11 /74
06 /30176
03131115
11114173
05/10182
02/04/74
01/30/75
40
12130/93
09/30186
07/07181
.________
._. —
02109182
-—
05/10182
11/28/79
05/18/81
35
12130193
08110/83
07101187
03/16/82
.. .
04 /14189
09/30/86
06/10/62
12 / 24 /80
28
12/30/93
04/18/91
01107157
08126/93
05/20/91
09 /26/89
05/10/82
12/19/88
09/24/91
39
Vispma -. ... — —
Washington —-__________________
West Virglraa — -
W lsaxnin —______________ . . — — — — --
Wyorrtng. .. —
Totals
Number of Fully Authorized Programs
(Federal Facilities, Pretreatment.
General Partnils)=28
Review Under Regulatory Flexibility
Act and Executive Order 12888
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexthility Analysis for all rules that
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of entities. The
proposed approval of the South Dakota
NPDES program does not alter the
regulatory control over any Industrial
category. No new substantive
requirements are established by this
action. Therefore, because this notice
does not have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of small entitles, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
needed.
On October 12, 1993, the Office of
Management and Budget exempted this
Agency action from the requirements of
Executive Order 12868.
Dated: December 30.1993.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting RegienalAdmlnistrator.
En’vuonmental ProwctloaAgency Reg/on
v
(FR Doc. 94—493 F Iled 1—1044; 8 45 aral
an am neat
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
January 5. 1994.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to 0MB (or review and
clearance under the Papetwork
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, inc., 2100 M Street. NW., suite
140. Washington. DC 20037. (202) 857—
3800. For further information on this
submission contact Judy foley, Federal
Communications Commission. (202)
632-0276. Persons wishing to comment
on this information collection should
contact Timothy Fain. Office of
Management and Budget. room 3235
NEOB, Washington. DC 20503. (202)
395—3561.
0MB Number7 3080-0093.
Title: Application for Renewal of
Radio Station License in Specified
Services.
Form Number FCC Form 405.
Action: Revision of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (including small businesses).
Frequency of Response: Annually and
every decade.
Estimated Annual Burden: 540
responses; 2.25 hours average burden
per response; 1.215 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Uses: FCC Form 405 Is
used by all common carriers and
Multlpolnt Distribution Service non-
common carriers to apply for renewal of
radio station licenses. Section 307(c) of
the Communications Act of 1934 limits
the twins of common carrier radio
licenses to ten years and requires that
written applications be submitted for
renewal. Applicants granted
developmental and special temporary
authority are required to apply for
renewal In shorter intervals—usually
one year after date of grant and annually
thereafter. FCC Form 405 has bean
revised to Incorporate a certification
required by the Commission’s rules
Implementing the provisions of Section
5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988. Licensing Branches evaluate the
Information submitted; review the
particulars and conditions of the current
authorization; and take action to renew.
the license for a new term. If the
Information were not submitted, the
Commission would not be able to carry
out its responsibilities mandated by the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
Federal Communications Commission.
Willisra F. Caton.
Acing Secretwy.
[ FR Doc. 94—593 Filed 1—10—93; 8:45 ernl
LL IO COOS S?13-O5-
(RepoitNo. 16843
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
In Rulemaking Proceeding
January 4. 1994.
Petition for reconsideration has been
filed In the Commission rulemaking
proceeding listed in this Public Notice
- and published pursuant to 47 CFP.
1.429(e). The full text of this document
Is available for viewing and copying in
room 239, 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington. DC or may be purchased
from the Commission’s copy contractor
ITS. Inc. (202) 857—3800. OppositIon to
this petition must be flIed January 26.
1994. See § 1.4(b)(1) of the
Commisaions rules (47 G R 1.4(b)(1)).
Replies to an opposition must be filed
withIn 10 days after the thee for filing
oppositions has expired.
3U8.lECT Amendment of § 73.606(b)
Table of Allotments. TV Broadcast
Stations (Ridgecrest. California) (MM
Docket No. 92—246 RM-.8091).
Petition for Reconsideration
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Federal Communications Commission.
LeVers Manbaill.
Acting SeaeWa y
(FR Doc. 94—592 FIled 1—10-94: 8 45 arn
O 1LW4O Coat 12..OI—M
-------
Fedora] Register I VoL 59, No. I / Monday , January 3. 1994 I Notices
87
submitted comments to the = . The
has indicated that It will Issue
revised regulations in December 1993.
The USDA will continue its review
when It receives the revised regulations.
Along with the tentative
deterrnuiatjon, the USEPA announced
the availability of the application for
public comment and the date of a public
hearing on the application. The public
hearing was held at the USEPA Region
5 office In Chicago, flhinols, on
November 29. 1993.
The USEPA received public comment
concerning the tentative determination
of full program adequacy for Illinois’
MSWLF permit program. One
commenter asked whether the
regulatory flexibility found In 40 R
258.50(b) would be utilized by the State.
In the application, illinois Indicated that
the illinois rules do not provide far
suspension of groundwater monitoring
requirements by the Agency. However,
an operator may petition the — _ for an
adjusted standard from the regulations
of general applicability. In granting an
adjusted standard from groundwater
monitoring requirements, the IPCB may
consider Contnmlnsint, fate, and
transport requirements, as well as other
factors deemed relevant. An adjusted
standard must be justified and
consistent with applicable Federal law.
and It cannot result in environmental or
health effects significantly more adverse
than those considered by the IPCB In
general rulemaking.
C. Decision
After reviewing the public comment,
I conclude that illinois’ application for
adequacy determination meets all of the
statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Accordingly.
Illinois Is granted a determination of
adequacy for all portions of its
municipal solid wasta permit program.
Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that
citizens may use the citizen suit
provision of sectIon 7002 of RCRA to
enforce the revised Federal Criteria
independent of any State/Tribal
enforcement program. As the USEPA
explained In the preamble to the revised
Federal Criteria, the USEPA expects that
any owner or operator complying with
provisions In a State/Tribal program
approved by the USEPA should be
considered to be in compliance with the
Federal Criteria. See 58 FR 50978, 50995
(October 9, 1991).
Today’s action takes effect on the date
of publication. The IJSEPA believes it
as good cause under section 553(d) of
te Administrative Proceduzes Act, 5
U.S.C. 553(d), to put this action into
effect less than 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register. All of the
requirements and obligations In the
State’s program are already in effect as
a matter of State law, The USEPA’s
action today does not impose any new
requirements that the regulated
community must begin to comply with.
Nor do these requirements become
enforceable by the USEPA as Federal
law. Consequently, the USEPA finds
that It does not need to give notice prior
to mRldng its approval effective.
Compliance With Executive Order
12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this notice from the
requirements of section 6 of Executive
Order 12868.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
805(b),! hereby certify that this
approval will not have a significant
economic Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. It does not
Impose any new burdens on small
entities. This notice, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Authsrfty This notice Is issued under the
authority of section 4005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6946.
Dated: December 20, 1993.
Vsldus V. AtI , ,iIn,. ,
RegionaIAdmmnj eior.
(FR Dec. 93—32002 FIled 12—30—93; 8:45 aml
00
RL -482O-6J
State of Maryland’s Submiulon of a
Substantial Program Revision to its
Authorized National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NYDES) Program
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA);
ACTION: Correction.
SUMMARY: This document contains
corrections to the Maryland NPDESW
substantial program modification
ptabllshed Wednesday, November 10,
1993. (58 FR 59724). On page 59725, In
the first column under DATES, third
line, the date for providing comments
and/or requests for public hearing
published In the Federal Register was
December 5, 1993. In order to provide
for ample opportunity to comment, the
date for providing comments and/or
requests for public hearing is corrected
to read “thirty days from the date of this
notice.” A will continue to accept
public comment and requests for public
hearing for thirty days [ rein the date of
this notice.
DATES: Comments and/or requests for
public hearings must be received by
February 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES; Comments should be
addressed to Denise Hakowskl, U.S.
EPA, Region UI, 3WM55, 841 Chestnut
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Denise Hakowski at (215) 597—8242.
Dated: December 21, 1993.
Stenley I.. Leskaw,kl,
Acting Reglonal4dzninlstr eior,
Eimronmentoj Protection Agency Region ill.
(PR Doc. 93—32033 FIled 12—30—93; 8:45 ami
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
(Gsn. Docket No. 89-673; DA 93-15301
Private Land Mobile Radio Services;
Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Public
Safety Plan Amendment
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Chief, Land Mobile and
Microwave Division and the Acting
Chief, Spectrum Engineering Division
released this Order amending the Public
Safety Radio Plan for the Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area (Region 28). As a
result of accepting the amendment for
the Plan for Region 28, the Interests of
the eligible entitles within the region
will be furthered.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Betty Woolford, Private Radio Bureau,
Policy and PI”nning Branch, (202) 632—
6497.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Adoptet December 16,1993
Released: December 27, 1993.
By the ChleL Land Mobile and Microwave
Division and the Acting Chief, Spec m
Engineering Division:
1. The Private Radio Bureau and the
Office of Engineering and Technology,
acting under delegated authority,
accepted the Philadelphia Metropolitan
Area (Region 28) Public Safety nan
(Plan) on February 2, 1990, 5 FCC Rcd
3067 (1990).
2. By letter dated June 28, 1993, the
Region proposed to amend its Plan. The
proposed amendment would revise the
cunent channel allotments. The
Commission placed the letter in Public
Notice for comments due on August 27,
1993, 58 FR 40818 (July 30, 1993). The
-------
1993
-------
59724
- Federal Rngia*er I VoL 58. No. 215 / Wednesday. Noveedmr 10, 1993 I No1 s
unspecified l tlons in southern
Elorida and Champaign. flThiois.
Edhazardia aedis spores wiU be
maculated into ‘tOW 25 percent of the
water containers at each ’?est site. Test
sites will be isoLated from other
potential masqii a breeding areas to
minimize Edhazardia aedis spread from
the test areas Larvae, pupae and adult
mosquitoes (ta et and nontarget
speciesl will be exarruned for
prevalence end spread of infection.
Following the 6—month test period, the
conteiner (golf cait tzres) ’wiIl be
cleansed with ‘sodrem h7pochlorite to
kill the Edhazartho aed,s
Dated September 20 993
UenraLCuQeezi.
AciingDur. .RegisSzcX oa J1 zu a. O ke
of Peshade Progren*s
1FR Doc. 93-27706 Fded ii-q-ga s 4s l
(OPP—18090e: FR!. 1742-31
Racetpt al Appt oon t ot Emerqeecy
Exemption to an. Hym ;
Solicitation at Pi lsc Com it
AGENCY: Envirogmvni a4 Prot t iOn
Agency (EPAI.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMAn EPA has received a speclic
exemption request from the \Vyoining
Department of Agriculture (hereafter
referred to as the Applicantl Tar use
of the fung cida Tachigaron 70 WP
lysnexazol as a seed treatment to
cuutru ( sugarbeet seedling disease
caused by Aphanomyces cochbo,des. If
approved. applicalkon olbysnexazol
would occur in Wyoming and the
treated su arbeet seed would be planted
in Minnesota and North Daketa. In
accordancewrth 40 (YR 166 24, EPA is
soliating public commem befwe
making the decision whether or not to
grmtt the xviuptJofl.
OATES Comments must be received on
or before November28, 1993.
AODpr. Pe Th escn e of wnttan
comments. bearing the identification
notation “OPP—1BO908. ’ should be
submitted by mail to Public Response
and Human Resource 8 ranch. Field
Operations Division (7506C) . Office of
Pesticide Programs. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Si. SW,
Washington. D.C. 20460. In person.
bring comments to: Rni. 1128. Crystal
MaIl 12. 1921 JefTeTson Davis Highway.
Arlington, VA. Information submitted in
any comment concerning this notice
may be claimed confidential by marking
any part or all of that information as
“Confidential Business lnf.orznauoxa.”
Information so marked will not be
disdosad exc p in aa zidanca with
procedurus sat faith in 40 (YR past 2.
A copy of th.cormm.na that 4 ont
contain Clm8dez2trel Besinesa
hfurm uinn must be provided by the
submitter far aclusion in the public
record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice. All written
coal znenLs filed pursuant to this notice
will be available (or public inspection in
Rm. 1128. Crystal Mall #2. 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway. Arlington. VA.
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, except legal holidays.
con U ThER III ORMATION CONTACT: By
mail: Larry Pried, Registration Division
(7505W , Oftice of Pesticide Programs,
Ennmnmerizal Protection Agency, 401
M St.. S W., Wasfuagten. DC. )480.
Office location and telephone number
6th Fl r, Crystal Station I. 2800
Jefferson Davis Highway. Arlington. VA
222.02. (7 t—308— .a32a .
SUPPtEMEKTAnY iNFOA kflON: Pursuant
to section i of the Federal insecticide.
Fungicide. and Rodenticide Act (FWRA)
(7 U.S C. 1369), the Adminestrator may.
at her 
-------
Federal Register_/ Vol. 58. No. 216 I Wednesday. November 10. 1993 / Notices
59725
. ccordingly. EPA requests public
omment and is providing notice of an
pportunity to request a public hearing
r the submitted regulation pursuant to
,, CER 123.62(b) and part 25. EPA seeks
blic comments on whether to approve
disapprove the revisions to
and’s authonzed NPDES progrem.
:od a public hearing will be held if
icre is significant public interest based
n the requests received. Copies of the
.i rvland Regulation Revisions are
.Railable for public inspection as
ndicated below.
DATES: Comments and/or requests for
public hearing must be received before
December 5, 1993.
iDORESSEES: Comments should be
iddressed to Denise Hakowski. U.S.
i-PA. Region 111. 3WM55. 841 Chestnut
street. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
:9107.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATtON CONTACT:
Denise Hakowski. (215) 597—8242. at the
ioove address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAfl01: Section
•,o of the Federal Clean Water Act
:CWA) created the NPDES program
under which the Administrator of EPA
may issue permits for the discharge of
pollutants into the water of the United
States under conditions required by the
CWA. Section 402(b) allows states to
assuineNPDES program responsibilities
upon approval by EPA. On September 5.
1974. Maryland received approval from
EPA to assume the NPDES program; the
S;ate then received the authority to
3d minister the following NPDES
irograins 6789on the dates indicated:
ne Pretreatment Program on September
10. 1985. the Federal Facilities Program
on November 11, 1987; and the General
°ermits program on September 30, 1991.
EPA has issued regulation in 40 CFR
:art 123 that establishes the
requirements for NPDES State Programs.
Section 123.62 establishes procedures
for revision of authorized NPDES State
Programs. Under § 123.62(a), a state may
•rntiate a program revision and must
eep EPA informed of proposed
nodifications to its regulatory authority.
n June 1993, the State of Maryland
submitted its regulation revisions far
formal review by EPA. Under
123 62(b)(1), a state program submittal
complete whenever the State submits
‘ich documents as EPA determine are
“ressary under the circumstances. In
“i’, instance, EPA has determined that
Oe state submission is complete.
ciiOn 123.62(b)(2) requires EPA to
• sue public notice by publication in the
Federal Register and in newspapers
Having Statewide coverage, and to
provide a period of public comment of
it least 30 days whenever the Agency
determines that a program revision is
substantial. EPA has determined that
the Maryland Regulation Revision,
which is described below, constitutes a
substantial revision to Maryland’s
NPDES program. Section 123.62(b)(2)
also requires EPA to hold a public
hearing regarding the proposed revision
“if there is significant public interest
based on requests received.”
The Maryland Regulation Revision
includes amendments to Regulation .07
under OMAR 26.08.03 that adopt
requirements for technology-based
whole effluent toxicity testing. The
revision also adopts Regulat on .02—1
under COMAR 26.08.04. This revision
allows for the following: (1) A discharge
permit limits can, under limited
circumstances, be based on the
concentration in the intake water for
non-contact cooling water and. (2) a
one time allowance to address in ased
pollutant discharge in excess of
applicable water quality standards due
to corrosion and erosion in noncontact
cooling water condenser tubes. In most
cases, the discharger must commit to
replacing the condenser tubes with
tubes made from noncorrosive materials
within one five year discharge permit
cycle. At the close of the public
comment period (Including, if
necessary. the public hearing), the EPA
Regional Administrator, with the
concurrence of the Associate General
Counsel for Water and the Director of
the Office of Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance, will decide whether to
approve or disapprove the Maryland
RegulationRevision as a revision to the
Maryland NPDES program. The decision
to approve or disapprove will be based
upon the requirements of the CWA and
40 CFR part 123. The Maryland
Regulation Revision may be reviewed by
the public from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the
EPA office in Philadelphia. 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 Denise Rakowski
at the above telephone number or
address.
All comments or objections received
by December 5. 1993, as discussed
above, will be considered by EPA before
taking final action on the program
revision.
Please bring the foregoing to the
attention of persons whom you know
are interested in this matter. All written
comments and questions on this matter
should be addressed to Denise
Hakowskl at the above address or
telephone number.
Dated: October 29. 1993.
Alvin L Morria,
Actuig Regional Administrator.
Environmental Protection Agency. Region III.
(FR Doc. 93—27602 Filed 11—9—03, 8 45 aml
a uec coos
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMiSSION
(DA 83—1334; CC Docket No. 80-288)
Federal-State Joint Board to Convene
an Open Meeting Tuesday, November
16, 1993
Released: November 5. 1993.
The Federal-State Joint Board in CC
Docket No. 80—286 will convene an
open public meeting on Tuesday.
November 16, 1993. at 11 a.m. at the
New York Marriott Marquis Hotel.
Juilliard Complex. 5th Floor, 1535
Broadway, New York. New York. The
meeting will be held to consider a Joint
Board Recommended Decision
addressing Interim Rules for the
Universal Service Fund under part 36,
subpart F. of the Commission’s Rules.
Interested persons may attend the
meeting.
Additional information concerning
this meeting may be obtained from
Deborah Dupont, Common Carrier
Bureau. FCC, at (202) 632—7500. or Gary
Seigel, Common Carrier Bureau. FCC, at
(202) 634—1861.
Federal Communications Commission
William F. Citca.
Acting Secretnr/.
(FR Doc. 93—27804 Filed 11—9—93. 8 45 aml
ee.Lnea cOOS uiiz-oi-
(Repo,INO . 1884)
Petitions for Reconsideration of
Actions In Rulemaking Proceedings
November 5, 1993.
Petitions for reconsideration have
been flied in the Commission
rulemaking proceedings listed in this
Public Notice and published pursuant to
47 G’R 1.429(e). The full text of these
documents are available for viewing and
copying in room 239. 1919 M Street.
NW . Washington. DC or may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor ITS. Inc. (202) 857—3800.
Opposition to these petitions must be
filed on November 26, 1993. See Section
1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules (47
CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition
must be filed within 10 days after the
time for.flhng oppositions has expired.
Subject; Implementation of Sections of
the Cable Television Consumer
-------
33200
Fedaul Regi er I VoL 58, No 197 / Thursday, October 14. 1993 I Notices
Ell
The following eligibility req irenieu
apply to both the general solidtath,n
and targeted n r it (RPA4
Aondsm 4e and nonprofit lnmtutmna
located In the U.S.. and state or local
govern.znants are eligihie under all
existing auth , qt m1L Profit-making
6 rma are eligible only under cartam
laws, and then under restrictive
conditions, includmg the absence of any
profit from the project
Potential applicants who are
uncertain of their ellgihflfty should
study the restrictive language of the Law
governing the area of research Interest or
contact EPAa Grants Operations Branch
at (202) 280—9266.
Federal agencies and federal
employees axe not eligible to participate
in this program.
Review and Sel 4 ii .i
All grant applications are initially
reviewed by the Agency to daternune
their legal and adrrnni tn,dv
acceptability.
Acceptable applications are then
reviewed by an appropriate technical
review group. This review La des gnad to
evaluate end rank each prapoani
according to its scientific merit and
utility as a besis fir e nw Ahig
Agency approval or disapprovaL Each
review group La composed primarily of
non-EPA scientists. aagü ma e
economists who are eicpertl in their
respective disciplines. All reviewers are
proficient in the technical areas that
they are reviewing. The reviewers use
the following criteria In their reviews:
• Quality of the research plan
(including theoretical and/ar
experimental design. onginnilty. and
creativity).
• Qualifications of the principal
investigator and staff Including
knowledge of relevant sublect areas.
• Utility of the research, including
potontlal contribution to ntlfia
knowledge In thaenvirosmautal ares.
• Availabllityeed.dequecyof
facilities and equipment.
• Budgetary juztl&athsn—ln
particular nariflontion and cod requests
for equipment will be carefully
reviewed.
A eummary tatm m,t of the er4 in1R
review and re mendation of the
panel La provided to asc ii applicant..
FWIdIDB
responsihility of EPA. Grants are
selected on the basis of tghnfr .iI
program balance end budget.
Proprietary Information
By subm.i 1ng en appLication in
response to this solicitation, the
applicant grants EPA permieslon to
share the appllraltnn with technical
reviewers both within end outside of the
Agency. __
Applications containing pwprletary
or other types of cnnfidimnal
Inlormaiicm will be hnimedlataly
returned to the applicant without
review.
Funding Mechanism
For all general end targeted grants. the
hindixig yi rhanisi will consist ate
grant agr enz between EPA and the
Federal grant regulation 40 C7R
30.307 requires that all reclpient
provide a minimum of 5% of the total
project cost, which may not be taken
from Federal sources. OER will not
support a request for a deviation from
this requirement for any grant supported
by its Research Grants Program.
Contacts
For additional general information on
the grants program, applicants may call
(202) 260—7474. Applicants with
additional questions may contact the
appropriate individuals Identified in
Table L Their address Is: U.S.
Envixonazental Protection Agency.
Office of Explosatciry Research (8703),
401 M Street. SW. Washington. DC
20460.
TAaLE 1.—CONTACTS FOR ThE
GENERAl. SOUCrTATION
0 p
Contect
Phone

cod. 20
Biology ._..._.
ClwevPhyslcs
of Air.
ChairvPIiyshc
of Water/SoIL
En ieuflng —
S .u ....nI
Clyde Bishop —
Daren Pasii-
sysit
Lass Sway ...
Lamb Sweb —
Flobt
260-6727
260—2606
260—7453
260—7453
260.7473
Preeppilcntion assistance La available
upon request for potential Investigators
representing Institutions identified by
the Secretary, Depaituient of Education.
as Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) or the Hispanic
Assoaation of Colleges and Universities
(HACUs ).
The application Form SF—424,
instructions, subject areas, and review
procedures are the same as those for the
general grants program.
For further information concerning
Minority assistance, contact: Virginia
Broadway, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (8701). 401 M Street,
SW.. Washington. DC 20460. (2021 260—
7864.
Dated: October 5, 1993.
RebertL Papetti.
Ofrector. Research Grcnts Staff, Office of
&piorutoiy Research.
(FR Doc.. 93—2 5228 FlIed 10-13-43,3 .i5 aml
BaLD coca
IPRL-478 -1l
Proposed NPDES New Source General
Permit for the Western Portion of th
Outer Continental Shelf of the Gull of
Mexico (GMG390000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC11OM Notice of proposed NPDES
general permit and evmlahillty of
supplemental draft environmental
Impact statement.
SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 today proposes
to issue a national pollutant discharge
elimination system (NPDES) permit fcr
the western portion of the outer
continental shelf (OCSI of the C,ull of
Mexico. If issued as proposed. the
permit will regulate new sources in the
Offshore Subontegory of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Categr ry
located in and discharging pollutants to
federal waisTs In lease hlncks located
seaward of the aster boundary of the
territorial seas off Louisiana and Texas.
The effluent limitations of the proposed
permit are based on new source
performance standards (NSPS), ocean
discharge crulesia. and. for waste
streams not subject to the NSPS. EPA ’s
best jessionai judgment (BPfl on the
bes(i ve.ileble control technoi.ogy
economically achievable (SAT) and best
conventional teclxnoLo ( Sd ’ ). EPA has
prepared a supplemental draft
environmental impact statement
(SDELS) on proposed issuance of this
permit EPA Region 6 solicits comments
on its proposal and the SDEIS.
0Ai Written rmnnienta must be
received by November 29. 1993. The
Lafayette. Louisiana public meeting and
hearing wilibe held startlngat6 p.ni.
on November 16, 1993. The houston,
Texas public meeting and hearing will
be held starting at 6 p.m. cm November
17, 1993.
AOO1 3SES: Written comments should
be sent tc
Regional Administrator. EPA RegIon 6. 1445
?.oss Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202—2733.
Verbal comments may be submitted at
public meetIngs/hearings EPA Region 6
will hold at:
Holiday Can Holidoins. 2032 NE.. Eras geime
Thruway, Lafayette, Louisiana; and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 197 / Thursday. October 14. 1993 I Notices
53201
loliday Ian near Greenway Plaza. 2712
Southwest Freeway (US 59) Houston.
Texas,
FOR FURThER INFORMATION, CONTAC’T Ms.
Ellen Caldwell (6W—Pfl, EPA Region 5.
1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas, Texas 75202—
2733. Telephone (214) 655—7513. A
copy of the draft permit. an explanatory
fact sheet and/or the SDEIS may be
obtained from Ms. Caldwell. In
addition, the current administrative
record on the proposal is available for
examination at the Region’s Dallas
offices during normal working hours
after providing Ms. Caldwell 24 hours
advance notice. If only minor changes to
the SDEIS are necessary. the final
supplemental environmental impact
statement (FSEIS) will incorporate the
SDEIS by reference and include (1) A
revised and updated summary; (2)
revisions and additions to the SDEIS, (3)
EPA’s responses to comments: and (4)
EPA ’s preferred alternative Interested
parties should thus retain a copy of the
SDEIS for possible use in combination
with the FSEIS.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMA’flON: Pursuant
to section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(C ’ ,VA). 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United
States, the territorial seas, and the
contiguous zone are unlawful, except as
authorized by an NPDES permit issued
by EPA (or an EPA-approved state) in
accordance with CWA sectIon 402.33
U S C. 1342. Although EPA frequently
authorizes Such discharges through
NPDES permits issued to individual
facilities, it may. as here, choose to
authorize them through promulgation of
a general permit. The Agency’s use of
general NPDES permits is described at
40 G’R 122,28.
N PDES permits typically include
technology-based effluent lunitations
regulating the quality of discharged
pollutants and conditions. e.g..
requiring recordkeeping and reporting.
necessary for enforcement of the permit.
Those limitations and conditions are
denved from EPA promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines including NSPS,
and, prior to promulgation of such
guidelines, the best professional
udgment (BPJ) of the Agency’s
technical stag Permits also contain
limitations assuring compliance with
state water quality standards or. as in
this case, to avoid degradation of the
marine environment
At 57 FR 54642 (November 19, 1992).
EPA Region 6 issued NPDES general
permit GMG290000 authorizing
discharges from existing sources in the
Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category to the
OCS of the Western Gulf Because EPA
.had then published no BAT or BC’T
• effluent limitations guidelines, the
technology-based limits of that peruut.
were established through BPJ.
Subsequently. the Agency promulgated
BAT guideLines. BC!’ guidelines, and
NSPS for the Offshore Subcategory at 58
FR 12504 (January 15. 1993) On August
4. 1993. EPA Region 6 proposed
modifications to NPDES permit
GMG290000 at 58 FR 41474, in part to
render it consistent with those new BAT
and BCT guidelines. Today, the Region
proposes a separate general permit
regulating discharges from “new
sources” in the Offshore Subcategory.
The OCS of the Western Gulf consists
of those federal waters seaward of the
outer boundary of the territorial seas
(i e, three mile limit) off Louisiana and
Texas The inner boundary of the OCS
area is based on CWA, not property
ownership Hence, some oil and gas
operators with leases from the State of
Texas, which claims ownership of the
sea bottom in part of the OCS area, will
be required to obtain coverage under the
new source permit after its issuance
“New sources” in the Offshore
Subcategory include oil and gas
development and production facilities
on which significant site preparation
has commenced since publication of the
NSPS, but tioes not include exploratory
activities. To resolve problems which
might result from the leg between
promulgation of the NSPS and new
source NPPES permitsi the NSPS
temporarily excludes from the
definition of ‘new source” new
development and production facilities
that would oth prwise be new sources if.
on the effective date of the NSPS. those
facilities were already subject to an
existing NPDES permit, e g..
GMG290006 See 58 FR 12456—12458.
When the proposed new source permit
is issued, such facilities will become
new sources and should apply for
coverage thereunder.
The draft permit includes technology
based effluent limitations derived from
the NSPS for wastestreams subject
thereto and BAT and BC !’ limitations
based on BPJ for wastestreams not
covered by NSPS. As required by CWA
sectIon 403(c) and implementing aitena
at 40 G’R part 125. subpart M, the draft
permit also includes water quality based
[ imitations protecting the marine
environment from degradation.
Proposed limitations for each covered
waste stream are summarized below’
Drilling Fiwda
In accordance with the NSPS. the
draft permit prohibits the discharge of
drilling fluids containing free oil
(monitored using the static sheen
method), containing stock barite with
more than 3 mgfkg of cadmium or I mg /
kg of m ’cury, cont’uning dieseL oil. or
having an LCSO aquatic toxicity value of
less than 30,000 ppm. For compliance
with CWA section 403(c), the draft
permit Limits the discharge rate to a
maximum of 1000 bblJhr and less near
areas of biological concern.
Since 1986. Region 6 has included
BPJ technology-based [ imitations in its
OCS general permits prohibiting the
discharge of oil based drilling fluids,
inverse emulsion drilling fluids, oil
contaminated drilling fluids, and
drilling fluids to which mineral oil has
been added (except as a carrier fluid.
lubricity additive, or pill). With
promulgation of the NSPS. Region 6 lost
its authority, under CWA section
402(a)(1), to impose these limitations on
a BPJ basis. It is nevertheless proposing
to include them in the new source OCS
permit on two different grounds. First.
the Region believes these conditions
may be necessary to assure compliance
with the ‘rio free oil” NSPS limitation
and thus proposes them as best
management practices authonzed by
CWA section 402(a112). Second, the
Region lacks assurance the discharges
authorized by the permit would not
degrade the manna environment in the
absence of these time-honored permit
conditions. Accordingly. it is also
basing its proposal to include them in
the permit on CWA section 403(c).
Drill Cuttings
The draft permit contains the same
limits for drill cuttings as for drilling
fluids, proposed on the same regulatory
bases. Independent toxicity testing of
drill cuttings is not required because the
Agency presumes the cuttings will have
the same toxic characteristics as the
drilling fluids adhering to them. If a
specific drilling fluid cannot be
dischaiged in compliance with the
permit. cuttings removed from that fluid
may not be tliwliitrged.
Produced Water
Based on the NSPS. the draft permit
imposes a monthly limit of 29 mgI! and
a maximum Limit of 42 mg/I on cii and
grease in discharged produced water.
To implement CWA section 403(c).
the draft permit also imposes a toxicity
limit on produced water discharges.
essentially ,,roquiring that they exhibit no
toxic effects 100 meters from the outfall
and establishes aitical dilution values
for toxicity testing of produced water.
EPA derived those aitical dilution
values using the CORMIX1 model.
adjusted to more accurately reflect the
conditions under which Offshore
-------
53202
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No . 197 / Thursday, October 14, 1993 / Notices
Subcategory facilities may discharge
produced water.
After issuance of the existing source
OCS permit. Industry representatives
requested that EPA Region 8 establish
permit limits accommodating the use of
diffusers to achieve greater dilution.
thus allowing discharges of produced
water which woujd otherwise not
comply with the proposed toxicity
limits. When it proposed modification
of that permit. Region 6 solicited
comments tin the need for diffuser use
and suggestions for permit provisions
which might accommodate that use at
58 FR 41474 (August 14. 1993), EPA has
not concluded its review of the
comments it received and solicits
similar comments in connection with
today’s proposal.
To obtain data for potential use in
future regulatory actions, the draft
permit also requires monitoring of
radium 226 and 228 in produced water
discharges.
Well Treatment, Completion, and
Workover Fluids
As required by the NSPS. the draft
permit limits the oil and grease content
of well treatment, completion, and
workover fluids to a monthly average of
29 mg/l and a maiomum of 42 mg/I.
Additionally, the draft permit prohibits
the di charge of free oil as meas’,zred by
the static sheen test. This limit is based
on BCT guidelines.
As in the case of severaj of the
proposed conditions on dnlling fluid
discharges, the Region also proposes to
include other conditions which are
somewhat similar to limitations it has
formerly included in OCS general
permits on BPJ technology bases. EPA
proposes to prohibit the discharge of
well treatment, completion, and
workover fluids containing priority
pollutants in other than trace amounts,
In effect prohibiting the addition of
priority pollutants to such fluids, This
condition is proposed both as a BMP
authorized by CWA section 402(a)(2)
and to assure compliance with the
requirements of CWA section 403(c).
Produced Sand, Deck Drainage,
Sanitary Waste, and Domestic Waste
The draft permit prohibits the -
discharge of produced sand, the
discharge of deck drainage containing
free oil (as monitored by the visual
sheen test), and the discharge of sanitary
waste containing floating solids or foam.
It also prohibits the discharge of
sanitary waste with a chlorine
concentration less than I mg /I from
platforms manned by ten or more
persons. Each of these proposed limits
is based on the NSPS.
Rubbish, Trash, and Other Refuse
Consistent with interim final Coast
Guard regulations implementing Annex
Vol MARPOL 73/78. 54 FR 18384
(April 28. 1989), the draft permit allows
the discharge of comminuted food
waste, incinerator ash, and non.plastic
clinkers able to pass through a 25mm
mesh more than 3 nautical miles from
the nearest land. Incinerator ash and
non.plastic clinkers unable to pass
through a 25mm mesh may only be
discharged more than 12 nautical miles
from nearest land.
Miscellaneous Discharges
The draft permit prohibits
miscellaneous discharges containing
free oil (as monitored by visual sheen
test) and prohibits miscellaneous
discharges containing floating solids or
visible foam. These Limits apply to
discharges of d.iatomaceous earth filter
media, blowout preventer fluids,
uncontaminated ballast water,
uncontaminated bilge water.
uncontaminated freshwater,
uncontaminated seawater, muds and
cuttings at the sea floor, excess cement
slurry, source water, source sand, boiler
blowdown, and discharges from
desalinization units. The proposed
permit also prohibits miscellaneous
discharges which contain floating solids
or visible foam, The NSPS did not cover
these discharges and the proposed
limitations are BC or BAT based on
BPJ. Those limitations are moreover
consistent with the limits of the existing
source permit GMG290000.
AU Discharges
To assure compliance with CWA
section 403(c) and various proposed
effluent limits, the proposed permit also
prohibits all discharges which contain
halogenatod phenolic compounds, and
requires that operators minimize the
discharge of surfactants. dispersants,
and detergents.
EPA now solicits comments on the
draft permit and draft EIS. Uinitations
in the final permit may vary from the
proposed Limits of the draft permit as a
result of comments,
Other Legal Requirements
Oil Spills
CWA section 311, 33 US C. 1321.
prohibits the discharge of oil and
hazardous materials in harmful
quantities, but discharges authorized by
NPDES permits are excluded from that
prohibition. Permittees should note,
however, that the permit does riot
preclude the institution of legal action
or relieve parmittees from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties
for other unauthorized discharges of oil
and hazardous materials which are
covered by CWA section 311.
Coastal Zone Management Act
Discharges authonzed by the
proposed permit will be to waters
outside Louisiana’s Coastal Zone and
the effluent limitations imposed on
those discharges will prevent them from
affecting coastal waters. Accordingly,
the primary effect issuance of this
permit will have on Louisiana’s coastal
zone will be increased demand for
onshore disposal of wastes which
cannot be discharged under its terms In
promulgating the NSPS, EPA considered
the issue of onshore disposal capacity
for such wastes and tailored its final
rule to assure sufficient capacity would
be available. Moreover, to the extent t
will occur in Louisiana’s coastal zone.
such disposal will be regulated by the
State, assuring consistency with its
Coastal Zone Management Plan EPA
thus finds issuance of the proposed
permit will be consistent with that pt a. —
The proposed new source permit and
this determination will be submitted to
the State of Louisiana with a request for
a consistency certification for
compliance with 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
The Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), 33
U.S.C. 1401. et seq.. establishes the
Marine Sanctuaries Program
implemented by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric
A )j atiistration (NOAA). Under
MPRSA, NOAA designates certain
ocean waters as marine sanctuaries for
preserving or restoring their
conservation, recreational, ecological, or
aesthetic values. NOAA has designated
the Flower Garden Banks, which is
within the area covered by the proposed
permit, a marine sanctuary. As
proposed, the permit prohibits
discharges in areas of biological
concern, including marine sanctuaries.
State Water Quality Standards and
Certification
Because no state waters are included
in the area covered by the draft permit.
none will be affected if it is issued as
proposed. Hence, the certification
provisions of CWA section 401. 33
U S.C. 1341. do not apply to EPA’s
proposed action.
Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Sudget
(0MB) has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive
Order 12292 pursuant to section 8 (b) o
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 197 / Thursday. October 14, 1993 / NoUc
53203
that Order. It should be noted, however.
that EPA In fact obtained 0MB review
of a regulatory impact analysis preparód
in connection with its promulgation of
the NSPS. Inaemental compliance costa
associated with the new limitations the
proposed permit Imposes on Offshore
Subcategory oil and gas operators ware
considered in that review
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements of the proposed permit
have been approved by 0MB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501. et seq.. and
assigned 0MB control numbers 2040—
0086 (NPDES permit application) and
2040—0004 (discharge monitoring
reports). EPA estimates it will take an
affected facility three hours to prepare a
request for coverage under the proposed
permit and 38 hours per year to prepare
discharge monitoring reports in
compliance with its terms.
National Environmental Policy Act
in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U S.C. 4331. et seq.. and EPA s
implementing regulations at 40 ( ‘R part
6. subpart F. and 40 ( ‘R 122.19(c). EPA
has determi ed issuance of the
proposed permit will be a major federal
action which may significantly affect
the quality of the human environment.
The environmental impacts of the oil
and gas exploration activities from
which the discEarges regulated by the
general permit arise have been
previously considered in a November
iggz Final EIS prepared by the Minerals
Management Service of the Department
of the Interior in connection with Lease
Sales 142 and 143. EPA has adopted
that Final EIS and prepared a
supplement thereto (the SDEIS) to
provide additional information and
evaluation on its proposed general
permit decision. As noted above, the
SDEIS is available for review and
comment.
Endangered Species Act
In a 1987 biological opinion rendered
under sectIon 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. 16 U.S.C. 1536. the
‘Jauonal Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) determined that OCS oil and
gas development and production
operations were unlikely to jeopardize
ne continued existence of any listed
iper.ies under its jurisdiction. M} 1S
eaf5imed that opinion In connection
with Lease Sales 142./143 in 1992. The
L’nited States Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS) suaularly issued no jeopardy
opinions for OCS oil and gas operations
ri 1’237 and 1992. Accordingly, the
- effects of actions interrelated to today’s
permit proposal. e.g.. rig construction,
hsve ’alznady been considered under
section 7 and are considered part of the
“environmental baseline” in accordance
with 50 CFR 402.02.
Because the effluent limitations of the
proposed permit are protective of
sensitive marine organisms, as required
by EPA’, ocean discharge iteria a! 40
0’R part 125. subpart M, the discharge
authoti tion EPA proposes will be
tin likely to adversely affect listed
threatened or endangered species or
designated ciitical habitat EPA Region
6 will seek written concurrence of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fishenes Service in
this determination. The Services
provided similar concurrences in
connection with EPA’s issuance of the
less stringent November 14. 1992
existing source permit (GMG290000).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires that EPA
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for regulations that have a sig iufir-nnt
Impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In promulgating the NSPS, EPA
prepared an economic analysis showing
they would directly Impact no small
entities. See 58 FR 12492. Based on
those findings. EPA Region 8 certIfies,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the
permit proposed today will not have a
siguificanfimpact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Myron 0. ICirnd.nn .
Director, Water .? fanagement Division, EPA
Region 6
(FR Doc. 93—25229 FIled 10—13—93; 8.45 amj
‘
FEDERAL COMUUNICA11ONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
October 8. 1993.
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
conuuctor, International Transcription
Service. Inc., 2100 M Street, NW , suits
140, Washington. DC 20037, (202) 857—
3800 For further information on this
submission.contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, (202)
632—0276. Persons wishing to comment
on this information collection should
contact Jonas Neihardi,, Office of
Management and Budget, room 3235
NEOB. Washington, DC 20503, (202)
395—4814.
0MB Number: 3060-0461
Title Section 90.173, Policies governing
the assignment of
Action. Revision of a currently approved
collection
Respondents: State or local governments
and businesses or other for-profit
(including small businesses)
Frequency of Response: On Occasion
reporting requirement
Estimated Annual Burdeir 200
responses; 4.5 hours average burden
per response; 900 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Uses. Private land mobile
channels are becoming scare in many
areas. ma .ag It difficult for eligible
applicants to be Licensed on frequencies
that are available on an exclusive basis
The Commission proposes to address
this spectium scarcity by recycling
r4tnnnnLs that are not being used
effectively by the existing licenses. To
identify these r-hannels, the Commission
proposes to enlist the assistance of
persons who wish to be licensed. Under
the proposal. Individuals who provide
the Comiith iion with Information that a
current IIrmig i violating certain
Rules would be granted a licensing
preference for any rhannels recovered
as a result of that information. The
Commission will use the information to
determine whether the rhnnnels of the
existing licensee should be recovered
due to violations of our Rules and
whether any recovered rhannels should
be reassigned to the applicant Without
this information, the FCC might not
learn of rule violations and, due to the
existence of a current licensee, would
deny applications for frequencies that
are licensed on an exclusive basis. The
spectrum would, therefore, continue to
be used Inefficiently, In some cases, the
Commission might learn of violations
but, under current rules, would be
required to reassign any r hAnnels
recovered on a first-come, first-served
basis without giving a preference to
persona who brought violations to the
Commission’s attention.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Catan,
Acting Sccrvtwy
(FR Doc. 93—25135 Filed 10—13—93. 8 45 aml
BLI.D4 COOS m2-e -e
-------
49996
Federal Regi er IVoL 58, No.. 184 / Friday, September 24, 1993 1 Notices
project mitigation weesuJee end project
moiritoring.
Final USi
ERP No F—COE-E362 72-MS
Abiaca Creek Watershed Project.
Demonsn ation Erosion Control Protect
and Sediment and FtOOd Control
Measures. Implernsctation. Yazoo
Basin. Mathowe Brake National Wildlife
Refuge. Carroll. Holmes and Laflore
Counties, MS.
Su,nmalr EPA had no environmental
objection to the proposed project.
ER? No. FS-/tFS-L.82010-0O
Pacific Northwest Regum National
Forests Nursery Pest Control
Management Plan, New Information
concerning the Use of Additinnjil
Cheaucals at Wind River Nursery,
Gifford Pinchot National Forest and
J. Herbert Stone Nursery, Rouge River
National Forest. Implementation.
several Counties, OR and Skamania
County, WA.
Summwy Review of the Fiiial E1S has
been completed and the pro)ect found to
be satisfactory. No formal letter wes sent
to the prepanng agency.
Dated Septeinbes 21. 1950.
William a Dlckene.
DeFUtTThZeCtUr Office of Fedeivi 4civibgs
IFR Dec. 93-23432 Flied 9-23-93; 8’.45 amf
Jm case iese
(ER-FRL--4624-8J
Ewlzoninental Impact St emanta;
Notice ot Availability
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal
Activities. General Infermadon (202)
260-5076 OR (202) 280-5075. Weekly
receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements Filed September 13. 1993
Through September 17.1993 Pux iant
to 40 fIR 1508.9.
EIS No. 930317. FINALETS. AFS, MT.
Little Snowies Vegetative
Management end Pub!fc4(rr The
and Timber Masii.gu’meut
Lewis and Clark National Forest,
Musselshell Ranger District. City of
Hariowtan. Fergus and Golden Valley
Counties. MT. Dem Ck1ober 25, 1993,
Contact: John 0. Canaan (408)632-
4391.
£15 No. 930318, DRAFT EIS, CUE, NC,
Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project,
Implementation. Atlantic lntracoastal
Waterway. Hyde County. NC.. Due:
November 08. 1993. Contact Hugh
Home (9191 251—4070.
£IS No. 930319, FINAL. EIS. NBC. UT,
Uranium and Th o r ium Byproduct
Material Disposal Project,
Construction and Operation. Licenses.
Salt Lake City. Tooele County. UT.
Due: October 25. 1993, Contact:
Myron FL Fliegel (301) 504—2155.
EIS No. 930320. DRAFF SUPPLEMENT,
FHW, MD, Boston Street Corridor (a
part of the former -83 Corridor
Project) Transportation
improvements. Chester Street to
Conkliri Street. Additional
Information concerning New
Alternatives Under Consideration.
Approval end Funding. East
Baltimore, Bulthnore County. MD.
Duo: November 15. 1993. Contact:
David Lawton (410) 962-4440.
EISNo. 930323. DRAFTEIS. AFS. WA.
Pebble and Little Granite Timber
Sales. Implementation. Mountain
Analysis Area, Okanogan National
Forest. Tonasket. Twup and
Winthrop Ranger Districts. Okanogan
County. WA. Due: November 08.
1993. Contact; Craig Sobziea (509)
996—2268.
EIS No 930322, DRAFT EIS. CUE. VA.
Southeastern Public Service Autharity
of Virginia Regional Landfill
Expansion Pru v .i . E Section 404
Permit Issuanca Cities of Chesapeake.
Norfolk. Portsmouth, Suffolk. and
Virginia Beach. Isle of Wiglit and
Southampton Counties, VA. Due:
November 08, 1993, Contact Pamela
Painter (8041 441—7654.
EIS No. 930323. FINAL SIJPPLEIII(EI IT.
BLM. CA, Ward Valley LewL ve1
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.
Site Selection. Ccnstructf an and
Operation. Funding and Right-of-Way
Grants. San Bernardino County. CA.
Due: October 25, 1993, Contact: Dick
Johnson (916) 978—4720.
LTS No. 930324. DRAFT EIS. FAA. NJ,
Newark International Airport
installation and Operation ofan
Instrument Lending System on
Runway 11. Funding and Airport
Layout Plan Approval. Essex and
Union Counties. NT, Due: November
08. 1993, Contact: Thomas Mom (718)
553—1505.
LIS No. 930325. FINAL LIS. UAF. M I.
Wurtanuth Air Force Base I)lsposal
and Reuse. Implementation. been
County, MI. Duem October25. 1993,
Contact: LI. Cal. Cary Baumgartel
(210) 536—3869.
EJS No. 930326. FINAL EIS, UAF. GA,
Moody Air Force Base Boddowu of a
Composite Wing for F—18. AlGA—it)
and C— 130 Airuaft. Implementation,
Lowndes and Lamer Counties. C A.
Dun: October 25. 1993. Contact:
Stephanie Stevenson 1804) 754—7844.
EIS No. 930327. FINAL £15, P11W, 1ST.
West Valley Highway Transportation
Improvement. 8000 South to 12600
South, Funding and Right-of-Way
Acquisition, Salt Lake County. UT,
Due: October 25. 1993, Contact: Roy
0. Nelson (801k 963-0184.
Datedi Septambsr 22,1993.
WIll_jam 0. Dlckanan.
Deputy Director. ( 7ice of Federal Actjvzzues.
[ FR Doc. 93—23431 Filed 9—Z3--93, a 45 asil
sej coot _ -- - ‘
(FRL-4735—8)
PIPOES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Aseoctated With Industrial
ActIvity Located in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico
G Ncy: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Region IL
AC1I0 Notice of final NPDES gene rai
permit modification.
.$UUMARYI The Din ,ctur , Waler
Management Division. of th
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Region [ I (the ‘flirectoY’} is
issuing a final p.iizzut modification
incorporating changes in the National
Pollutant Discharge Fifn,ination System
(NPDES) general per ai1 (FRR000000)
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity located in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PRy. In
this action, A Is deleting existing
quarterly monitoring requirements. i v-
estabIl hirtg baseline general permit
monitonng and reporting requirements.
making ontain permit format!
organization changes, establishing a
storm water sempling prot l, and
correcting some pollution prevention
plan deadlines. Also, EPA i,includung
mjn nodiflcetions end has revised
PXI.Boithageueral permit in this
flnaiactio
DATES This general permit modification
sbafl be effective on October t 1993.
A00RESS : The complete
administrative record is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region II. Watar Permits and
Compliance Branch (ZWM-WPCI. 2.8
Federal Plaza. room 845. New York.
New York 10278. In arh4itlnn. . copies of -
the public record are also available at
the EPA Region U C’ arthhean Field
Office, Office 2A. Podiatry Center
Bmldin . 141.3 Fernández luacca
Avenue. Senturco. Pui rto Rico 00907.
Thu record may be inspected and . copied
at the offices between 9 &m. and 4 p.m...
Monday thxnug)i Friday or by calling
EPA ’s offices in New York at (2121254-
2911 or in Puerto Rico at (809) 729-.
6843.. A reasonabLe fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR RJRThER IWO flCN CONTACT For
further Information on the final NPDES
general permit modification contact fose
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58 . No. 184 / Friday. September 24. 1993 / Notices
49997
S
A. Rivera or Anne K. Reynolds of EPA’
New York office at (212) 264—2911.
SUPPt.EMENTARY tPW0RMA fl0N
I Beckgrotmd
II Tod y s Action
UI. Response to Cc ents
[ V Minor Pennit Modificntions
V Economic Impact
V I Paperwork Reduction Act
VU. Regulatory Flexibthty Act
1. Background
On August 16. 1991, a draft NPDES
general permit for storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity located in PR was published In
the Federal Register (56 FR 40948). and
that notice served as a request for State
401 Certification (5 FR 40991). A
specific formal request for State 401
Certification from EPA and a copy of the
draft general permit were sent to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) of
PR an November 1, 1991.
EQB issued on September 14, 1992
the 4 -01 Certification known as the
‘General Waler Quality Certificate”
(GWQC) for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity In
accordance with Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The speaal
conditions included in the GW were
intended to as ne that a permattee of
the general permit would comply with
the applicable requirements of PR Law
and Se ons 301(b)(1)(c) and 401(d) of
the CW&t This GWQC provided, In
part. that all permittees of the general
permit conduct quarterly momtonng
and report such results quarterly.
On September 16. 1992. EPA issued
the final NPDES general permit for
storm water discharges associated with
industhal activity located in PR. This
permit was published In the Federal
Register on September 25, 1992 (57 FR
44438). in order to incorporate the 401
Certification eped.al conditions which
were included In the CWQC. A ’ t-
included Part X I in the general permit
(57 FR 44459). Pert X I revised, among
others, the monitoring end reporting
requirements of the general permit
consistent with the GWC ’s Special
Condition Number 13.
However, under PR procedures, the
401 Certification issued on Septeruber
14, 1992 wag reconsidered, and a
vued and final 401 Certification
‘Se lo 401 afth.CWApio 1d..thatoo
FOd8T .j Ij pmit. bithn&ng NPfl
to nthui .ny vIty thai y r It to
y dL,cbar 5 . into n.vt hl. wais iMLl be nied
‘LOU! lb. Sta&. wh lb. diachala. orgrn.I
C ‘ruSe. th ai the discharge wtIl comply with the
6ppli hle ps vIJi of Ssctio 301. 302. 303,
‘38 and 30? of the CWA. Today. Soil
nnji modia d lompl anta the t vt.sI 401
LL 1I jj
(“revised GWQC ”) was issued 2 end
submitted to EPA on November 10.
1992. That action finalized the State 401
Certification process. Althongh the
revised GWQC containe all previous 19
Special Conditions included in the
September 14, 1992 Certification, the
revised GWQC changed the Special
Condition Number 13 deleting and
adding certain requirements.
On April 14, 1993, EPA publl hed in
the Federal Register a draft general
permit modification (58 FR 1942.7)
des ibthg a number of proposed
changes. Also, on April 15, 1993. EPA
published In “El Nuevo Din” newspaper
an informal Notice advising the general
public of EPA’s intention to modify the
baseline general permit.
EPA’s proposed changes fall into five
broad categories. The fl ,rst category
Includes certauii changes to incorporate
substantive changes to the EQS’s
revised GQWC (Le. deletion of quarterly
monitormg. and addition of conditions
regarding access to pollution prevention
plans, revision of the pollution
prevention plans, right of entry, and
establishment of monitoring on a case-
by-case basis). The second category
involves certain permit format/
orgnni?etIon changes to retain the
requirements established by EQB ’s 401
Certification Special ConditIons No.14
and 16 (raIn gauge and volume
estimates). The third category includes
certain changes to keep the sample type
conditions established in Part XI.B.5 of
the general permit. The fourth change
adds the EQS and EPA Caribbean Field
Office addresses. The fifth category
corrects poll ution prevention plans
deadlines established in Part XLB.3 of
the general permit.
The Ap fl 14, 1993 Federal Register
notice provided a thirty day public
comment period, In addition, EPA held
two atone water outreach seminars in
San Juan and Mayaguez, PR on May 4
and 6. 1993. respectively. In those
e iminers . EPA Informally explained the
proposed modifications to the regulated
community and interested parties. The
public comment period expired on May
14. 1993. EPA received three comment
letters. (The reader may refer to the
Response to Comnwnta section of
today’s notice where EPA addresses ali
comments.)
11. Today’s Action
Part V .B of the general permit (57
FR 44456) established that permit
modifications be conducted according
D ’A provIded lb. full I ts of Spec.! Condiuca
No 13 from £QB. omiginal September 14, 1992
GWQC and from the revised November 10. 1992
CWQC
to 40 CFR 122.62. 122.63, 122.84 and.
124.5. in accordance with 40 CFR
122.62(a)(3fljjfl, EPA determined a
cause for modification of the general
permit. EPA’s determination to modify
the general permit was based on a
modified Stats 401 Certification.
40 GR 124.55(b) states that if a
certification is received after final
Agency (EPA) action on the permit, the
Director may modify the permit on
request of the permlttee only to the
extent necessary to delete any
conditions based on a condition in a
certiflr etinn invalidated by an
appropnate State board, in this Instance
EQB. On November 18, 1992, a formal
request for permit modification was
made.
In todays notice, EPA is finalizing the
general permit modification process.
Only those conditions of Part X L B.3, 5
and 6 of the general permit were
modified. This notice provides the
language of the final general permit
modification, Includes response to
comments an the April 14, 1993
proposed permit modification and
addresses corrections to the general
—t
In addition, in order to avoid
confusion, todars notice includes the
complete end final version of Part XI.B
of the general permit. Permittees must
refer to Part XLB of today’s amion and
not to Part XLB of the September 25,
1992 Federal Register. The final general
permit modifications and corrections
may be found in Appendi.x A (General
Permit Modification) of this notice.
For EPA’s NPDES general permit
actions, a public notice is required to be
published in the Federal Register (see
40 G’R 124(c)(2)(i). Therefore, today’s
notice is being piihIi. hed in the Federal
III. Response to Cnmmersts
Lu a ordanca with 40 G’R 124.15.
the Director has made a determination
to modify the general permit.. This
notice Includes response to comments
and serves as a notification to all
permittees and each person who has
submitted written comments (40 CFR
124.17).
In accordance with 40 CFR 124 .71(a),
a formal evidennary hearing is not
available to challenge any NPDES
general p rmit issued under 41) Q’R
124.15. Persons affected by a general
permit may not challenge the conditions
of a general permit as of nght in further
agency proceedings. They may instead
either challenge the general permit In
court, or apply for an individual NPDES
permit under 40 CFR 122.21 as
authorized in 40 CFR 122.28 and then
-------
49998
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 184 / Friday, September 24, 1993 I Notices
request a formal hearing on the issuance
or denial of an individual permit.
The following persons submitted
written comments regarding the
proposed general permit modification
Name d iffi/ianon
(1) Keith Tingberg. Schering-Plough
Corp
(2) John L. Wittenborn. Jeffrey L Leitor,
Jeffrey S Longsworth. Collier.
Shannon. Rill & Scott
(3) Maria M. Imzary, Sigfredo Torres.
Unites States Geological Survey
The following is the response to
comments raised by the above parties:
Cbmment #1
The proposed general permit
modification includes a revised
“Special Condition No 13 from EQB’s
latest General Water Quality
Certificate Paragraph B of Special
Condition 13 states that if EQB reviews
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) and notifies the plan’s
owner that it does not comply with a
permit condition, the plans owner has
no more than 60 days ta make the
necessary changes and submit a written
certification of the completed revisions.
Th is proposed “maximum 60-day
revision” requirement is unreasonable
and not realistic given the construction
activities that may be required in
implementing a site’s SWPPP. Portions
of the SWPPP may uadude structural
changes to a site such as the mstallat.ion
of storage tanks and secondary
containment structures (dikes, curbing.
etc ). alteration of a facility’s drainage
system (for tank car and tank truck
loading and unloading areas), and
modification of a site’s collection and
piping system for storm water
conveyance.
These types of engineering projects
would not be “implementable” on a
short .term basis due to design,
planning, and construction aspects of
the work involved. Moreover, we see the
proposed “maximum 60-day revision”
requirement as being targeted to correct
more administrative tasks of complying
with the general permit conditions.
Therefore, we believe that Paragraph
B of Special Condition No. 13 should be
rewritten m read as: “the plan’s owner
will have a maximum of sixty (60) days
to submit a plan of action to make those
changes identified in EQB’s notification
letter “ Final dates for project
completion can then be agreed to in a
reasonable timeframe by the plans
owner and EQB on a case-by-case basis
We feel that this language change in
the proposed NPDES general permit
modification will allow this portion of
the program to result in reasonable and
achievable timeframes for the
completion of facility construction
projects needed to comply with any
storm water general permit condition.
Response
l ii response to the commentator’s
issues. EPA has discussed the comments
with EQB officials. EQB’s policy in this
matter is that if EQB reviews a pollution
prevention plan, EQB will provide
perinittees up to sixty days after review
of the pollution prevention plan to make
necessary changes to the written plan in
accordance with EQB’s comments and
to submit a written notification that
such changes were incorporated in the
plan.
EQB did not intend to establish the
sixty day period as a time frame for
completing necessary structural andlor
non-structural changes in the facility
EPA believes that an imprecise
translation of the Spanish version of the
EQB revised GWQC into English has
caused this problem. EPA, with EQB
concurrence, has decided to modify the
proposed language in Part X I B 3 in
order to clarify EQB’s intent. Part IV B 3
is revised to read as follows:
‘After receiving a written notification
from EQB requiring modifications to the
plan. the permittee will have a maximum of
sixty (60) days to make the necessary changes
to the written plan and submit a written
certification to EQB, the Regional Office and
EPA Caribbean Field Office stating that the
change. were incorporated In the plan.”
In addition, EPA would like to
highlight a requirement of the general
permit which is related. to this issue, but
which is not a part of this modification.
Part XI.B.2 of the general permit
incorporates Commonwealth Special
Condition I1LC and reads as follows:
“If the construction of any treatment system
of waters composed entirely of storm water
is necessary, the permittee shall obtain the
approval from the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) of the engineering report. plans
and specifications,”
In the event that a specific Best
Management Practice (Blv ) is required
by EQO. permittees must comply with
the above conditions. In such cases,
EQB will address these types of changes
on a case-by-case basis.
EPA would like to take this
opportunity to discuss the current
poiicy when EPA decides to obtain.
review and require changes to pollution
prevention plans. hi Part XI B 3. EPA
revises Part IV (storm water pollution
prevention plans) of the baseline general
permit. Part IV B (signature and plan
review) of the general permit authorizes
the Director to obtain, review and
require changes to pollution prevention
plans as deemed necessary. In Part
V
IV B.3, 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
lpollution prevention plan requirements I
Such notification shall identify ‘ se
provisions of the permit which are not being
met by the plan. and identify which
provisions of the plan requires (sici
modifications in order to meet the minimum
requirements of this Part. Within 30 days of
such notification from the Director, (or as
otherwise provided by the Director), or
authorized representative, the permittee shall
make the required changes to the plan and
shall submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes have
been made
EPA believes that a 30-day period will
be sufficient for many of the non
structural types of changes anticipated
in pollution prevention plans. However.
EPA agrees that some changes may
warrant a longer or shorter period. EPA
notes that the baseline general permit
provides flexibility for EPA to establish
alternate time periods for permittees to
devise and implement modifications to
pollution prevention plans In general.
EPA will consider factors such as
whether the change is procedural in
nature or will require structural
modificatlon , the extent of the
modifications, and the environmental
risk of the discharge when establishing
alternative time periods for modifying
pollution prevention plans. For both
cases, the permittee shall submit to the
Director a written certification that the
requested changes have been made
If EPA decides to require non-
structural changes to the pollution
prev * n plan. EPA will provide the
per nittee with 30 days of notification to
modify the pollution prevention plan
and to implement non-structural
changes. For structural changes. EPA
will provide the permittee with 30 days
to modify the pollution prevention plan.
and up to 160 days to implement and
comply with the required requirements.
For both cases, the permittee Shall
submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made.
Comment #2
A second comment from the
commentator deals with morntonng
requirements imposed by the baseline
general permit. For facilities reauired to
monitor storm water on a specified basis
(facilities identified in Parts VI B 2 A
through F. for example), the permit
conditions should allow a reduction in
monitoring frequency or the removal of
monitoring based on the submission of
data by the petitioner. That is, if storm
water monitoring data exhibits
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No . 184 / Friday, September 24, 1993 1 NotIces
49999
compliance (including the attainment of
applicable water quality standards In
the receiving body of water). than the
monitoring requirements should be
reduced in frequency or &jminjited from
the petitioner’s permit ccnditions in an
effort to m lnim,,-a the nigh costs of
meeting the general permit conditions.
Response
PA believes that the monitoring
requirements are reasonable, that the
sampling results will be useful in the
implementation of the tiered permitting
strategy. 3 and that the sampling results
will allow for evaluation of the
effectiveness of poliuuon prevention
plan implementation. (See Fact Sheet in
Federal Register on September 9, 1992,
57 FR 41289.) Also, the commentator
has not presented a workable proposal
which would establish clear criteria for
reduction or elimination of monitoring
requirements For these reasons, EPA
will not change the general permit
requu’ements in response to this
comment.
In addition, EQB’s November 10. 1992
revIsed GWQC Special Condition
‘Iumber 13.d references EPA’s baseline
general permit monitoring requirements.
Therefore, maintenance of the baseline
monitoring requirements Es necessary to
incorporate the PR 401 Certification.
Comment #3
Collier, Shannon, Rili & Scott
ubmitted comments on behalf of the
rollowing dients with approved group
‘)e-rnit applications with member
facilities in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Chemical Specialties
\1anufa urers Association (“CSMA”—
Group 9619), National Juice Products
ssocauan (“NJPA”—Group 1789) and
National Tank Thick Carriers, Inc.
NTFC”—.Group #790). GSMA. N)PA
ind NT C support EPA’s proposal to
delete existing quarterly monitoring and
reoorting requirements established for
the Corrunonweajth of Puerto Rico’s
general permit. In addition, the
(Ommentator raised some issue,
regarding the storm water group
application process.
spanse
E ’.PA acknowledges the comments.
‘ arduig the deletion of quarterly
unnoring and reporting. Regarding the
omments about the storm waler group
application process, the comments are
EPA diicu.ii.d the etarm wet pln1n 5
n Lb. April 2, 1992 F.ó.r.l 1 Nodc.
‘n itled ‘N.flo .j Poiiut .iit Dtic mi o fl1,, , n.it,s. .
“stem Appti AoaD d1Ln ,G . .sJ Pennit
qwreiuaata end MaporUn Requate enu bir
IOtTfl ‘FJ.i DlI i”—.—’—I with tnduinta!
IIviIy’ Ftaal Ru!.” (57 FR 11397)
not ralated to the proposed general
permit modification, so EPAm not
responding to them. However, EPA
encourages the commentator to
participate in the public comment
period for the NPDES multi-sector
permit.
CQmmenti4
The Caribbean District of the U.S.
Geol u l Survey (USGS) raised’
questions about the proposed general
permit modification to change the
length of the dry period for sampling
between storms from 72 hours to 48
hours. USGS mentioned that the
purpose of the comment is to verify the
appropriateness and aocuracy of the
proposed change as well as the
applicability to a tropical island. The
National (keanic and Atmospheric
Administraticm (NOAA) divide, the
Island (Puerto Rico) into seven different
rainfall regions, namely: North Coastal.
South Coastal, Northern Slopes.
Southern Slopes, Eastern interior.
Western Interior, and Outlying Islands.
USGS Included a table that identified
“Annual RninfnH Precipitation for
Selected Stations Located in Mainland
Puerto Rico”. USGS exemined data from
two stations from the network operated
by the USGS. located In two different
divlszon of the Island. namely, Rio
Pledras and Humatmo. The data
examined was collected in 1992.
Estimates of annual precipitation for
these two stations were presented.. Also.
USGS provided figures that show
rainfall data, accumulated daily
precipitation and dry periods versus
time during tha 1991—92 water year.
When a statistical analysiz.of each of
the stations is done, the data show that
the dry periods vary considerably for
each locatioi The average dry period
(in hours) between measurable rain
incidents for Rio Piedras station is 29.68
and for Humacao station is 17 7L The
maximum dry periods (in days) between
measurable rain incidents for Rio
Pledras station is 24.89 and for
Humacao station is 14.27 For the twq
stations examined, the ratio of the
minimum dry period proposed by EPA
to the average dry period found at each
station is 1.6 for the Rio Piedras station
and 2.7 for the Humacao station.
Therefore, the proposed reduction in the
length of the dry periods between
sampling events seems Inappropriate for
Puerto Rico. EPA should further
examine thi, parameter. and consider
establishing different values for the
different rainfall regimes on the island.
The USGS operates a network of 70
continuous recording rainfali gauges
throughout Puerto Rico, its o hore
Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The
USGS proposes that before establishing
the final protocol for Puerto Rico as to
the sampling requirements (or the time
penod between rainfall events, an
analysts of this data should be
considered.
Response
EPA thanks USGS for the rainfall
information provided in the letter.
USGS has provided information which
indicates that permittees should be able
to allows 72 hour dry period prior to
sampling In the two regions which they
analyzed (Rio Piedras and Humacao).
However, USGS has not demonstrated
that the 72 hour requirement can be met
island.wtde, during normal business
hours, In an attempt to strike a balance
LU this matter, EPA has changed the
final language in the general permit
which requires permittees to attempt to
meet the 72 hour requirement, but
which allows samples to be taken after
a 48 hour dry period if necessary The
following is the new languages for the
Sample Type condition of the general
permit
4. Sam pie 7)’pe
a. Permittees should sample the
discharge during normal business hours,
In the event that the discharge
commences during normal business
hours, the pormittee shall attempt to
meet the sampling requirements even if
this requires sampling after normal
business hours.
b For discharges from holding ponds
or other impoundments with a retenuon
period greeter than 24 hours (estimated
by dividing the volume of the detenuon
pond by the estimated volume of water
discharged during the 24 hours previous
to the time that the sample is collected),
a minimum of one grab sample may be
taken.
c. Except as provided in paragraph b.
above, data shall be 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 La greater than 0.1 inches in
magnitude.
(1) For the first half of the sampling
period, all such samples shall be
collected from the rlkcharge resulting
from a storm event that occurs at least
72 hours from the previously
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfAll ) storm event.
(2) In the vent that the perrmttee is
unable to satisfy the conditions of
paragraph c.(1) above during the first
half of the sampling period, beginning
PA tstnmrpozthn this ondidon Into the
general permit it P i n XIJ 5, which re,li.i Part
V184o(thepermft.
-------
50000
Feder 1 Register / VoL 58, No. 184 / Friday. September 24, 1993/ Notices
on the first day of the second half of the
sampling period, the permittee shall
collect samples from a storm event that
occurs at least 48 hours from the
previously measurable event.
d. The grab sample shall be taken
during the first thirty minutes of the
discharge. If the collection of a grab
sampla during the first thirty 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
desaiption of why a grab sample during
the first thirty minutes was
impracticable.
e. 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 in each hour of
discharge for the entire discharge or for
the first three hours of the discharge,
with each aliquot being separated by a
minimum period of fifteen minutes.
Composite samples are not required for
pH, cyanide, whole effluent to city.
focal cohform. and oil and grease.
I. The perm.ittee must document the
conditions under which the storm water
samples were taken, how many manual
grab samples were taken for the
composite sample. and the date of
sampling, and must attach this
documentation to the sampling results.
The permittee should attempt to meet
the above protocol and collect samples
beginning on the first day of the
sampling period In order to ensure
compliance with the specified sampling
protocol and requirements.
g. Alternatively, if no samples are
taken during the sampling period. EPA
will consider that the permittee has met
its sampling requirement lilt certifies
that It was not possible to meet the
above sampling protocoL However, the
perznittee Is required to submit the
required reports In accordance with Part
VLD of this permit
EPA deddod not to divide the island
into different r,thif I 1 annea which
would establish different values at this
time. EPA believes that in doing so, the
Agency would cieate an administrative
burden, since the Agency would have to
keep track of permittees in different
zones and It would be very difficult to
corroborate compliance when
establishing such sophisticated rainfall
division. This Tier I general permit was
issued as an administrative tool to
reduce the burden on the Agency and
the regulated community. This final
action intends to keep the general
permit as simple as possible, while
incorporating changes that are
responsive to this comment.
IV. Minor Permit Modifications
Today’s notice also provides technical
corrections to the NPDES general
permit.
On page 44453. column three of the
general permit, the title “Part V III.—
Standard Permit Conthtjons” is
renumbered “Part VU.—.Standard
Permit Conditions”
The expiration date for the general
permit has been revised in Part VU.B.
This section is revised to read as
follows:
B Conbnuat,on of the Expired General
Permit
This permit expires on midnight.
September 24. 1997. However, an
expired general permit continues In
force and effect until a new general
permit is issued. Permittees must
submit a new NOl In accordance with
the requirements of Part II of this
permit. using a NO! form provided by
the Director (or photocopy thereof)
between July 25, 1997 and September
24. 1997 to remain covered under the
continued permit after September 24.
1997. Facilities that had not obtained
coverage under the permit by September
24. 1997 cannot become authorized to
discharge under the continued permit.
These revisions correct Inadvertent
errors from the general permit and are
not substantive changes in the scope or
content of the affected provision.
Therefore, In accordance wIth 40 ( ‘R
122.63. public notice and comment on
these revisions is not necessary.
V. Economic Impact (Executive Order
12291)
Although the Office of Management
and Budget has exempted this action
from the review requirements of
Executive Order 12291 pursuant to
Section 8(b)of the Order, all final
general permit modifications will lower
the burden on the Federal Government.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Government and the regulated
community by redudng the frequency
of sampling and reporting.
VI. Paperwork Radnrtlmi Act
EPA has reviewed the proposed
requirements on regulated facilities in
this general permit under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. The Region did not prepare an
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document for today’s final general
permit modification because the
information collection requirements in
this general permit has been already
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget In submission made for the
NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Glean Water Act.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
5 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 Flexibihty
Analysis Is required, however, where
the head of the agency certifies that the
nile will not have a significant
economic Impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Today’s final modifications to the
general permit will make the general
permit more flexible and less
burdensome for permittees.
Accordingly. I hereby certify, pursuant
to 5 U S.C. 605(b), that these permit
modifications will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Authorily Clean Water Act. 33 ii S.C. 1251
et seq.
Date& September 3, 1993.
William J. Muszynskl.
Acting Regional Admuustrator
Appendix A—General Permit
Modifications
NPDES Permit Number PRR000000
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
ltm1nption System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided In Part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
“associated with Industrial activity”.
located in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico area authorized to discharge in
accaTdrnce with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm. water discharges
within the general permit area who
Intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fall to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit modification shall
become effective on October 1. 1993.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 24, 1997.
SIgned and Issued this 31 day of August.
1993.
Richard L Caspe.
Dir*tor. Water Management Division. US
&nvironaientoi Protection Agency Region LI
This signature Is for the permit
conditions in Parts I through X and for
any additional conditions In Part Xl
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No . 184 / Friday. September 24, 1993 I Notices
50001
which apply to facilities located in th e
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
• a • • •
Part X I. State Specific Conditions
• • a • •
B Puerto Rico Puerto Rico 401
Certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows.
I Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region U in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
• a a a a
2. Part ifi. Special Conditions
a a a a a
C. Commonwealth Special Conditions
1 If the construction of any treatment
S stem of waters composed entirely of
storm water is necessary, the permittee
shall obtain the approval from the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) of
the engi.neei-i.ng report, plans and
specifications.
2. The permittee shall operate all air
pollution control equipment In
compliance with the applicable
provisions of the Regulation for the
Control of Atmospheric Pollution, as
amended, to avoid water pollution as
result of air pollution fallout
3 The permittee shall submit to EQB
with a copy to the Regional Office, the
foUowing information regarding its
storm water discharge associated with
ndusuial activity; the number of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity covered by this
permit, and a drawing indicating the
drainage area of each storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity outfall and its respective
sampling point:
a. For industrial ectlvitles that have
begun on or before October 1, 1992. the
permittee is required to submit the
information listed above no later than
November 16, 1992.
b. For industrial activities that have
begun after October 1, 1992, the
permittee is required to submit the
information listed above within forty
five (45) days of submission of the NO!.
4 The sampling point(s) for the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity shall be labeled with
a 18 in. x 12 in. (minimum dimensions)
sign that reads as follows:
“Punto de Muesteo do Agu.a do LIuvia”
3 Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
a a a a a
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparntion and
Compliance
1. Except as provided In paragrephs
IV.A.3 (oil and gas operations). 4
(facilities denied or rejected from
participation in a group application). 5
(special requirements) and 6 (later
dates) th plan for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity that is existing on or before
(ictober 1, 1992:
baj Shall be prepared on or before April
1. 1993 (and updated as appropriate);
I. No later than April 1. 1993, the
permittee shall submit to the EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification
stating that the plan was developed in
accordance with the requirements
established in this permit. All
certification, except those prepared by
professional engineer licensed in Puerto
Rico, shall be submitted with a sworn
statement attesting to the professional
qualifications of the individual who
developed the plan.
- b. Shall provide for implementation
and compliance with the terms of the
plan an or before October 1. 1993;
1. No later than October 1, 1993. the
perinittee shall submit to EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification
stating that the plan was implemented
in accordance with the conditions and
requirements established in this permit
The certification should be signed by
the person who fulfills the signatory
requirements in accordance with Part
VThG of this permit
2. a. Th.e.plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences after
October 1, 1992, but on or before
December 31. 1992 shall be prepared,
and except as provided elsewhere in
this permit, shall provide for
compliance with the terms of the plan
and this permit on or before thirty (30)
days after NO! submittal (and updated
as appropriate);
1. WIthin thirty (30) days of NO!
submittal, the permittee shall submit to
EQS with copies to the Regional Office
and EPA Caribbean Field Office, a
certification stating that the plan has
been developed and Implemented in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements established in this permit.
The certification should be signed by
the person who fulfills the signatory
requirements in accordance with Pert
VU.G of this permit
b. The plan for any facility where
Industrial activity commences on or
after January 1, 1993 shall be prepared,
and except as provided elsewhere In
this permit. shall provide for
compliance with the terms of the plan
and this permit, on or before the date of
submission of a NO! to be covered
under this permit (and updated as
appropriate);
i Within thirty (30) days of NO!
submittal, the permittee Shall subrrut to
EQB with copies to the Regional Office
and EPA Canbbean Field Office, a
certification stating that the plan has
been developed and implemented in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements established in this permit.
The certification should be signed by
the person who fulfills the signatory
requirements in accordance with Part
VII.G of this permit.
3. The plan for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
an oil and gas exploration, production,
processing, or treatment operation or
transmission facility that is not required
to submit a permit application on or
before October 1, 1992 in accordance
with 40 C ’R 122.26(c)(1)(iji). but after
October 1. 1992 has a discharge of a
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
substance for which notification is
required pursuant to either 40 CFR
110.6. 40 FR 117.21 or 40 G’R 302.6,
shall be prepared and except as
provided elsewhere in this permit, shall
provide for compliance with the terms
of the plan and this permit on or before
the date thz y (30) calendar days after
the first knowledge of such release (and
updated as appropnate);
a, Within thirty (30) days of the first
knowledge of such release, the
perm.ittee shall submit to EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification
stating that the plan has been developed
and implamented in accordance with
the conditions and requirements
established in this permit. The
certification should be signed by the
person who fulfills the signatory
requirements in accordance with Part
VU.G of this permit
S. Signature and Plan Review
• . • •
2. The permittee 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, to the
operato 1 of the municipal system. In
addition, EQS has the authority to
request from facilities covered by this
permit, a copy of the plan certified by
a professional, as requested in Part IV,
when deemed necessary.
3. The Director, or authorized
representative, may notify the permittee
at any time that the plan does not meet
-------
50002
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 184 / Friday, September 24. 1993 I ’ Notices
one or more of the minimum
requirements of this part. Such
notification shall identify those
provisions of the permit which are not
being met by the plan, and Identify
which provisions of the plan require
modifications in order to meet the
minimum requirements of this part
Within 30 days of such notification from
the Director. (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized
representative, the permittee shall make
the required changes to the plan and
shall submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made. In addition, EQB may
request a copy of the plan and may
review it. EQB may notify the owner of
the plan that it comphes or does not
comply with one or more of the permit
conditions. After receiving a written
notification from EQB requiring
modifications to the plan. the permittee
will have a maidmuzn of sixty (60) days
to make the necessary changes to the
written plan and submit a written
certification to EQB, the Regional Office
and EPA Caribbean Field Office stating
that the changes were incorporated in
the plan.
C. Keeping Plans Current
1. The permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design,
constiuction. operation, or maintenance.
which 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
eliminating or significantly minimizing
pollutants from sources identified under
Part IV D.2 (desaiptlon of potential
pollutant sources) of this permit. or in
otherwise 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 W.B (above).
2. In addition to Part IV.C.1 (above).
the plan should be reviewed at least
once every three (3) years to determine
the need to update the plan:
a. If no event occurs which requires
the modification of the plan, the
engineer or qualified professional who
performs the corresponding review must
submit to EQE with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean
Field Office, a certification stating the
plan has been reviewed and based upon
such review no modification of the plan
has been necessary, or.
b. [ I events have occurred which
require the modification of the plan. the
engineer or qualified professional who
performs the corresponding revision
must submit to EQB with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean
Field Office, a certification stating the
modifications performed to the plan. As
soon as the modifications performed to
the plan are implemented, the person
who fulfills the signatory requirements
in accordance with Part VU.G of this
permit, shall submit to EQB with copies
to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification
stating that the modifications oc the plan
have been implemented.
C. All certification, except those
prepared by a professional engineer
licensed in Puerto Rico, shall be
submitted with a sworn statement
attesting to the professional
qualifications of the individual who
developed the plan.
4. Part V. Numeric and Narrative
Effluent Limitations
S S S U
B. Au Permjttees. The discharge(s)
composed entirely of storm water shall
not cause the presence of oil sheen in
the receiving body of water
C. Au Perm,ttees. The storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity covered by this permit, will not
cause violation to the applicable water
quality standard in the receiving body of
water.
5. Part VL Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
S S U a S
B, Monitoring Requirements
1.
S U a a
b. The Director can provide written
notice to any facility otherwise exempt
from the sampling requirements of Parts
VI.B.2 (semi-annual monitoring
requirements) or VLB.3 (annual
monitoring requirements), that it shall
conduct the annual discharge sampling
required by Part V1.B.3.d (additional
facilities), or specify an alternative
monitoring frequency or specify
additional parameters to be analyzed.
For all other industhes not specifically
Identified in the final GP applicable to
Puerto Rico, but subject to the permit
requirements, EQ may require
monitoring of all (hose substances
downed necessary after a case by case
determination. However, any EQB
action to establish such monitoring
requirements shall not become effective
unless and until EPA Region II provides
written notice to the facility in
accordance with this paragraph.
S a S a a
2. Sexm-Annuoi Monitonng
Requirements. Beginning on October 1.
1992 and lasting through the expiration
date of this permit. perrnittees with
facilities identified in Parts VI.B.2..a
through f, must monitor those storm
water discharges identified below at
least semi-annually (2 times per year)
except as provided in VT.B 5 (sampling
waiver). VLB 6 (representative
discharge). and VLC.i (toxicity testing)
Parmittees with facilitie, identified in
Parts V’LB.2.a through L (below) must
report in accordance with Part VLD
(reporting: where to submit). In addition
to the parameters listed below, the
pernuttee shall provide 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 For permittees
identified in Pans VLB.2.a through f., an
estimate of the total volume (in gallons)
of the discharge sampled shall be
provided. For perm.ittees identified in
Part VIE 2.b. d.. e. and f., an estimate
of the size of the drainage area (in
square feeti and an estimate of the
runoff coeffident of the drainage area
[ e.g. low (under 40%). medium (40% to
65%) or high (above 65%)) shall also be
provided;
3. Annual Monitoring Reqwrements
Beginning on October 1, 1993 and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit. permittees with facilities
identified in Parts VI B 3.8 through d
(below) must monitor those storm water
thschargesj entified below at least
annualifit time per year) except as
provided in VT.B.5 (sampling waiver),
and VI.B.e (representative discharge)
Permittees with facilities identified in
Parts VI.B.3.a through d. (below) are nor
required to submit monitoring results.
unless required in writing by the
Director. However, such perinittoes
must retain monitoring results in
accordance with Part VLE (retention of
records). In addition to the parameters
listed below, the permittee shall provide
the dato 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 I and an estimate of the
runoff coefficient of the drainage area
le g low (under 40%), medium (40% to
65%) or high (above 65%)];
-------
50003
Federal Register / Vol. 58.No . 184 / Friday, September 24. 1993 / Notices
4. Sample Type.
a. Pernuttees should sample the
discharge during normal business hours.
In the event that the discharge
commences during normal business
hours, the permittee shall attempt to
meet the sampEing requirements even if
this requires sampling after normal
business hours.
b. For discharges from holding ponds
or other impoundments with a retention
period greater than 24 hours. (estimated
by dividing 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)
a minimum of one grab sample may be
taken.
c. Except as provided in paragraph b.
above, data shall be 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 in
magnitude
(11 For the first half of the sampling
period, all such samples shall be
collected from the discharge resulting
from a storm event that occurs at least
72 hours from the previously
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event.
(2) In the event that the permittee is
unable to satisfy the conditions of
paragraph c(1) above during the first
half of the sampling period, beginning
on the first day of the second half of the
sampling period. the perroittee shall
collect sampres from a storm event that
occurs at least 48 hours from the
previously measurable event.
d. The grab sample shall be taken
during the first thirty minutes of the
discharge. If the collection of a grab
sample during the first thirty 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.
e. 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 mtruxnwn of three
sample aliquots taken in each hour .of
discharge for the entire discharge or for
the first three hours of the discharge,
with each aliquot being separated by a
minimum period of fifteen minutes.
Composite samples are not required for
pH, cyanide, whole effluent toxicity,
fecal coliform. and oil and grease.
f. The permittee must document the
conditions under which the storm water
samples were taken, how many manual
grab samples were taken for the
composite sample, and the date of
sampling, and must attach this
documentation to the sampling res*lfts.
The permittee should attempt to meet
the above protocol and collect samples
beginning on the first day of the
sampling period in order to ensure
çomphance with the specified sampling
protocol and requirements.
g. Alternatively, if no samples.are
take s during the sampling period. EPA
will cansider that the permittee has met
its sampling requirement if it certifies
that it was not possible to meet the
above sampling protocol. However, the
permittee is required to submit the
required reports in accordance with Part
VID of this permit.
9. Rain Gauge
a. All perznittees with storm water
discharges assodated with industrial
activity that have begun on or before
October 1, 1992, should install a rain
gauge by November 1, 1992.
b. For permittees where industrial
activity has begun after October 1, 1992,
the rain gauge must be installed on or
before the date of submission of the
NOL
c. The perinittee must keep daily
records of the rain, indicating the date
and amount of rainfall (inches in 24
hours). A copy of these records shall be
submitted to EQB with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean
Field Office, in accordance with Part
VT D of this permit. The reports are due
the 28th day of January, April, July and
October The first report may cover less
than three months and shall be attached
to the Dischaige Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) when appropriate.
D. Reporflng: Where to Submit.
1.
• S • S
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
WI.D.1.a. V i i ) 1.b, and VLD.1.c,
individual permit applications, reports
of daily records of rain and all other
reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Regional Office, EQS
and EPA Caribbean Field Office at the
following addresses:
United States EPA. Region II. Water
Management Division, (ZWM—WPC),
Storm Water Staff, 26 Federal Plaza,
New York, NY 10278
Water Quality Area, P It Environmental
Quality Board, P.O. Box 11488,
Santu.rce. Puerto Rico 00910
EPA Caribbean Field Office, Office 2A,
Podiatry Canter Building. 1413
Fernandez Juncos Avenue, Santurce,
Puerto Rico 00907
S a a S •
8. Part VU. Standard Permit Conditions
• S a a a
B. Con tinuat,on of the Expired
General Permit. This permit expires on
midnight, September 24, 1997
However, an expired general permit
continues in force and effect until a new
general permit is issued. Perrnittees
must submit a new NOI in accordance
with the requirements of Part U of this
permit, using a NO! form provided by
the Director (or photocopy thereofl
between July 25, 1997 and September
24, 1997 to remain covered under the
continued permit after September 24.
1997. Facilities that had not obtained
coverage under the permit by September
24, 1997 cannot become authorized to
discharge under the continued permit.
G. Sign alor ,y Requirements All
Notices of Intent, Notices of
Termination, storm water pollution
prevention plans, reports, certifications
or information either submitted to the
Director or EQB (and/or the operator of
a large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer system), or that this permit
requires be maintained by the perniittee,
shailbesigned.
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director or EQS 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.
0. 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 and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and 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 perrnittee only
when necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of the permit Also.
proper operation and maintenance
includes, but Is not limited, to effective
performanèe based on designed facility
removals, adequate funding, effective
management, qualified operator staffing,
adequate training, adequate laboratory
and process controls.
Q. Inspection and Entry The
permittee shall allow the Director ‘
-------
50004
Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 184 / Friday, September 24, 1993 / Notices
authorized representative of EPA, the
State, or, in the case of a facility which
discharges through a municipal separate
storm sewer, an authorized
epreserititive 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
cond.itions 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 tunes any
facilities or equipment (induding
monitoring and control equipment); and
4 EQB reserves the right to inspect
the implementation of the pollution
prevention plans (see Pan IV ) . on a case
by case basis.
S S a a a
[ FR Dcc. 93—23436 FIled 9—23—93, 845 ami
en.i.e.a coDe ssso-sa-
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(FEMA-997-ORI
Illinois; Amendment to Notice of a
Major Disaster Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency fF vtA).
ACTiON: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster fortheStaleof
Illinois (FEMA—997—DR), dated July 9,
1993, and related determinations.
EFFECTIVE OATE September 1, 1993,
FOR FURTHER RMA11OH CONTACD
Pauline C. Campbell. Disaster
Assistance Programs, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646—3608.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the i.ncident period for
this disaster is closed effectIve August
31, 1993.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No
83.516, Disaster Assistance.)
RIrh.rd W. Krimm.
Deputy Associate Director. State and Local
Programs and Suppost
(FR Doc. 93—23448 Filed 9—23--93. 9 45 am)
BILWIU COD! U7iS- -
(FEMA-97-OR I
Il linois; Amendment to Notice of a
Major Disaster Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (F vfA).
ACTiON: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster far the State of
Illinois, (FEMA.-997—DR), dated July 9,
1993, and related determinations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14. 1993.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell. Disaster
Assistance Programs, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 648—3606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT iON: This
notice of a major disaster for the State
of i llinois dated July 9, 1993, I a hereby
amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the
catastrophe declared a major disaster by
the President in his declaration of July
9, 1993.
Schuyler for Public Auistanca (Already
designated for Individual Assistance.)
Notice is hereby given that the
incident period for Mason County is
reopened. The inQdent for this county
Is April 13, 1993, and continuing.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.5 18, DIsaster Assistance.)
RIrJ .ai’d W. Krlmm,
DeputyAssociate Director. State and Local
Programs and Suppoit
[ FR Doc. 93—23447 FIled 9—23—93; 8:45 am)
saisia coca e ns-as-u
(FEMA.495-ORJ
Missouri; Amendment to Notice of a
Major Disaster Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (F fA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster for the State of
Missouri, (FEMA—995—DR), dated July
9. 1993, and related determinations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 17. 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell. Disaster
Assistance Programs. Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Washington. DC 20472. (202) 646—3606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMA T ION: The notice
of a major disaster for the State of
Missouri. dated July 9. 1993. Is hereby
amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the
catastrophe declared a major disaster by
the President in his declaration of July
9, 1993:
Barton County for Individual Assistance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Ms:staace No
83 516, Disaster Assistance)
Richard W. Kxlmm.
Deputy Associate Director. State and Local
Programs and Suppoit
[ FR Dcc. 93-23448 Filed 9—23—93; 8 45 am!
JJSO COOS ens-as-u
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Central Bancshares of the South, Inc.;
Acquisitions of Companies Engaged ri
Permissible Nonbanking Activities
The orgRnlzntions listed in this nouce
have applied under § 225 23(a)(2) or (f)
of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 O R
225 23(a)(2) or (I )) 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 Regu1ator
Y (12 R 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 dosely related to
banking and permissible for bank
holding companies. Unless otherwise
noted, such activities will be conducted
throughout the United States.
Each application is available for
Immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
proces n , It will also be available for
lnsp tion at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may
express their view, in writing on the
question whether consummation of the
proposal can “reasonably be expected to
produce benefits to the public. such as
greater convenience, Inoreased
competition, or gains in efficiency, that
outweigh possible adverse effects, such
as undue concentration of resources,
- deceased oy itnfnfr competition,
conilicts 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
not suffice in lieu of a hearing.
identifying specifically any questions of
fact that are in dispute. summarizing the
evidence that would be presented at a
hearing, and Indicating how the party
commenting would be aggrieved by
approval of the proposal.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated for the application or the
-------
Tuesday
• September 21, 1993
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits for
the Coastal Waters of Louisiana; Notice
E L _______-
-------
49128
Federal Ragister/ VoL 58, No. 181 1 Tuesday, September 21. 1993 / Notices
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
(F -47 -4i
Final NPOES General Permits for the
Coastal Waters of Louisiana
(LAG330000) and Texas (TXG330000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Issuance of Final NPDES
Permits.
SUMMARY: Region 6 of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
today issues final NPDES General
Permits for oil and gas facilities engaged
in field exploration, drilling, well
completion and treatment operations
and production activities in the Coastal
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category in the
States of Louisiana and Texas. Produced
water and produced sand discharges are
not authorized by these general permits
but will be regulated under separate
general coastal permits.
These general permits prohibit the
discharge of drilling fluids and drill
cuttings. The general permits also place
limits on oil and grease. total suspended
solids, chemical oxygen demand.
chlorides, total chromium, zinc, pH and
no free oil” in treated waste water from
dewatering activities and prohibit
discharge of formation test fluids to
river,, lakes, streams, freshwater
wetlands and intennlldiRta wet1nn .
These permits are consistent with EPA
guidelines at 40 a ’R part 435. subpart
D and water quality-based aiteria of the
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality and the Texas Rai4road and
Water Commimions.
0ATE5 These peTmits will become
effective on October 21, 1993.
ADDRESSES: Notifications required by
these permits should be sent to the
Water Management Division.
Enforcement Branch (8W—EA), EPA
Region 6. P.O. Box 50625. Dallas. Texas
75202.
cce FURThEfl INFORMATION CONTACTt
Copies of the response to comments
received on the proposed permits can be
obtained from Ms. Ellen Caidwell. EPA
Region 6. 1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas.
Texas 75202. telephone. (214) 655—
7513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
issues these general permits pursuant to
its authority under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). 33 U.S.C. 1342.
Except as noted herein, these permits
apply to all Region 6 field exploration
drilling, well completion, well
treatment and production activities.
except for the discharge of produced
water and produced sand. from fadllt s
Ia the Coastal Oil and Gas Point Source
Extraction Point Source Category (40
CFR part 435. subpart Dl. The permits
also apply to facilities which w ild be
dassified Onshore but for the decision
in American Petroleum Insti bite v. EPA.
661 F 2d 340 (5th Cr. 1981). The
permits do not apply to facilities in the
Offshore Subcategory (40 G ’R part 435.
subpart A). the Onshore Subcategoiy
(subpart C). the Agricultural and
- Wildlife Water Use Subcategory
(subpart El or in the Stripper
Subcategory (subpart F). These permits
do not apply to “new sources’ as
defined at 40 (YR 122.2. north
operations which adversely affect
properties listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Ifistoric Places.
EPA Region 8 proposed to issue these
permits at 55 FR 23348 Uune 7, 1990)
and provided additional notice of the
proposal in the New Orleans rinies and
the Houston Post on June 3. 1990. The
comment period was ongrnally
scheduled to end on July 23. 1990. but
was extended to August 13. 1990. The
American Petroleum Institute (API);
Amoco Corporation; Conoco Inc.; Exxon
Company. U.S.A Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality Loumana
Department of Natural Resouxces -
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and.
Fisheries; Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil
and Gas Association (LMOGA); Kerr-
McGee Corporation: Mobil Exploration
and Producing U.S. Inc.; Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC);
Sierra. Cub. Delta Chapter Protect Reef
Keeper; Shell Offshore Inc.; U.S.
Department of the thtenor and private
atizans C. Baak. R. Cook. R. Enist. J.A.
Freeman. M.T. Cordon. J. Hiytzen, E.
Johnctm, G. Mitchell. j. Moms. P. Oblak,
I Reitman. F.H. lbidenberg. D. Silver.
Spackmnan. D. Swanson. J. Toigo. M.
Vairass submitted comments on EPA’.
proposal to issue this permit EPA
Region 8 has considered all cemmmntl
received, In some instances, minor
wording changes in the final permit may
differ from the proposed permit to
clarify some points as a result of
comments. These final permits . sintein
no substantive changes om the
proposed permits.
State Certification
In accordance with section 401(a)(1 ).
EPA may not issue a NPDES permit
until the State in which the discharge
will occur grants or waives cerufi ion
to ensure compliance with appropriate
requirements of the Act and State law.
The State of Louisiana. after review of
the permit. has certified that the
Louisiana permit will comply with
applicable State water quality standards
or limitations. The State of Texas has
waived certification.
The Coastal Zone Management Act
In accordance with section 307(c)(3)
of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management
Division of the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources has reviewed NPDES
permit LAG330000 and found its
issnance consistent with the Louisiana
Coastal Resources Program. The State of
Texas has no coastal zone management
program.
The Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act and its
Implementing regulations (5 (YR 402)
require that each Federal shall ensure
that any agency action, such as permit
issuance, will not jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
species or result in the destruction or
adverse thodiflcation of their critical
habitats. The U S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has concurred with Region 6s
earlier finding that the issuance of this
permit is “not likely to adversely affect
any endangered or threatened species
nor adversely affect their critical
habitat.”
The Marine Protection, Research ant’
Sanctuaries Act
The Manne 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 MPRSA
establishes the Marine Sanctuaries
Program, implemented by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAM which requires
NOAA to designate ocean waters as
marine sanctuaries for the purpose of
preserving or restoring their
conservation, recreational, ecological or
aesthetic values, There are presently no
existing marine sanctuaries in coastal
waters of Louisiana or Texas.
Economic Impact
The Office of Management and Budget
COMB) has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to section 8(b) of
that order. The economic and
inflationary effects of these regulations
(40 (YR part 435) on which these
permits are based were evaluated in
accordance with Executive Orders
11821 and 12044.
The Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirea
by these permits have been approved by
0MB under provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S C. 3501 et. seq
-------
Federal Register I Vo1 58 , No. 181 / Tuesday, September 21, 1993 / Notices
1112J
in submissions made for the NPDES
pern.it program and assigned 0MB
control numbers 2040-0088 (NPDES
permit application) and 2040-0004
(discharge monitoring reports). All
facilities affected by these permits will
need to submit a request for coverage
under either the Louisiana or Texas
Coastal Waters general permits. EPA
estimates that it will take an affected
facility three hours to prepare a request
for coverage. All affected facilities will
be required to submit discharge
monitoring reports (DMR’s). EPA
estimates the DMR burden will be 36
hours per facility per year.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA
region 6 certifies that these general
permits will not have a significant
mi pact on a substantial number of small
entities. This certification is based on
the fact that the majority of parties
regulated by this permit have greater
than 500 employees and are not
classified as smail business under the
Small Business Administration
regulations established at 49 FR 5024 et.
seq. (February 9. 1984). Those facilities
are dassified as Major Group ’13—Oil
and Gas Extraction SIC 1311 Crude
Petroleum and Natural Gas. For those
operators having fewer than 500
employees this permit will not have
significant impact as the effluent limits
being imposed in these permits are
similar to those being included in state
regulations and permits. Moreover, the
permits reduce a significant burden of
applying for individual permits, on
regulated sources.
Dated: September 10. 1993.
Jack Ferguson,
Dzj’ector, Water Management Division, EPA
Region 6.
General Permit Authorization To
Discharge From the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category to
Coastal Waters of uj*ie,,
Permit No. LAG330000
In compliance with the provisions of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad.
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 at seq: the
‘Act”), the following discharges are
authonzed from coastal oil àiid gas
facilities (defined in 40 CFR part 435,
subpart Di to receiving waters,
described below (encompassing the
coastal waters of Louisiana) In
accordance with effluent limitations.
monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth in parts 1, 11, 111. and
IV thereof:
Drilling Fluids,
Drill Cuttings,
Deck Drainage.
Sanitary Wastes,
Domestic Waites.
Desalinization Unit Discharge. •‘
Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media.
Excess Cement Slurry.
Unaintaminated Ballast/BIlge Water.
Boiler Blowdown.
Blowout Preventer Control Fluid,
Well Treatment Fluids,
Workover Fluids,
Completion Fluids,
Formation Test fluids.
Treated Wasteweter from Dewatered Drilling
Fluids /Cuttings.
Muds. Cuttings, and Cement at the Seafloor,
Uncontaminated Seawater.
Uncontaminated Freshwater.
This permit authorizes discharges to
waters of the United States from
Louisiana Coastal Subcategory oil and
gas facilities engaged in field
exploration, drilling, well completion,
and well treatment operations.
Produced water, produced sand and
source water and sand discharges are
excluded from coverage under this
general pernut. but will however, be
regulated under a separate general
coastal permit.
For the purpose of this NPDES general
permit. Coastal Subcategory facilities
means oil and gas facilities associated
with a welihead located in waters of the
United States (including wetlands), as
defined at 40 G’R 122.2, landward of
the Inner boundary of the territorial seas
and those wells in the geographic area
(land and water areas) suspended from
the Onshore Subcategory described in
40 G’R part 435. subpart C. The term
wetlands means “those surface areas
which are inundated or saturated by
surface ‘or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do
support. a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs and
similar areas”. Territorial seas refers to
“the belt of the seas meast ed from the
line of ordinary tow water along that
portion of the coast which Is direct
contact with the open sea and the line
marking the seaward limit of inland
waters, and extending seaward a
distance of three miles.” (See Clean
Water Act Section 502).
The coastal permit area as described
in the regulations is broad by definition
and includes all nvers, streams and
lakes, bays, estuaries and wetlands that
ocour inland of the temtorial seas. The
coastal subcategory also includes the
geographic area along the coast of Texas
and Louisiana (Chapman line area)
which was originally defined as coastal
In EPA’s 1970 interIm FInal Regulations
for the onshore subcategory (See
Suspension of Regulations, 47 FR
31554. July 21. 1982). A facility is
considered to be covered under tla
proposed general permit if the lo on
of the welihead is within the de nibed
- permit area.
This permit does not authorize
discharge from “new sources” as
defined in 40 G’R 122.2. This permit
also does not authonze discharges from
oil and gas extraction operations which
adversely affect properties listed or
eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
This permit shall become effective o
October 2 , 1993.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, tober
21, 1998.
Signed this September 7, 1993.
Myron 0 Knudson. P E.,
Director, Water Management Division. EPA
Region 6
Part I
Section A Genera) Permit Coverage
1. Intent to be Covered
Written notification of intent to be
covered, including the legal name and
address of the operator, the lease (or
lease block) number assigned by the
Louisiana Minerals Board or. if none,
the name commonly assigned to the
lease area, and the number and type of
facilities located within the lease (or
lease block) shall be submitted:
(a) By operators in leases (or lease
blocks) that are located within the
geographic scope of this permit, within
45 days of the effective date of this
permit.. -
Noter Operators must request coverage
- under this general permit or have an effective
individual permit
(b)By operators of leases (or lease
blocks) obtained subsequent to the
effective date of this permit fourteen
days prior to the commencement of
discharge.
2. Termination of Operations
Lease (or lease block) operators shall
notify the Regional Administrator
within 60 days after the permanent
termination of discharges from their
facilities. In addition, lease (or lease
block) operators shall notify the
Regional Adimnistiator within 30 days
of any transfer of ownership.
Section B. NPDES IndjviduoJ Versus
General Permit Applicability
1. The Regional Administrator May
Require Application for an Individual
NPDES Permit
The Regional Administrator may
require any person authorized by this
-------
4u2a..
F J — / 50. . lLt I. Thesday.. ptamb 21. 1 3 I ’frF4
permit to appiy for and nbtaioan
Individual P IZS permit wh
(a) The discharge(s) is a aigpifi ut
contributor ofpoiluthm
(b) The discharger is not in
compliance with the conditions of this
permit:
(c) A di inge has oxuived in the
availability of the demonstrated
technology or practices for the control
or abatement of pollutants applicahla to
the point sources
(d) Effluent limitstion guidelinas.are
promulgated for point sources covered
by this permit:
(e) A Water Quality Management Plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point source is approved;
(f) The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longer:
(1) involve the same or substantially
similar types of operaflous:
(2) Discharge the same types of
wastes:
(3) Require the same effluent
linutaisons or operating conditions;
(4) Require the same or similar
monitonn : Or
(5) In the opinion of the Regional
Mministratoz. are mom
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 individual
- NPDES permit only if the operator has
been notified in writing that a permit
application is required.
2. An Individual NPDES Permit May Be
Requested
(a) Any operator authorized by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this general permit by
applying for an individual permit. The
operator shall submit an appli ion
together with the ma s supporting the
request to the Regional AdTninI thatcer
no later than De ber 20,1993.
(hI When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to an operator otherwise
subject to this general permit, the
applicnlnhty of this ponnit to tI owner
or operator is autnrnJttir lIy terminated
on the effective date of the individual
permit.
3. General Permit Coverage May Be
Requested
A source excluded from coverage
under this gez era! 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 after the
notification of intent to be covered is
flied (see A.1. above)
Part!!
Section A. Effluani Liautctteris and -.
Monitoring Reqizirernezffs . -
Specific effluent limitathnis end
monitoring requirements are discussed
below. They are organized by the type
of discharge in the text, and by
discharge type, effluent limitation and
monitoring requirements in Table 1.
1. Drilling Fluids -
(a) Applicability. Permit conditions
apply to all drilling fluids (muds) that
are discharged. idcluding fluids
adhenng to cuttings.
(b) Prohibitions. This permit prohibits
the discharge of eli drilling fluids.
2. Drill Cuttings
Sp aaINo The permit prohibitions and
limitations that spp1y to dnilang fluids also
apply to drilling fluids that adhere to drill
cuttings. Any permit r ndif1nn that-applies
to the dnlling fluid system, therefore, also
applies to cuttings discharges.
(a) Prnhib,tjons. This permit prohibits
the discharge of drill cuttings.
3. Treated Waste water From Drilling
Fluids/Cuttings. Dewataring Activities
and Pit Closure Acti-v t1es
(a) A pplicsbili y. Treated waste water
from dewatared dnll site emerve pita.
shale barges, ring levees and ina.iJ.va/
abandoned reserve pits. mud tanks and
effluents from solids control systems.
(b) Limnitotions. Free OiL Discharges
contAining bee oil are prohibited as
determined by a visual sheen on the
surface of the receiving waxer. Discharge
is authorized only at times when visual
sheen observation is possible.
Monitoring must be aca,inplished once
per day, when dischargun The number
of days a sheen is detected must be
recorded.
(Exception) Treated waste water may
be discharged at any time if the operator
uses the static sheen method for
detecting free oil.
Oil and Cj’ease. Treated waste water
must meet a 15 mg/I daily maximum
limitation.
Totai Suspended Solids. Treated
wastewater shall not exceed 50 mg/I
daily maximum.
Chemical Oxygen Demand. Treated
wastewater shall not exceed 125 mg/i
daily maximum.
pH. Discharges of treated wastewatar
must meet a pH limitation of not tess
than 6.0 and not greater than 9 0 at the
point of discharge.
Chlondes. Treated wastewater shall
not exceed a 500 mg/I daily maximum
discharge limitation.
Total Chromium Discharges of
treated wastewater shall meet a 0.5
mg/I daily maximum limitation.
Zinc. Tze&ed weatewaiar shall not
exceed 50 tr ig/I daily maximum for
zinc, - . -
Mon o ing The monitoring frequency
for the above limitstiona are once per
day when di tharging. However. if the
effluent is batch treated and discharged.
the monitoring requirmnents far all
effluent rhiracteristics are once per
discharge event by grab sample. -
(c) Other Morutonng Volume. The
volume (bbls) of discharged treated
wastewater must be estimated once per
day. when discharging. If the effluent Is
being batch treated and discharged then
the estimated volume discharged in
barrels must be recorded per discharge
event.
4.DeckDrainage -
(a) Lnnitations—FrBe OiL Discharges
containing free oil are prohibited as
determined by a visual sheen on the
surface of the receiving water.
Monitoring must be accomplished once
per day, when discharging during
conditions when an observation of a
sheen is possible and when the facility
is manned. The number of days a sheen
is detected must be recorded.
(b) Other Moiutaring Volume. Once
per month, the total monthly volumc
(bbl) must be actimjited.
5. Formation Test Fluid
(a) Prohibitions. There shall be no
discharge of formation test fluids to
lakes, rivers, streams, freshwater
wetlands or intermediate wetlands. In
addition, discharges are prohibited to
wildlife refuges. game preserves. scenic
streams, or other specially protected
lakes or waterbodies.
(Note) Freshwater and intermediate
wetland areas, wildlife refuges end
genie preserves can be identified from
the 197B Vegetative Type Map of
Louisiana (or any subsequent revisions).
published by the Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries. The listing of
scenic streams in LouiLcinflhl is found in
the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries publicatien “Natural and
Scenic Streams System”. (1981).
(Exception) Discharge of formation
test fluids is allowed to the Mississippi
River below Venice, Atchafalayn Rilver
below Morgan City, and Wax Lake
Outlet. Discharges are also allowed to
waterbodies and adjacent wetlands in
brackish or saline marsh areas.
(hJ bmitations—Free Oil. Discharges
containing free oil are prohibited ai
determined by a visual sheen on thu.
surface of the receiving water. Discharge
is authonzed only at times when visual
sheen observation is possible.
Monitoring must be accomplished once
-------
- —,I I. v IcL I t F 2;k I’ Li -
(b) 1 ’—F . p
• .
_______ ... aischargeo e,k...a Jizz-iyt
-hkes. rivers, sueam . e,free er
Is autho en ’ hm.1 1 wetiandi.oa lib
sheen .— - ___ we prohibited tu
_______ wfl fljf rufbg game y 3 VeS . c
per d dt...Jmrwjwi ..stxeams. ar er aU t n,d
of days h z be - lake irwu!m4—cffes
- - N Fi h -iji t ce nd
- ‘(Exception) well treetroeni miid s,
mpreti N e1Ifr. arwe e __ 1 e ptaiivt
flaT ifliwJii asi mrffthe Type Mbp of tIle tcui roa ( ci i any
operater - s the st!tfetheesr metf*ocP subsequeat mvi1icng.puJ 5 byth
fardet c Eg fr — Lotiiiim a otW -anif
pif W il t eCLuwzf . a mp nanxf’ - *hOTiec Tbelh 6 * JC 3O ZJ ’ l
L ig d!in the
wor uitw ffui k l meete -.
fliujEutiuci ofnuf fesa thmr & iu ?mir - - ____ __________
greatürtfrair .O prfur-tD being -, . -
discharged. Sampling musr
accomplished once ____
_________ - -.
(; ber —4r Isun Atr-hR?.fluyo. Riwwb P.for Ct
per month. and Wax Lake Outlet. D sJ w’ii
must beestme L . •l - , allowed. t waier ezajnj.
adjacent wetlands in brackish or saline
marsh areas.
___ 9))
___ ‘• q frp.hibI d
det L huy avi eei
surface of the receiving water. Discharge
___ ____ Is authorized only at times when visuat
- sheen ob r i* pi dhIk
Monitoring must be accomplished once
- per day, when discharging. The number
ofc yeeth n . F e daeec d eazer be
recwde
__ — uea may
be ai .d a any thiie it thu upsras ar
n th.ats c sheen ..thud
10. Miscerraneous DIscharges - -
Desalinization Unit Discharg .
Blowout Preventer Fln
Unceaf nIsnte4 lge ’ Whler Mud’.
___ CUtTmn aedCe ,,wn et thw eeqFeep
____ - Uaa d Seawecer -
n uEneted Freehwu r. Foiler
BIeWd n Em’ fr Ffl
Media, Uncon__ rieted’ Fl shwet r
______ Including potable wa&as wl’ c . du
tank.transfar and emptyingaperationa
____ arn?a,ndensare frnnr air cuncfltinner
u
fe LL e i
corrniiiug free oil - we prohibited
date 1 1 d bye-visual’ shuuu on the
5 UJTGniT oftiru- iivãag-wsrer
______ Mm toring -mznr be ac u iEsfled ’ once
per day. wfien w ugdiirmg
cfl oea wfwrr an ot v cea ala
posnib . Dtsaharge Is
anthuthi d onfy arthnes. when visuat
onuv tian orpossible The
flUjuibi r afdbjjs a sheen is detIlctu must
be recorded
per d1sch ..&-t.
sheen Is detected must be recorded.
be disc .iat -T .-i-
it _ i r4 . ! five
pM h wo4 Im teat di
mtmt (eMa o e leaa.
thJ ead oaL u— theI I&A çth
sample natbstkw oes pea
disrhnr i -A ys ea J .taa fli Zd -
shaLbsliead.b. djechu .
th atth a.&the z
discharge meets the liniitatio%. -
(c) Other Merit onng. Volume. Once
per rpn
as number of barreLs sent dowuhole
during tu t1u anxf themmtherat rre1g
dischargpêdi bsted1end’
reporteó ol purw t&
6. WelL tr tmunt 1Iaii L (1 .
Fluids, Wnrknuea E’luida - ,. . -
disàs afi .eLk
opws ea -fhiià
streame, _- atuii - eacla or
intemediat.
dischar aiepek3w á ‘uddl&ft
refu ea,
or othersp aily p tad.
waterboches.. .- —
Note Freshwat,r and inlsi. dead
areas, wildlife rebi e and game preservea -
n be
Type Map of the Louisiana (or say
subsequent revisions), published by the
LowsianeDe cmem ef

h rn , m ..refrmnd in tie bnm mn .i
DernrTh ’LotWi ldlLthend ,Fi ih_ i e,

Sy um . .Cl981 . - -. . -
(Exaption)Discharg eLwelL —
completion, treatment or workover
fluids ate allowed on the ffsalssfpp1
River below Vtry,&Riv
below Mbrgan C ly ..an Wax.LaLa
Outrat. Disdharg s are arsoaflowedin
waterbodlea and adia if we(fan fs in
brucLisfi Qr , inlln ii marth areas.
PhUId) rr rmmdlLU POx well
flb tkLL 5flt fluid .cuwplutFon ffuids
workover ffnfdh, t sc mp of
prionty pollutants (seeAppencffxh) Fr
prohibited, except in trace-amouo& . I
well completion, treatment or workover
flwds. e theahaigreL the pwun fs
req ii m iiitdw . ! A.Mth nnñriithig the
the discharge-dirt nifl . diflft m pi. .1y
pollutants, .x pt. lfl , i 7rw1IitJt
Certifi wt wilh iiffli a
prieeit polIi u 4 li ..
on on. th ciü thamiQiII
composnion. these-
flwds. and their cancentietions in. the
fluid, must be recorded if pnonty
pollutants are present, in any amount,
in these additives.
7 itJiT rW ft
(a) Proh:bit.A ie—SaLth..b! tb
__ - . . -
-(b) Limitation —Bioiog
__ ___ __ -
rnm. r lh iilaf1uu . Auciw iIUh
must beco dannary par
qua .s.. — — - ,.—
7 nf S ea f — —y -
waste discharges shall meet
daily maxj,wura ____
sampla shad f coUectnd and
once per quartec .
Fecah Csk k Ssn4tasy -w -
- diacbafges.aiua ai i1 iw hmm
- linii aao 2OW1 rekfos
colif .. A bser p a he teleni
and QZ
tfl.. W OL flJIn
by the SIMW - pwJpnIJleeL
___ -
allowe U --n ”- 1I i all
- . L
eaMPNof43perlOore lfora8ustube- ,.
dedmà.(Ili sm.i -
prohebly pe d t Lcen utiu
durra thb h 7 , L.. h
and pollution cenditloize. - -
(c C iep F Jrn1vrñrg — P74,w se per
moeth the a rege’ flow jee gnuI eea
perdey M muse be’eei1mate
8. Domestic Waste
(a) Prohibjtiong—SoJicfk. This permit
prvfribftetfre rW rPnn’ge of g-f e
indfldkig west Ionuxninnaed or
natJ i iCiuurut1 ,u ash arid clinkers.
Neither Fish and sh d’ebrie th
deuiwix stations graywuturfs
coondined garbage tmdhr the
definition.
-------
40130
Federal Register I VoL 58. No. 181 I’ Tuesday, September 21, 1993- / NotIces
(Exception) Miscellaneous discharges
may occur at any time If the operator
uses the static sheen method for
detecting free oiL - - -
ii. Other Discharge Conditions
(a) Prvhibitions—Halogenated Phenol
Compounds. There shall be no
discharge of halogenated phenol
compounds.
Rubbish. Trash, and Other Refuse.
The discharge of any solid material not
authorized in the permit (as descnbed
above) is prohibited.
(b) Limitations—Floating Solids or
Visible Foam. There shall be no,
discharge of floating solids or visible
foam in other than trace amounts.
Surfactants. Dispersants. and
Detergents. The discharge of surfactants,
thspersants. and detergents used to
wash working areas shall be minimized
except as necessary to comply with
applicable State and Federal safety
requirements.
Section B Other Conditions
1. Samples of Wastes
If requested. the perrnittee shall
provide EPA with a sample of any waste
in a manner specified by the Agency.
Part 111
Section A. Genemi Conditions
i. ”Introduc ion
In acoordance with the provisions of -
40 GR 122.41, et. seq.. this permit
Incorporates by reference all conditions
and requirements applicable to NPDES
Permits set forth in the Clean Water Act.
as amended. (hereinafter known as the
“Act”) as wall as ALL applicable G’R
regulations. -
2. Duty to Comply
- The permiftee 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 or for requiring
8 permittee to apply for and obtai.n an
individual NPDES permit
3. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding aA.5 below, if any
toxic effluent standard or prohibition
(including any schedule of compliance
specified in such effluent standard or
prohibition) is promulgated under
section 307 (a) of the Clean Water Act for
a toxic pollutant which is present in the
discharge and that standard or
prohibition is more stringent than any
limitation on the pollutant in this
permit. this permit shall be modified or
revoked and reissued to conform to the
toxic effluent standard or prohibition
and the permittee so notified.
The perinittee shall comply with
effluent standards or prohibitions
established under sectIon 307(a) of the
Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants
within the time provided in the
regulations that established those
standards or prohibitions, even if the
permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement.
4. Duty to Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue an
activity regulated by this permit after
the expiration date of this permit, the
permittee must submit notice of intent
to be covered and must apply for a new
permit. Continuation of the expiring
•permit shall be governed by regulations
at 40 G’R 122.6 and any subsequent
amendments. -
5. Permit Flexibility
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause
including, but not limited to. the
following (see 40 CFR 122.62—64):
(a) Violation of any terms or conditions of
this permit.
(bi Obtaining this pernut by
misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully
all relevant facts;
(ci A change in any condition that requires
either a temporary or a permanent reduction
or elimination of the authorized discharge; or
(di A determination that the permitted
activity endangers human health or the
environment and can only be regulated to
acceptable levels by permit mod ificntion or
termination. -
The filing of a request by the
pennittee for a permit modification.
revocation and reissuance. or
termination, or a notification of planned
changes or anticipated noncompliance,
does not stay any permit condition.
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. 304. and
307 of the Clean Water Act, if the
effluent standard or limitation so Issued
or approvedi
(a) Contains different conditions or
- limitations than any in the permit; or
(b) 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.
6. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort.
or any exclusive pnvileges. nor does it
authonze any inpury to pnvate property
or any invasion of personal rights. nor
any infringement of Federal. State, or
local laws or regulations.
7. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall 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
permittee shall also furnish to the
Regionat Administrator upon request,
copies of records required to be kept by
this permit.
8. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit
conditions on “Bypassing” and
“Ucsats’ (see 111.11.4 and 111.8.5),
nothing in this permit shall be
construed to relieve the permitteo from
dvil or criminal penalties for
noncompliance. Any faLse or misleading
misrepresentation or concealment of
information required to be reported by
the provisions of the permit, the Act, or
applicable G’R regulations which
avoids or effectively defeats the
regulatory purpose of the permit may
subject the pernlittee to criminal
enforcement pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001.
9. Oil 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 permittee is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act,
io: 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
thiClean Water Act. -
11. 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 c
this permit. shall not be affected
thereby.
-------
- Fk ,u.J Rr1 .. . 1 . i i I Th da • 2t . 1 N c1. 4 fl
- Sec pZ V
ofPuht wGmevj - __________
sha t ____ ____
___ zr
un 1
-
thr
Sectioai1 eiA 1O hw
re tm ç - i hi w ci,ef
the eisvpu p
.5
.
ii
- -.
4P p .J df m ’
i1pt 1’-— nvv J “ ‘
• -. - -.-
td
loss of ide . personal injury, or - Sflf . rnm L r t mia
Foper y damage seeking h i
(b)Therwwwna a a!b,rxia y ,r up h mpw .
8. Removed Substances
- “ 1fw y
of . Solids. sludges. fiIter&,dw zsfi .
d i_ .k J . , th.
downtime. .. of eathrent orcont ui o(wsetasee r
satisfied if adequate back-up.. 1 . 9 --—..q s l cIiposeE of i i ma es th
ahould have beeir ins 1led in.t as to prevent --; L
exercise at reasonable an&neeniig
waters. Aim ih nni r .esiLiaj
oczuned dsrth e Q .
— —
-.
/ -
2 . g ra tr ta - -
The I L ,
N * 1IL
any discharge in v1cl ai . peeii

adver fy aK h’ . h1
- .. ‘ .. -,
3. vperOu aids - -
The ?erzeit ee.ahe
proped sps eanâ t aL&
—
are tn alleá a ____
.1 this j ma& m es OQ I -
mai t i - -.
laboratory on ls enâ appropriate
quality 1b -
prfivlsaon requires the o atloeef
backup
a etcz . e .tJL..4 ______
onJj
1• .
within thi4srmisma j er.hasgerkur
f d . mwer a rdance with specified crmtht es . .
(c) lb. 3e i n C Mamtormg aidP ve fr
re & r’ 4 - - - - -
L Inspection and Entry -
ePr - - , The “
censsdering Its adverse effects. lZ S : Regional Admthmfrateroaairthcz
RegiongMm.injst epon ttie pi 6on of
it wilL mae! e three ons ff ________
______ - -
5. U eZCnn.tth ..m. . -“.--. n ________
____ it ___
I al -.- ___
- nnin .—i 1& ___ .._ -
_______ ____ (b) H —.— c at
- - - : - ___
_____ - ______ ______ _____
t ‘gfi - _____
l e iUo & (t as& - hIlrm........ . -..- -- -r ____ _______
the r ti nt1nniádkiwi .L — the — - permit - - -
streams freer 8fl7 U .. 11& h1L h .th1 __ L_._ _ . .a_ ..a ( c i fnep, —-- —hI ,s a
facility. _____ L..p 1 . _ Jy
(2) “Severe. - - . _ - t7 m e erm designed i _ - ‘ -
phat oi erperi , eni i _____ ___
___________ - _______ _____ ______
ceuses th ____
mon — - ..d
- pmcti ,.
- requir tedee
th
_____ - :
.- -
ec on - -M -.--- JL _ -
- Section Sarea
detarminatia m, . un - . .-
— _____
! - r-
nattual miot
expected to o in t1m.be ofa - —
bypass. veiw wpfy L.. uthier ’
not ________ ______
) fiypa am------”-
ll m esma
to o ur thai
limi 1c t be— b 1 4
It also fri.
assure ef ’ne T
byp s est t ic. ta
p s .1 a
_____ -
(c) -Notzze. ip s h e. Ii
tha ___
- ‘ for a byperi.it . .hm ____
notion,iL oo.ihL LM
before t1ia.d oLLhe p ..
L1b
perm shaLL
“ ai ad oe
-- ae erieed by she Weser
e.ibetm i&ee a&eri
locethxL -. -. --
2. Representative Samp ..

required herein she tharapiii iintsttive
- of the volume and nature of the
__-
3. RetentinaaffW rnrd c. -
seàt.e I — .
all ni e
all - — - 7 ___ & _ .
Is i.bti.iza
(c) adft . e..
• ‘ & t

de áal&&aa__
II
(1) An upsat oonurred end thea th. par fare p.n d
.1 t ipIi
measurement, or reporting. t i
-------
: -.40132. . • Federsi Rejr/ VaIL 58, No.-iEt I.’tuesday, September 21,4993 / Notl
may be extended by ret ue t of the
- Regional Administrator at any tim.. -
The operates shall maintain records at
• development and production fadilties
for 3 years. wherever practicable and at
a specific shore’based site whenever not
practicable. The operator Is responsible
• for maintnining records at exploratory
facilities while they are discharging
under the Operator’s control and at a
specified shore..based site for the
remainder of the 3-year retention
- 4. Record Contents -
Records of monitoring information
shall Include
(a) The date, exact place, and time of
sampling or measurements.
(b) The individual(s) who performed
• the sampling or measurements.
(ci The date(s) analyses were
performed. -
(d) The individual(s) who performed
the analyses.
(e) The analytical techniques or
methods used, and
(I) The results of such analyses.
5. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
under 40 G R part 138. unless other test
-: procedures have been speafied In this
permit ( oe part WA. below). -
6. Discharge Rate/Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement
devices consistent with accepted -
practices shall be selected, maintained.
and used to ensure the a uracy and
reliability of measurements of the
volume of monitored digdinrges, The
devices shall be Installed, calibrated.
and maintained to insure that the
ancuracy of the measurements are -
consistent with the accepted capability
of that typo of device. Devices selected
shall be capable of measuring flows
with a maiomum deviation of less than
210% from true tlIu’harge rates r
throughout the range of expected
discharge volumes.
Section D. Reporting Requirements
1. Planned rbiinges
The pernuttee shall give notice to the
Regional Administrator 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
a itena for determining whether a
facility isa new source in 40 G ’R
122.29(b) (48 FR 14153. April 1. 1983.
as amended at 49 FR 38049. September
26. 1984). or
• (b) The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
Lnaeasethequantityofpollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants that are sub)ect neither to -
effluent limitations in the permit. nor to
notification requirements under 40 G’R
122.42(a)(1) (48 FR 14153. April 1.1983.
as amended at 49 FR 38049. September
26. 1984).
2. Anticipated Noncompliance
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.
3. Transfers -
This permit is not transferable to any
person except after notice to the
Regional Administrator. The Regional
Administrator may require modification
or revocation and reissuance of the
permit to change the name of the
permittee and incorporate such other
requirements as may be necessary under
the Act
4. Discharge Monitoring Reports
The operator of each lease (or lease
block) shall be responsible for
submitting monitoring results for all
facilities within each lease (or lease
block). The monitoring results for the
facilities (platform, jack-up, drilling
barge. etcj within the particular lease
(or lease block) shall be summarized on
the annual Discharge Monitoring Report
for that lease (or lease block).
Monitoring results obtained during
thepreviousi2monthsshallbe
summarized and reported on a
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
Form (EPA No. 3320-1). The highest
monthly average for all activity within
each lease (or lease block) shall be
reported. The highest daily maximum -
sample taken during the reporting
period shall be reported as the daily
maximum concentration. (See -
“Definitions’ for more detailed -
explanations of these terms.)
If any category of waste (discharge) Is
not applicable for all facilities within
the lease (or lease block) due to the type
of operation (e.g. drilling, production). -
“no discharge” must be recorded for
those categories on the DMR If all
facilities within a lease block have had
no activity during the reporting period.
then “no activity” must be written on
the DMR. All pages of the 0MB must be
signed and certified as required by Part
U].D.11 of this permit and submitted
when due.
The Permiflee must complete all
empty blanks in the 0MB unless there
has been absolutely no activity or no
- discharge within the lease (or lease
block) for the entire reporting period.
these cases. EPA Region VI will a ept
a listing of leases (or lease blocks) with
no discharges or no activity, in lieu of
submitting actual DMRs (or these leases
(or lease blocks). This listing must -
specify the perrnittee’s NPDES General
Permit Number, lease/lease block
desa-iption. and EPA-assigned outfall
number. The listing must also include
the certification statement presented in
Part aD.ii.d of this permit and an
original signature of the designated
responsible offiaal.
Upon receipt of a notification of
lntenttobecovered.(PartLA.)the
permittee will be notified of its specific
outfall number applicable to that lease
block. Furthermore, the Permittee will
be informed of the discharge monitoring
report due date for that lease block.
All notices and reports required under
this permit shall be sent to EPA Region
6 at the following address: Director.
Water Management Division. USEPA,
Region 8. Enforcement Branch (6W—EA).
P 0. Box 50625, Dallas, TX 75270.
5. Monitoring by the
Permittee
If the pernut ee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than requl.
by this permit. using test procedures
approved under 40 R part 136 or as
specified in this permit. the results of
this monitoring shall be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data
8ubmitted in the DMR. Such increased
monitoring frequency shall also be
indicated on the 0MB.
6. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for all limitations which
require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean iinla q
otherwise specified by the Regional
Administrator in the permit
7. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
The peTlnittee shall report any
noncompliance which may endanger
health or the environment (this indudes
any spii 1 that requires oral reporting to
the state regulatory authority).
Information shall be provided orally
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 permittee bocomes aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a descnptir
of the noncompliance and its cause;
period of noncompliance. incluñing
exact dates and times, and if the
noncompliance has not been corrected.
the anticipated time it is expected to
-------
Federal Register I- VoL 58, No . 181 / Tuesday, September 21 1993 / Notices
49133
continue: and steps taken or planned to
reduce, eliminnte, 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.
The following shall be included as
information which must be reported
within 24 hours:
(al Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any efiluerit limitation In the permit
(b) Any upset which exceeds any effluent
limitation in the permit. -
(c) Violations of a maximum daily €-
discharge limitation or daily minimum
toxicity limitation for any of the pollutants
listed by the Regional Administrator in Part
ill of the permit to be reported within 24
hours.
The reports should be made to Region
6 by telephone at (214) 655—6593. The
Regional Administrator may waive the
written report on a case-by-case basis if
the oral report has been received within
24 hours.
8. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report all
Instances of noncompliance not
reported under part In. section D,
paragraphs 4 and 7 at the time
monitoring reports are submitted. The
reports shall contain the Information
Listed in section D. paragraph 7.
9 Other Information - -
When the pormittee becomes aware
that it failed to submit any relevent facts
in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit
application or in any report to the
Regional Administrator, it shall
promptly submit such facts or
information.
10. anges in Discharges of Toxic
Substances
For any toxic pollutant (see Appendix
A) that is not limited In this permit,
either as an additive itself or as a
component in an additive formulation.
the permittee shall notify the Regional
Administrator as soon as ha knows or
has reason to believe:
(a) That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in the
discharge of such toxic pollutants, on a
routine or frequent basis, if that
discharge will exceed the highest of the
“notification levels” desa ibed at 40
GR 122.42(a)(1) (i) and (ii);
(bJ That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in any
discharge of such toxic pollutants, on a
non-routine or infrequent basis, If that
discharge will exceed the highest of the
“notification levels” desaibed at 40
CFR 122.42 (a)(2) (I) and (ii).
11. Signatory Requirements -
All applications, reports, or
Information submitted to thwReglonal
Administrator shall be signed and
certified as required at 40 (PR 122.22.
(a) All permit applications shalt be
signed as follows:
(1) !or a corporation: By a responsible
corporate officer. For the purpose of this
section, a responsible corporate officer
means:
(I) A president, seaetary, treasurer, or
vice president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function,
or any other person who performs
similar policy or decislonmaking -
functions for the corporation, or
(Ii) 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), 11
authonty 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. -
(b) Authorized Representath’e. All
reports required by the permit and other
Information requested by the Regional
Ad mlnistrator shall be signed by a
person desaibed 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 desaibed above;
(2) The authorization specifies either
an lndlvfdual or a position having -
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager,
ope tor of a well or a well 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 a
named individual or any Individual
occupying a named position; and
(3) The written authorization is
submitted to the Regional
Administrator.
(c) Changes to Authonzation. If an - -
authorization under paragraph (b) of
this section 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 (b) of this
section must be submitted to the
Director prior to or together with any
repQrts. information, or applications to
be signed by an authorized
representative.
(d) Certification, Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the following certification: -
1 certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments weie prepared
under my direction or supervision in
acairdance with e 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, tiue, accurate, and
complete. lam aware that there are - -
sigruficent penalties for submitting folse -
information, indudlng the possibility of fine
and Imprisonment for knowing violations.
12. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 (PR part 2, all
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available
for public Inspection at the office of the
Regional Admi.rustrator. As required by
the Clean Water Act, the name and
address of any permit applicant or
pernuttee, permit applications, permits,
and effluent data shall not be
considered confidential.
13. 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.
Section E. Penalties for Violations of
Permit Conditions
1. Criminal
(a) Negligent Violations. The Act
provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing sections 301, 302, 306,
307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is
subject to a fine of not less than $2,500
nor more than $25,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for riot
more than 1 year, or both,
(b) Knowing Violations. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing sections 301, 302, 306.
307, 305, 318, or 405 of the Act is
subject to a fine of not less than $5,000
nor more than $50,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for riot
more than 3 years, or both.
(c) Knowing Endangerment. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
-------
134 Kr WL 58, No. L81 I Tnneilaiy, S.p bet 21. 1093! Not1t
iei1i 301.302. 308,
307,, 40$oft I an who
knowsatthat th p rin
another pemon in in n n nt danger of
death or sanous bodily inpiry is . .tihjnr
to a fine of not e than SISOJ)0U pee
day of , , ,tRf ,n or by i .4x sonmenI for
not n ze than t5 . or tXIh.
d) Foise Statements. The Act
provides that any person who
ka wingly makes any faLse material
statanienL represantRlinn. or
certification in any application. reawd,
report. plan. or ot docement filed or
required to be maintained iwdor the Ad
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with. or renders inaccurate, any
momtoring device or method required
to be maintained under the Ad. shall
upon conviction. be punished by a fine
of giot more than $10,000. or by
imprisonment for not more than 2 years.
or by both. Ifa conviction ofa person
is for a violation committed after a first
conviction of such person under this
paragraph. punishment shall be by a
fine of not more than 320.000 per day
of violation, or by impiisonment of not
more than 4 years. or by both. ISee
Section 309.c .4 of the Clean Water Acti.
2. Civil Penalties
‘the Clean Water Ad at 1i n 309
provides that any person who vinlatli4 a
permit cont 1 th n implamiinhing c ij te
301. 302.306,307.308.318. or 405 of
the Clean Water Act is subject tea av.il
penalty not to e ri i .d 325.000 per day
of such violation. Any p wcnn who
wiiThilly or negl1 nziy violates permit
conditions implarnanting ca , ih ’n . 301,
302. 306.307. or 308 of the Clean Water
Act is subject to a fine of not less than
$2.5 00 nor more than 325.000 per day
of violation. es by i D 1 Xfr-uM, flt Sot Dot
more than 1 year. or both. The
ma umwn penalty may be c 4 foe
each violation occurring on a single day.
A single operational upset which laada
to simultaneoni ,lolatiens of mere than
one pollutant eter shall be tru i4 d
as a single violation.
3. Administintlvi panalhiea
The Act at SectIon 309 allows that the
Regional Adm istsstor may . . a
Classlor Class Ilävil penalty for
violaflmmofsect iuzis30l. 302. 309. 307,
308. 318. or 405 of the Ad. A Clam!
penalty may not u ed $ ‘IO.OOO per
violation 5Xi . pt that the ma,amnm
amount shall not exceed $2 ,0O0. A
Class II penalty may not exceed $10,000
per day breech dayduriog which the
violation continues. except that the
maiamuxn arnonnt shall ec* exceed
3125.000. An upset that leads to
violations of more than one pothitant
parameter will h.teatadaaasingle
violation.
PartlY
Section 1. 2 Procedures
Forteat pdiiriii it pedflod
below, the only authori piesedoree
am those deecrThed at ’400 ’R pert 136.
1. Vimal Sheen Test
The visual sheen test is used to detect
free oil by observing the surface of the
receiving water for the presence of a
sheen while disthergthgA sheen is
defined asa salvery ’ or’inetuflic’ sheen.
gloss, or increased reflectivity. visual
color or Iridescence on the water
surface. The operator mast conduct a
visual sheen test only at times when a
sheen can be observed. This restriction
eliminAtes absaivations a! nigh! or when
atmospheric or surface conditions
prohibit the observer horn detecting a
sheen (e.g. fog (not ovwtast skies).
rough seas. etc.). Certain d crhai m can
only occ i.irila visual ch n test can be
cnnibu I -
The observer must he positioned on
the rig or platf . or o vantage
p’iintreIatieeto h thadi.th rge
point and 9ow at the ti 01
discharge, neth that the . J — .
detect a s ’ sheeld U an m down
onm fresa the diech For
discharges that have been oonurn hw
at toast 15 mInutes pievioierly.
observati may he made any’
ther fiiw For di arges of lees than 1.5
miantan duration. A wations must ho
made dining both discharge and at S
i nm a tes after dia±arge has ed .
2. Static Sheen T
Region ‘tO. Modified Static Sheen
Test, “Bucket Test”: Conbined 50 FR
No. 165 August 26,1085 and u *FA
Ragiaii 10. Interim Guidanc. for the
Static (Laboratory) Sheen Teat. Jamiary
10. 1964.
1. Scope and Appl ratinn
The static sheen teat Is to be used as
a compliance test for all discharges in
this permit with the no free oil
discharge” requirement. when it 33 not
possible for the ipinatuitO i wuuipli h
a visual sheen ob,urvcztjon the
surface of the n 3vthg wear. This
would prednde an operator from
atlempting a visual sheen observation
when atmospheric or surface conditions
prohibit the observer from detecting a
sheen e g.. during rough . etc.). Free
oil refers to any oil contained in a wirste
stream that when discharged will cause
a film or sheen upon cv a discoloration
of the surface of the receiving water.
2. SIImmaa7 of Method
15 ml sa lesofdriLl da
— we b
and wotneer fluids. L- . -i n *
or tsen&ed wutvuu tar born
dialling 6u d 1 . iu4 ai ivthu. or 15
gm (wet weight basis) samples of dial!
cuttings es produced send are
introduced into ambient seawater in a
container having an air to liqaid
interface a m a of 1000 cm 2 (155.5 £ 112),
Samples are dis sed within the
c’ . ..t...er and o vati e no
more than one hour titer to ascertain if
these materials cause a sheen.
iridescence, gloss, or
reflectance on the surface of the test
seawater. The occurrence of any of these
visual observations will constitute a
demonstration that the tested material
contains ‘free oil”. and therefore.
results in a prohibition on Its di ±arge
into receiving waters.
3. !iflerferencae
Residual “free oil” adhering to
sampling containers, the magnetic
stirring bar used to mix drilling fluids.
and the stainless steel spatula need to
mix drill ciitthigs will be the principal
sources aicentenunation problems.
These problenm shoold only occur if
Impruperfy washed and deanod
equipment am used for the (eat. The .
of disposable equipment minimizes the,
potential for similar rfmanmInatiOn from
pipets and the test container.
4. Apparatus. Mat inia and Reagents
4.1 ApparatUs
4.1.1—Sampling Containers—i L
polyethylene beakers and 1 L glass
beakers.
4. 1.2—CraduSted cyl’mder—lDO ml
graduated cylinder required only for
operatiram wham prwhltthcal of mud
discharges Is required.
4i..3 Plastic disposable weighing
boats.
4.1.4 Triple-beam scale.
4.1.5 DIsposable pipets—25 ml
disposable pipeta.
4.1.6 Magnetic stirrer and stiiTng
bar.
4.L7 Stainless steel spatula.
4.1.3 Test container—open plastic
conor whose Internal cross-section
parallel to its opening has an area of
1000 ± 50 Ca 1 (155.5±7.75 in2 , and a
depth of at least 13 (5 Inchest and
no more than 30 (11.3 inches).
4.2 MMa .,als and Reagents
4.2.1 PlastIc liners for’ the test
cantainev—’Oll free, heavy dirty pies.
trash can liners that do not Inhibit the
spreadingofanoil film. Linerssnustbe
of sufficient size to completely cover the
-------
49135
interior surface of the (eel container.
Pernuttees must determine an
appropnate local source of liners that do
not inhibit the spreading of 0.05 in!
diesel fuel added to the Lined test
container under the test conditions and
protocol described below.
4.2.2 Ambient receiving water.
5. Calibration
None currently specified.
6. Quality Control Procedures
None currently specified.
7. Sample Collection and Handling
7.1 Sampling containers must be
thoroughly washed with detergent,
rinsed a minimum of three times with
fresh water, and allowed to air dry
before samples are collected. -
7.2 Samples of drilling flwd to be
tested shall be taken at the shale shaker
after cuttings have been removed. The
sample volume should range between
200 ml and 500 ml.
7.3 Samples of drill cuttings will be
taken from the shale shaker screens with
a clean spatula or similar instrument
and placed in a glass beakar. Cuttings
samples shall be collected prior to the
addition of any washdown water and
should range between 200 g and 500 g.
7.4 Samples of produced sand must
be obtained from the solids control
equipment from which the discharge
occurs on any given day and shall be
collected prior to the addition of any
washdown water samples should range
between 200 g and 500 g.
7.5 Samples of deck drainage, well
treatment, completion and workover
fluids, formation test fluiils and treated
wastewater from drilling flwd
dewatering activities must be obtained
from the holding facility pnor to
discharge; the sample volume should —
range between 200 ml and 500 niL
7.8 Samples must be tested no later
than 1 hour after collection.
7.7 Drilling fluid samples must be
mixed in their sampling conlainers for -
5 minutes prior to the test using a
magnetic bar stirrer, If predilution is
imposed as a permit condition, the
sample must be mixed at the same ratio
with the same prediluting water as the
discharged muds and stirred. for 5
minutes.
78 Drill cuttings must be stirred and
well mixed by hand in their sampling
containers prior to testing, using a
stainless steel spatula.
8. Procedure
8.1 Ambient receiving water must be
used as the “receiving water” In the test.
The temperature of the test water shall
be as dose as practiceble to the ambient
conditions in the receiving water, not
the room temperature of the observation
facility. The test container must have an
air to liquid interface area of 1000 ±50
an2, The surface of the water should be
no more than 1.27 an (½ inch) below
the top of the test container.
8.2 Plastic liners shall be used, one
per teèt container, and discarded
afterwards. Some Liners may inhibit -
spreading of added oil; operators shall
determine an appropriate local source of
liners that do not inhibit the spreading
of the oil film. -
8.3 A 15 ml sample of drilling fluid,
deck drainage, well treatment,
completion and workover fluids,
formation test fluids, or treated
wastewater from drilling fluid
dewaterrng activities must be
introduced by pipet into the test
container 1 an below the water surface.
Pipets must be filled and discharged
with test material pnor to the transfer of
test material and its introduction into
test containers. The test water-test
material mixture must be stirred using
the pipet to distribute the test material
homogeneously throughout the test
water, The pipet must be used only once
for a test and then discarded.
8.4 Drill cuttings or produced sand
should be weighed on plastic weighing
boa’ts; 15 grain samples must be
transferred by scraping test material into
the test water with a stainless steel -
spatula. Drill cuttings shall not be
prediluted prior to testing. Also, drilling
fluids and cuttings will be tested
separately. The weighing boat must be
immersed in the test water and scraped
with the spatula to transfer any residual
matenaj to the test container. The drill
cuttings or produced sand must be
stirred with the spatula to an even
thstri’bution of solids on the bottom of
the test container, -
8.5 Observations must be made no
later than 1 hour after the test material
is transferred to the test container.
Viewing points above the test container
should be made from at least three sides
of the test container, at viewing angles
of approximately 60° and 30 from the
horizontal. Illumination of the test
container must be representative of
adequate lighting for a working
environment to conduct routine
laboratory procedures. It is
recommended that the water surface of
the test container be observed under a
fluorescent light source such as a
dissecting microscope light. The light
source shall be positioned above and
directed over the entire surface of the
pan.
8.8 Detection of a “silvery” or
“metallic” sheen, gloss, or increased
reflectivity; visual colori or iridescence;
or an oil slick, on the water surface of
the test container surface shall
constitute a demonstration of “free oil ’.
These visual observations include
patches, streaks, or sheets of such
• altered surface characteristics and shall
constitute a demonstration of free oil, If
the free oil content of the sample
approaches or exceeds 10 percent. the
water surface of the test container may
Lack color, a sheen or iridescence, due
to the increased thickness of the fiLm;
thus, the observation for an oil slick is
required. The surface of the test
container shall not be disturbed in any
manner that reduces the size of any
sheen or slick that may be present.
If an oil sheen or slick occurs on less
than one-half of the surface area after
drilling muds or cuttings are introduced
to the test container, observations will
continue for up to one hour. If the sheen
or slick increases in size and covers
greater than one-half of the surface area
of the test container during the
observation period, the discharge of the
material shall cease. lithe sheen or slick
does not increase in size to cover greater
than one-half of the test container
surface area after one hour of
observatlo , discharge may Continue
and additional sampling is not required.
If a sheen or slick occurs on greater
than one-half of the surface area of the
test container after the test material is
introduced, discharge of the tested
material shall cease. The permittee may
retest the material causing the sheen or
slick. If subsequent tests do not result in
a sheen or slick covering greater than
one-hall of the surface area of the test
container, discharge may. continue.
Section U. Definitions
Admizustrattir means the
administrator of EPA Region 6, or an
authorized representative.
Areas of Biological Concern (ABC) are
locations identified by the State of
Louisiana as “no activity zones” or
areas determined by EPA and the State,
collectively, containing significant
biological resources or features that
- require “No Discharge” conditions.
Average daily discharge limit ation
means the highest allowable average of
discharges over a 24-hour period,
calculated as the sum of all discharges
measured divided by the number of
discharges measured that day.
Average monthly discharge limitation
meatis the highest allowable average of
“daily discharges” over a calendar
month, calculated as the sum of all
“daily discharges” measured during a
calendar month divided by the number
of discharges measured that month,
Batch or bulk discharge means any
discharge of a discrete volume or mass
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 21, 1993 I Notices
-------
Fed l . . - I VoL , No lfli I T.esday, ombs? 21. 1 I N*M s - - -
of a pd . tesk m ilar
- cent
infr.q t er ___

treatment Ia 7flI1IflI or se
of A1Th nl from spit. k. er iI -.’
it tin pn th harge .
BIow-os v it z Liui Jlmd is
fluid used to natn the hdr ilir
equipment en the b mw-a u
80D5 is five day b x±emaa1 oxygen
demend.
Boziorb!ov4o*n is discharge from
boilers c r ry to zninim
bui -up in the boilers. includes vents
from boilers and other hosting systems.
Clinkers are nall kinips oi’walzed
plastic.
Cov ta1 n n all waters of the United
States (as defined at 40 ( ‘R 122.2)
landward of the territorial seas.
COD is chpimral oxygen d i n I
Completion fluids are salt solutions.
wa IghtBd hrinnc , poly re or various
additives used to prevent lIAmnge to the
weLl bore during operalinne which
prepare the drilled well for hydrr arbon
prod uctrnn. These fluids move into the
formation and return to the surface as a
slug with the produced water, Drilling
muds rnimiininpin the wel]bore during
logging. ‘ aaing and rRYnAnhing
operations or dining temporary
abendnnmRnt of the well are not
considered completion fliiiAa
regulated by drilling fluids
jijir .m . int
Daily mayim .m discharge limitatinn
means the highest allowable “daily
discharge” diirin the calendar mnnth
Deck dmin e is all waste resulting
from platform washings, deck weahings,
spills, rainwater, and runoff from curbs.
gutters, and drains, including drip pans
and wash areas.
Desalinization unit discharge means
wastewater ass t2t with the p’ 2
of creeting fresh water from wazar
and includes potable water tank weete
water discharges nd tran ir .
Dint,u7anceaus awth filter mpdii ,
means flier media used to filler
seawater or other authnriand completion
fluids and subsequently w hivI from
thefluter. -
Domestic waota is discharges from
gafleys, sinks , showers, safely showers,
eye wash stations, hand wash stations
and niindrj .
DnII cuttings are particles generated
by drilling into the suhiurface
geological formations and cam.ed to the
surface with the dn1lin g fluid.
Drilling fluid is any fluid sent down
the hole, including drilling muds and
any specialty products, from the time a
well is begun until final cessation of
drilling in that hole.
Excess Cement Slurry is the excess
cement including additives and wastes
from hd o a e
cithi operetlon.
FteeC tsoil a w .es aifien
when discharges ieleessd or when a
stab th test Ii used.
Fer ation teat Jliods are the & rli.—r ,
that would o .rr should hydrocarbecs
be located during explo etory drilling
and tested for formation pressure and
content.
Goi’toge means all kinds of victual.
domestic end operational waste
generated during the normal operation
of the ship and liable to be disposed of
osutinnoeslyorperuxllcally • ‘(See
MARPOL T317g regulations).
Grvib smnpk a single repre ututh’e
effluent auipla taken at the recognized
discharge point in m short a period c,f
time as feasibLe.
Grriywater means drainage from
cUihw ’ator . shower, lainidry. bath, end
washbasin drains and does not tnch.ide
drainage from toilets, urinals, hospitals,
and drainage from c go areas. See
MARPOL 73/78 regulations).
hivrz emulsion driliing fluids means
an oil-based drilling fluid that also
contains a large amount of water.
Maxmnzm hourly rote means the
greatest number of barrels of drilling
fluida discharged within one hour,
expressed as barrels per hour.
MCD refers to units of flow
measurement, as million gallons per
day.
MPhY means most probable number.
Muds, cuttings, and cement at the
seafloor are discharges which o ir at
the seafloor prior to installation of the
marine riser and during manne riser
disconnect and well abandonment and
plugging operations.
No Activity Zones are those arem
identified by &v where no sthictures,
drilling rigs, or pipelines will be
allowed. See Areas of Biological
Concern.
No Discharge Areas are areas
speafled by EPA where discharge of
poflutanls may not o ir.
Packer Fluid means low solids fluids
between the packer, production string
and well casing. ISo . workover fluids).
Pnorzty Pollutants are those chemiriala
or elements identified by EPA. pursuant
to section 307 of the Ceen Water Act,
and 40 G ’R 401.15. See Appendix A.
Sanitarj waste moans human body
waste discharged from toilets and
urinals.
Source water and sand means water
from non-hydrocarbon bearing
formations for the purpose of pressure
maintenance or secondary recovery.
including the entrained solids.
Static Sheen is the procedure
described in Part IV. Section A.2. of the
permit.
Territor’wiSees lsthebeAte(the .
measured from the (ordinery In
water along * pc tim co
which dh e s oa nt aotw lththeope a
ocean and the line rLiug the seaward
hnsit of inland waters, axe ] extending
seaward a distance of three miles -
(CWA Section 502).
TDS means total dissolved solids.
Toxic PoiJiitnnta (See Priority -
Pollutants, Appendix A)
Treated ewater from dewotered
drilling fluids and suwags
wastowater from dewatering activities
(induding bid not limited to reserve or
other tanksor pits which lmi e been
flocculated or otl wise chentig n Ily a
mechanically zeated to meet speafic
discharge aunditioas and any waste
commingled with this waler.
T. moans total sespeaded solids.
Ui nMmvith’d Mzllastfhilge wa is
seawater added or removed to meintamn
proper draft of a vesseL
Uncontaminated Fi t.wid meens
freshwater which is r rr ,,ai to the
reonvmg slz-ima without addi1i m of
any i ,ynr 2k u -+nt4wl (1)
discharges of tr water that
pe at iti,mu 1 g an,remnon of fire
control and utility lift pumps. (2)
freshwa from p .w
and ci w y recovery pivjcts . (3)
water released during the tr ’nr and
testing oip ’-m . i rn fire yrotection.
(4) water used to piesome t piping.
(5) once throagh, non . t cooling
water. and (8) potable water released
during transfer and tank emptying
operations end condensate from air
conditioner units.
Uncontaminated Sea water is seawater
which is returned to the em without the
addition of chemicals. Included are (1)
Discharges of uu e8 seawater which
permit the ceetmuous operation of fire
control end utility lift pomps, (2) excess
seawater from pressure maintenance
and secondary .u v ij projects . (3)
water seleesed during the training and
testing of pmwiaiul In fire protection,
(4) seawater omd to pressure test
piping, and (5) once through.
noncontad cooling water.
Visual Sheen means a ‘silvery’ or
‘metallic’ sheen, gloss, or incensed
reflectivity visual celor or iridescence
on the water surface.
WeD treatment (stimulation) fluids
means any flwd used to restore or
improve productivity by chemically or
physically altering hydrocarbon-bearing
strata after a well has been drilled.
These flwds move into the f€ atior.
and return to the surface as a slug with
the produced waler. Shmiilntion fluids
include substances such as acids.
solvents and propping agents.
-------
ber 1 Vol. , i 11, ___ ___
Work.overflwdj aJt i , du w pufslic a . n irvwL .ii1.. . ng and well cni ing. are
it d bruru 5 . pol, e’er ‘eeneader,d workover Thii y - - onejde,nd ie .be ivorkoyar fluids an4.
specialty additives used ins pTodtnizig efiniuon and thur foro must et must meet only the effluent
well to a&w.safe upair and dilfling Ihuid RfThinnt ihuitalione before requir e imposed on wcnIovur
dIcrhrn Amay Packarlhuiil& low u s.
procedures. High solids drilling fluids solids fluids between the packer.
TAüi 1 .—PERMrT oMmoP s AND DIsGIIAAGE Mo,,irrop,p Ff ou cy
Effluent characteristic
Discharge luritabon
Measwement frequency f TçIetyp meth .,d
I Reccidedvalue s)
al ng Fhath-qri dsJiar .
B). D 1 —no
(C). Treated Was waterfroin Dvbig fluldsivtm gs. D wat& A vfbo,, w PIt Clesore ActivIties.
Freeoü - —
041 and grease -— ._
T.SS
COD
pH ....—_...... .. ..
Chlorides____
Total olvonium
Zinc .__.__ ._.
Vcssne —
NOfr SeO I . . .
15 mg /I ._.. ... .. . ..
O mgil
125 m g I
6.O-e.O3
500 m g I
0.5 mg/I ._.....
5.0 mg/I ._.._. ._
Tt ufl (b e) ._ .__.._
Once/dayt —
Orcm y1
Once/day’
Once/clay’ ...
Once/day’
O Y1____
Onco/ijayl
Oi dayi
‘Once/day’
Visual sheen on rece vmg
waters
Grab
Grab —.. - ._.. . .. . . . . . . .. .
Grab .. . . ._
-- —
—
E s1i.. .ai
Nrer01th

Daisy IT Y*xTI.
Daily rrmunun.
Daiiy meueaga.
p1 1 value.
ll
-

Daly tOtal.
-
Free Cd
Volume
Ito frseoI
Report ! to)
/dayIo .y W— ee an
•
-- .
01 days sheen ob-
earved.
(El. Formation Test Fhxds
There shad be no dIscharge c i fonnution test fl*ada to takes, riven. sfreanw, freshwater ds or . esnru,cist reUas . In s-
charges are prolebited to wisdife refuges, game preserves scervc sheams, or ier epeQaily protected lakes or watentodaes.
(E ) Dect ge of f ’yp ‘- f to the Rrver below Vance. Atchafalays River below Morgan City, Wax Lake
Outlet, and to waterbodies and s4. et* wetianda ri braclash or saline rTwsh — flmee allowed ierges we si to the ENo ng
Iwivtatiore and monitoring recpenya
Free oil _._.. ... No has c i On acharge . .._ ‘Uto sheen on receiving Nurrter of days sheen ob-
ç 2 served.
pH e.O-e 03 Once/dismerge .._._.. Grab pH value.
Volume _ . . _ Report ( this) Once /discharge _ .... Estimate . _ .. _ .. ,. _ Monthly toIai.
(F), Wed Tre nent , Co oton, and Worhaver F1uicl
There shad be no dsctorge of wed nerW, corpetion and w xkover Ihads to lake,, rivers, sfreano, freshwater wetlands or w a,mediax *ei-
In thaii n , chargas we pro1i ited to *iktWe refuges, game preseeros, sfreame , or other speoalty protected takes or
wWe es.
(Exce iori) Doclwge of wed freabiw*, conOebon and woikover fluids is allowed to the Mississipç R 1 ie4ow Ve fu ya River
below Morgan City, Wax Lake Ot erat to watenbodies and ac acer* wetlands ii biedinli or saline nwsh areas. These alowed discharges
an, si ed to die foIcMwlg áialeto .g and monitoring res arements. -.
Priority Pclktanta____
Free oil
pH
Volume ... .... . ....
No Ihol
No tee oil
&O- .Os . .
R txt (this) ...... .
—
C tl q ,
/ieL01 sheen on zeca ,
en_ .2
. . . . .
Estenate ...... ...
Nunter 01 days atwen ob-
aer .
pH Jue.
Morittly sL
.. .
Once/day’ I
Once/day’
Once/month’
(G) Sanitary Waste -
—
So
B005 —— -_.
TSS — -_ ...
Focal co ldoiTn
no ._....... ..
No floating sollos . . .
45 mg/I
45 mg I —. -_
2001100 md ’ .... . .... . ..
Report (MGD)
Once/day .. .
Once/quarter -—-....-— -..
Once/quarter .
OflC&WOOh
once/month
Oi m v a b o n ... -.-__...
-
Grab
Grab ..- --..-.
--.........- -.... -. ......
Estimate
Nuritor- 01 days sokis ob.
served.
Deity fT u um.
Deity rrisxmun.
Daily maxinejm,
.. ,... _. t so ,t? i avg’
(H) Domestic Waste
Solds .. .._ ..... .INod i schargeI I I I
-------
.Eedu a1 Regiet.erl VOL 58, No. 181 / Tueeday. September 21. 1993/ NotIces
49138
‘I ’
TABLE 1.—PERMIT CoNomoNs O DISCHARGE MONITORING FRE0uENcY—Conhinued
I
Elfluent characterlade I Discharge nataflon
j
e emer i
Measuremel I iquency San le typ&m iod . Recorded value(s)
(U. Excess Cement Shiny
Freeod
LDEO field wide pemel .

Nofreeod ..___....
No discharge to takes, nv-
era. atreanis, and frest
water wotlande or inter-
— wo d
Once/day’ . .............
Visual sheen on receiving
water 2
-
Nurrterofdayssheenob-
served.
.
.
( .1). Miscellaneous Discharges: Desalinization Unit Discharge. Blowout Preventer Fluid, Uncontaminated Ballast Water, Uncontaasriated 8 Ige
Water, Mud, Cuttings, and Cement at the Seafloor, Uncontaminated Seawater, Uncontaminated Freshwater, Boiler Blowdown. Diatornaceous
Earth Filter Media. Uncontaminated Freshwater including potable waxer releases diinng tas* trasuler and er ng operations, and conden-
sate from air conditioner
Freeod Nofreod._. ..._.. .. . .. Once/thy’ Visualshnonrecetwç Nutherofdayssheenob-
water 2 served.
Footnotes for Table 1.
‘When discharging.
2 Discharge is poss1 le during tunes other than when a visual sheen observation is possble,if the static sheen teat method is used.
3 pi4 at the point of discharge shafi not be less than 60 or greater than 90.
fnfo4wistion shall be recorded, but not reported unless specifically requested by EPA.
5No discharge exce vi trace amount. Certification that each discharge does not Contain poority pol Jtan (excect in trace aznountst on
DMA ’S is suf f icient to meet pnonty polk.narl larvis. Information on tie specific ctierracal corT osieon shall be retained by the pemiiitee but i ’d
reported unless requested by EPA.
tonitonng by visual observation of the swine. of the receiving water vi the vicinity of outfall(s) shall be done ckinng daylight at the time ci
maximum estimated discharge.
‘For specific waler bodies designated by tie state for oyster propagation, Focal coiiform not to exceed 14 moat probale riunter (MPN) focal
colifomis per 100 ii, and not more than 10% of the sarr iles shall exceed an MPN of 43 per 10011 for a 5 ftabo decimal dilution test In areas
most probably exposed to focal contanwation d.anng most unfavorable hy ograp uc and pofkfton conaiuons .
S Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 prohtiil the discharge of “gathaQe Including food wastes, incmerat)on ash and clinkers. Gmaywater, dia’
from dishwater, shower. lawioty, bath, and washbasirie may be discharged. -
a Monitoring of visual sheen to be niade at times when visual observations can be Tiede.
°When discharging and when the 1lity manned. -
Appendix A. Priority Pollutant List
Acenaphthene
A i olein
Acrylonitnie
Ben ne
Benz dlne
Carbon te achJorade (te achlomornethane)
Ghlorobenzene
I .2 r-ti-ichIombenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
I,2-dlchlomoethane
i,i, 1-tnchloroethane
Hexachlo moethane
1,I-d lc l iloroetbane -
1.1.2-trichloroethane
I.L2,2-teti ach 1 ceoethafle
ailomoethane ether
2-chioroethyl vinyl et (mixed)
2-chlozonaphthalene
2.4.6-tr ich lorophenol
Parachloroinetaaesol
ailoruform (trichioromathane)-
2-chlorophonol
I ,2-thchlorobenzene
i,3-dichlorobenzano
t.4-dichlorobanzana
3.3-d lchlorobenz8 0 0
i.i-dlchloroethylene
2,4 .dichloropbonol
1.2-dachloropropane
i.2-dichloropropylene (1.3-dichloropropenel
2.4-dimethyl phenol
2.4-dwitzotolu0 0 0
2.6-danitrotoluene
1.2-diphenylhydrazifle
Ethylbenzeno
Fluoranthene
4-chiorophenyl phenyl ether
4-buxinophenyl phenyl ether
Dlchlorobormnomethane —
chiordibromomethano
Hexachlorobutadino
Hexachlorocyclopentadine
Is ophomne
Napthalino
Nitrobecizune
2 -n itrophenol
4-nifrophenol
2.4-dinitiophenol
4.Sd lnltroo -aesol
4,6-dlnitro-o-aasol
N-nitroeodlmethylamine
N-n i t rosodl-n-propyla inine
Pentach lorophnol
Phenol
BIsLZ-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl beuzyl phthalate
DI-ci-butyl phthalate
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
Diuthyl Phthalate
Dlmethyl phthalate 1.2-benzuthracene
(benzo(a)anthracone)
Benzo(e)pyrane (3.4-benzopyrene)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
(ben.zo b)fluoranthene)
11 ,12-benzofluoraatheno
(beazo(b lUuoranthone)
chry sene
Acenaphthy lene
Anthracene
1.I 2-benzoperylene(benzo(ght)pary lone)
Fluorene
Phenanthzene
1,2,5.8-dibenzanthracene
(dibenzo(h)anthracene)
Lndeno (1.2.3-cd) pyiene (2.3.o.pheoylene)
Pymene Tetsnchlamethyleno
Toluene
Endosulphan sulphate
Endnn
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachior
Heptachior epoxide (BHC-hexachloro
cyclohexene)
Alpha-BHC -
Bete-BHC
Cemma-EHC (Undane)
- Dolta-BHC (P -polychlonnated biphenyls)
—I242 (Arochlor 1242)
P —I254 (Arochior 1254)
P —1221 (Arochlor 1221)
—1 232 (Axochlor 1232)
—1248 (Arochlor 1248)
—l26O (Arochlor 1260)
P —I0l6 (Arochlor 1016)
Toxaphane
Anwnony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Dory Ilium
Cadmium
Chroiniwn
Copper
Cyanide. Total
ad
Mercwy
Nickel
-------
F...L __ I I VoL 58. . & I ‘Tuesday. Sep* nber 2t,! 3 2 ) k’tis s
.dio n (1 D)
Silver
Thallnn
Bis(2 i.o sipyt e

Mth hdithuanel
Methyl chlende (dthlo, Mk l
Methyl bromide btoinomethane)
Broznobrxo Thbromoethane
Thchloroethylene________
Vinyl thloñde thlu hyisee) Aithin
Dieldru i
f k dana4 . IT I frIIr fld hrIIt .ic
4.4-DIYr
4.4-ODE p 4 4)DX
4.4-ODD (p.p-IDEJ
Alpha.d.nfiIPnif an
Beta-endoau] ,pban
Zinc
Geo&al PG. 4AvtlearieMi to
Dha ar e horn 4he Oil and Ge. Pidat
Sour Cai . geay Cea al Wa ms at
Texas -
Permit No. TXG3 30000
In compliance with the pzovasacmz d
the Fød r l WaerPnliutinnCanirol Act.
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 .etseq the
‘Acti.the ngAhnigea .are
authon.zed from co iii
facilities ( defined In 40 C LPart 43 ,
Subpart Dl ta.mcnii .ong watera.
dos bed below ( oucnmp iiig the
coastal waiarg of Texas) in acoordanoa
with afflui nt liniitniinn nan . .ifnrj g
requirements and othera s nAitiona
forth in PaztsL L1fl. andW thereof:
DnUmg Plaids.
Drill Cuttinge.
Deck Drernage.
Sanitaly Wastes,
Doinest i Wastes.
Desaliniten1lnitfl ixhaz e.
Diatoma n Earth Filter l ted.la.
Excess Cunrent Slurry.
Uacentanunated Ballast/Bilge Wat ,
BoLler Blowdeirn.
Blowout Pievenier tzot2hud.
Well Tseaeseot Fluids..
Workover P luida.
Completion P uids.
Fonnalion Teat Fluids,
TreaiedWatewatw d 1ILcg
Fhnd s#Cuftzn .
Mudi, Cuttanp sed f - irg da Sea fern.
Un 1 rT1 .v121Ad Saaieaz.
Unrnnmin t wI Frrnhwaxer.
This permit authonzee dJ .gss to
the a aI watrns of Texas frixa ad and
gas f liiies engaged in prodnthrsi.
field expleration. drilling. well
completAna. end well Ueatx nt
operations. Prodiioad water. psoducod
sand and.sour water and d
dischaigae are exdudod from onverage
tmder this general peonit.hut will
however, be regulated under a separate
general coastal periniL ____
For the purposes of this Nrut.S
general permit, Coastal Subcaiegoi’y
famlitie. iWna fld 6dhlties
assoaated wIth a wefibeed erated !ln -
waters of the Uted tateatiru±iding
w tlan.tiI1 es4aSewd at aO R 1 2 .
landward ofthe innor betmdmy .1 the
terntonal seas and those wells in the
gee rap hic.ama UanLLand water erase)
suspended from the fin.hn, 0
Subc tegory descn bed at 40 G ’Rpaxt
435 subpan C. Thu tuna wetlands shall
mean “those suifaco areas which are
inundated or saturated by sur tco or
ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient losupporLand that
under ,irniii1 cin imstance. do esppast
a prevalence of vegetation ‘piselly
adapted forlilesn rsturstudjoál
ainditicas. Watleads gonwakly include.
swamps. marthe..bo and aimihir
areas”. T 1 erntnrial e.e. refers to “the halt
of the seas measauad horn the Iine of
ordinary low water unrig thet-pirtionif
the coast which is direct contact-seth
the open sea and the line marking the
seaw lanut of snLsnd wakern,and
extending seaward • distance of three
miles.” (See Clean Wate.r.Act. tion
502 ]. -
The coastal perndtare. as 4 Thed
in the regulations is broad by de nIt1on
and includes ail ‘flyers, l es ,
bay.. estuaries and ad etegt wetlands
that ocair inlandcf iiin rbuu.uii1w-j of
the territorill seas. The cnsuael
subcategory also includes The
geographic area alone the coast ofTexas
and -Louisiana iClapman line-mat)
which was originally defined as rm.etgl
in EPA’s 1970 Interim F nal’Ragulatiana
for the nshoze subcategory t ee
Suspension oTRegulatinns, 47YR
31554. July 21. 2982]. A facflityis
consi4end tohe covered iinilarthe
pro posed general permit if the . ini atinu
of the weUhead as within the desailred
permit ares.
This peanut does net authnrize
discharge from “new sot ” as
di fl ad 40 Q’R177 “ Thai y .Tm it
also doe, not authorlan di ie.g. . . fli
oil and gas extraction opeaalincis which
adversely affect properties listed rn
eligible Fm’ listing in the National
Register ol Rietonc Pieces.
This permit shall become effective on
October 2.1. 1993
‘Thai permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
October21. 1998.
Sidâ .S mber1th diyof ’1993.
Myxe.zO.L, ..ili. . .., P1.,
Thrector. Water Mancemant DivroonEPA
Region a..
Parti
Section A. General Permit Covervge
1. Intent To Be Covered
Written notfEi tion ohntent to be
crvered. mcludhig the legal name and
address of the operator. ‘the lease (or
lease block)-nixmberassigned by the
Railroad Cammisswn f ’Texas at.tf
none, the name CLJUILUUUIY assigned to
the lease area. and the type of fecilities
located within the lease (or lease blix±J.
shall be submitted.
(a) By operetIxa’s of lenses (or lease
blocks )thet are located within the
geographic-scope of this permIt, within
45 dsys of the effective dateaf this -
pe nitit.
N.i& Operators must requast aiw e
under this general peonil or have an effective
In d iv idual permit.
- fbI By operators of leases (or lease
blocks) tni,w1 subaeqeead to the
effoctiso date of this permit fourteen
day. poor to the oarnm,nr ment of
disdiarja.
2. Termination of Operations
Lease(ar1ewebloc ) operators shell
notify the Regional Adaunistrater
within 60 days after the permanent
tnmiiiwlbon of discharges from their
facai,aties. In addition, lease (or lease
blocki -operators simil notify ihe
Regional Adminicitrator within 30 days
of anytrans-for of ownership.
Sectiee . NPDFS lndividual Versus
General Pemrit AppIicebili y
- 1. The Regional Adminis*rathr)iiay
Require Application for an Endindual
NPDES Permit
The Regional Adrnini mtor may
require any person authorisud by thu.
pei’mit ’to appLy for and obtam an
individual NP.DES permit when
(ii flr discharge(s ) Is • ogniflaint
nintributorolpoilut lea
(b) Thedlschsiger is not in ainiplaence
with the ixmthtiims of this permit:
Ic) A change has occurred in the
availability of the demonstrated technology
or practi ft,r the aintrol or abetumenl of
poflutaxitiapplicabletothe pant mwtss
Id) Effluent limitation guidelines are
promylgated tor peiai .owsasurvised by
this permit,
le)AW.ter Quality Maziagenseet Plan
ccntainlngrequizmcente applicable to such
point source is approved.
(fl The point source(s) covered by this
permit no
(1) involve the e.rne criubat*nuially
gimilar types of operations.
-------
4914O:.
Federal tpgiahir / VoL 58. No. 181 / Tuesday. September 21. 1993 1 Notices
(2) DIscharge the same typ of wuteE
(3) Require the same effluent limitations er
opesetiflgC ondiU onE
(4) Require the same er aimiler momtoring
or
(5) in the opinion of the Regional
Administrator. 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 individual
NPDES permit only if the operator has
been notified in writing that a permit
application is required.
2. An Individual NPDES Permit May Be
Requested
(a) Any operator authorized by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this general permit by
applying for an individual permit The
operator shall submit an application
together with the reasons supporting the
request to the Regional Administrator
no later than December 20, 1993.
(b) 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.
3. General Permit Coverage May Be
Requested
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 after the
notification of intent to be covered is
filed (see A.1. above).
Pa ul
Section A. Effluent Ij.znjtations and
Monitoring Requirements
Specific effluent limitations and
monitoring requirements are discussed
below. They are organized by the type
of discharge in the text, and by
discharge type. effluent limitation and
monitoring requiremQnts in Table 1.
1. Drilling Fluids
(a) Apphcabthty. Permit conditions
apply to all drilling fluids (muds) that
are discharged. including fluids
adhering to cuttings.
(b) Pmhibi Lions. This permit prohibits
the discharge of all drilling fluids.
2. Drill Cuttings
Special Note The permit prohibitions and
limitations that apply to drilling fluids also
apply to drilling fluids that adhere to drill
cuttings. Any permit coadition that applies
to th. drilling fluid system. therefore, also
applIes to cuttings discharges. -
(a) Prohibitions. This permit prohibits
the discharge of drill cuttings.
3. Treated Wastewater from Drilling
Fluids/Cuttings. Dewatering Activities
and Pit Closure Activities
(a) Applicability. Treated waste water
from dewatered drill site reserve pits,
shale barges, ring levees and inactive!
abandoned reserve pita, mud tanks and
effluents from solids control systems.
(b) Limitations— ’Free Oil. Discharges
containing free oil are prohibited as
determined by a visual sheen on the
surface of the receiving water. Discharge
is authorized only at times when visual
sheen observation is possible.
Monitoring must be accomplished once
per day. when discharging. The number
of days a sheen is detected must be
recorded.
(Exception] Treated wastewater may be
discharged at any time if the operator
uses the static sheen method for
detecting free oil.
Oil and Grease. Treated Wastewater
must meet a 15 mg/I daily maximum
limitation.
Total Suspended Solids. Treated
wastewater shall not exceed 50 mg/I as
a daily maximum.
Total Dissolved Solids. Treated
wastewater shall not exceed 3000 mg/I
as a daily maximum.
[ Exception I Total dissolved solids (TDS)
concentration may exceed 3,000 mg/I in
tidally influenced watercourses
(downstream of the upper limit of
saltwater intrusion) if the TOS
concentration of the treated reserve pit
effluent does not exceed the TDS
concentration of the receiving water at
the point of discharge at the time of
discharge.
Chemical Oxygen Demand. Treated
wastewater shall not exceed 200 mg/I as
a daily maximum.
p11. Discharges of treated wastewatar
must meet a pH limitatIon of not lees
than 6.0 and not greater than 9.0 at the
point of discharge.
Chlorides. Treated wastewater shall
not exceed 500 mg/I in inland areas and
shall not exceed 1.000 mg/i in tidally
influenced wetercourses.
lExceptioni Chloride concentration may
exceed 1.000 mg/I in tidally influenced
watercourses (downstream of the upper
limit of saltwater intrusion) if the
chloride concentration of the treated
reserve pit effluent does not exceed the
chloride concentration of the receiving
water at the point of discharge at the
time of discharge. Inland regions are
defined to be those regions where
natural drainage is into any watercov
which is not tidally Influenced.
Hazw’vious Metals. The discharge -
must not contain concentrations of the
substances Classified as “hazardous
metals” in excess of the levels allowed
by the Texas Water Development Board
Rules 156.19.15.001— 009 (currently
TAC 319.21).
Monitoring. The monitoring frequency
for the above limitations are once per
day when discharging. However, if the
effluent is batch treated and discharged.
the monitoring requirements for all
effluent characteristics shall be once per
discharge event by grab sample.
(c) Other Monitoring—Volume. The
volume (bbls) of discharged treated
wastewater must be estimated once per
day. when discharging. lithe effluent is
being batch treated and discharged then
the estimated volume discharged in
barrels must be recorded per discharge
event
4. Deck Drainage
(a) limitations—Free Oil Discharges
containing free oil are prohibited as
determined by a visual sheen on the
surfoce of the receiving water.
Monitoring must be accomplished once
per day, when discharging during
conditions when an observation of
sheen Is possible and when the facility
is manned. The number of days a sheen
is detected must be recorded.
fb I Other Monitoring—Volume. Once
per month, the total monthly volume
(bbl) must be estimated.
5. Formation Test Fluid
(a) Prohibitions. There shall be no
discharge of formation test fluids to
lakes,rivers. streams, bays and
estuaries.
IExceptlonl Discharges of formation test
fluids are allowed to bays and estuaries
where no chloride standards have been
established by the Texas Water
Commisaion.
(b) Lizrulations—Free Oil. Discharges
contnining free oil are prohibited as
determined by a visual sheen on the
surface of the receiving water. Discharge
Is authorized only at times when visual
sheen observation is possible.
Monitoring must be accomplished once
per discharge. The number of days a
sheen is detected must be recorded.
(Exception) Formation test fluids may
be discharged at any time if the operator
uses the static sheen method for
detecting free oil.
pH. Discharges of formation test
must meet a pH limitation of not less
than 6.0 and not greater than 90. A grab
sample must be taken once per
discharge. Any spent acidic test fluids
-------
‘ FederaI Register ( VoL 58, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 21, I 93. 1 Notices ‘ - - —49141
3. Toxic Pollutants
- - —
shall be neutralized before diacha , ge - 7. SanItary Waste - - . authorized In the permit (as deeathed
such that the pH at the point of Pr bjlio — lj , bove) Is prohibited. - , -
dhargemoetsthellmitat lon. solidamaybedlsdiarget -‘ (b)liInitations- FloatingsoJjdso,
(c) Other Monitonng—VoJurne. Once (b) L.imitalions—Biochemjcj,J Oxygen Visible Foam. There shall be no
per discharge. the total volume rerrted Demand (BOD5). Sanitary waste - -‘: discharge of floating solids or visible
as number of barrels sent downho a discharges must meet a 45 mg/I daily foam in other than trace amounts.
during testing and the number of barrels maximum limitation. A grab sample - Surfactants, Dispersants, and
discharged shall be estimated and must be collected and analyzed once per Detergents. The discharge of surfactants,
reported once per month. quarteri - - dispersants, and detergents used to
8. Well Treatment Fluids. Completion
Totoi Suspended Solids. Sanitary - ch working areas shall be minimized
Fluids, Workovor FlUIdS waste discharges shall meet a 45 mg /I - except as necessary to comply with
daily maximum limitation. A grab ‘ applicable State and Federai safety
(a) Prohibitions. There shall be sample shall be collected and analyzed - -
discharge of well cempietlon. treatment once per quarter. - -
or workovor flUids to lakes, rivers, . Focal Colifoim. Sanitary waste - Section B. Other Conditions
streams, i y estu ariss. - discharges must meet a daily maximum 1. Samples o Wastes
limitation of 200/100 ml for focal -
(Exception) Discharge of well coliformAgr sample must be taken if reque ted, the permittee shall
comp etion, treatment or workover ‘ and anal , once per week, provide A with a sample of any waste
fluids are allowed to bays and estuaries (c) Other Monitoring—Flow. Once per in a manner specified by the Agency.
where no chloride standards have been month, the average flow (million gallons
established by the Texas Water per clay; MGD) must be estimated. - 1’ m - . ,. -
Commission. - - • Section A. General Conditions
8. DomestIc Waste - - -S. - - -
Priority (Toxic) Pollutants. For well
treatment fluids, cem letion fluids, and (a) Prohjbitjon —5oJjd . This permit lfltiodUCtiOn - - —
workover fluids, the of prohibits the discharge of”garbage” In wiii the provisions of
priority pollutants (see Appendix A) j including food wastes (coTni-ninuted or 40 K 122.41, e . sea . this permit
prohibited, except in trace amounts. If not), incineration ash and . . by reference all conditions
well completion, treatment or workover Neither fish and debris from -‘ and requirements applicable to NPDES
fluids are di dinrged, the permittee is cleaning stations nor graywatar are not Permits set forth in the Clean Water A ,
required to retain records indicating that considered garbage under this as amended, (hereinafter known as the
the discharge did not contain priority definition. Ad”) as well as ALL applicable (YR
pollutants, except in trace amounts. . Discharges : ‘ regulations. . .. - - - - — - -
Certification on DMR’s will suffice for -
Desalinization Unit Discharge, . 2. Duty To Comply -
pnority pollutant ‘ m - Blowout Preventer Fluid, - - -
Information on the specific chemical Unco i ted Ballast Water, .The permittee must comply with all
composition of additives used in these Uncon ,nnted Bilge Water, Mud, conditions of this permiL Any permit
fluids, and their concentrations in the Cuttings, and Cement at the sea floor, non-compliance constitutes a violation
fluid, must be recorded if pTlOflty UncontaminAted Seawater, Boiler - - of the Clean Water Act and is grounds
pollutants aie present, in any amount, Blowdown, Excess Cement Slurry. - feY enforcement action or for requiring
in these additives. Diatoma us Earth Filter Media, a psamittee to apply for and obtain an
(b) Lim,tations—Free Oil. Discharges Uncontaminiited
Individual NPDES
Including
permit. -
containing free oil are prohibited as potable water releases during tank - ‘ -
determined by a visual sheen on the transfer and emptying operations, and -. 5
surface of the receiving water. Discharge condinsate from air conditioner units.. -- Notwithstanding IILA.5 below, if any
is authorized only at times when visu (a) Limitations—Free Oil. Discharges toxic effluent standard or prohibition
sheen observation Es possible. containing free oil
are prohibited as (including any schedule of compliance
Monitoring must be accomplished once determined by a visual sheen on the specified in such effluent standard or
The number surface of the receiving w er. Discharge prohibition) is promulgated under
per day, w en must be Is authorized only at times when visimi sectIon 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for
of days a sheen is
recorded. - sheen observation is possible. a toxic pollutant which is present in the
-
(Exception) Well treatment fluids, Monitoring must be accomplished once discharge and that standard or
comp etion fluids, or workover fluids - per day, when discharging. The number prohibition Is more stringent than any
ofdaysa sheen is detected must be - limitation on the pollutant in this
may be discharged at any time if the -- permit, this permit shall be modified or
operator uses the static sheen method
for detecting free oiL - -‘ - [ E pUonl Miscellaneous discharges revoked and reissued to conform to the
may occur at any time if the operator toxic effluent standard or prohibition
pH. Well treatment, completion and
the
and
uses
static method for
permittee so notified.
workover fluids must meet a pH detecting free oil. - The permittee shall com ly with
limitation of not less than 8.0 and not effluent standards or prohi itions
greater than 9.0 prior to being 10. Other Discharge Conditions established under section 307(a) of the
discharged. Sampling must be (a) Prohibitions—.Halogenated Phenol Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants
accomplished once per day when Compounds. There shall be no within the time provided in the
discharging. S - discharge of halogenated phenol regulations that established those
(c) Other Monitoring—Volume. Once compounds. standards or prohibitions, even if the
per month, the discharge volume (bbls) Rubbish, Trnsh, and Other Refuse. permit has not yet been modified to
must be estimated. The discharge of solid
-------
Iir F-VL 5e No.lfl : Tu , Septinber Zt. 1893 F
49 141
4.DutyT.Rerpply
If the permitte. w ion ttn .ñ
- ec iegu d byth e p—”t a*ur
the wipirati i oi z —. the,
permifte. mi ubi-it en dinIerd
to dwdmoatapplyfruiiaw
p t. r .th atien o f the expiring
permit shall be g ned by r ag eJm i
at 40 CPR 122.8 and any equent
ernendmentL -
7. Duty to Provfda Information
The permitlee ahail furnish to the
Regional .tor . within a
reasonable time, any information which
the Regional Adminis*rthx may request
to daterm ins whether caima exists for
modifying. revoking mid reiuuing. or
teryTunaOn this permit. or to determine
aavi! adcrhninaIthblEty
Except an pnrrkled in permit
conditions on ‘Bypaann and
Upmls (sea ULB .4 and IILB.5).
nothieg in this permit shall be
a,nstrued to relieve the permiuoe fr
civil or &irninid penalties f or
noncompliance. Any files or musl””lIng
misrepresen*atlcn OTn Z hT I1 of
information required to be reported by
the provisions of the permit, the ACT,
or applicable Q regulations which
avoids or effedively defeats the
reguistory purpose of the permit may
subject the permittas to alminal
enfort ent pursualit to 13 U.S.C. 1001.
2. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take .1)
reasonable steps to minimlan or prevent
any diadiarge in violation of this permit
which has it 1 n bidl likelihood of
(a) Defirutfóns. (1) Bypase” n4
the intentional diversion of wants
streams from any portion of a tr ment
facility. - -
12) Severe properly damage ni
suhatnutlal physical dama to property.
damage to the treatment facilities that
oruses them to become inoperable, or
5 iihetiintfal end permanent loss of
neturi .J w that can reasonab’ “o
expscted to o In the abemon a
bypase. Savers property damage do -
not mean emmmiic lore cmuesd by
-delays in produ on. -. -
• (b) Bypm net z ieg limitatkan&
The p ttan may allow any bypass to
that d n came
limftat1 to be e ded. but oily if
ft ales is for meantisi maintormos to
assure efficient operation. Them
bypamea are n subject to the
provIw of rection B, paragraphs 4.c
and44ofthi r ec ’- -
‘ (C) Notice. (1) Anticipated bypass. If
the pomittee know. In advance of the
need for a bypass. It shall euhmit prior
cg If pneiihte at !e ten days
‘-befor, the date of the bypms.
• (2) UnantIcipated bypass. The
ponnit?ee shall submit notice of en
unanticipated bypass an required La
.ectlon 0, pu.r.grsph 8 (24-hour
reporting). ___ ___
(d) FTethibal n b, ’p as. (1) Bypass i
prohibited. and the Regional
Administrator’ may take oilu.w..int
action against a pernuttee (or bypass.
unless:
(a) Bypass wan unavoidable to pwvar
toes of lifs. personal iniwy. or severe
property damage
(b) There were no feasible alter
to thebypesa , se t h as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities. retemim
of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not
imnpliance with this permit . i - . j J 7 ifng human has h er
psthaUa fnrn htotb3 ?. envizewn . -

this permit. . .. -. The permtt shall at all
property eperete and e ai ii all.
f l iU o i Jy.dm . . .IOIIIIaeUmid
control (and reheed appwtemanrmi that
are installed or mad by the pennattea to
- achieve compliance with the cenditiona
f this permit. Proper operation and
maintenance also Includes adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate
quality naaon procedures. This
provision Jequiran the operation of
backup or auxiliary facilities or
systems that are installed by a permittee
only when the operation Is ne ssmy to
- achieve comphance with the aniditions
‘4. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
5. Permit ?lmihiuitY ____
This permit may be modified. revo&ad _____
- and reissued, or terminated for cense’ _____
• Incudng.butfl l l iuth tedtfl.th e
- following ( ev 40 QR 122.8Z-64 -
- (aJ y(o1n1 *ne of my or anditruns of
thispermit __ ‘- -
0)Obeal&nethispcTfliitb,
- mlnepu *st ner inler. to 1 iI _ i-L
.11 relevant factx
Cc A things n any aui&Uon tht; . .. ..
either a temporary or a persianert reduatios 9. oa and Hazardous Stibstazice
or elimination of the .utbonmd d tharg. or
- (d l A deiereiiniXton that’ the LiabiLity
ivity endangers human health or the Nothing En this permit shall be 4 -
snynunmint arid o&y be r nlad to to preclude the institution of
ccaptebls levels by panast eaxhlkadee or . any legal action or relieve the permittee
• - • • . . - —-‘ from any responthhilities. liabilities, or
-TfIIlngoIazeiiiiiU*bithe .- .- ‘- • perw1tiestowbthtbePermitte 0t -
- mltte. for a-point modification. -.. may be sub)ed under sectIon 311 of the
- revoratica end or - - :; Clean Water Act. . - -. -
mi n.thii , or a notifleadonof planned
ciiangee or a icipa ted 10. State Laws •: -.
doas nc*ay.nypermiton t l0n . . - -
- . Thin permit aesu be mnd icled. o - constru to preclude the fmfftntkii of
____ any legal action or reliev, the pormittes ’
comply witn any applicable afiTi - - &O(fl mi)’ ieapoiisibilltf. liabilIties, or
standard or lirm ” ’ issued or estSbliihSd pursuant to-any
approved under es ‘ Ui applicable State law or regulation under
307 of ___if - authority preserved by 1cn I0 of
effluent standard or limii itgi an Issued the Clean Water Act. -
ravprovsd - -‘- . - -- -.
(a ConfrnnsdlfferefltciJnd1t1aflaQr ii. Severability . -
- lhnitations than-any th. - t.t - The provisions of thi, permit me - -
(b} Controls any pollutant • u i - severable. and If any mirvis&oi ctthis
In the po - -. - - - • - - - - permit or the application of any
• - The permit as modIfied or aad - P’° ° perm any
- under thin pa epb shafi else a taln rcnm5tanc Ii bald Invalid, the
- any application of provision to other
applicable. • . - -, med the FUDaInd of
thIsperm it,ahallno*bSif Cted • - .
- .Pr uperty Right - - - thereby.
The issuaram dthls p..rmli tIOes Section 8. OpemUon and Maintenance
convey any pauperty rights deny oil. 4Poliution Canto!, -
• os any excineiw privileges. It . -
• . itborins any in(ury to privet. properly 1. Need to Halt or Reduce not a
oi’any invasion of persimal rights. nor lubell not beade a - -
- any Infringement of Federal, State. or permutes In an enfinonment action that
local laws or regulations. it would have been ci eary to halt or
- - reduce the permitted activity In order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
-------
Federal Regisler I Vol. 58, No. 181 I Tuesday, September 21. 1993 I Notices
49143
satisfied if adequate back-up equipment
should have been installed in the
exermse of reasonable engineering
judgment to prevent a bypass that
ocourred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance; and -
(c) The perinittee submitted notices as
required under section B. paragraph 4.c.
(2) The Regional Administrator may
approve an anticipated bypass. after
considering its adverse effects, If the
Regional Administrator determines that
it will meet the three conditions listed
above in section B. paragraph 4.d..(1).
5. Upset Conditions -
(a) Definition. “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.
(b) Effect of an Upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology-based permit effluent
limitations if the requirements of
section B, paragraph 5.(c) are met. No
determination made during -
administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset.
and before an action ror noncompliance,
is final administmtive action subject to
judicial review.
(c) Conditions Necessary for a
Demonstmtion 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 1 that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the
permittee can Identify the cause(s) of
the upset; - -
(2) The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated;
(3) The permittee submitted notice oC
the upset as required in section D,
paragraph 5. and.
(4) The permittee complied with any
remedial measures required under
section B, paragraph 2.
(d) Burden of pmof. In any
enforcement proceeding the permittee
seeking to establish the occunence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash. cr
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 navigable
waters. Any substance specifIcally listed
within this permit may be discharged in
accordance with specified conditions,
terms, or limitations. . -
Section C. Monitonng and Records
1. Inspection and Entry -
The permittee shall allow the
Regional Administrator or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of
aedentials and other documents as may
berequiredbylaw,to
(a) 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;
(b) Have access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this -
permit.
(c i Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitonng and control equipment).
.practices, or operations regulated or -
required under this permit; and -
Id) 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. - -
2, Representative Sampling -
Samples and measurements taken as
required herein shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge.
3. Retention of Records
The perrnittee shall retain records of
all monitoring information, including
all libration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recorthng for
continuous monitoring instrumentation,
and copies of all reports required by this
permit, for a period of at least 3 years
from the date of the sample,
measurement, or report. This period
may be extended by request of the
Regional Administrator at any time. -
The operator shall maintain records at
development and production facilities
for 3 years. wherever practicable and at
a specific shore-based site whenever not
practicable. The operator is responsible
for maintaining records at exploratory
facilities while they are discharging
under the operator’s control and at a
specified shore-based site for the
remainder of the 3-year retention
period.
4. Record Contents
Records of monitoring information
shall include:
(a) The date, exact place. and tune of
sampling or measurements,
-(b) The individual(s) who performe
the sampling or measurements,
(ci The date(s) analyses were -
performed.
(d) The individual(s) who performed
the analyses.
(e) The analytical techniques or
methods used, and
(I) The results of such analyses.
5. M’onitoring 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 (see part IV.A., below).
6. Discharge Rate/Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement -
‘devices consistent with accepted
practices shall be selected, maintained,
and used to ensure the accuracy and
reliability of measurements of the
volume of monitored discharges The
devices shall be installed, calibrated,
and maintained to ensure 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 less than
±10% from true-discharge rates
throughout the range of expected
discharge volumes.
Section b Reporting Requirements
1. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the
Regional Administrator 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
aiteria for determining whether a
facility isa new source in 40 CFR
122.29(b) 148 FR 14153. April 1. 1983.
as amended at 49 FR 38049, September
26. 1984); or
(b) The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
tnaeasa the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants that are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit. nor to
notification requirements under 40 CFR
122.42(a)(1) 148 FR 14153, April 1.1983,
as amended at 49 FR 38049. September
26. 19841.
2. Anticipated Noncompliance.
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.
-------
R- I T ‘VoL 5 ,-No. 11 I’Tueidey. Se mb 21, i9QTtNodt -
lithe pasmittee mcriit s any
pollutsnt in fiupJ.iIly than re drod
by this p nut. ng t procedures
approved undes 40 R part 136 ores
specified in this p mit . the , lts of
this monitarm shall be indoded in the ____
cekulatim and reporting oith. date
submitied n the DMR Suds incemed
monitormg frequency shall also be ____
indit tedonthalTh R.
6. Aver jng ol Measurements
Cakulatime fir all limitations wtiidi
require avemgiDg of me iw,j,rmb shall
mliza an arithmetic mean unime ___
othbrwiee sped fled by the Regional ______
dminthepermIt
For anytoxic pollutant (see sppr
7. Twenty-Feer Hoer Rapoetieg - A? t i imi In lti permn.
• The permittee shall report any either as an additive itself as.
noncomplian which may o di ng component in an additive formulation.
• health or the environment (this indudes the pennittee shall notify the Regional
any epifl that requires crel reporting to Administrator as soon as he knowi or
the State Regulatory Authority ). has r uu to believe:
Information shall be provided orally (a) That any activity has uu rrred or
within 24 hours from the time the will or which would result In the
pormittee becomes aware of the discharge of such toxic pollutants. on a
drcumstances. A wntlen shmt qinn routine or frequent baths. if that
shall also be provided within 5 Inys of dlschargewlll exceed the highest of the
the time the perinittee becomes aware of ‘notfficatf an levels” described at 4(P
(be rcumsfRflrP 4- The written. ‘R 122.42(aJ(IJ (ii and (Zih
submission shall 0 nntnin a description. (b) That any activity has occurred or
of the nmpl nrn and its r u the. will occm ’ which would result in any
period of noncompliance. incI”fing -- discharge of suds ( OEG pollutants, on a
exact dates and times, and if the ,. non-routine or infrequent heals, if that
noncompliance has not been airne ed. - discharge will exceed the highest of the
the antic patad time it is i ’ p irtiid to ,. “notification levels” described at 40
continua arid s laps taken or pim .nc d to CFR IV .42(PK2) (12 and ( Iii.
ednce,alirrnn tii,and prevent
re urance of the n pll ncn , The
Ragtnnal Administrator may waive the
wntten report ona caea.by-a.s basis ii
the oral report has been romnived witbari
24 hours.
The following shall be included as
information which must be reported
within 24hours -
(a) Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitatIon in tbs -
permit;
(hI Any upset which exceeds any
emusut hmitatioa in the pesmiL
(C) Violations of a maxun daily
discharge limitation or daily minimum
3 T iend!ees - 5- . -. - perMiftes will be notified elite epedflc toxicity limitation ft .’ any of the
- [ t• _ outfall &wwLu,r applk.h15 to pollutants listed by the Rmc ,l
- . 5 . - - - ‘ : ‘ -block Fastbsamoee, th P r iJti w1lI- Mmithdrelor in pest III J’the pesmu to
ins 1* frifamied ofth .& .h nazlhahr - be repcated Within 24 b . -
_Admmi trator may require modification mpO,t des date for that leans block. Th rts should be mode to R cn
• or .. - Al) zi , and reports n quzzvd under . by telephone at (214) 655-8593. The
permit to change the name -. this permit shall bemost to EPA Region Regional Adxninistratormay waive he
permnittae - “d ______ u at the address below:.- - - — written rvport on a case-by-case basis if
requirements as may be Director. Water Management Division. the oral repoll has been within
- the Act. . S - - USEP , Region 6, Enforcement • 24 hours.
• Branch (SW_EA) , l’.O. Box 50625, - “ : • -
Dallas, y jç 8. ....iucr Noncompliance
- - The p mxtteeshallrsportall -
Permittee S repurfed under pert Ill. section D,
paragraphs4and 7 attisatuns
monitoring reports are submitted. The
reports shall contain the informnati on
Listed In section D , pesa aph 7.
9. Uther- on •
When the permitt becomes awam
that it failed to submit any relevant fizc
In a permit application, crsubm!ttod
incoivect Information in a permit
applicanon or inany report to the
Regional Administrator, it shall
promptly submit mdi facts or -- -
information. : -
10. Ch.i , us Dl ges iIToxu
4. Discharge Mtmitming Reports
The o stiw of each lames (or hams
• blou i±)thallb.iespt.isiblah . ’ . -
autanittlng monitoring results it.’ all
ledlitles within each lease (or lease
block). The monitoring results for the
facilities (platform. -up. drilling
barge, etc.) within the particirlar lease
(or lease block) shall be nninarimd on
the annual Discharge Mcmitorkng Report
ferthat lease (or lease block).
Monitoring results obtained dithng
the previous 12 months shall be
a
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMRI
Form (EPA No. 3320-4). The highest
monthly average for all actfvttiy within
each lease (or lease block) shall be
reported. The highest daily inaxuimse
sample taken doming the reporting
period shall bereportad asthe daily
- maximum concentration. (See . - -:
“Deflnitions’ formese detailed
explanations of these terms).
If any catugtey of w in (discharge)
not applicable for all facilities within
the lease (or lease block) due to the typo
of operation (eg. drilling, production).
“no discharge” must be rc.iu 1 ,d fir
those categ riea on the DMR. I! all
IIit1e. within a I block heve had
no activity during the reporting period,
then no adliity mast be written on
- the DMR. All pegesoftheDMRmusl be
• signed and ontifled an r’uiqulrud by Pert
- ULD.flofthi spennitandsuhmitted -
when due. — -. • : . ._‘ - • --
- The en cimplet. all ‘ -•
empty blanks in the DMR unless them
has be hztelyuou 4vlt r me
discharge wit the lemo (or le. -
block? far the entire reporting period. in
- these EPA Region V I will a pt
a listing at I (or lease bIo ) with
imdlscfizzgesariraactfvity.1U lieu of
submitting actual DMRZ lr these foa
(or [ ease blocks). This listing must
specify the pevmittee’s NPUES General
Permit Number. lease/Tease block
description, and EPA-eangoed outfall
number. The listing must also inrlns
the Certi& ..Ljiofl statement presented in
Part IILD.i1.d of this permit and an
original signature of the dr ignnsed
responsible officinl
Upon receipt ola notiflr f1nn of
intent to be covered. Ipart LA.) the
ii. goatvry Requirements
All applications, reports, or
infnrmnation subiniuod to the Regional
Administrator shall be signed and
certified as required at 40 GR 171 11
(a) All permit applknttnn- shall be
signed as mollowsi
(i) For a corporatioa by a responsible
corporate nffl r . Fox the purpose of ’ this
section. a responsible corporate or
means
(12 A presi4c .zL secretary. treasurer, or
vice-president of the corporation in
charge of a pono pal business function.
or any other person who performs
-------
Federal Regis*er I VoL . No. i ! Tuesday, Septembd 21, 1 F Nutkus
49145
similorpalicy ordedsioiunaLing
ftinctians for the onrpo.as oe. or
(il) The mo er of on. ormem
mnufnctaring. production. or operating
facilities employing moro than 250
persons or having gr annual sales or
exponditiuas exceeding $25 miTlion ha
second-quarter 1980 deflate), if
authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegatad to the manager in
accordance with corporate pnki dnr .
(2) For a partnership or sole
propnetorship by a general perther or
the proprietor, espectivaly.
C L) Authoräed Represenlotive. All
nrpuftS required by the permit and other
information reqtrested by the Ragietsel
Administrator shall be signed by a
person de riberf abo.’ or by a duly
authori d rupresoritatira of that p un .
A person is a duly authorized
representative only it
(liThe au hüiw ti is made in
writing by a person desmibed above.
(2) The authorization sped flea either
an individual or a position having
responsibility fo, the overall operation
of the regulated fodlity or activity, such
as the p hon of plant manager.
operator of. well ore wail field.
superintendent, dr position of
equivalent responsibility, eras
mdividual a s position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters
for the ccrep zy . A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a
named ind ividual or any individual
occupying a tra ined position and,
(3) The written authorization is
submitted to the Regional
Administrator.
(ci Oi to Authonzution. U an
autbarizetion under pera riiph (b) of
this section is longer accinete
because a different indivrthmi or
position has responsibility for the
overall operation of the facility.a new
authorization satisfying the
requournents of paru aph (hi of this
section must be submitted to the
Dire tur prior to or together with any
reports, information, or applications to
be signed by an authorized
representative.
(d) Certification. Any person signing a
document trader this section shall make
the following certification: -
I cailify under pomity cit law that this
document and all aztsthmnnt . prepared
under my direction or 3upenri.s on in
accordance with a syatan designed to auure
that qualified parseanel 1 up ty gather and
evaluate the information su i1ted. Based an
my rnqouy of thu fer e or perlun , who
manage the sy stem. or those sonz directly
rerpcmsibl. for gathesnig the infomgion. the
Infor mation su niti d is, te tl beut f my
knowledge end behel. . s urste. and
complete. & am aware that there are
sigeiflcsur — lcw 1suitting fda,
axlndisg ifity d
and kit lua,wi Vi (] 1k .iI.
12. Aveilahilfty ofReports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 Cl ’K paztl. all
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available
for public inspection at the office of the
Ragi onal MmiflLciretni . As ras uired by
the Clean Water Act,, the name and
address of any permit applirn.it or
permattee, pemuz applicatioas ,, pe uts.
and efllu nt data shall not be
considered confidentiaL
13. Compliesicut Schedules
Reports of compliance or
noncompliance wyth, or any pw a
reports an, interim and final
requirements contained in any
corn p1i.nnr ii echedu]. of this peanut
shall be submitted no later than 14 days
following each schedule date. Any
reports of noncompliance shnfl include
the cause of noncompliance, any
remedial actions taken, and the
probability of meeting the next
scheduled requirement. -
Section 5, Penaltie, for Violo1wj, of
Penya,j Conthtaom -
1.
(a) Negh gent Vio tatjaas, The Act
provides that any person who
negligently violates pesmit ceorlitujiis
implementing sections 301, 302. 306,
307, 308. 318, or 405 of the Ad is
subject to a fine of not lass, than $2,500
nor more than SZS.000 per day of
violithon, or by impnc .nnment for not
more than I y . or both
(hi Knowing Vwlatioe& Act
provt es that any person wh -
knowingly violates permit rrinhllhoas
implementing sections 201,302, 306,
307.308,318 or 40.5 of theAct is
subject to a fine of net less than £5,000
nor more than £5O.000per day of
yinhutinn or by impncnnment far not
more than 3 years. or both.
(c) R’iiowing EndangermenL The Ad
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit cnnrfitin 8
implementing sections 301. 302. 306.
307. 308, 318. or 405 of the Ad and who - p w
knows at that 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 5250 ,Olm per
day of violation. c c by imprirnnmlmt for
not more than 15 years, or both.
(d) False Stntemeritr. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false material
statement, leplesentation, or
certification in any application, record.
report, pLin. or other document filed or
reqished to be maintained d - 1 the Act
or who knewingly falsifies, tempers
with,or render, inaorernte, any
monitoring device or method required
to be mamtarned under the Act, shall
epon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not mor, then $ ‘lO,OOO, on by
imprisonment for not mor, than 2 yeme.
orby both. IT a conviction c ia parson
is for • violation committed after a first
convidion of such p uu under this
paragraph, punishment shall be by a
fine of ant more than $20,060 per day
of violation, orby imprisonment of not
more than 4 years, o rb y both. (See
Section 309.c.4 of the Clean Water Act).
2. Civil Penalties
The Clean Watm ’ at se on 9
provules that any jrarson who vaniates a
permit condition implementing so ons
301. 302.306,307,308,31.2. or 405 of
the Chan Watür Act re subject to a cavil
penalty not to ued £25,000 pen day
of sw± violation. Any n whe
willfully or negligently violates permit
conditions implementing sections 301..
302, 306, 307, or 308 of the Clean Water
Act is subject to a fine of not less than
$2,500 nor morn than 32S,Utfl)-per day
of vwilnlinn , or b - 3mprzsonm.. .L fat’ not
more than I year. or both. The
manw penalty may be assessed for
each violation occurrmg on a single day.
A single operational upset which leads
to simultaneous violations of more than
one pothitant perameter shall be treated
asasraglevuilation.
3. Administrative Penalties
The Act at section 309 allows that the
Regional Administrator may assess a
Class 1 or Class U cavil penalty for
violations of sections 301,302,306,307,
308, 318, cc 405 of the Ad. A Clam I
penalty may not exceed $10,000 per
vjobttLces except that the maxi im
am iat shall not exceed 325,006. A
Class U penalty may not exceed $1o,axi
per day for each day during which the
ViE1bti1 n continues, except that the
maximum amount shall not a r d
$125,000. An upset that leads to
violations of more than one pollutant
pzrameterwillbe treatedesasingle
violation.
Section 4. Test Procedures
For test procedwes ant specified
below, the only authorized procedures
are diom desashed .1 40 (YR pert 136.
1. Vi uaL h en Test
The visual sheen test is used to detect
free oil by observing the surface of the
racewlng waler for the presence of a
sheen while discharging. A sheen is
defined nsa ‘silvery’ or ‘metallic’ sheen,
-------
49146
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 181 t Tuesday. September 21, 1993 I r4otlces
glo or increased reflectivity; visual
color or iridaecen on the waler
surface, The operator must conduct a
visual sheen test only at times when a
sheen can be observed. This restriction
ehinuiates observations at night or when
atmospheric or surface conditions -
prohibit the observer from detecting a
sheen (e.g. fog (not overcast skies).
rough seas. etc.). Certain discharges can
only occur if a visual sheen test can be
conducted.
The observer must be positioned on
the rig or platform. or other vantage
point. relative to both the discharge
point and current flow at the time of
discharge, such that the observer can
detect a sheen should it surface down
current from the discharge. For
discharges that have been occurring for
at least iS minutes previously.
observations may be made any time
thereafter. For discharges of less than 15
minutes di.iretiori. observations must be
made during both discharge and at 5
minutes after discharge has ceased.
2. Static Sheen Test
Region 10, Modified Static Sheen
Test. ‘Bucket Test”: Combined 50 FR
No. 165 August 26. 1985 and US A
Region 10, Interim Guidance (or the
Static (Laboratory) Sheen Test, ranuary
10. 1984
1. Scope and Application
The static sheen test I, to be used as
a compliance test for all discharges in
this permit with the ‘no free oil
discharge” requirement, when it is not
possible (or the operator ta aixo inplish
a visual sheen observation on the
surface of the receiving water. This
would preclude an operator from
attempting a visual sheen observabon
when atmospheric or surface conditions
prohibit the observer from detecting a
sheen (e.g.. during rough s e es, etc.). Free
oil refers to y oil contained in a waste
stream that when discharged will cause
a film or sheen upon or a discoloration
of the surface of the receiving water.
2. Summary of Method
15 ml samples of dilifing fluids: deck
drainage. well treatment. completion
and workover fluids, Formation test
fluids, or treated wastewator from
dnWng fluid dewatenng activities, or 15
gui (wet weight basis) samples of drill
cuttings or produced sand are
introduced into ambient seawater in a
container having an air to liquid
interface area of 1000 cmi (155.5 mi ).
Samples are dispersed within the
container and observations made no
more than one hour later to ascertain if
these materials cause a sheen.
iridescence, gloss, or increased
reflectance on the surface of the test
seawater. The oocurrance of any of these
visual observations wili constitute a
demonstration that the tested material
contains “free oil”, and therefore,
results in a prohibition on its discharge
into receiving waters.
3. Interferences
Residual ‘free oil” adhering to
sampling containers, the magnetic
atlmng bar used to mix drilling fluids.
and the stainless steel spatula used to
mix drill cuttings will be the principal
sources of contamination problems.
These problems should only occur if
improperly washed and cleaned
equipment are used for the test. The use
of disposable equipment minimizes the
potential for similar contamination from
pipets and the test container.
4. Apparatus. Materials, and Reagents
4.1 Apparatus.
4.1.1 SamplingContazaera—1 L
polyethylene beakers and 1 L glass
beakers.
4.1.2 Graduated cyhnder.—100 ml
graduated cylinder required only for
ope r ations where predilution of mud
discharges is required.
4.1.3 Plastic disposable weighing
boats.
4.1.4 Triple-beam scale.
4.1.5 DIsposable pipets—25 tnt
disposable pipets.
4.1.6 Magnetic stirrer and stirring
bar. -
4.1.7 Stainless steel spatula.
4 1.8 Teat container—open plastic
container whose internal ansi-section
parallel to its opening has an area of
1000±50 (tnil (155.5±7.75 in 2 ), and a
depth of at least 13 an (5 inches) and
no more than 30 cm (11.0 inches).
4.2 M atenals and Reagents.
4.2.1 Plastic lIners for the teat
container—Oil free, heavy duty plastic
trash can liners that do not inhibit the’
spreading of an oil film. Liners must be
of sufficient size to completely cover the
interior surface of the test container.
Perinittees must determine an
appropriate local source of liners that do
not inhibit the spreading of 0.05 ml
diesel fuel added to the lined test
container under the test conditions and
protocol described beLow.
4,2.2 Ambient receiving water.
5. Calibration
None currently specified.
8. Quality Control Procedures
None currently specified.
7. Sample Collection and Handling
7 1 Sampling containers must be
thoroughly washed with detergent.
rinsed a mirnznum of three times with
fresh water, and allowed to air dry
before samples are collected.
7.2 Samples of drilling fluid to be
tested shall be taken at the shale shaker
afier cuttings have been removed. The
sample volume should range between
200 ml and 500 ml.
7.3 Samples of drill cuttings will be
taken from the shale shaker screens with
a clean spatula or similar instrument
and placed in a glass beaker Cuttings
samples shall be collected prior to the
addition of any waskidown water and
should range between 200 g and 500 g.
7.4 Samples of produced sand must
be obtained from the solids control
equipment from which the discharge
occurs on any given day and shall be
collected prior to the addition of any
washdown water, samples should range
between 200 g and 500 g.
7 5 Samples of deck drainage, well
treatment, completion and workover
fluids, formation test fluids and treated
wastewater from drilling fluid
dewatenng activities must be obtained
from the holding facility prior to
discharge the sample volume should
range between 200 ml and 500 ml.
7.8 Samples must be tested no later
than 1 hour after collection.
7.7 Drilling fluid samples must b
mixed in their sampling containers &
5 minutes prior to the test using a
magnetic bar stirrer. If predilution is
imposed as a permit condition, the
sample must be mixed at the same ratio
with the same prediluting water as the
discharged muds and stirred for 5
minutes.
7.8 Drill cuttings must be stirred and
well mixed by hand in their sampling
containers prior to testing, using a
stainless steel spatula.
8. Procedure
8.1 Ambient receiving water must be
used as the “receiving water” in the test.
The temperature of the test water shall
be as close as practicable to the ambient
conditions in the receiving water, not
the roam temperature of the observation
facility. The test container must have an
air to liquid interface area of 1000±50
an 2 . The surface of the water Should be
no more than 1.27 an (½ inch) below
the top of the test container.
8.2 Plastic liners shalt be used, one
par test container, and discarded
afterwards. Some liners may intubit
spreading of added oil; operators shall
deternurte an appropriate local source c
liners that do not inhibit the spre -
of the oil film.
8.3 A 15 nil sample of dnllmng wd
deck drainage, well treatment.
completion a nd workover fluids.
formation lest, fluids, or treated
-------
f j drr I VoL 58. No. 1 1 / Tuee tay. Septe ih 21. I 3 I Notk os
4 147
w tgwater from dulhng fluid
dewat.eo.ng activities. 1 iist be
introduced by pipet into the test -
container I below the waler surface.
Pipels must be filled and ictJ ged
with test material prior to the izenafer of
test material end its introduction into
test containers. The test water-test
material mixture must be stirred using
the pipet to distribute the test material
homogeneously throughout the test
water. The pipet riuist be used only once
bra test arid then discarded.
8.4 DrIll cuttings or produced send
should be weighed ee plastic weighing
boats; 1$ samp must be
transferred by eaapzeg test uietorxsl into
the test water with a steel
spatula. [ kill cuttings shall oat be -
predituted prior to tasting. Alsi, drilling
fluids and cuttings will be tested
separately The weighingboat must be
immersed in the test water anf saaped
with the spatula to transfer any residual
material to the test cenininor. The drift
cuttings or produced sand must be
stii-red With the spatula to an even
d istnbulion of sofith on the bottom of
the test container.
6.5 Oheervati must be made no
later then 1 beer after the test m,mqi,,l
is transferred to the test in* ii •
Viewing points above the test coiñamer
should be made from at least three udes
of the test c Lamar, at viewing angles
of a ixmiataly 6cr and 30 frimi the
horizontal. Iflununetion of the test
container must be representative of
adequate lighting for a weskuig
environment to conduct routin.e
laboratory procedures. It is
recornmenrfed that the water surface of
the test container be observed under a
fluon, wit light source such as a
dissecting m1 .w .wj.nz IIghL The light
source shall be positioned above and
directed over the entire surface of the
pan.
86 Detection of a “silvery” or
“metallic” sheen, gloss, or increased
reflectivity; visual color oriridenmnce
or an oil stick, on the water surface of
the test container surface shell
constitutes d oos*ratloo of “free oil”.
These visual observations include
patches. strealis. or sheets of such
altered surface charactenstics. shall
constitute a demonstration of free oil If
the boo oil content of the sample
app ethes ar . m ds 10 p uawt . the
water surface of the test container may
lack color, a sheen or irkiesceace. due
to the increased thickness of the &1m
thus, the ob .,rvetion for an ml shck is
required. The surface of the test
container shall not be disturbed in any
manner that. redit the aize of any
sheen or slick that may be present.
If an oil sheen or L,L gaJ
than one-half of the ,w ares after
drilling winds es cettings irs i odn
to the test o rv..&im ‘qjj
continue for up to mo hour. U the th
or slick u essea in and
greeter than eim-balf of the tulane
of the test container during the
observation period, the diicharg . of the
materiel shall co . lithe sheen or slick
does nd inaease in sirs to corer
than one-half o(tbe test t oeterser
surface ares after one hour of
obaervetion. discharge may utiuu ,
and additional sampling is net reqinred.
if a sheen or slid otzur* en greeter
than one-hall of the surface a of the
test container after the test material is.
introduced, discharge of the tested
material shall cease. The pormittee may
retest the materiel causing the sheen or
slick. If sulsequent tests do not result in
a sheen or slick covering greater than
orie-h .alf of the surface area of the test
container, discharge may cnntinue.
So i,n B. Definitions
Adnunistralor means the
idminictrator O1 ’EPA Raginn 6,.or an
authnri,Ad rapxc iintntive.
Areos of Biologicoi Concern (h .BQ are
lo ir iis identified by the State of
Texa as “en activity zanos” or areas -
thitArmii d by EPA and the State.
collect iveLy. conI rung significant.
biologlcal resow s or features that
require a “No Discharge’ cooditien.
There are cuxmntiy no designated areas
ofb&lc inri .rn
Avero8e daily discharge’ hriiiai* rm
means the highest allowable avarage of
discharges over a 24-hour period.
calculated es the rem dell diodiar
measured divided by the rnanbez of
discharges measured that day.
Average nLbly d iazge In..,#a.hn
means the highest allowable average of
“daily discharges” over a
month, calculated as the sum of all
‘daily discharges” measured during a
celendar month divided by the number
of di iit u , measured that month.
Thtch or bulk discharge means any
discharge of a di eto volume er mass
of eliluent from a pft, tank or’sumlar
container that oaurs on a one time or
infrequent or irregular basis.
Batch or balk b ain7errtyne any
treatment of a drea ’ee volume or wines
efefflimntfroma pit, tank. ar’ninilar
L mtainer prior to discharge.
BIOII at p e virrer control flmd is
fluid used to i ctu . te the hydraulic
equipment on the blow-out preventer.
BOl means five day binrhenncal
oxyg n demand.
Boiler blowd own is discharge from
boilere oncessary to minimize solids
build p In. m botl . includes vents
from boilers and other beatlnR ty ’s.
small hmips clrnalted
pl ic.
Co ___all watarsdthe United
States (as defined at 40 QR 12.2,2 1
landwaed of the territorial sees.
( )D tachemical oxygen demand.
CwnpLeflo fluids are salt solutions.
weighted lawae. polymera or various
additives used te prevent damiige to he
well bore during operations which
prepare drilled well kir hydrocarbon
production. These flwds move into the
formation amid return to the surface as a
slug with the produced waler. Drilling
muds rennommig in the weliboce during
logging. ng and cementing
operations cia thiruig tompoialy
abandonment of the well aze not
considered completion finds and are
regulated by drilling fluids
t8Gu Irem tr .
maximum discharge hmitoiion
means the highest allc .wahle “daily
discharge” during the calendar month.
Deck drainage is all waste resulting
from platform washings, deck washings,
spi 1 is. rainwater. and ruw from curbs,
gutters, and drains, inr1i i(ii p drip pans
and wash areas.
t sailnization unit discharge means
wastewatar assodated.with the process
of creating fresh water from seawater.
Diatomaceous earth filter media
means filter media used to filler
seawater or other authorized completion
fluids and subsequently washed from
the filter.
Domestic waste is dIscharges from
galleys, sinks, showers, safety showers.
eye wash stations, hand wash stations
and laundries.
Drill cuftirigs are particles generated
by drilling frito the subsurface
_____ geological formations and carried to the
surface with the drilling fluid.
Drilling fluId is any fluid sent down
the hole, including drilling muds and
any specialty products. from the tune a
well is.begwi until final cessation of
drilling in that hole.
Excess Cement Slurry is the excess
izichiding additives and wastes
from equipment washdown after a
cementing operation.
Free Oil is oil that cevees a sheen
‘when discharges ma released or when a
-static sheen test is used.
Formation test fluids are the discharge
that would occur should bydr .,iubons
be located during exploratory drtIIin
and tested f.or fomiation pressure and
content. -
Garbage means all kinds of victual,
domestic and operational
waste - ,. teraied during the
normal operation of the ship and liable
to be disposed of riinlinnnenly or
-------
49148
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 21, 1993 / Notices
periodically . . . (See MARPOL 73/78
regulations).
Gmh sample i sa single representative
effluent sample taken at the recognized
discharge point in as short a period of
time as feasible.
Graywater means drainage from
dishwater, shower, laundry. bath, and
washbasin drains and does not include
drainage from toilets, urinals, hospitals.
and drainage from cargo areas. (See
MARPOL 73/78 regulations).
In verse emulsion drilling fluids means
an oil-based drilling fluid that also
contains a large amount of water.
Maximum hourly rote means the
greatest number of barrels of drilling
fluids discharged within one hour.
expressed as barrels per hour.
MCD refers to units of flow
measurement, as million gallons per
day.
MPN means the most probable
number. -
Muds, cuttings, and cement at the
seafloor are discharges which occur at
the seafloor prior to installation of the
marine riser and during marine nser
disconnect and well abandonment and
plugging operations.
No Acuvity Zones are those areas
Identified by MMS where no structures.
drilling rigs, or pipblines will be
allowed. See Areas of Biological
Concern.
No Discharge Areas are areas
specified by EPA where discharge of
pollutants may not occur.
Packer Fluid means low solids fluids
between the packer. production string
and well casing. (See workover flwds).
Priority Pollutants are those chemicals
or elements identi fled by EPA. pursuant
to section 307 of the Clean Water Act.
and 40 G’R 401.15. See Appendix A.
Sanitary waste means human body
waste discharged from toilets and
unnals.
Source water and sand means water
from non-hydrocarbon bearing
formations for the purpose of pressure
maintenance ar secondary recovery.
including the entrained solids.
Static Sheen is the procedure
described in Pail IV, Section A.2. of the
permit.
TDS means total dissolved solids.
Temlonal Seas is “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
ocean and th Line marking the seaward
limit of inland waters, and extending
seaward a distance of three miles”
(CWA Section 502).
Toxic Poll utanLs (See Priority
Pollutants. Appendix A)
Treated wastewater from dewatered
drilling fluids and cuttings means
wastewater from dewatering activities
(including but not limited to reserve pits
which have been flocculated or
otherwise chemically or mechanically
treated to meet specific discharge
conditions) and any waste commingled
with this water.
TSS means total suspended solids.
Uncontaminated ballast/bilge water is
seawater added or removed to maintain
proper draft of a vesseL
Uncontaminated Freshwater means
freshwater which is returned to the
receiving stream without the addition of
any chemicals; included are (1)
Discharges of excess freshwater that
permit the continuous operation of fire
contiol and utility lift pumps. (2) excess
freshwater from pressure maintenance
and’ secondary recovery proJects, (3)
water released dunng the training and
testing of personnel in fire protection.
(4) water used to pressure test piping.
(5) once-through. non-contact cooling
water, and (6) potable water released
during transfer and tank emptying
operations and condensate from air
conditioning units.
Uncontaminated Seawater is ser
which is returned to the sea w,thou
addition of chemicals. Included are: (1)
Discharges of excess seawater which
permit the continuous operation of fire
control and utility lift pumps, (2) excess
seawater from pressure maintenance
and secondary recovery projects. (3)
water released during the training and
testing of personnel in fire protection.
(4) sea-water used to pressure test
piping. and (5) once-through. non-
contact cooling water.
Visual Sheen means a ‘silvery’ or
‘metallic’ sheen, gloss, or increased
reflectivity; visual color or iridescence
on the water surface.
Well Treatment (stimulation) Fluids
means any fluid used to restore or
improve productivity by chemically or
physically altering hydrocarbon-bearing
strata after a well has been drilled.
These fluids move into the formation
and return to the surface as a slug with
the produced water. Stimulation fluids
include substances such as acids.
solvents and propping agents.
Workover Fluids means salt solutions
weighted bnnes. polymers or other
specialty additives used in a produ-
well to allow safe repair and — -
maintenance or abandonment
procedures. High solids drilling fluids
used during workover operations are not
considered workover fluids by
definition and therefore must meet
drilling fluid effluent limitations before
discharge may occur Packer fluids, low
solids flwds between the packer.
production stnng and well casing. are
considered to be workover fluids and
must meet only the effluent
requirements imposed on workover
fluids.
TABLE 1.—PERMIT CONDITIONS AND DISCHARGE MONITORING FREGUENCY
Oil and grease
TSS
TDS . . .— .-..__....._
COD .... -...- ..-.--....-.....
—--.-.. ..

Hazardous Metals
15maJ1 -
S Omgil
3.00 0rngfl3 .._.... -.
20 0mgfl
60— 90’
S OOmgfl3
1,000 mg
Nodlscfwge3
Visual sheen on receiving
watef 2
Grab -
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Nutiter of days sheen cb-
served.
Daily maximum.
Daily maximian.
Daily maxirT im.
Daily maximt n
pH vaiue.
Daily maxeilum.
Daily maxunen.
Daily maximum.
EtThient char rJ c
DiscIurge bnstation
M onng juemen
Measurement frequency San ite ryp meUiod Recorded value(s)
(A) OnUing Fhath—no c scheige.
(B) Onti Cuttinge—no c5scharge.
(C) Treated Wastewaler from Onhling F!uith/Cuttzngs. Dewatenng Activities, and Pit Closure Activities.
No tree oil .. Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day I
Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day’
-------
- ...---- -- S
TABLE 1 .—PERMtT Co, DmoNs D DISCHARGE MONITORING FREOUENCY—COntjflued - -
Effluent Charactens1 c
.
Discharge Itnitabon
- MonftoiU g rel arements
Meas*sement frec*iency’
SalTije type/method
Recanted value(s)
Volume
Report (bale)
On day ’ -.
ESt ITT t e .___....
Daily totaLs
(0) Deck Drairisge.
-
-
-
Free od .. . . ........
Volume .. ... ..
No free oil
Report (bale) .._ ._.
Once/day’ ...
•
Once/month ‘- -._
Visual sheen on rece ng
W r O.
Estimate
Nurrtec of days sheen ob-
Se rve d . -
Monthly totaL°
(E) Fomistion Test Fkath—No sctwge of lonrisbon test flijds to lakes, rivers. eajns. bays and estuanes. Exception. for bays and estuaries
where no chloride stendards have been estabished by the Texas Water Corrwmssion, the following i scharge knitabons and monitoring re-
qu lremer ilsshallappiy — - -
Free ad
— - -..-—_ ...
No t ad . ‘
—_.
Once/ischa,ge
Visual sheen on
Nurv
pH
Volume
- .
6.0-90’
Report (bob) -- ---
.—- -.-.
Once/discharge -
Oncefdi5charge
watar2.
Grab
Estimate.
re vu g
days sheen ob-

pH value.
Monthly to e
(F) Wad Treati’nent Completion, and Wodcover Fluids—There shall be no decharge of weU freatment, completion and woilcover fii th to lakes,
nvers, seeai’yis. bays or estuaries. Excepborr for bays and estuaries where no chloride standards have been established by the Texas Waler
Conimission, the following linstatiore and monitoring reasrerrients shall apoly
Pnonty Pdllutan .. ._.
Free oil ............_
pH ... __.. , ,.
Volume
No discharge
No free ad ... .
6 0-9.0 ’. .._.
Report (thIs) ._ ,
Once/day’
01-ice/day’ ._._.
Once/month’
Ceistication7 .__...
Visual sheen on receiving
water 2
Grab
Estimate
.
Nun-Ce, of days sheen ob-
‘ved.
pH value. -
Monthly totaL
(G) Sanitary Waste.
.
-.
.
Solids
B0 05
TSS . _ ,
Fecai .___..._.. .. ,.
Flow . . . .
No floating solids ...._

45 mg/i .. ,...........__
45 mg/I .....__
200/100 rrd .__.._......
Report (MGO) .___ .
Once/day -________
,.
Ome/qiatiter —
Once/qusiter
Once/week
Once/month
Observabone
Grab. ——
Grab
Grab
Eet i dx,
NuirCer of days solids ob-
ved.
Daily maxinssn.
Daily maxirmmm.
Daily maximum,
Monthly avg.’
(H) Domestic Waste. - - . -
Sohds .. ......IP4odischargee ‘ I I
• (I) Miscellaneous Discharges Oesalinaation Unit Discharge. Blowout Preventer fluid, Uncentaninated Ballast Water, Uncontaminated Bulge
Water, Mud, Cuthngs, and Cement at the Seafloor, Uncarnaj nated Seawater, Boiler Blowdown, Excess Cement Slurry, Diatomaceous Earth
Filter Media. Uncontaminated Freshwater inclu ng potable water releases during taffi banister and erTvr nng operations, arid condensate
from air conditoner urata. -
.. . No ead . .. _. Once/day’ .. ___ Visual sheen on rece ng N eratdayssheenob-
______________________ wa ler2. served -
1 When discharging.
2. Discharge is possible durIng times other than when a visual sheen otiservat n is possible, if the static sheen test method is used.
3. See perrrwt Part II A.3.b.
4. pH at the point of discharge shall not be less than 6.0 or greater than 9.0
5. When discharging and when the tecduty is matned, -
6. Information shaii be recorded, bid not reported unless specificafly requested by EPA.
7. No discharge excepl in Dice amoui - . Certification that each discharge does not contain priority pollutanta (except in Dice amounta) on
DMA’s will suffice for reporting priority pollutant lun-ita. information on the speafic chemical composition shall be recorded bi flOt reported unless
requested by EPA.
8 Monitoring by visual observation of the swlace of the receiving water in the vicinity of outtall(s)’shall be done dunng dayl.gtit at the time of
maxurrv.im estimated disctian e . -
9 Annex V of MARPOL p3178 prohibits the discharge of garbage induding food wastes, incineration ash and du*ers Graywater, drainage
from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath, and wasflbasins may be iiscnarqec. -
10. Monitoring of visual sheen to be made at times when visual observations can be made.
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No.- 181 / Tuesday, September 2t.’ 1993 / Notices 49149
Free ad
-------
491 O
VoL 55 Na iti J 1\ ay Sept Iw 2i.- . F - -
Appendix A—PrIevIt Pe*at M tM
A caphthcne
Acy
_ - -
Fg,hnn
1,2 .4-chlcirobenzen
Ha acbAam n .
1.2-d1ch1oToetha
t.L1- 1chIa E a
Heucbhzoethan
L1.-dIc ]oroetban. -
I.1.2-tii tur s e
1,122-1 oeth e
a2Ioruoth fls
Thd2 .di1oio thyfl ether -
cM th 4 vm #eth
zlomoaphththe w
2,4.&tth1o pbe 0l -
Qth ..forn. ( bnij1vtw 1 .me
2 -
hth su e - -.
1.3-dithIoroben iie
________ - —
3.3. .djchlorobeflz2fle
t j
2.4-dichIoIOph
L2-thchtoropmp ______
- 1.2-dich1oro 1 9 (1
2.4-dIiutrotoIu e
Ethylbenzana
FIuor nth -‘ -
4-chJompb Qy1 pb..yl
4.bTcmOp )4 pv 1
BW2 -chkxv- 1 i— .,,4
• 8i 2-cbiczoctbyaxyJ . n.lh.. .
- Methyleneckilonde
) .gcthy I
.‘. ‘-N . ceod1pbenyIew.ine
-
—
-
2.4-dithtropheao
•.. . •:.-
NoItTo od1-n.pmpyLunIn*
1 eutacb ompheDoI
-b dyt thTh 18l.
I - Vt th -
VtathylPbthalate —

_
Ba (a) pyrist.i .L.yrn uF
1. -OjfluoTIntha e 1Q tb
14 — —
__ e
I4WT
.43w p Q .c q
4.4. p.p-T1 E
Akph e -e duau1Ian -
B do ulfan
- E dosuffzn su)fate
ndnn a 43ehyde
• H. i thM
• - -
4Ip }C-
Bea-BHC
c aac - -.
Deft*481L U 1 Iyc ionnated
-l242 (Arothlcr t242)
• R -125l ZAz ]2 4J
- -4. t (at b1cr 1.222)
__
_______ ______ -43 ‘ - - 11 j
_________ —lO tAr 1*)
_____ . Tuiiupht -
1 Z .4 fiII. __ tL. . .5 b4 -
• • fiu raethe - -
• • -
_____
- • - ___ -
-
_________ -. • -J r- . -L -
- - Meitwy -
1m (W. çj 2.
. çik.iiybs . , ,t . • - - _____ -
T.vsthIb - - Z*
1 . - - — • 0
_______ • __________ - •_ — -42Q%4 Us 4—3O-4 k ,45 1
w m aiiii ) - • Vin y chk nde (chiome eee3AIdriu - - &a ct . aao-.s-
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 173 / Thursday, September 9, 1993 / Proposed Rules
47417
46. 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C
iOla)(2).
if U.S. EPA issues a final disapproval.
based upon the State’s failure to meet
the commitment, it will not affect any
existing State requirements applicable
to small entities. Federal disapproval of
the State submittal does not affect its
state enforceability. Moreover, U.S.
EPA’s disapproval of the submittal does
not impose a new Federal requiremenL
Therefore, U.S. EPA certifies that in the
event U.S. EPA disapproves the State
submittal, this disapproval action would
not hove a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entitles
because it would not remove existing
state requirements nor would it
substitute a new Federal requirement.
Last of Sub ecta In 40 ‘R Part 52
Air pollution control. Carbon
monoxide. Envuonmental protection,
Nitrogen oxide, Particular matter,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 Ti S.C. 74 01—7671q.
Dated August 30. 1993
Vstdu V. Adamkua,
Regional Administrator
(FR Doc. 93—21981 Filed 9—8—93, 8 45 am)
DIW G O5 Nee-ee-4
. ,.FRPert 123
(FRL -4727 -4J
Water Pollution Control; Application by
South Dakota to Administer the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program;
Correction
AGENCY: Envjronmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Correction.
SUMMARY: This documeilt containg
correc g to the South Dakota NPDES
program application published
Wednesday, September 1, 1993 (58 FR
46145) The public hearing date
Previously published In the Federal
Register was September 27, 1993: the
huaring date is corrected to read October
14, 1993 On page 46145. in the second
‘ulumn under DATES, in the fourth line
the date September 27, 1993 is corrected
ro read October 14. 1993 The dote
r)rt viously published in the Federal
Register as the date by which public
r)rnments must be received was
l iber 8, 1993 On page 46145. in the
.“ ond column under DATES, in the
I line the date is corrected to read
dr 22, 1993. On page 46147. in the
column under the heading “Public
in the second
in the sixth line the date
October 8. 1993 is corrected to read
October 22. 1993. On page 46147 under
the heading “Public Heanng
Procedures”, In the second column, in
the first full paragraph, in the third and
fourth Lines the date October 8, 1993 Is
corrected to read October 22, 1993.
For the convenience of the reader, it
is noted that the times and location of
the public hearing (3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
ICJ)T) and 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. ( T) at the
Matthew Training Center, Joe Foss
BuildIng; 523 East Capitol; Pierre, South
Dakota 57501) remain the same.
FO FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet LaCcmbe at (303) 293—1593.
Dutedi September 2. 1993.
ICarrigan G. Cough.
Acting Regional Administer. Eaw,mnmsntci
P ’rotacl,on Agency. Region VIII.
(PR Doc. 93—21979 FIled 9—8—U. 845 aml
ua coca
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement
45 CFR P1113 301 end 305
RIN 0970-AA7I
Child Support Enforcement Program;
Revision of Child Support Enforcement
Program and Audit Regulation.
AGENCY: Office of C.hild Support
Enforcement (OCSE). HHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
SUSSUARY: OCSE is proposing to amend
the Child Support Enforcement program
regulations governing the audit of State
Child Support Enforcement (IV—DJ
programs and the imposition of
financial penalties for failure to
substantially comply with the
requirements of title IV—D of the Social
Security Act (the Act). This regulation
would specify how audits will evaluate
State compliance with the requirements
set forth in title IV—O of the Act and
Federal regulations. including
requirements resulting from the Family
Support Act of 1988 (Pub L. 100—485)
This proposal also redefines substantial
compliance to place greater focus on
performance arid streamlines part 305
by removing unnecessary sections This
proposed regulation would be effective
for audits conducted for periods
beginning subsequent to publication of
the final rule.
DATES: Consideration will be given to
written comments and suggestions
received by November 8, 1993.
ADDRESSES: Address comments to;
Deputy Director, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, Department of Health and
Human Services, Mail Stop OCSEIPPD.
4th floor, 370 L”Enfant Promenade SW,,
Washington. DC 20447. Comments will
be available for public inspection
Monday through Fnday, 8 30 a.m. to 5
p.m. In the Department’s office at the
above address.
FOR P.JRTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lourdes Henry on (202) 401—5440 o’
Fl ’S 8—441—5440.
SUPPLEMEN ’rARy INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not require any
information collection activities and.
therefore, no approvals are necessary
under this Paperwork Redu ction Act.
Background
As a result of the enactment of the
Child Support Enforcement
Amendments of 1984, (PUb. L. 9B—378),
OCSE published final audit regulations
on October 1. 1985. which affected the
audits of State IV—D programs beginning
in FY 1984. Section 9 of Public Law 98.-
378 and the implementing regulations
require that OCSE conduct an audit of
the effectiveness of State Child Support
Enforcement programs at least once
every three years; specify that OCSE usa
a substantial compliance standard to
determine whether each State has an
effective IV— !) program; provide that
any State found not to have an effective
IV—D program in substantial compliance
with the requirements of title !V—D of
the Act be given an opportunity to
submit a corrective action plan and,
upon approval by OCSE, to take the
corrective action necessary to achieve
substantial compliance with those
requirements; provide for the use of
graduated penalty of not less than 1 nor
more than 5 percent of a State’s Aid to
Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program funds if a State is not
in substantial compliance: and specify
the period of time during which a
penalty is effective.
In order to be found to have an
effective program in substantial
compliance with the requirements of
title P1—0 of the Act, a State must meet
the State plan requirements contained
in 49 CFR part 302. Under current
regulations, there are separate audit
criteria in part 305 for each of the State
plan requirements in part 302.
Currently, 29 criteria are listed in
§ 305 20 (which include numerous
related subcriteria) which encompass
the requirements of part 302 which are
procedural in nature. These procedural
criteria must be met for a finding of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 168 / Wednesday, September 1, 1993 / Proposed Rules
46145
F utive Order 12612 and has
runed that this proposal does not
sufficient federalism Implications
to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Enviroment
The Coast Guard considered the
environmental impact of this proposal
and concluded that, under section 2.B.2
(cI and (1) of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B. this proposal is
categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. The
deletion of the Ambrose Channel
Regulation will not affect the
environment or vessel safety. A
Categoncal Exclusion Determination is
available in the docket for inspection or
opying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
Lu ,t of Subiects in 33 R Part 162
Navigation (water), Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
.iinend 33 CFR part 162 as follows:
PART 162—iNLAND WATERWAYS
NAVIGATiON REGULATIONS
I. The authonty citation for part 162
“flues to read as follows:
ioriiy 33 U.S.C. 1231: 49 R 1.46
25 IReniovedi
2 Section 162.25 is removed.
Dated August 27, 1993.
I Ecker,
“ arAdm,mJ, US C .oost Guard. Chief, Office
Vavtgatzon Safety and Waterway Services
Doc 93—21305 Filed 8—31—93.845 antI
tiLtiNG coos 4* 10.41- 5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Pert 123
Water Pollution Control; Application by
South Dakota To Administer th
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program
tGEHCY: Environmental Protection
\i &nicy (EPA).
&CTION. Notice of application. public
‘“nment period and public hearings .
UUUARy The State of South Dakota has
‘tramiited an application to EPA to
I’Iflhlfli ter and enforce the NPDES
liii for regiiiaung discharges of
onts into waters within the State
ording to the State’s proposal, the
‘.PDES program would be administered
‘he South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
(SDD R).
The application from South Dakota is
complete and is available for inspection
and copying. Public comments are
requested, and public hearings will be
held.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 8, 1993. Public
hearings have’been scheduled for
September 27, 1993, from 3 p.m. to 5
p.m. (COT) and from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
(COT) at the Matthew Training Center,
Joe Foss Building: 523 East Capitol;
Pierre. South Dakota 57501.
ADDnESSES: Janet LaCombe, NPDES
Branch, (8WM-C); (J.S.E.P.A.. Region
VIII; Denver Place. 999 18th Street. suite
500: Denver, CO 80202—2466.
FOR R.IRThER INFORMATION CONTACT
Janet LaCombe at (303) 293—1593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: Section
402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33
U.S C. Section 1342, created the NPI3ES
program, allowing EPA to issue permits
for the discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States under
conditions required by the CWA.
Section 402(b) of the CWA provides that
a state may submit an application to
EPA for administering its own program
for issuing NPDES permits within its
junsdictlon. EPA is required to approve
each such submitted state program
unless EPA determines that the program
does not meet the requirements of
sections 304(i) and 402(b) of the CWA
or the EPA regulations implementing
those sections.
South Dakota’s application for NPDES
program approval contains a letter from
the Governor requesting NPDES
program approval, a Program
Description, an Attorney General’s
Statement, copies of pertinent State
statutes and regulations, and a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to
be executed by the Regional
Administrator, Region VIII. EPA, and
the Secretary of the SDDENR.
Under 40 ‘R 403.1O(fl(1)(i) and
403.3(j), an approved state program
must have the authority to require
industrial users to comply with
pretreatment standards for specific
industrial subcategories, as established
by EPA regulations in 40 CFR, chapter
I. subchapter N, “Effluent Guidelines
and Standards” When South Dakota
submitted its proposed program to EPA.
Subchapter N had not been incorporated
into the State program. However,
incorporation was approved at the July
28. 1993. public hearing of South
Dakota Water Management Board and is
expected to become effective on
September 5, 1993, pnor to EPA’s
approval or disapproval of the State
submittal, Incorporation of categorical
pretreatment standards must be fully
effective before EPA can approve the
program.
On the following three items. EPA
specifically requests public comment:
(1) Unsigned Complaints from the
Generol Public.
South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL)
Section 34A—2—111 prohibits the
SDDENR from performing inspections
or taking other actions pursuant to
SDCL Sections 34A—2—40, 34A—2--44,
and 34A—2—45, such as sampling
effluents, entenng premises of
dischargers, or otherwise ensuring
compliance with Chapter 34A-2, as a
result of, or based on, a complaint or the
provision of information from the
general public, unless the person
making the complaint or providing the
information signs a complaint. Signed
complaints are to be kept confidential.
Section 402(b)(2)(B) of the CWA
requires an authorized state program to
have authority to inspect, monitor.
enter, and require reports to at least the
same extent as required by section 308
of the CWA. Section 4o2fl,)(7) of the
CWA requires an authorized state
program to have adequate authonty to
abate violations of permits or the permit
program through penalties and other
means of enforcement. 40 R 123.26(b)
(3) and (4) require an authorized state
program to maintain a program for
investigating information regarding
violations of applicable program and
permit requirements, to maintain
procedures for receiving and ensuring
proper consideration of information
submitted by the public about violations
of applicable program and permit
requirements, to encourage public
efforts in reporting violations, and to
make available information on ri porting
procedures.
The MOA (page 7) currently provides,
in part:
The SDDENR will investigate and respond
to all citizen complaints where a signed
complaint form has been received and will
investIgate all complaints received from
other government agencies At the time an
unsigned complaint is received. SDDENR
will determine whether appropnate
department authorities exist under any state
environmental statute to handle the unsianed
complaint If not, the citizen shall be referred
to Emergency end Disaster Services Game
Fish & Parks or another appropriate State
agency.
EPA has asked South Dakota for an
additional explanation of how the State
would handle unsigned citizen
comptaints. To confirm EPA’s
understanding of how the proposed
State program would operate. EPA has
requested that South Dakota add the
-------
48146 Federn l Register / Vol. 58. No. 168 / Wednesday, September 1 , 19 3 / proposed Rules
following sentence to the MOA: ‘l’he
appropriate State agencies shall receive
anonymous complaints and either
investigate under their authorities or
sign and refer the complaint to
SDDENR.”
It is EPA’s interpretation that the
appropriate State agency investigates or
becomes the complainant. In the latter
case. EPA believes that enforcement
authority will be ensured by having the
SDDEN’R follow through with the
investigation and response. EPA has
also informed South Dakota that, at a
minimum, all agencies other then the
SDDfl4R that are referred to in the MOA
should become signatories to the MOA.
Alternatively, the Governor could sign
the MOA, or the State could develop an
appropriate internal agreement among
its agencies.
In addition, for South Dakota, EPA
will maintain an “800” number to
receive information from persons who
do not wish either to sign a complaint
or to contact another State agency as
outlined above.
9’A requests public comment
regarding the effectiveness of this
approach: the effect. if any, on public
efforts to report violations; and the
effect, if any, on compliance and
enforcement activities in the South
Dakota NPDES program.
(2) Certain PencJtyAuthontJes [ or
Unperrnt fled Foci iitaes.
40 Ot section 123.27(a (3 l ii)
provides that en approved state program
is te have the authority to recover civil
penalties for the violation of “any
NPDES filing requirement” and “any
duty to allow or carry out Inspection,
entry or monitoring activities,” as well
as for the violation of any NPDES permit
condition or any regulation or order
issued by the state program director.
The Attorney General’s Statement
(pages 20—22) addresses this issue as
follows :
The State does not have direct statutory
authority to collect civil penalties, er
criminally enforce, a failure to cmnply with
SOC. 34A-Z’-44 (recenl’lseping). 34A-Z-45
and —46 (InspectIon autheritles l, due to a
lack of citation to SDC. 34A—2—75 (penalty
çiiuvisioni (a these sectloa However,
because the Department lot Environment and
Natural Resourcasi an prosecute (both
civilly and aiminally) violations of permit
conditions and because it can set permit
coodittons for recording, repenlng,
monitoring, entry, and inspection under
34A—Z—40. it therefore can enforce these
s utures. The Depairnect an, with regard te
ueperoutted lecilities, obtain both the
retort end erttry icr rispectinili pwsuan* to
search warrauls issued oa the bas Is 01 he
a’icinulpre’Jislnns of SDC.34A—2—75 arid
the vlotal lot at SIX]. 34 ,k—2—38 tc’perari rig
wiboul the required penilti. C vi i penaltIes
for rallure to comply with SOC. JIA—2-44,
-45, and —46 by an unpermitted facility are
available only through violation of an order
Issued by the Department pursuant to SDCL
34A-2-53. The process for issuing en order
under SOC. 34A—2—53 for violations by
unpermitted facilities can be issued In a
timely Fashion, if necessary, within the seine
day. La addition. an administrative aeerch
warrant under the DENR’a Inspection
authority of SDC1. 34A—2--45 and —46. could
be obtained to rnrnedtately permit access to
a facility
Penalties for the underlying vialabons,
such as operatIng without a permit, acorue
during the time period of appeal of the
Secretary’s order and are payable at the
conclusion of the appeal process. Penalties
for violations of the Secretary’s order are
suspended until the Board makes its finding
on the appeal of the Secretary’s order. SOC.
34A—Z—53. —54. —55. —56, —60, —64. Further
appeal does not suspend the order or the
penalties
EPA requests public comment
regarding the effectiveness of this
approach in implementing the State’s
information collecting authorities.
(3) Citizen Intervention in
Enforvemenr Actions 40 OR 723 27(d)
provides’
Any State administering a program
shall provide for public participation in
the State enforcement process by
providing either
(1) Authority which allows Intervention as
of right in any civil or administrative ecttoa
* ‘ ‘by any citizen having an interest
which is or may be adversely affected: or
(2) Assurance that the Slate agency or
enforcement authority will (11 inveettgate and
provide written responses to all citizen
complaints ‘ ‘ (ii ) Not oppose
intervention by any citizen when permissive
Intervention may be authorized’ • : and
(iii ) Publish notice of and provide at least 30
days for public comment en any proposed
settlement of a State enforcement action.
The South Dakota Attorney General’s
Statement (pages 28—30) indIcates that
citizens have the right to intervene in
administrative enforcement actions
pursuant to SDCL section 34A—10—2. It
states that any citizen who is denied
Intervenor status in an administrative
proceeding may file a circuit court
action pursuant to SDCL section 34A—
10—5 to have the court order the citizen
to be named as a party to the
administrative proceedings. As to
judicial actions, SDCL 15—6—2(a)
provides for citizen intervention unless
the interest of the citizen is adequetely
represented by existing parties.
The MC)A fpage 3) states that the
SDDENR will allcw intervention as of
right a civil proceedin s tint feast the
sense intent required by 40 CElL section
123 27(dl(1! and shall not oppose
cit izen intervention in administretive
pnvceedLogses provided by 34A—1O--2.
EPA requests comment regarding tb
effectiveness of the State’s proposed
approach In ensunng the opportunit)
for public participation in enforcement
actions.
Indian Reservations. if EPA were to
authorize South Dakota to administer
the NPDES program as submitted, the
authorization would not extend to
discharges within “Indian Country” as
defined tn 18 U.S.C section 1151. EPA
would retain authority to issue I’WDES
permits for all dlschargers on the
following “existing or former” Indian
reservation lands located in South
Dakota:
1. Cheyenne River Indian Reservation
2. Crow Creek Indian Reservation
3. Flandreau indian Reservation
4. Lower Brule Indian Reservation
5. PIne Ridge Indian Reservation
6. Rosebud Indian Reservation
7. S lsseton Indian Reservation
8. Standing Rock Indian Reservation
9. Yankton Indian Reservation.
A list of existing facilities that would
remain under EPA management can be
obtained free of charge from EPA,
Region VU!, Water Management
Division at the address provided above,
In withholding authorization for these
areas. EPA Is not determining that the
State either has adequate jurisdiction
lacks such jur isdiction. Should South
Dakota later choose to submit further
analysis with regard to its general
jurisdiction over “Indian Country” or
with regard to its jurisdiction over
specific parts of “existing or former”
reservations, it may do so without
pre judice.
Before EPA would be able to
authorize South Dakota to administer
the NPDES program for any portion of
“Indian Country,” the State would have
to provide en appropriate analysis of the
State’s jurisdiction to regulate
discharges in these areas, as required by
40 GIL § 123.23(b). In order for a state
to satisfy the requirements of
§ 123.23(b), it must demonstrate to the
EPA’s satisfaction that It has authority
either pursuant to explicit
Congressional autherir,atlon or under
the principles of Federal Indian law to
enforce its laws against existing and
potential pollution sources within any
geographical area for which it seeks
authorization. EPA. has reason to believe
that disagreement exists with regard to
the State’s jurisdiction ever the Indian
reservation ames designated above, end
EPA is not satisfied at this time that the
State has made an appropriate analysis
with regard to these areas.
aiA’s future evaluation of whether to
authorize the South Dakota program to
include Indian reservation lands all be
-------
Federal Register I Vol . 58. No. 168 / Wednesday. September 1, 1993 / Proposed Rules
46147
aov ’n rj by EPA’s judgment as to
ether the State has demonstrated
quate authority to justify such
approval, based upon its understanding
of the relevant principles of Federal
Indian law and sound administrative
practice. The State may wish to consider
EPA’s discussion of the related issue of
tribal jurisdiction found In the preamble
to the Indian Water Quality Standards
Regulation (see 56 FR 64876. December
12. 1991).
Availability of State Submittal
South Dakota’s submittal may be
reviewed by the public from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m. (( Tfl, Monday through Friday.
excluding holidays, at the SDD 4R. Joe
Foss Building, 523 East Capitol. Pierre.
South Dakota 57501, or at the EPA
Regional Office in Denver at the address
appearing earlier in this notice.
Copies of the submittal may be
obtained at a cost often dollars ($10.00)
by check payable to the South Dakota
Department of Natural Resources.
Requests for copies should be addressed
to Kant Woodmansey, South Dakota
Department of Environment and Naturai
Resources at the address provided above
or at telephone number (605) 773—3351
Public Hearing Procedures
ie public hearings have been
aduled for the date, limes, and
location indicated above. The Hearing
Panel will include representatives of
EPA Region V I] ] and the SDDENR. The
following policies and procedures will
be observed. The Presiding Officer shall
conduct the hearings in a manner that
perisits open and full discussion of any
issue involved. Any person may submit
written statements or documents for the
record. The Presiding Officer may, at hia
or her discretion, exclude oral testimony
if SUCh testimony is overly repetitious of
previous testimony or is not relevant to
the decision to approve, disapprove, or
require revision of the submitted State
program. The Presiding Officer may
limit oral testimony to five minutes total
per person. Members of the Hearing
Panel may ask questions of witnesses
and respond to questions and
statements of witnesses.
The transcript taken at the hearings.
together with copies of all submitted
statements and documents, shall
become a part of the record submitted
to EPA. The hearing record shall be left
open until October 8. 1993, as described
below, to permit any person to submit
a” additional wntten statement or to
nt views or evidence tending to
. 1 t testimony presented at the public
hearing.
Hearing statements may be oral or
written. Written copies of oral
statements are encouraged for accuracy
of the record and for the use of the
Hearing Panel and other interested
persons. Statements should summarize
any extensive written material.
All comments or objections presented
at either public heanng or received in
writing by EPA Region Vi]] by October
8, 1993, will be considered by EPA
before it takes final action on South
Dakota’s request for NPDES program
approval.
All written comments and questions
regarding the hearings or the NPDES
program should be addressed to Janet
LaCoinbe at the above address.
The public is also encouraged to bring
the foregoing to the attention of persons
whom may be interested in this matter.
EPA’s Decision
After the close of the public comment
period. EPA will decide whether to
approve or disapprove’South Dakota’s
NPDES program. The decision wiLlbe
based on the reqwrements of sections
402 and 304(i) of the CWA and EPA
regulations promulgated thereunder
lithe South Dakota NPDES program is
approved, EPA will so notify the State.
Notice will be published in the Federal
Register and, as of the date of program
approval, EPA will suspend issuance of
NPDES permits in South Dakota (except,
as discussed above, for those
dischargers in “Indian Country”). The
State’s program will operate in lieu of
the EPA-administered program.
However, EPA will retain the right.
among other things, to object to NPDES
permits proposed to be issued by South
Dakota and to take enforcement actions
for violations.
If EPA disapproves South Dakota’s
NPDES program, EPA will notify the
State of the reasons for disapproval and
of any revisions or inodificationsto the
State program that are necessary to
obtain approval.
Review Under Regulotoiy Flexibility Act
and Executive Order 22291
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is reqwred to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules that
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of entities. The
proposed approval of the South Dakota
NPDES program does not alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. No new substantive
requirements are established by this
action. Therefore, because this notice
does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of smell entities, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
needed.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Dated. August 23. 1993
Jack W, McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Environmental Protection Agency. Region
VI I I
LFR Doc. 93—20969 Filed 8•31—93, 8 45 am)
a coos - -- r
40 CFR Part 180
(PP 0E3906IP568 FRL—4641-6J
RIN No. 2070-ACI6
Pesticide Tolerance for Olmethoate
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule
SUMMARY: This document proposes that
a tolerance be established for residues of
the insecticide dimethoate in or on the
raw agricultural commodity Brussels
sprouts. The proposed regulation to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of the insecticide in or on
the commodity was requested in a
petition submitted by the Interregional
Research Project No.4 (IR-4).
DATES: Comments, identified by the
document control number (PP 0E39D6/
P5681. must be received on or before
October 1, 1993.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written
comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch. Field
Operations Division (H7506C). Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St . SW.
Washington. DC 20460. In person, bring
comments to Rm. 1132, Q ’ ,4 #2. 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy . Arlington. VA
22202.
Information submitted as a comment
concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any
part or all of that Information as
“Confidential Business Information”
(CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR paIl 2.
A copy of the comment that does not
contain C I 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 in Rm. 1132 at the address
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p m..
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By
mail: Hoyt L Jamerson, Emergency
Response and Minor Use Section
-------
41474
Federal Register I Vol. 5 , No. 148 I Wednesday. AuguSt 4. 1993 / t4o*ic
entomopethogen Beauvaria bassiana.
Naturalis•L strain. in or an the following
raw agricultural commodities: Cotton
seed, peanuts; peanut forage: peanut
hay, tomatoes, lettuce; cantaloupe, and
lettuce for control of boll weevil.
whiteflies and leafhopper’s. This
document gives notice that Fermone
Corp. has amended the petition. (PP)
2G4 157, to add the following raw
agric iIturel commodities: cabbage and
peppers for control of whiteflies end
leathoppers.
This temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance will permit
the marketing of the above raw
agxiculturel commodities when treated
in accordance with the provisions of
experimental use permit 53871—EUP-.1,
which is being issued under the Federal
insecticide, Fungicide, and Radenticide
Act IFIFRA). as amended (Pub. L 95—
396. 92 Stat. 819. 7 U.S.C. 136).
The scientific data reported end other
relevant material were evaluated. and it
was determined that the exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance will
protect the public health. Therefore, the
temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance has been
established ott the condition that the
pesticide be used in a ordance with
the experimental use permit and with
the following provisions
1. The total amount of the active
ingredient to be used must not exceed
the quantity authorized by the
expenmental use permit.
2 Fermone Corporation. Incorporated.
must immediately notify the EPA of any
findings from the experunentel use
permit that have a bearing on safety. .
The company must aLso keep records of
production, distribution, and
performance and on request make the
records available to any authorized
officer or employee of the EPA or the
Food and Drug Administration.
This temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance expires on
January 18. 1994. Residues remaining in
or on the raw agricultural commodities
after this expiration date will not be
considered actionable If the pesticide is
legally applied during the term of, and
iii accordance with, the provisions of
the experimental use permit and
temporary exemption from the
requirement of tolerance This
temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be
revoked it the experimental use permit
is revoked or if any experience with or
scientific data on this pesticide indicate
that such revocation is necessary to
protect the public health.
The Office of Management arid Budget
has exempted this notice from the
requirement of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Regulatory Fle bility Act (Pub. L 96-
354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U S C. 601—612),
the Administrator has determined that
regulations establishing new tolerances
or raising tolerance levels or
establishing exemptions from tolerance
requirements do not have a signi cant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. A certification
statement to this effect was published in
the Federal Register of May 4. 1981 (46
FR 24950).
AuIhoi’fty 21 U.S C. 346eW.
Dated July 24. 1993.
Lswrenca E.
Acting Director. Regjsatajon Division, Office
of Pesticide Pro&wns.
IFR Dec. 93—19.250 Filed 8—3—03.8 45 aml
I
LFRL—4687—3 1
Proposed Settlement,, Ctean Air Act
Citizen SuIt
AGV CY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC11OIC Notice of proposed settlement;
request for public comment .
SUMMARY: In accordance with section
113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(“Act”), notice is hereby given of a
proposed partial consent order in the
foUowing cases: Sierrv Club v. Carol M.
Browner. No. 93-0124 (D C.D C.) and
Sierm Club et al. v. Corn! M Browner,
No. 93-0125 ID CD.C.).
These citizen suits were filed under
section 304(a) of the Clean Air Act. 42
U.S.C. 7604, and allege that EPA failed
to meet certain mandatory deadlines
under title I of the Act, as well as
deadlines under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
This partial consent deane, in
conjunction with a partial deane lodged
with the court on rune 10. 1993 (see 58
FR 35451. July 1. 1993) will resolve all
claims arising in these matters.
For a period of thirty (30) days
following the date of publication at this
notice, the Agency will receive written
comments relating to the proposed
consent order from persons who were
not named as paI 1 tIes or intervenors to
the litigation in questions EPA or the
Department of Justice may withhold or
withdraw consent to the proposed order
if the comments disclose facts or
circumstances that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper.
inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act
A copy of the proposed order has
been lodged with the clerk of the United
States District Court for the District of
Columbia. Copies are also available
from Diane Weeks, Air and Radiation
Division (LE— 132A), Office of General
Counsel. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street, SW.. Washington.
DC 20460 (202) 260—7620 Written
comments should be sent to John T.
Hannon. E.q. at the above address and
must be submitted on or before
September 3. 1992.
Dated July 28. 1993
Gerald H. Y ”
Acting Cenenii CounseL
IFR Dec. 93-18572 Filed 8-3—93, 8 45 aml
e seer
(FRL- .4687—23
Proposed ModifIcation of the IIPDES
General P,rmtt forth. Western Portion
of tPii Outer Ceritinentel Shaft (OCS) ot
the GuIt of MexIco (GMG290000)
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTiON: Notice of Proposed NPDES
General Permit Modification.
SUMMARY: EPA Region 8 today proposes
to modify the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
general permit for the Western Portion
of the Outer Continental Shelf of the
Gulf of Mexico (No. Q.1G290000) for
discharges from existing and new
dischargers in the Offshore Subcategory
of the Oil and Gas Extraction Pcmt
Source Cqtegory (40 CFR part 435.
subparrX). The existing permit.
published at 57 FR 54642 on November
19. 1992 authorized discharges from
exploration, development, and
production facilities currently in and
discharging to Federal waters of the Gulf
of Mexico seaward of the outer
boundary of the territonal seas off
Louisiana and Texas. As proposed. the
permit modification addresses recently
promulgated Oil and Gas Offshore
Subcategory guidelines, permit
modification requests from the oil and
gas industry, and monitoring
requirements now unnecessary
DATES; Comments must be received by
September 3. 1993.
AODRZSSES: Comments should be sent
to Regional Administrator Region 6.
U S Environmental Protection Agency.
1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas, Texas 75202—
2733
FCR FURTHER INFORMATION CCPJTACT Ms.
Ellen Ciildwell. Region 6, U S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202—2733
-------
FedaL Ra IaI I VoL 58, No. 148 I Wednesday, August 4. 1993 / Notlcse
41475
Telepbonw (214) 855—77513. A draft
permit including the proposed -
norllficatlons andior a f.ct shest mor
hilly explaining the prepos..J may be
obtained from Ms. CaidwelL !n
addltf on, the Agency’. currsnt
adnunistetive record on the proposal is
available far examination at the Region’.
Dallas offices during normal working
hours after providing Ma. C.JdweU 24
hours advance notice.
SUPPLE$VITARY 5W0 A11ON Pursuant
to section 30 1(a) of the Clean Water Act
‘CWA”, 33 Usc 13 11(a ), d Ischarge. of
pollutants to weters of the UnItef
States, the temtorial sees, and the
contiguous zone are unlawful except as
authorized by a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit issued by EPA (or an approved
state) in aa ordanca with CWA section
402.33 USC 1342. EPA Reglim 6 am d
such a permit for western Cull of
Mexico facilities in the Offshore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gee
Extraction Category on November 19,
1992 at 57 FR 54642. EPA now proposes
various modifications to that permit and
solicits comment on them. 0 niy
comments on the proposed
modifications axe solicited.
Offshore Subcdegmy Gaidellees
When it Issued the turxnnt permit.
EPA Region 6 was aware the Agency
intended to publish Offshore
Subcategory Guidelines (Guidelines)
based on the Beet Available Te o1ogy
Economically Achievable (BA ’fl early In
the term of the permit. Rather than
de1ayu g permit reiseusnos until
promuigauon of the Guideline., Region
6 based the permit’s BAT limitation. on
its best professional judgmant and
included a reopener provision in the
permit allowing subsequent
modification of BAT effluent limitation.
in the OCS permit that am lass strln it
than the new Guidelines. On March 4,
1993, EPA published the Guide nes at
58 FR 12453 and they .zenoweffedlve .
In aa ordance with the GuLdailn . ,
EPA now propose. to dears... oil and
grease limits on produced water,
prohibit the discharge of produced send.
limit discharges of oil and gre. In wail
treatment, completion and wrirkover
fluids to the same limits as exist for
produced water, allow a partial toxicity
test to measure compliance with the
dulling fluid toxicity limit, and require
the use of the static sheen test method
for morutoruig free oil in drilling fluids,
dull cuttings, and well treatment,
completion, and workover fluids.
industry Modification Request
After the final permit was signed, oil
md gas industry representative.
a,ntact.d RegIon 6 contending that the
modal used by EPA to miciilaj a4tIoal
dilution vsh, RM]X1, rendered
unduly stringent dilution values ‘.
because It did not scouzataly account for
various conditions under which some
Offshore facilities discharge or could -
discharge produced water. They also
provided the Region with new dat on
produced water discharge.
demonstrating the existing permit’s
diThtlon &torp might have unnecessary
adverse effects on a significant number
of Offshore oil and gas operators.
Mar exam Inetlon of the newly
availabl, data, EPA Region 6 believes
that adjustment. in Its application of
CORMECI may be appropriate. Based on
changes La dispersion modeling and
changes to model Input parameters for
the density grediesi. current speed,
discharge pipe orientation. and distance
between discharge pipe. end th. sea
floor. EPA Region 6 proposea to modify
the permits I. of ciitlcsl dilutions for
compliance testing of produced water.
Industry representatives have also
requested a permit provision providing
an option to use diffusers to achieve
greeter dilution when (aciuitie, are
unable to meet the toxicity limits at the
proposed aritical dilutions. The
.p. fic . of such an option have not
been included L i i the proposed pernut
however, comments are requested on
how a diffuser option might be added to
the permit and the n aaty of.
diffuser option. EPA’. preferred uptiun
for allowing the use of diffusers Is to
require permltteee wishing to us. a
diffuser to design it using the CORMIXZ
model with similar modifications and
Input parameters as used La developing
the pmpoeed dilution value
modification. After installatIon of such
a diffuser, those pernuftees would be
required to demonstrate no chronic
toxioty it the dilution modeled using
cORMD(2.
In n.xion with Its modification
request, the oil and gas Industry
suggested that EPA should provide a
short phass.in period for the modified
produced water taximty limits to enable
operators requiring facility
improvements for compliance tint, to
make those improvements. EPA is
coosidenng leaning either a general
edmlrn .*xeiIvs compliance order are
number of individual admirnstrath’e
compliance orders to cover such
facilities. Each facility requesting
coverage wider such an order would
have to demonstrate it was violating the
produced water toxicity limit and
deealbo Its plans for coming into
compliance with that limit as
expeditiously as possible, but no later
than withIn 6 months of the permit’s
modification. EPA solicits comments an
this approach.
EPA also prupoass other relatively
minor ch.sngms to the existing perinit ’s
monitoring requirements In response to
the mndincetlan request. If adopted.
those modifications will delete
monitoring requirements far gross alpha
rsdIatIan and gross beta reiiiation.
largely bie’.rn. . of test interference
cau by high dissolved solids
auocerjtradons in produced water.
Discharge. of sourc. water, source sand,
uncontaminated bilge water, and
uncontaminated freshwater will be
allowed without monitoring Far free oil
when platforms are unmanned. Also,
inlecefluneous d1PrIt .rges4t the sea floor
of blowout preventer fluids, muds,
cuttings, and cement will be allowed
during times of poor visibility without
requiring operators to conduct a static
sheen test which cannot be applied to
those discharges.
Informational Monktoring
EPA Region 6 also proposes to delete
various permit monitoring, record
keeping. and rapoiting requirements
intended solely for collecting data in
antidpation of developing Future permit
limitations on a best professional
judgment basis. They are volume
estimates of well treatment, completion.
and workov.r fluids, deck drainage, end
drill cnttlngs flow estimates for sanitary
waits water and oil content for muds
and cuttings. Publication of the O hore
Guidelines eliminates the need for
developing such permit limits.
The proposed produced water ciitical
dilution tablesands sumniary of .11
permit limitations and monitoring
requirements in the permit, including
the. proposed changes. are in appendix
A of this Federal “ gut . ’ notice. As
indicated above, additional in1or’ aaon
is available on request.
Other Legal Requirements
Oil Spill Req unemsnts
Section 311 of Lb. CWA, “the Act”.
prohibits the discharge of oil and
h.zardoua materials In harinful
quantities. Discharges that are in
compliance with NPDES permits are
excluded from the provisions of section
311. However, the permit does not
preclude di. Institution of legal action
or relieve permittees from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties
for other, unauthorized discharges of oil
and harardous materials which are
covered by section 311 of the Act.
Endangered Species Act
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the United States F15h and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) have
-------
41476
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 148 / Wednesday August 4. 1993 / Notices
previously concurred in writing with an
EPA finding that issuance of the OCS
pemut would not adversely affect any
threatened or endangered species or its
c iticel habitat. While the proposed
changes to the produced water toxicity
limits are less stringent at the end of
pipe. they continue to prohibit toxicity
as modeled at the edge of the mixing
zone. Other proposed changes render
the permit more stnngent. Accordingly.
the Region now finds that adoption of
the proposed changes Is unlikely to
adversely affect any threatened or
endangered species or Its aitIceI
habitat. The Region will request written
concurrence from NMFS and USFWS on
its finding of no adverse affect.
Ocean Discharge C .nterio Evaluation
For discharges into waters located
seaward of the inner boundary of the
temtorial seas. CWA section 403
requires that NPDES permits consider
gwdelines for deterriun.ing potential
degradation of the marine environment.
These Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 G’R
part 125. subpart Mi are intended to
“prevent unreasonable degradation of
the marine environment and to
authorize imposition of effluent
limitations, including a prohibition of
discharge. if necessary. to ensure this
goal” (45 FR 85942. October 3. 1980).
When the Western Gulf of Mexico
Outer Continental Shell general permit
was reissued (57 FR 54642 November
19. 1993) EPA determined that
discharges in compliance with the
permit would not cause unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment.
Proposed changes to the permit which
will make it more stringent include.
lower oil and grease limits for produced
water, oil and grease limits for well
treatment, completion and workover
fluids, and prohibition on discharges of
produced sand. The only mapor
proposed modifications rendering the
permit less stringent are the critical
dilutions at which produced water must
show no chronic toxicity. These
proposed modifications are based on
new and more accurate dispersion
modeling and Information on discharge
conditions and will not render the
toxicity limit insufficient for its purpose
of ensuring no toxicity at the edge of the
mixing zone Because dispersion
modeling shows that there will be no
toxicity at the edge of the mixing zone.
several permit requirements are more
stringent than the existing permit, and
none of the other permit limits are less
stringent than the existing permit.
discharges in compliance with this
proposed permit modification will not
cause unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment.
Coastal Zone Management Act
The proposed modified permit is
more stnngent than the existing OCS
General Permit due to the new limits for
oil and grease in produced water, and
well treatment, completion and
workover fluids, the prohibition of
discharge of produced sand, and the
requirement that permittees use the
static sheen test method for monitoring
of free oil except deck drainage. The
existing permit was determined to be
consistent with local and state Coastal
Zone Management Plans (( lP). Since
this proposed modified permit is more
stringent. EPA has determined that the
activities authorized by this proposed
permit are consistent with local and
state Coastal Zone Management Plans
(CZMP). The proposed modified permit
and consistency determinations will be
submitted to the State of Lotusiana for
interagency review at the time of public
notice
Marine Protection. Research. and
Sanctuaries Act
The Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuanee 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 MPRSA
establishes Marine Sanctuaries Program,
implemented by the National
Oceanographic and Atrnosphenc
Administration (NOA.A), which requires
NOAA to designate ocean waters as
marine sanctuaries for the purpose of
preserving or restoring their -
conservation. recreational, ecological or
aesthetic values. The Flower Garden
Banks has been determined to be a
marine sanctuary and is within the ares
covered under this periniL The permit
prohibits discharge in areas of biological
concern, including marine sanctuaries.
and none of the proposed modifications
will affect that prohibition.
State Water Quality Standards and
State Certification
Because state waters are not included
an the area covered by this NPDES
general permit. no state waters are
effected by the discharges it authonzes.
Thus, the state water quality
certification provisions of CWA section
401 do not apply to the permit or
proposed modification
E.xecutwe Order 12292
The Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to section 81b} of
that order. It should be noted, however,
that EPA in fact prepared a regulatory
Impact analysis in connection with its
promulgation of the Guidelines and
submitted it to the 0MB and included
it in the public review. See 58 FR 12492.
Each of the proposed permit
modifications which will increase
Industry compliance costs was
considered in that regulatory impact
analysis and review.
Papeiwork Reduction Act
The information collection required
by this permit has been approved by the
)ffice of Management and Budget
(0MB) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C
3501 et seq.. in submission made for the
NPDF.S permit program and assigned
0MB control numbers 2040-0086
(NPDES permit application) and 2040—
0004 (discharge monitoring reports).
The existing Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) general permit
(GMG290000) requires regulated
facilities to submit a notice of intent to
be covered and submit discharge
monitoring reports to EPA. When if
issued the permit. EPA estimated it
would take an affected facility three
hours to prepare the request for
coverage and 38 hours per year to
prepare discharge monitoring reports
The proposed modifications will not
in ese these burdens.
‘i ’gulbtor/ Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. requires that EPA
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for regulations that have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In promulgating the Guidelines.
EPA prepared a economic impact
analysis showing they would directly
impact no small entities. See 58 FR
12492. Based on those findings. EPA
Region 6 certifies, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S C 605(b). that the
permit modifications proposed today
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of smell entities
Dated July 26. 1993 -
Myron 0. Knudson.
Director. Water Management Division. Region
6
-------
Fed. J Register I VoL 58, No. 140 1 Wednesday, August 4, 1993 1 Notices 41477
APPENDIX A.—Tiat 1 (SHEEr 1 OF 5): PRODuCED WATER CRmCM. DILUTiON (PERCENT EFFLUENT) DEPTH
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCHARGE PIPE AND SEA FlooR 0 To 4 METERS
Olecflerg. rels (bOW

‘
0to3
3to
5
5
tor
>rtor
>9 ”toIl
>111o16
>18
O le 500
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
017
0.04
501 to 1,000 ..........
0.45
0.40
0.40
.0.40
0.40
040
008
1.001 to 2.000 .__.._
1 39
.
1 08
I 00
1.08
1.06
1 08
0.18
2,001 to 3,000 .._
3,001 to 4.000 .__
1 68
1.97
1.
1.60
1.32
1.45
1.32
1.45
1.32
1.45
1.32
1.45
132
1.45
4,001 to 5,000 -—
1.94
‘
1.77
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
5.001 10 6,000 ._____
1.90
1.63
1.66
1.63
1.63
1 63
1 63
6,001 to 7,000 ..._
t60
2.07
1.78
1.70
1.70
170
170
7.001 to 8,000
1.81
2.20
1 89
1.78
1.78
I 76
1 76
8,001 to 9,000
1.77
2.32
1.99
1 81
1 81
1 81
1 81
9.00110 10,000 .. ..
1.73
2.43
2.06
186
186
188
1.86
10,001 to 15,000 .. ....
1.56
2 . 64
2.49
2.16
2.03
2.03
2.03
15,001 tO 20,000 .._.
1.43
2.49
2.65
2.47
2.17
2.17
2.17
20.001 and above ...,.
134
2.39
3.13
2.75
2.42
229
229
TABLE 1 .—(SP4EET 2 OF 5): PRODUCED WATER CRITiCAL DILuTioN (PERCENT EFFLUENT) DEPTH DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DISCHARGE PiPE A.MD SEA FLOOR GREATER Tii t i 4 METERS TO 6 METERS
Oisc ge rate tt u

I
>O”to3
>rIo5 ”
rtor
>r1 o9
>9”1011
>11b16
>16
010500 ——
0.04
004
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
501 to 1,000 ...._
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.55
1,001 to 2.000 ..__._
0.42
0.31
0.37
, 0.37
0.31
0.37
0.10
2,001 to 3,000 . _
0.80
0.68
0.65
0.66
0.85
0.65
0.15
3,001 to 4,000 .__
1.40
1.18
1.04
1.04
1.04
104
0.19
4001 to 5,000 .-____
IA
0.94
0.88
0.88
0.86
0.88
.
0.86
5,001 to 6,000 .._.__
1.15
1.02
093
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
6,001 to 7,000 . ..._
I ,
1.10
1 00
0.97
0.91
0.97
0.27
7.001 to 8.000 .._. .....
121
117
1.08
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
8,001 to 9,000 ._..._
9.001 to 10.000
1.18
1.17
124
130
1.12
1.17
1.05
1.08
1.05
1.09
1 05
1.09
1 05
1.09
10.001 to 15.000 —
1.09
1.56
1.41
1.28
1 23
1 23
1.23
15.00110 20,000
1 02
1.75
1.59
1 45
1.33
1.33
1.33
20.001 and above ....
0.96
1 69
• 1.76
1.59
1.46
1 40
1 40
TABLE 1.—(SHEEr 3 OF 5): PRODUCED WMER CRITICAL DILUTiON (PERCENT EFFUJENT) DEPTH DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN Dlsc1 GE PIPE AND SEA FLOOR GREATER ThAN 8 METERS TO 8 METERS
0Is arge rate ( I
day)
PIpe d meter
,‘0b3 ”
>3 ”105
5to
r
>7tor
>9 ’b
11
>11 16
,1F
0 to 500 ...
0.04
0.04
0.04
004
0.04
0.04
0.04
501 to 1.000
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
1,G01 to 2.000 .._.._
0.20
0.16
0.18
0.18
‘0.18
0.18
007
2,001 10 3.000
0.35
0.32
0.31
031
0.31
0.31
0.10
3.001 to 4,000 . .._
0.58
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.46
0.46
0.13
4.001 to 5.000 .._
0.85
0.74
0.87
0.67
‘
0.87
067
0.17
5,001 to 6.000 .
1 28
1.08
095
0.94
094
094
020
6,001 to 7,000 —
0.78
0.71
0.66
0.65
0.86
065
065
7,001 108,000
083
076
070
068
0.88
068
068
8.001 to 9,000 ._
0.89
080
074
0.71
.0.71
071
071
9,001 to 10,000 .. ._
089
0.84
0.78
074
0’?4
074
0.74
10.00110 15.000 ...
084
101
094
087
0.85
0.65
085
15,001 to 20,000 -
0 80
115
1 07
099
0.93
0.93
093
20,001 and above
0 76
1 32
118
1 09
1 02
0.99
099
-------
41478
Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 148 / Wednesday. August 4, 1993 / Notices
TABLE I .—(SHEEr 4 OF 5): PRoDucED WATER CRmcAL. DILUTION (PERCENT EFFLUENT) DEPTH DIFFERENCE
BETwEEN DISCHARGE PIPE AND SEA FLooR GREATER THAN 6 METERS TO 12 METERS
Discharge rate (bbU

PIPS dIameter
>0to3
.3to5
>5tor
>rto9”
>9 11
>11to16
>16 ”
0(0500......
004
0.04
004
0.04
004
004
004
501 to 1,000
007
0.07
007
007
007
0.07
007
1.001 (02.000
0 11
0.10
0.10
0 10
0.10
0.10
0 10
2,001 to 3,000 ... ....
0.14
0.13
0 13
0 13
0.13
0 13
0 13
3.001 (04.000 ..._ ..
0.17
0.16
0.16
0 16
0.16
0 16
0 16
4,001 to 5,000 ...........
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0 11
5,001 to 6,000 .
0.45
0.41
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.13
6,001 to 7,000........ . ...
061
0.55
0.50
049
048
049
0 15
7.001 to 8.000 ......
080
0.72
0.86
063
0.63
0.63
0 17
8,001 to 9.000 ..
1.06
0.94
0.85
080
0.80
0.80
0 19
9,001 to 10,000
0.56
0.52
0.50
048
0.48
048
048
10,001 to 15,000
0.63
0.83
060
0S7
0.56
0.56
0 58
15,001 to 20,000........
0.61
0.72
068
065
0.62
0.62
0 62
20,001 and above
0.58
0.80
075
, 0.72
0 68
066
066
TABLE I .—(SHEET 5 OF 5): PRODuCED WATER CRmCAI. DILUTiON (PERCENT EFFLUENT) DEPTh DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DISCHARGE PIPE AND SEA FLOOR GREATER Tiw 12 METERs
DIscharge rule (bW
day)
Pipa diameter
>o’tor
rtor
>s-tor
>rtow’
>rtoli
>irti -
>16
(0500 .... . ........ . .....
501 to 1,000 ,.
1.001 (02.000 ...
2.001 (03.000
3,001 to 4,000
4,001 to 5,000 .......,....
5.001 to 6.000
6,001 to 7.000 . .......
7,001 to 8.000
8,001 to 9.000 ...
9.001(010,000
10,001(015,000
15,001(020.000
20,001 and above ....
004
0.07
0.11
0.14
0.17
021
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.41
0.28
031
1.07
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.28
0.30
0.34
0.38
094
1.01
1 ,15
004
007
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.19
0.22
0.25
0.29
0.32
0.38
083
099
113
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0 19
0.22
0.25
028
031
035
081
097
111
0.04
0 07
0.10
0.13
.0.16
0.19
0.22
0.25
028
0.31
0.35
0.80
0.67
109
004
0.07
010
0.13
0.16
0.19
0.22
0.25
0.28
0.31
035
0.80
0.67
108
004
0 07
0 10
0.13
0.16
0.19
022
025
0.28
0.31
035
080
067
108
TABLE 2.—EFFLUENT LiMITATiONS, PRoHiernoNs AND MONITORING e JIREMENTS
(Yscttatge
Regtiat.d and man-
ltorwd discharged pa-
rasistar
DIscharge Ilmfta orvpro-
hib ttlon
MOfllulItlfl9 r irOmeITt
Measurement Sample tyse/ Recorded
frequency
method
value(s)
Orfihing Fluid ... Free CII ......... ..
No free oil
Once weeM’
To dty2 9O-lv LC5O .... 30,000 ppm daily mug- Once/month
m.
StaDc sheen
Grab
Nisnber of days
sheen ob-
96-hr LCSO.
DIscharge Rale
Discharge Rate kw con-
boiled discharge rate
at 988
Marcwy and cathrWum.
Grab ....,.. 96-hr LC5O
... 96-hr LC5O
Once/end of
wed’
Once/month .... Grab
Onceibour ’ ... Estlmale ...
OnceThour’ Measure
Once prior to Absorpbon
driiling each Sp o-phefom-
well’ OVy
30,000 ppm monthly av-
erage mu mwn
1,000 barreIsTho .
(see Figure 1)
No discharge of drllUng
fluids to which barile
has been added, If
such bante contains
mertury in excess of
1 0 ngfl(g or cadmium
I sxcees of 30 mgflig
(dry weight)
Max. hourly
rate
Max houtly
rate
mg mercury!Kg
bathe.
mg cedmlumikg
bante
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No . 148 / Wednesday, August 4. 1993 I Nôtice
TA&E 2 .—EFFUJENT LJMITATIONS, PROHIBITIONS p.g’io MONITORING REOUIREMEI .ITS—ConVnued
41479
Proauced Sand
Well treatment fluids ‘0. co y
ton fluids 10 p4 wodiover
fluids 0 (Includes padre, fluids)
Re jlated and man-
Ibred dlsd’sarged p.-
Od Based or Inverse
Emulsion Drilling
FluId.i
OM ContamInated Outing
Ruida. ,
O lesa lOU
Mineral Oil
Cutting, generated
using Od Based or In.
verse Emulsion Drill-
k,g FTwd . -
CuUinga generated
us ing O ntaani-
naIad DntUnq Fluids.
Cuttings generated
usIng drtWng lkilds to
whlcl’i DIesel 0 (1 has
been addet
Cu n a generated
using drilling firads to
w*iith Mineral Oil has
been addet
Fres Oil ..
O a idgrsa ,.
Toxldly
Railkim 226 and 228
8Io umi iatlon”
Flow (MOD)
No Discharge
Freeod
Oil & Grease
Discharge Ilnvtationfpro.
hibitlan
No discharge
No diatharge.
No discharge of thILUng
fluids to *$uth diesel
has been i51
Mineral c dl may be used
orlly as a carrier fluid
(bariaporter fluid), lu-
bitchy addidve, or pill
NofresdI ...
30,000 ppm daily
mum
30.000 ppm monthly sirS
erage irurumwri
No diactrarge of oit 5rrgs
generated using tinS-
Ing fluids to wtikrfi bar-
ta has bean added, if
such barite cantalne
mercury in excess di
1 0 rngrlrq or cadn’v.sn
In excess of 10 mg/kg
(dry weight).
No discharge.
No discharge.
Mineral oil may be used
orWy as a camer fluid
(transporter fluid), Iii.
bncity eddsbv. or pill.
Nofree oil
42 mgit daily max., 29
mgll monthly average.
7-day average rain.
NOECG p4
average mm. NOEC°
No free c d l
42 mg4 daily mas, 29
mgil monthly avg
Once/acid of
walls
Once/month
Rats Depend. Grab
Rat. Depend- Grab
anti.
RecorderS
va1us(s
Number of days
sheen ob-
served.
96-fir LC5O
96-hr Lao
96-/v LC.50.
mg mercuryilig
banle.
cng cadinun Ag
barns.
Number of days
sheen CO.
serv e t
Daily max.
monthly aver-
age-
lowest NOEC
for enter of
the t*o spa-
pCil l lter
Number of days
sheen 00-
served.
Daily max,
mo . s ty aver-
age
Discharge
U s ssw
-c v
s_ pe/
method
Oniling Cul ngs Free ad
Toxioty’96 -hr LC5O
Mercury and cadmium
Onca aak’
mini- Once/month
Static sheen
Grab
Grab
Grab
Once prior to AbsorpTion
drilling each Spactm.pltotom-
etry ....
On ’ \ sual sheen
Onc.Inionth Grabe
discharge
Dock Drainage
Produced Water
Mcn oi
Onc&rnonutr - .. Estimate Monthly Aver-
age
Once/day’
Once/month
Static sheen
Grabs
-------
41480
F .I Rag ter / VoL 5 . No. 148 f Wednesday. August 4, 1993 / Notices
T#.a.E 2.—EFFli 1T LiMITATIONS. PROI NBmO AND t41TORtNG REot elTS—COntlflUed
Discharge
l ed c pa-
hiodon
Monlfoflng requkement
Meeswemant
frequency
Sample typei
method
Recorded
value(s)
Sanitary waste’ 2 condnucusly
Residual chlorine”
I mgI l (n**mavr) .. ..
Onc norSI l
Grab
Obseivabon
Concen at lon
Number of days
manned by 10 or more per.
Solids -
F’ OSD S e
O nc& da ..
soOds ob-
s
Observation
s e ed.
Number of days
waste’ 2 cordnuou&y
Solids
NO flowing sodde .
Orce/day
....
solids ob
manned by 9 or fewer parsons
served.
or Interm ittenSy by any number
Observation ‘ ..
Number of days
Domestic waste” .... .... .. . .
Solids
P SaaIn9 elide or
l earn.
Once/day
Visual sheen
observed.
Number’ of days
MIscellaneous echargea: Desa-
Free oil
No he oil .._...
Once/week” ...
..
sheen ob-
Uruzabon wilt scherge: biow
served.
out pra-ventef fltid,
w ntarrsriaJed ballast we1.r
wicontanenated bilge watsr
uncontaminated frashwstec
mud. ca nge and cement at
seafioo uncontaminated sea-
water’ boIler blowdown, ecuros
water and sane TIaCeOuS
earth filter media. excess c i-
ment sltw
‘When diacfw n
2 Suspended pereoulala ph.a. (SPP) th Myerdeps ba ’iia loliowaig ipr ed test method The sample shall be taken beneath the shale
shaker or d there are no re ms across the shaker then th sample rrat Irs (alien from a locabon that ‘3 charoctensllc of the overall mud
system to be 1,c rqed.
3Sample shall be taken after th fInal log run Is completed and prior to bu c scharge.
45 Appendix A, Discharge Rats Graph. _____
eThis Hitom’ietion shall be recorded but not reported t, sss otherwleo requested by EPA.
Analyses shaM be conducted on ech new stock of benle used.
‘When drsd iar ng arid feciuty Is manned. Monltonng be a r lstied during times when observation of a visual sheen on the surface
of the receiving water Is possible In the vicinity of the discharge
eMay be based on the andvnebc average of lout grab sample resulta In the 24 hr. peed
QSeeTab le I .ftVpend iX& -
ioN discharge of priority pollutants except In fracs amounts Information on tie speci9c ofierricel composition shall be recorded but not
reported unless requested by EPA.
“When discharging for muds. cu ngs. and cement at the seafloor and blowout preventer fi $d U other miscellaneous discharges when
discharging, discharge Is authorized only dunng times wfl 5n visual shun observation is possible. raises the stabc sheen method is used
Uncontaminated seawater uncordamriated freshwater. oourca water and source sand. uncontaminated blge water, and uncontaminated bailast
water from platfomis on automatic putge systeiris may be discharged without monitoring from r1 rra alzh are not manned
‘2 Any faolity which property operates and maintains a manna sandaSon d ce (MSD) that compiles wilt podulion control standards ane
regulations under section 312 of the Act shall be deemed to be In compliance with pemst ilaethticns for sanIt9ry waste The MSD shall be tested
yearty for proper operation, and teal results maintained at the faalrty
i’Hach method CN-66 OPO approved MInimum of I mg /I and maintained as close to this coricentraflon as possible
“The discharge of food waste Is prohibited withIn 12 nautIcal miles from nearest land. Commirsied food waste able 10 pass through a 25 mm
mesh screen (approximately I Inch) may be discharged nut ft i 12 nar s riles kern , reSt land.
“Monitoring shall be accomplished during daylight by visual Xssreaaon of Vie wstaci of the mciivvig water in the vicinity of sanitary and
domestic waste orifalia. Observations shall be made tollowvig arthur Vie rnomin or midday mels SI I Ire of majornum esVmated discharge
‘eQ Jy for’ discharges from 0 bIrl/day tO 499 OblAlay. once/quarter for d cflarges from 500 bbUday to 4,599 bbUday. and once/month for
discharges of 4.600 bIrl/day and greater
‘7 See Part 18.4(b) of Sis Pumit
(FR Doc. 93— 18510 Filed 8—3—93; 45 anil
arLLarQ COOS eU-IS-P
FEDERAL. MAR ME COMMISSION
Ocean FreIght Forwarder Ucense;
Revocations
Notice is hereby given that the
following ocean freight forwarder
licenses have been revoked by the
Federal Maritime Commission pursuant
to section 19 of the Shipping Act of
1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the
regulations of the Commission
pertaining to the licensing of ocean
freight forw. dere. 46 CFR part 510.
License Nt.mber. 3485
Name: John R Scares & Co.
Address. 2227 So Garneti, Ste. 109,
Tulsa. OK 74129
Date Revoked June 25, 1993
Reoson Surrendered license
voluntarily
Lwense Number 3284
Name Sonco International Corporation
Address 4920 S Lewis. SilO. Tulsa. OK
74105
Date Revoked July 10. 1993
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
surety bond.
Bryast L. Vsithrakls.
Director. Bureau of Tariffs. Certification and
Licensing
IFR Dcc. 93—18529 Filed 8—3—93. 8 45 am(
erwiso coos s ci-w
Agre.m.nt(s) Filed; Trans-Atlantic
Agreement
The Federal Maritime Ccsnmissaan
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
Following agreenesnt(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 70 / Wednesday. April 14. 1993 / Notices
19427
Dated. April 6. 1993.
Lawrence F. CuIlees,
Acting Director, Regzstzution Division. Office
of Pesticide Pogroms
¶FR Doc. 93—87:30 FIled 4—13—03. 8 45 anil
m
(PP 2G414W1 ’637; FRL 4577-61
Flumetsulam; Establishment of
Tsmpoi’sry Toleranc.s
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC1ION: Notice.
SUMMARY: EPA has established
temporary tolerances for residues of the
herbicide flumetsulani (DE-498). in or
on certain raw agricultural
commodities. These temporary
tolerances were requested by
DowElauco.
DATES: These temporary tolerances
expire February 25. 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By
mail Joanne Miller. Product Manager
(PM) 23. RegistratIon Division
(H7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M St.. SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
)ffice location and telephone number
Rxn. 237, Qvt*2. 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway. Arlington. VA, 703—305—7850.
SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATION:
DowElanco, Quad IV, 9002 Purdue Rd..
Indianapolis. IN 46268—1189, has
requested in pesticide petition 1FF)
2G4 149, the establishment of temporary
toierances for residues of the herbicide
N’(2.6-difluoropbenyfl-5.rnethyl.i, 2, 4-
triazolo(i. 5a 1-pyninidine-2.
sulfonamide (coded Flumetsulam) in or
on the raw agricultural commodities
corn, field, grain; corn, field. fodder:
and corn. field, forage at 0.05 parts per
million (ppm). These temporary
tolerances will permit the marketing of
the above raw agricultural commodities
when treated in aocordance with the
provisions of the experimental use
permits 62719—EUP—23 and 62719—
EUP-24. which are being Issued under
the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, anti
Rodentiade Act (FIFRA), as amended
(Pub L 95—396, 92 Stat. 819, 7 U S C.
136)
The scientific data reported and other
relevant matenal were evaluated, and t
was determined that establishment of
the temporary tolerances will protect
1 ie public health. Therefore, the
nporary tolerances bave been
stablished on the condition that the
pesticide be used in accordance with
the experimental use permits and with
the following provisions:
1. The total amount of the active
ingredient to be used must not exceed
the quantity authorized by the
oxpenrnental use permits.
2. DowElanco must immediately
notify the EPA of any findings from the
experimental use that have e bearing on
safety The company must also keep
records of production, distribution, and
performance and on request make the
records available to any authorized
officer or employee of the EPA or the
Food and Drug Administration.
These tolerances expire February 25.
1995. Residues not in excess of these
amou.nts remaining in or on the raw
agricultural commodities after this
expiration date will not be considered
actionable if the pesticide is legally
applied during the term of. and in
accordance with, the provisions of the
experimental use permits and temporary
tolerances. These tolerances may be
revoked if the experImental use permits
are revoked or if any experience with or
scientific data on this pesticide indicate
that such revocation Is necessary to
protect the public health.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this notice from the
requirement of sectIon 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L 96—
354, 94 Stat. 1164. 5 U.S.C. 601—612).
the Administrator has determined that
regulations establishing new tolerances
or raising tolerance levels or
estdbhshing exemptions from oieranco
requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. A certification
statement to this effect was published in
the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46
FR 24950).
Author ty 21 U S C. 346a(j).
Dated’ April 2, 1993
Lawvesce F. Qillesu,
Acting Director Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
IPROoc. 93-8731 FIled 4—t3—93: 845 anil
[ FRL-4612 -9J
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges AssocIated With Industrial
Activity Located In the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IL
ACTION: Notice of proposed NPDES
general permit modification .
SUMMARY: The Director, Water
Management Division. of the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Region U (the “Director”) baa
prepared a draft permit modification
Incorporating changes in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permit (PRR000000I
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity (except
discharges from construction activity)
located in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. in this action, EPA proposes to
delete existing quarterly monitoring and
Tepcrtsng requirements established in
the general permit. This notice requests
comments on proposed changes to
existing monitoring frequency and
reporting requirements, certain permit
forrnatiorganizauon changes, sampling
protocol and corrections to Pollution
Prevention Plan deadlines.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
permit modification must be received
on or before May 12. 1993.
ADDRESSES: The public should send art
original and one copy of their comments
addressing any aspect of the proposed
permit modifications tqjose A. Rivera,
Regional Storm Water Coordinator,
Water Permits and Compliance Branch
(ZWM—WPC), Environmental Protection
Agency, 28 Federal Plaza, New York,
New York. 10278. In addition, the
public is required to submit a copy of
their comments to the Chief of tbe Water
Management Staff of the EPA Region II
Caribbean Field Office at the address
specified below. The public record is
located at the above address.
Appointments to view the record can be
made by contacting José A. R.ivern or
Anne K, Reynolds at the above address.
In addition, copies of the public record
are also available at the EPA Region II
Caribbean Field Office, Office 2A.
Podiatry Center Building, 1413
Fernandez Juncos Avenue, Santurce,
Puerto Rico, 00907 and may be
inspected and copied at that office
between 9 s.m. and 4 p.m.. Monday
through Friday or by calling (809) 729—
6843. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying. To obtain copies of the
September 14, 1092 and November 10,
1992 General Water Quality Certificates.
please contact the Environmental
Quality Board. W er Quality Ares,
Banco Nacional Plaza Building, 431
Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Roy,
Puerto Rico. 00910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT’. For
further information on the proposed
NPDES general permit modification
contact the EPA’s Storm Waler Hotlirie
at (703) 821—4623 or Jose A. Rivers or
Anne K. Reynolds of EPA’s New York
Office at (212) 264—2911.
-------
19428
Federal Reij. . ter I Vol. 58. No . 70 / Wednesday, April 14. 1993 / Notices
SUPPLEMDiT* ,Ry dFORUAT1ON:
I. Background
IL SectIon 401 CertificatIon,
Ill. Reopener aaus.
IV Fact Sheet fir Proposed Permit
Modification,
V. Economic Impact
VI Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Regulatory Flexibtitty Act
I. Background
On August 16, 1991, a draft NPDES
general permit for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity located in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico was published in the
Federai Register (see 56 FR 40948). and
that notice served as a request for State
401 Certification (see 56 FR 40991). In
addition, a specific formal request for
State 401 Certification from the Region
and a copy of the draft general permit
were sent to the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) of Puerto Rico on
November 1, 1991.
On April 29, 1992, EQB transmitted to
the Region a draft 401 Certification for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. EQB provided
opportunity for public comment oa this
draft Certification and held a public
hearing on July 21. 1992.
EQB issued on September 14, 1992
the 401 CertIfication known as the
“General Water Quality Certificate”
(GW( ) for storm water discharges
assocated with industrial activity in
accordance with section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The special
conditions included in the GWQC were
intended to assure that a permittee of
the general permit would comply with
the applicable requirements of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law and
sections 301(b)(1)(c) and 401(d) of the
CWA. This GWQC provided. in past.
that all permitteos of the general permit
conduct quarterly monitoring and report
such results quarterly.
On September 16, 1992. the Region
issued the final NPDES general permit
for storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity located in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This
permit was published in the Federal
Register on September 25. 1992 (see 57
FR 44438). The general permit will
expire on midnight. Se,ptember 25,
1997. The focus of this general permit
is the development and implementation
of Pollution Prevention Plans to
minimize the discharge of pollutants. Ira
order to incorporate the 401
Certification special conditions which
were included In the GWQC of
September 14, 1992. EPA included Part
Xl in the general permit (see 57 FR
44459). Part Xl revised, among others,
the monitoring and reporting
requirements of the general permit
consistent with the CWQC’a Special
Condition Number 13. (For more details,
please refer to the Fact Sheet pertaining
to 401 CertificatIon at (57 FR 44440) of
the September 25. 1992 Federal
Register).
However, under Commonwealth
procedures, the 401 Certification issued
on September 14. 1992 was
reconsidered, and a revised and final
401 Certification (“revised GWQC”) was
Issued and submitted to EPA on
November 10, 1992. That action
finalized the State 401 Certification
process. Although the revised GWQC
contains all previous 19 Special
Conditions included in the September
14. 1992 Certification, the revised
GWQC changed the Special Condition
Number 13 deleting and adding certain
requirements.
Todays notice explains the rationale
of the proposed general permit
modification (see Fact Sheet section
below) The proposed modifications
may be found in Appendix A (Proposed
General Permit Modifications) of this
notice.
IL Section 401 Certifications
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or permIt, including
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge into
navigable waters shall be granted until
the State in which the discharge
onganates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of sections 301. 302, 303.
306. and 307 of the CWA. Today’s
proposed general permit modification
implements the revised 401
Certification for the general permit.
III. Reopener Clause
Part VI]1B of the general permit (see
57 FR 44456) established that permit
modifications be conducted according
to 40 G’R 122.62. 122.63, 122.64 and
124.5. In accordance with 40 G’R
122.62(e)(3)(iji), EPA has determined a
cause for modification of the general
permit. EPA’s determination to modify
the general permit is based on a
modified State 401 Certification, 40 G’R
124,55(b) states that if a certification is
received after final Agency (EPA) action
on the permit, the Director may modify
the permit on request of the permittee
only to the extent necessary to delete
any conditions based on a condition an
a certification invalidated by an
appropriate State board, in this instance
EQB. On November 18. 1992. a formal
request for permit modification was
made
IV. Fact Sheet for Proposed Permit
Modifications
A. Basis for Today’s Action
Only those conditions of Part XI.B.3
and 5 (State 401 Certification
Requirements for Puerto Rico) of the
general permit discussed in this section
are reopened. Parts X I B.1. 2.4 and Bare
not reopened for comments by this
action.
For EPA’s NPDES general permit
actions, a public notice is required to be
published in the Federal Register (see
40 G’R 124(dllZ)(i)). Therefore, today’s
notice is being published in the Federal
Register. However, the reader is advised
that due to the Federal Register printing
format, what EPA underlines in portions
of the Fact Sheet wall be highlighted in
“italics” in the Federal Register notice
This Fact Sheet describes a number of
proposed changes, which fall into five
broad categories First, certain changes
are necessary to incorporate substantive
changes to the EQB’s revised CQWC
(i a, deletion of quarterly monitoring.
and addition of conditions regarding
access to Pollution Prevention Plans,
revision of the Pollution Prevention
Plans, right of entry, and establishment
of monitoring on a case-by-case basis)
Second. certain permit format!
organization changes are necessary to
retain the requirements established by
EQB’s 401 Certification Special
Conditions No, 14 and 16 (rain gauge
and volume estimates). Third, EPA is
proposing to keep the sample type
conditions established in Part Xl B 5 of
the general permit. Fourth. EPA is
proposing to modify the permit to
indude the EQB and EPA Caribbean
Field Office addresses. And fifth, EPA is
proposing to modify the permit to
correct Pollution Prevention Plans
deadlines established in Part Xl.B 3 of
the general permit.
To facilitate the reader’s
understanding of today’s action. EPA as
providing the full texts of Special
Condition No. 13 from EQB’s original
September 14, 1992 GWQC and from the
revised November 10, 1992 GWQC. The
September 14, 1992 Special Condition
No. 13 is set forth below. This is
incorporated as Part XI.B.5 of the
general permit. (The reader is advised
that Part Xl of the September 25, 1992
general permit included State-specific
requirements which revised certain
portions of EPA’s baseline general
permit. For Puerto Rico, the Part XI B
requirements revised portions of Parts I,
m. IV, V, V I and VU of EPA’s baseline
general permit.) The text of the
September 14, 1992 Special Condition
13 which is found below has been
annotated with references (italic) which
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 70 I Wednesday. April 14. 1993 / Notices
19429
indicate the portions of EPA ’s baseline
general permit which were revised by
this provision:
13 Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
For all storm water discharges associated
with industrial ecthrtty covered by this
GWQC. quarterly monitoring shall be
performed The parameters to be sampled are
the following:
(Part VI 2 and 3 (Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements))
a. For the industries identified in the final
GP applicable to Puerto Rico, the parameters
established for each specific industry. (Part
VI B 21
b. For all other industries covered by the
final GP. but not specifically identified in the
final GP applicable to Puerto Rico the
parameters are oil and grease (mg/I). pH.
biochemical oxygen demand (mg/I). chemical
oxygen demand (mg/I): total suspended
solids (mg/I). total phosphorus (mg/I). total
Kjeidahl nitrogen (mg/I), nitrate plus nitrite
as nitrogen (mg/I). and any pollutant limited
in an effluent limitation guideline to which
the process wastewater steam at the facility
issubteetto (Part V/B)!
Monitoring results obtained during the
previous three months must be submitted on
Discharge Monitoring Report Form(s)
postmarked no later than the 28th day of the
month following the completed reporting
period. The reports are due the 28th day of
January. April. July and October The first
report may cover lo u than three months
(Part VI D I
Facilities subject to monitoring
requirements should sample the discharge
during normal business hours In the event
that the discharge commences during normal
business hours, the permittee shall attempt to
meet the sampling requirements specified in
this permit even if this requires sampling
after normal business hours (Part VI 4
(Sample Typel/
A minimum of forly .eight (481 hours
without measurable precipitation (greater
than 0 1 inch rainfall) shall precede the storm
eventirunoff that is sampled lNote—not
incorporated in Part V/B 4 since 48 hours is
less stringent than 72 hours!
The permittee must document the
conditions under which the storm water
samples were taken, how many manual grab
samples were taken for the composite
sample, and the date of sampling. and must
attach this documentation to the sampling
results IPart VI.B 4 (Sample Type)J
The perrnittee should attempt to meet the
above protocol and collect samples beginning
on the first day of the reporting penod in
order to ensure compliance with the
specified sampling protocol and
mquirements (Part via 4 (Sample T}pelJ
The following is the revised GWQC
Special Condition No. 13 from EQUs
November 10. 1992 GWQC.
13 The following terms and conditions
should be compiled for all Storm Water
discharges associated with industrial
activities covered by this CWC .
a EQB retains the authority to request from
faL.litiei covored by this GWQC copy of the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (the
Plan) certified by a professional. as requested
by Special Condition No. 7. when deemed
necessary.
b IfEQB request copy of said Plan, it will
be reviewed In this case EQB may notify the
owner of the Plan If it complies or not with
one or more of the permit conditions. After
receiving a notification from EQB requiring
modifications to the Plan, the petitioner will
have a maximum of sixty (60) days to make
the necessary changes and submit a written
certification stating that the changes were
realized.
C. EQB reserves the right to inspect the
implementation of the Plans, on a case-by.
case basis
d. For those industries specifically
identified in the final CF applicable to Puerto
Rico, for which there are particular
monitoring requirements established in the
final GP, compliance wflh the final GP
conditions will be required.
e For all other industries not specifically
identified in the final CF applicable to Puerto
Rico. but subject to the permit requu’ements.
EQB may require monitoring ofeli those
substances deemed necessary after a case-by.
case determination
This revised Special Condition No. 13
replaced the Special Condition No. 13
in EQB’s September 14. 1992 GWQC. In
order to eliminate the September 14.
1992 CWQC Special Condition No. 13
from the general permit. EPA proposes
to revise part XI.B.5 of the general
permit (see September 25. 1992 Federal
Register (57 FR 44460)) and is
proposing new language that will
incorporate the revised GWQC Special
Condition No. 13
EQB’s Special Conditions No 14 and
16 were not changed by the revised
GWQC. However. EPA is proposing to
revise part XI B 5 of the general permit
which incorporates these two Special
Conditions. These changes are necessary
to retain the requirements in part X1.B.5.
which refer to parts VI.B.2 and 3
(volume estimates) and part VI 8.1 (rain
gauge) of the general permit
B. Proposed Changes Related to the
Revised GWQC
En order to implement the new
Special Conditions No. 13.a and b, EPA
proposes to incorporate the conditions
in current Part XLB 3 of the general
permit. This proposed change to Part
X l B.3 would revise Parts IV B 2 and 3
of the general permit by 9dding (italic)
the special condition Parts IV B 2 and
3 will read as follows
2 The permittee 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, to the operator
of the municipal system In addition. £QB
has the authority to request from facilities
covered by this permit a copy of the Plan
certified by a professional, as requested in
Part IV. when deemed necesswy
3. The Director, or authonzed
representative. may notify the permittee at
any time that the plan does not meet one or
more of the minimum requirements of this
Part Within 30 days of such notification
from the Director. (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized representative.
the permittee shall make the required
changes to the plan and shall submit to the
Director a written certification that the
reouested changes have been made. In
addition, EQB may request a copy of the Plan
and may review it EQB may notify the owner
of the Plan that it complies or does not
comply with one or more of the permit
conditions After receiving a notification
from EQB requiring modifications to the
Plan, the permittee will have a maximum of
sixty (60) days to make the ne swy
changes and submit a written certification to
EQB and the Regional Office stating that the
changes were realized
En order to implement Special
Condition No 13.c, EPA proposes to
incorporate the condition in Part X I 3 7
in such that the general permit Part
Vii Q would be revised to add
(underline) a new paragraph (number 4).
to delete the word “and” at the end of
paragraph 2 and to Include the word
“and” at the end of paragraph 3. Part
VU Q will read as follows:
Q Inspection and Entry The permittee
shall allow the Director or an authorized
representative of EPA, the State, or, in the
case of a facility which discharges through a
municipal separate storm sewer, an
authonzed representative of the mun ci7ai
operator or the separate storm sewer
receiving the discharge, upon the
presentation of credentIals and other
documents as may be required by law, to
I Enter upon the permittees premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted or whore records roust
be kept under the conditions of thi, 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 tunes any facilities
or equipment (including monitonng and
control equipment): and
4 EQB reserves the right to inspect the
implementation of the Pollution Prevention
Plans (see Part IV). on a case by case basis
In order to implement Special
Condition No 13.d and e, EPA proposes
that the current Part XI 8 5 of the
general permit be re-written and that
new language be added to revise Part
VI B lb of the general permit The lirsi
italic sentence below incorporates
Special Condition No. 13 e However.
EPA has added a clarifying statement
(second sentence—italic) to ensure that
the permit assigns EPA the appropriite
authority to implement permit
requirements. This section of the perrr.t
will read as follows:
-------
19430
Federal Regi ter / VoL 58, No. 70 1 Wednesday, April 14. 1993 / Notices
b. The Dliector ma piovide written oodm
to any facility otherwi.. e X &oin the
sampling requaraments 01 Paiti VL&2 esmI .
annua’ monitoring ruqiila nis) or VL3.3
(seated mwdtmlni requiramentil. (bat it
shell conduct the annual dlscbes sampling
requited by Pail VLB ,3 .d (additional
faci.litlaa , or apecafy en alternative
monitoring frequency or specify additional
parametors to be anal yzad. For all other
induaulea not speci5caily tdentifisd In the
final GP applicable to P satto Rico. but
subpect to the permit requuemantl. EQB may
require monitoring of aLl those iubstancas
deemed ne aasy after a ma. by case
determination. However, any EQB action to
establish oich monitoring requirements shall
not become effective unless and until EPA
Region U provides written notice to the
facility in accoedazice with this paragraph.
In addition, In order to maintain the
requirements of the Special Conthtlon
No. 14 volume estimates) which are
included in the current Part Xl.B.5 of
the general permit. EPA is proposing
new language for Part XLB.5 to revise
Part VLB.2 and VLB.3 (italic of ibe
general permit. These sectIons of the
permit wilt read as follows:
2. Sem,..&rniuai Mon:toru g fleqiurrments
Dunug the period beginaing on the effective
date and iasnng through the expiration date
of th . permit, perinitteea with facilities
identified In Paiti VLB..a through f must
monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least semi-annually (2
times per year) except as provided in VT 8.5
(sampling waiver). VI 8.8 (representatIve
dischar l, and VLC.1 (toxicity testing).
Permittees with fed lines ident if Ied In Parts
Vi B.2.a through f (below) must repeel In
accortlanca w,th Pail V I D (reposlingi whete
to submitj. In addition to the parameters
listed below, the perrnlttne shall provide the
date and duraflon (in hoursi of the stone
eventis) sampled: rainfaLl measurements or
estimates (In inches) of the storm event
wiuds generated the sampled runoff; the
duration between the storm event sampled
and the end of the previous measurable
(greeter than 0.1 Inch rainfall) storm event.
Fo, permsttees identified in P a rt VT3.2 .a
through / an est mole of the bOil vol urns (in
gallons? of the discharge sampled shall be
provided. For permittees identified in Pert
VT 92b , d. eand/ anesfimatsofthesi
0/the dmincge area (hi vszmfeet1osid an
estzmele of’ the runoff ceafflczent of the
dm:nogewevsleg. low (wider 40%?, medium
(40% to 85%) or high (above 651/shall also
be provided:
3. Annual Monitoring R.qwrements.
During the period beginning on the effective
date and tasting through the expiration date
of this permit, perrnhtleea with facilities
Identified In Parts VL&3 ,a through d (below)
must monitor tho.e storm wRter discharges
identified below at least annually (1 tune per
year) except a. provided in Vt B 5 (sampling
waiver), and Vi 8 6 (representative
dischaige). Permitteei with facilities
iden ifled In Part, Vi B 3a through d (below)
e not required to submit monitoring results.
Lilies, required In writing by the Director.
However, such pesmittees must retain
monitoring results in e rdance with Pail
VI.E (resanthigs of resxirdsj. In eddition to the
parameters lIsted below, the permittee shall
provide the data and duratkm (In hour .) of
the storm eveu s ) aampled rainfall
measuremanta or estimate. (in iacbesl 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, an estImate of the total volume
(In gallons) of the discharge sempled. and a n
estim ate of the sixe of the dmanage area (in
square feet) cmd an estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the drainage area (e.& low
(under 40%), medium (40% to 65%) or high
(above 65)),
EPA is proposing to re-locate the Special
Condition No. 16 (rain gauge) Included in the
current Part XLB 5 of the general permit. Pert
Vt B 9 Is being aeated to maintain the
condition and to avoid confusion, This
proposed re-location may be found in the
new proposed Pail X l 8.5 Comments are
on!y solicited for the relocation and not for
the requirements of the rain gauge special
condition This section of the permit will
read as follows
9 Rain Gauge
a. All perrnirtees with storm water
discharges assocIated with industrial activity
that have begun on or before October 1. 1992.
should Insta l l a rain gauge by November 1.
1992.
h. For permitteel where industrial activity
has begun aher October 1. 1992. the rain
gauge must be installed on or before the date
of submission of the NOt.
c. The perasittee must keep daily records
of the rain. lndlcettng the date and amount
of rainfall (inches in 24 hoursI. A copy of
these records shall be submitted to EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Pield Office. In e rdanco with
Pert VLD of this permit The reports are due
the 18th day of January. April. july and
October. The first report may cover less than
three months and shall be attached to the
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRsJ when
appropriate. -
C. EPA’s Proposals Not Related To The
Revised CWQC
1. EQB and EPA Caribbean Field Office
Addresses
EPA proposes to revise Parts IV and
VLD of the general permit to incorporate
the EQB and EPA Caribbean Field Office
addresses. (Underline means language
addition.) This proposed revision may
be found in the new proposed Part
XLB.5. This section of the permit will
road as follows:
0 Reporting Where to Submit
1 d Signed copies of discharge monitoring
reports required under Paiis VI D 1 8.
Vi Dl b. and Vt D i c. individual permit
applications, report. of daily records of rain
end all other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Regional Office. EQB and
EPA Caribbean Field Office at the following
addresses
United Staler EPA. Region II. Water
Management Division, (2 WM-WPCI. SLon-r
Water Staff. 26 Federoi Plaza. New York,
NY 10278.
Water Quality Area, P A. Environmental
Quality Board P0 Box 12488. Sonmrre.
Puerto Rico 00910
EPA Caribbean Field Office. Of/ice 2A.
Podictiy Center Bwlding, 1413 Fecirsdex
funcos Avenue, Sonturce, Puerto Rico
00907
2. Sampling Protocol
As explained elsewhere in this notice.
the revised Special Condition No. 13
replaced the Special Condition No 13
in EQE’s September 14. 1092 GWQC.
Among others, the following conditions
from the September 24. 1992 GWQC
were deleted from the rev sed GWQC
Special Condition No. 13:
Facilities subtect to monitoring
requirements should sample the discharge
during normal business hours. In the event
that the discharge continence. during normal
business hour,, the permitlee shall attempt to
meet the sampling requirements specifted i r s
this permit even if this requires sampling
after normal business hours.
A minimum of tory eight (4a ) hours
without measurable precipitation (greater
than 0 1 inch rainfall) shall precede the storm
event/runoff that Is sampled.
The permittee must document the
conditions under which the storm water
samples were taken, how many manual cab
samples were taken fur the composite
sample. and the date of sampling, and must
attach this documentation to the sampling
results.
The permittee should attempt to meet the
above protocol and collect sample. beginning
on the first day of the reporting period in
order to ensure compliance with the
specified sampling protocol and
requirements.
EPA incorporated the above
conditions into the general permit at
Part XLB.5, which revised Part Vt.B 4 of
the general permit. The following is the
sample type conditions (Part VI.B 4,
italIc) as established in the general
permit (see 57 FR 44461):
4. Sample Type. Facilities should sample
the discharge during normal business hours
In the event that the discharge commences
during normal business hours, the pernnftee
shall attempt to meet the sampling
reqswernents specified in this pemut even if
this requite. sampling after normal business
hours For discharges bom holding ponds or
other impoundments with a retention period
greater than 24 hours. (sanmated by dividing
the volume of the detention pond by the
estimated volume of water discharged durin*
the 24 hours previous to the time that the
sample is collected) a minimum of one grab
sample may be taken. For eli other
discharges. data shall be 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
greetor than 0 1 inches in magnitude and that
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No . 70 / Wednesday, April 14, 1993 / Notices
19431
Occurs 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
discharRe If the collection of a grub sample
during the first thusy intziutes is
impracticable, a grub sample can be taken
during the first hour of the discharge, and the
discharger shall submit with the monitoring
report a desa’iption of why a grab sample
during the first thirty minutes was
impracticable. 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 13
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.
Grab samples only must be collected and
analyzed for the determination of pH,
cyanide, whole effluent toxicity. fecal
colifomi. and oil and grease The permittee
must document the conditions under which
the storm wafer samples were taken, how
many manual grab samples were taken for
th composite sample. and the date of
sampling, and must attach this
documentation to the sampling resulLs The
permittee should attempt to meet the above
protocol and collect samples beginning on
the first day of the reporting period in order
to ensure compliance with the specified
sampling protocol and requirements
EPA proposes to retain the above
sample type condition, but to change
We timetable to collect the storm water
sample from the storm water event that
occurs at least 72 hours from the
previously measurable (greater than 0 1
inch rainfall) storm event to 48 hours.
Other than this one change. retaining
the conditions as shown above is
necessary to clanfy the storm water
sampling protocol This proposed action
is based on Best Professional Judgement
(BPJ) using the “Region U Revised
Guidance for Cooling Water and Storm
Water Riinofr’ li i addition, by retaining
some specific languago from EQB’s
September 14, 1992 Special Condition
No, 13, EPA has considered existent
weather conditions (dry and wet areas)
in Puerto Rico, and many telephone
conversations of EPA’. staff with the
regulated community regarding weather
conditions and the difficulty of
collecting samples due to the 72 hours
condition
3 Pollution Prevention Plan
Certifications
EQB’s GWQC and revised GWQC
Special Condition No. 9 require
facilities that commence industrial
activity after October 1. 1992, to develop
and implement the Pollution Prevention
Plan in accordance with the general
permit requirements within thirty (30)
days after the Notice of Intent (NO!)
submittal.
The Special Condition No. 9 is more
stringent than the baseline general
permit requirement when it is applied
to facilities that commence industrial
activity after October 1. 1992 but on or
before December 31, 1992. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to revise Part IV A.2.a
to establish that the Pollution
Prevention Plan shall be developed and
implemented within thirty (30) days of
NO! submittal, (The reader is advised
that EPA’s baseline general permit
requires facilities that commence
Industrial activity after October 1, 1992
but on or before December 31, 1992 to
provide for compliance with the terms
of the Pollution Prevention Plan and the
permit on or before the date sixty (60)
calendar days after commencement of
industrial activity.) in addition, as
established in EQB’s Special Condition
No 9, facilities are required to certify
within thirty (30) days of NO! submittal
that the Pollution Prevention Plan was
developed and implemented in
accordance with the permit
The Special Condition No. 9 is less
stringent than the baseline general
permit requirement when it is applied
to facilities that commence industrial
activity after January 1. 1993. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to revise Part IV A,2b
to establish that the Pollution
Prevention Plan shall be developed and
implemented and shall provide for
compliance on or before NO! submittal
for facilities which commence industrial
activity after January 1. 1993. In
addition, as established in EQB’s
Special Condition No. 9, facilities are
required to certify within thirty (30)
days of NO! submittal that the Pollution
Prevention Plan was developed and
implemented in accordance with the
permit. Part XJ.B 3 revises Parts [ V A.2.a
and b to read as follows’
2 a The plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences after October
1, 1992, but on or before December 31, 1992
shall be prepared, and except as provided
elsewhere in this permit, shall provide for
compliance with the terms of the plan and
this permit on or before thirty (30) days after
NOl submittal (and updated as appropriate);
I Within thirty (30) days of NOt submittal,
the perinittee shall submit to QB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification stating
that the Plan has been developed and
implemented in accordanco with the
conditions and requirements established in
this permit The certification should be
signed by the person who fulfills the
signatory requirements in accordance with
Part VII G of this permit.
b The plan for any facility whore
industrial activity commences on or after
Jenuary 1. 1993 shall be prepared, and except
as provided elsewhere in this permit, shall
provide for complIance with the terms of the
plan and this permit, on or before the ddie
of submission of a NO! to be covered under
this permit (and updated as appropriate),
i Within thirty (30) days of NOl submittal,
the perrnittee shall submit to EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification stating
that the Plan has been developed and
implemented in accordance with the
conditions and requirements established in
this permit The certification should be
signed by the person who fulfills the
signatory requirements in accordance with
Part VII C of this permit.
Finally, in order to implement the
above proposed changes. EPA is
proposing to re-write the language
included in Part XLB.3 of the general
permit. In Part X1.B 3, EPA revised Parts
IV.Aa.fVA2,WA3,andP WC of
the general permit. EPA is only
soliciting comments on proposed
revisions to Parts IV A.2 and IV A 3
(The reader is advised that EPA
solicited already comments on Parts
IV B.2 and 3 of the general permit
elsewhere in today’s notice)
V. Economic Impact (Executive Order
12291)
Although the Office of Management
and Budget has exempted this action
from the review requirements of
Executive Order 12291 pursuant to
section 8(b) of the Order All proposed
general permit modifications will lower
the burden on the Federal Government,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Government and the regulated
commwiity by reducing the frequency
of sampling and reporting.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA Region [ 1 has reviewed the
proposed requirements on regulated
facilities in this general permit under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
44 U S.C 3501 et seq. The Region did
not prepare an Information Collection
Request (ICR) document for today’s
proposed general permit modifications
because the information cal lethon
requirements in this general permit has
been already approved by the Office of
Management and Budget in submission
made for the NPDES permit program
under the provisions of the Clean Water
Act.
VT ]. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
5 U S C. 601 at seq., EPA Region II 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
-------
19432
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No.70 / Wednesday. April 14. 1993 / Notices
Todays proposed mixilficationa to the
general permit will make the genera’
peanut mw flexible and leea
burdeneoine kr permitt .
Accordingly. I hereby certify, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 805 (b), that these permit
modifications, when Issued, will not
have a significant Impa on a
substantial number of smell entities.
Authority’ Clean WeterAct. 33 U.S.C 1251
at seq.
Dated March 31. 1993.
Willla J. yeskl.
Acting Regional Admziimtratsx
Appendix A—1’roposed General Permit
Modifications
INPDES Permit Number PRR000000I
Authorization to Dia horge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of the
Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C 1251
at seq. the Act), except as provided in Part
I B 3 of this permit, operators of storm water
discharges ‘amociated with industrial
activity’, located in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges within
the general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit $
Notice of Intent In accordance with Part 11 of
this permit. Operators of storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity
who fuJi to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Pert fl of this permit sin not
authorized under this general permit
This permit modification shall become
effective on Effective Date of Permit
Modification (U)PM).
Thu permit and the authorizehon to
discharge shaLt expire at midnight.
September 25. 1997
Signed and Issued thu.s _day of
_______ 1993.
RachardLCazpe.PE.
Director
Water Management Division
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
This signature is ior the peanut conditions
in Paste I through X and for eay additional
conditions in Part Xl which apply to facilities
located In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Part XI. State Specific Conditions
• S S • S
B Puerto Rico. Puerto RIco 401
Certification special permit conditions revise
the penal! as folJ.owi:
• S • I I
3 Part IV Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plans
• . S S I
A Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Corn pl:ance
I Except as provided in paragraphs IV A 3
(n.l and gas operatIons). 4 (facilities denied
or ra)ecied from participation In spnup
applicatIon). 5 (special requirements) and 6
(later date,) the plan for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity
that Is existing on or before October 1, 1992:
a. Shall be prepared on or before April 1.
1993 (and updated a, appropriate):
L No later than April 1. 1993. the permittee
shall submit to the EQB with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean Field
Office. a certification stating that the Plan
was developed In accordance with the
requirements established in this permit. AU
certifications, except those prepared by a
professional engineer’ licensed In Puerto
Rico. shall be submitted with a sworn
statement attesting to the profossional
qualifications of the Individual who
developed the Plan.
b. Shall provide for implensea’itation and
compliance with the terms of the plan on or
before October 1, 1993.
I. No later than October 1. 1993. the
pernuttee shall submit to EQB with copies to
the Regional Office and EPA Caribbean Field
Office, a certification stating that the Plan
was implemented in accordance with the
conditions and requirements established in
this permit The certification should be
signed by the person wbo fUlfIll, the
signatory requirements in accordance with
part V11.C of thu permit.
2. a. The plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences after October
1. 2992, but on or before December 31, 1992
shah be prepared, and except as provided
elsewhere in this permit, shall provide fist
compliance with the terms of the plan and
this permit on or befdre thirty (30) days after
NOt submittal (and updated as appropnate)
I. Within thIrty (30) days of NOl submittal,
the perimttae shall submit to EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification stating
that the Plan has been developed and
implemented in accordance with the
conditions and requirements established in
this permit. The certification should be
signed by the person who fulfills the
signatory requirements in a rtlance with
Part VII.G of this permit.
b. The plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences on or after
January 1. 1993 shall be prepared. and except
as provided elsewhere in this permit. shall
provide for complIance with the term, of the
plan and this permit. on or before the date
of submission of a NO! to be covered under
this permit (and updated as appropriatel.
I Within thirty (301 days of NO! submittal.
the permittee shall submit to EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification stating
that the Plan has been developed and
implemented in accordance with the
conditions and reqwremanu esiabiii,hed in
this permit. The certification should be
signed by the person who fulflils the
signatory requirements in accorounce with
Part Vi! C of this permit.
3 The plan for storm water disLhargee
associated with industrial activity from an oil
and ges exploration, production. processing.
Or treatment Operation or transmission
facility that is not required to submit a permit
application on oi’before October I 1992 in
ozxordance with 40CR 122.26(c )(1)(lil). Inst
afterOctober 1, 1992 hasadischauge ate
reportable quantity of oil on hazardous
substance for which notification is required
pwsuant to either 40 R 1106, 40 G’R
11721 or 4OC ’R 3018, shall be prepared
and except as provided elsewhere in this
permit. shall provide for compliance with the
terms of the plan and this permit on or before
the date thirty (30) calendar days after the
first knowledge of such release (and updated
as appmprlateh
a. Within thIrty (30) days of the first
knowledge of such release, the permittee
shall submit to EQB with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Can bbean Field
Office, a certification stating that the Plan has
been developed and implemented in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements established in this permit The
certification shonid be signed by the person
who fulfills the signatory requirements in
accordance with Part VII C of this permit
S S S S S
B Signature and Plan Review
• I S S •
2 The permittee shall make plans available
upon request to the Director, or authorized
representative, or to the case of a storm water
discharge associated with indusmai activity
which discharges through a municipal
separate storm sewer system, to the operator
of the municipal system. In addition. EQB
has the authority to request from facilities
covered by this permit, a aspy of the Plan
certified by a professional, as requested in
Part l v.. when deemed necessary
3. 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. Within 30 days of such notification
from the Duectoa’ (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorszad representative.
the permittae shall make the required
changes to the plan and shall submit to the
Director a written certification that the
requested changes have been made In
addition. EQB may request a copy of the Plan
and may review it. EQB may notify the owner
of the Plan that It complie, or does not
comply with one or more of the permit
conditions. After receiving a notification
from EQB requiring modifications to the
Plan, the permittee will have a maximum of
sixty (601 days to make the necessary changes
and submit a written certificatIon to EQB. the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean Field
Office stating that the changes were realized
S • S • I
C. keeping Plans Current
I The permatee sbail amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design.
construction. operation. or maintenance.
which has a significant effect on the potential
for the discharge of pollutants to the waten
of the United States or if the storm water
pollution prevention plan proves to be
ineffective in eliminating or significantly
minimizing pollutants from sources
identified under Part IV D 2 (descnptioo of
potential pollutant sources) of this permit. or
in otherwise achieving the general ob octives
orcontrolling pollutants in storm water
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 70 / Wednesday. April 14. 1993 / NotIces
19433
discharges associated with Industrial activity.
‘meadments to the plan may be reviewed by
‘A in the same manner as Part IV B (above).
2 In addition to Part IV C.I (above), the
Plan should be reviewed at least once every
three (3) years to determine the need to
update the Plan:
a. If no event occurs which requires the
modification of the Plan, the engineer or
qualified professional who performs the
corresponding review must submit to BQB
with copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, a certification stating
the Plan has been reviewed end based upon
such review no modification of the Plan has
been necessary, or.
b If events have occurred which require
the modification of the Plan, the engineer or
qualified professional who performs the
corresponding revision must submit to EQB
with copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office. a certification stating
the modifications performed to the Plan. As
soon as the modifications performed to the
Plan am implemented. the person who
fulfills the signatory requirements in
accordance with Part VU.G of this permit.
shall submit to EQB with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean Field
Office, a certification stating that the
modifications of the Plan have been
ui plemented.
c All certifications, except those prepared
by a professional engineer licensed in Puerto
Rico, shall be submitted with a sworn
statement attesting to the professional
qualifications of the Individual who
(eveloped the Plan.
• . S S S
S. Part Vi Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
S S S S S
B Monitoring Requirements.
I Limitations on Monitoring Requirements
• S S S S
b The Director can provide wntten notice
to a liv facility otherwise exempt 6 .im the
sampling requirements of Parts VI B.2 (semi-
annual monitoring requirements) or VI B 3
(annual monitoring requirements), that It
shall conduct the annual discharge sampling
requireo by Part VI B.3 d (additional
facilir,as). or specify an alternative
rnonitonng frequency or specify additional
parameters to be analyzed For all other
industries not specifically identified In the
final CP applicable to Puerto Rico. but
suu)ect to the permit requirements EQS may
re. .iire monitoring of all those substances
deemed necessary after a cas. by case
determination. However, any EQS action to
establish such monitoring requirements shall
mi become effective unless and until EPA
Region I I provides written notice to the
facility in accordance with this paragraph
S S S S
2 Semi-Annual Mon:tonng Requirements.
During the period beginning on the effective
date and lasting through the expiretion date
of this permit. permittees with facilities
idontified l Parts VLB.2..a through f must
nonitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least semi-annually (2
times per year) except as provided in VI B.5
(sampling waiver), VLB.6 (representative
discharge). and VI C.1 (toxicity testing).
Parmittees with facilities identified in Parts
V1,B.2 a through f (below) must report In
accordance with Part VI D (reporting: where
to submit) In addition to the parameters
listed below, the permlttee shall provide the
date and duration (in hour,) 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.
For perrnittees identified in Part Vl.B.2,a
through f. an estimate of the total volume (in
gallons) of the discharge sampled shall be
provided. For persnittees identified In Part
Vl.B 2.b, d. a and f. an estimate of the size
of the drainage area un square feet) and an
estimate of the runoff coefficient of the
drainage area leg ,low (under 40%) medium
(40% 1065%) or high (above 65)1 shall also
be provided,
• S • S S
3. Annual Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective
dale end lasting through the expiration date
of this permit. permittees with facilfilea
identified in Parts VLB.3 a through d. (below)
must monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least annually (1 time per
year) except as pruvtded in VI B 5 (sampling
waiver), and Vi 8 6 (representative
discharge). Permittees with facilities
identified in Parts VI B 3 a through d. (below)
are not required to submit monitoring results.
unless required in writing by the Director.
However, such permittoes must retain
monitoring results in accordance with Part
VI E (retention of records). In addItion to the
parameters listed below, the perrni flee shall
provide 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
iamnpled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0 i 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 leg.. low (under 40%l. medium
(40% 1065%) or high (above 6511.
S S S S S
4. Sample Type Facilities should sample
the discharge dunng normal business hours.
In the event that the discharge commences
during normal business hours, the permittee
shall attempt to meet the sampling
requirements specified In this permit even if
this requires sampiing after norma! business
hours. For discharges from holding pond.. or
other impoundment. with a retention period
greater than 24 hours (estimated by dividing
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), a minimum 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 sampiei shall be collected from the
discharge resultIng from a storm event that is
greeter than 0 1 inch in mz.gnitude and that
occurs at least 48 bows 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. If the collection of a gab sample
during the first thIrty 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 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 In
each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of the
discharge, with each aliquot being separated
by a minimum period of fifteen minutes.
Grab samples only must be collected and
analyzed for the determination of pH.
cyanide, whole effluent toxicity, focal
coliforns. and oil and grease The permittee
must document the conditions under which
the storm weter samples were taken, how
many manual grab samples were taken f r
the composite sample, and the date of
sampling, and must attach this
documentation to the sampling results The
permittee should attempt to meat the above
protocol and collect samples beginning on
the first day of the reporting period in order
to ensure compliance with the specified
sampling protocol and requirements
S S S S S
9. Rain Gauge
a. All pertnittees with storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity
that have begun on or before October 1. 1992.
should install a rain gauge by November 1.
1992.
b For permittees where industrial activity
has begun after October 1, 1992. the rain
gauge must be installed on or before the date
of submission of the NO!
c. The permittee must keep daily records
of the rain, Indicating the date and amount
of rainfall (inches in 24 hours). A copy of
these records shall be submitted to EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, in accordance with
Part VI D of this permit. The reports are due
the 28th day of January. April. July and
October The first report may cover less than
three months and shall be attached to the
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) when
appropriate
D Reporting Where So Submit
1.
S S S
d. Signed copies of discharge monitoring
reports required under Parts VI.D.1.a.
VI D 1 b. and VI.D 1 c. Individual permit
applications, reports of daily records of rain
and all other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Regional Office. EQB and
EPA Caribbean Field Office at the following
addresses
United States EPA. Region II. Water
Management Division (2WM—WPC) , Storm
Water Staff, 28 Federal Plaza. New York.
NY 10278.
Water Quality Area. PR. Environmental
Quality Board. P0 Box 11488. Santurce
Puerto Rico 00910.
-------
19434
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 70 / Wednesday, April 14. 1993 / Notices
EPA Caribbean Field Office, Office 2A.
Podiatry Canter BuIlding. 1413 Fernandez
Juncoi Avenue. Santurce. Puerto Rico
00907.
• • a a
7. Part VIL Standards Permit Conditions
• • S S S
Q 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 theconditions 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
or equipment (including monitoring and
control equipment), and
4 EQB reserves the right to inspect the
implementation of the Pollution Prevention
Plans (see Part IV ), on a case by case basis
• • a a •
(FR Doc. 93—8468 Filed 4—13—93,8 45 amj
BILLiNG CøOE ease-se-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMM ISS;0N
Public Information Collection
Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
April 7. 1993.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the
following information collection
requirement of 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, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., suite
140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857—
3800. For further information on this
submission contact Judy Boley. Federal
Communications Commission, (202)
632—7513. Persons wishing to comment
on this information collection should
contact Jonas Neihardt, Office of
Management and Budget. room 3235
NEOB, Washington. DC 20503, (202)
395—4814
0MB Number 3060—0061
Title Annual Report of Cable Television
Systems, Schedule A.
Form Number: FCC Form 325.
Action Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents State or local
governments, non-profIt institutions.
and businesses or other for-profit
(includmg small busmessea).
Frequency of Response: Annual
reporting.
Estimated Annual Burden: 14.000
responses; 2 hours average burden per
response, 28.000 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Uses
FCC Form 325 Schedule A is a pre-
printed form with the most current
information of a cable television system
ott file with the Commission. The
operator of every operational cable
television system shall verify, correct
andlor furnish the FCC with the most
current information on their cable
systems. FCC Form 325 Schedule A will
collect ownership, community unit.
statistical information, technical and
services information on a physical
system basis. The data is used by FCC
staff to update our computer databases
concerning cable systems The data is
then used by both the FCC and the
public in various reports and
information concerning cable systems
Federal Communications Commission.
Donna R. Searcy,
Secretor,
(FR Doc. 93—8633 Filed 4—13—93.8 45 aml
BILLiNG COOS 5712-ei-e
Application Designated for Hearing
1. The Chief. Mass Media Bureau, has
before him the following application for
a construction permit to change
community of license:
Applicant, City
and state
File No
MM
docket
No.
A, Amencom, a BMP-871007M 93-102
Ca iomia lim-
ited parti’ier.
ship; Truck.
ee,C&
(Seeking a major change br Station
KHTZ(AM))
2. Pursuant to section 309(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, the above application has
been designated for hearing in a
proceeding upon whose issues are set
forth below:
I To determine whether a transmitter
site is available to the applicant
which would allow the applicant to
serve its present community of
license
2. To determine whether, pursuant to
section 307(b) of Communications Act
0(1934. as amended, a grant of the
application would provide a fair,
efficient, and equitable distribution of
radio service.
3. To determine, in light of the evidence
adduced pursuant to the foregoing
issues, whether a grant of the
application would serve the public
interest, convenience and necessity.
A copy of the complete IWO in this
proceeding is available for inspection
and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (room
320), 1919 M Street. NW , Washington.
DC. The complete text may also be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, International
Transcription Service. 2100 M Street
NW,, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037
(telephone 202—857—3800)
Roy J. Stewart.
Chief, Mass Media Bureau
(FR Doc. 93—8625 Filed 4—13—93, 8 45 aml
BILLaG coos ms-ei-
Application for Consolidated Hearing
1. The Commission has before it the
following mutually exclusive
applications for a new FM Station
H
A. Adam 0. 8PH-920102MC
93-96
Geaitsoa,t
Harold, KY.
B. Robeit G. BPH-920109MB
R
Harold, KY.
Issue Heading arid Appilcant,
I. Comparative. A. B
2. Ultimate, A B
2. Pursuant to section 309(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934. as
amended, the above applications have
been designated for hearing in a
consolidated proceeding upon the
issues whose headings are set forth
above. The text of each of these issues
has been standardized and is set forth in
its entirety under the corresponding
headings at 51 FR 19347. May 29. 1986
Applicant. City
and state
File no.
MM
docket
A. Raymond W.
Clanton; El
Rio, Cailfor.
B Loren F
Selznlck. El
Rio, Calsfor .
93—87
BPH—91 1216MC
BPH—91 1216M0
Issue Heeding and Applicants
I Comparative. A ,8
2. Ultimate. AB
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 39 / Tuesday. March 2, 1993 / Notices
12035
Frequency of Collection: Every four
ears.
Send comments regarding the burden
sumate. or any other aspect of the
information collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden to:
Sandy Fanner. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Information Policy
Branch (PM 223Y), 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460.
and
Matthew Mitchell. Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Dated February 24, 1993
Paul Lapilsy,
Director, Regulatory Management Division.
[ FR Doc. 93—4774 Filed 3-1—93, 8 45 amj
Bu.UNO CODS is.o-so-c
(FRL—.4600 —4J
Phosphoric Acid Production Waste
Dialogue Committee; Public Meeting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.
‘MMARY: As required by the Federal
ivisory Committee Act, we are giving
notice of the January meeting of the
Phosphoric Acid Production Waste
Dialogue Committee. The meeting is
open to the public without advance
registration.
The purpose of the meeting is to
Continue to review information on the
issue of pollution prevention in the
oroduction of phosphoric acid.
DATES: The Committee meeting will be
heid on March 18 and March 19, 1993
from 8.30 a.rn. to 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy
Drive, Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia
22202, (703) 892—4100.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Persons needing further information on
the technical or scientific matters
related to phosphoric acid wastes
should contact Dr. Daniel R. Bushman.
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Economics, Exposure and
Technology Division. TS—779.
E nvironmenta1 Protection Agency.
washington, DC, 20460. phone (202)
260—6700 Persons needing further
:riformation on the committees
rocedural and logistical matters should
1 Deborah Dalton, Consensus and
.pute Resolution Program, (202) 260—
‘495, or the Committee’s facilitator,
Greg Bourne. Southeast Negotiation
Network. Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA (404) 853-
9846.
Dated; February 25. 1993.
Daborab S. Dalton,
Designated Federal Official. Office of
Regulatwy Management and Evoiuotjori.
Office of Policy, Planning and Evviluo*ion.
IFR Doc. 93—4778 FIled 3—1—93; 8.45 aml
eeea
(FRL—4600-2J
Rsvislon of New York States National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Program To Issu. General
Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program of New York State .
SUMMARY: On October 15, 1992, the
Regional Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 11 approved New York States
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permits Program. This action authorizes
New York State to issue general permits
in lieu of individual NPDES permits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne K. Reynolds, Water Permits and
Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA Region I I.
26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York
10278. phone 212—264—2911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide For the issuance of general
permits to regulate discharges of
wastewater that result from
substantially similar operations, are of
the same type wastes, require the same
effluent limitations or operating
conditions, require similar mon;toring,
and are more appropriately controlled
under a general permit than an
individual permit. EPA authorized New
York State to edmuuster the NPDES
program on October 28. 1975. Their
program, as previously approved, did
not include provisions for the issuance
of general permits There are several
categones of discharges that could be
appropriately and efficiently regulated
by general permits, so the New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) requested
revision of their NPDES program to
include general permitting
New York State law at EQ.. § 70—
0117(6) and 70—0117(7) authorizes
NYSDEC to issue general permits under
the State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES) Program
for the discharge of ballast from vessels
and any other category of point sources
that (1) Are within a stated
geographical area: (2) include the same
or substantially similar type of
operatIons; (3) dIscharge the same types
of pollutants; (4) requIre the same
effluent limitations or operation
conditions; (5) requIre the same or
similar monitoring; and (8) will result in
minimal adverse cumulative impacts.
Pursuant to ECL. §S 70—0117(6)(b) and
(7)(b), general permits can be issued for
the following categories of discharges
only alter the NYSDEC makes a specific
determination that such discharges are
more appropriately controlled under a
general permit than under an individual
permit: (1) Ballast discharges; (2)
separate storm sewer or storm water
conveyance systems; (3) less than ten
thousand gallons per day of sewage
effluent without the admixture of
industrial waste or other wastes, and (4)
thermal discharges of less than one
million gallons per day.
Each general permit will be sub 1 ect to
EPA revww and approval as provided
by 40 G’R 123.44. Public notice and the
opportunity to request a hearing is also
provided for each general permit.
IL Discussion
On September 17, 1992 the State of
New York submitted a program
desa’iption for New York’s SPDES
General Permits Program and an
Amendment to the New York State
Department of Environmental Protection
(“DEC”)—4jnited States Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”) NPDES
Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”)
relating to general permits. The
Amendment was signed October 15.
1992. In addition, New York subautted
an Attorney General’s Statement dated
September 15. 1992 certifying, with
appropriate citation of the statutes and
regulations, that the State has adequate
legal authority to administer the general
permits program as required by 40 0’R
123.23(c). Based on New York’s
desaiption and upon its experience in
admmistenng 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 G’R 123.62, NPDES
program revisions are either substantial
(requiring publication of proposed
program approval in the Federal
Registar for public comment) or non-
substantial (where approval maybe
granted by letter from EPA to the state).
EPA has determined that New York’s
assumption of general permit authority
-------
12036 Federal R.egister / VoL 58. No. 39 / Tuesday. March 2. 1993 / Notices
is a non.substanttal rev slon of Its 111. Federal Register Notice of Approval Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
NPDES program. EPA has generally of State NFDES Program or may have a siguiflcmnt impact o
viewed approval of such authority as Modificatloni substantial number of smaAl enti
non-substantial because it does not alt Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Today’s Federal Register notice Regulatory FIe QbuIity Act (5 U.S.C. 601
the substantive obligations of 811Y announces the approval of New York’s
discharger under the State program. but authority to issue general pernuts. The et seq). I certify that this State General
Permits Program wiU not have a
merely simplifies the procedure. by foIlo g table provides the public significant impact on a substantial
which permits are issued to a number of an up-to-date list of the status of NPDES number of small entities.
pOuit SOU r ms. permitting authority throu&iout the Approval of New York’s NPIDES
Moreover, under the approved State CoUIit!7. c ai Permits Program established uc
program, the State retains authority to IV. Review under Executive Order new substantive requuements nor does
Issue Ifldi ViCtUal pernuts Where 12291 and the Regulatory flexibility it alter the regulatory control over any
appropnate and any person may Act Lndustrial category. Ap 1 roval of the
request the State to Issue an IVIdUS I New York State Genera Permits
permit for a discharge eligible for The Office of Management end Budget
general permit coverage. has exempted this rule from the eview Program merely provides a simplified
administrative process.
reqwxements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to Section 8(b) of that Order. Dated. February 3. 1993.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. William 1. Mauynak*.
EPA is required to prepare a Ragulatory Act .ng Re onaI Adnunzstretor
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
(1n27
S 3 ES
m
Iaotlle
fr : IPd
p o9rarn
A d0
pqoçram
AiaDasna . ._._ - - . . . - .. - -. _._
iW iW79
11101106
10 119(79
11101/86
10119(79
11 ,01/88
06231
11101
A 3U .___. . - .
CaM a .___._—. —- — — ... _
Co ado •. __——--
05 (1 4 173
03177(75
o ef 73
04101174
06/28(74
11/2 8 174
10123(77
01101/75
06/1 0(78
06(28(74
081X(83
Q f74
i iin
06/30/74
05101/74
10130(74
06 (10(74
06(12(74
09/19175
04/13/82
101 f73
1011 9/75
06113175
03111174
09(26173
00/30178
09/17/84
6 ( 16175
12178177
07107/81
03(11174
0830(70
31 /75
11/14/73
05110182
02104114
05/05178
.. .. - .._
oiiosis
. .....
12108180
06101/79
081 7 ’9
12 VW78
06/10178
08/2818 5
09130 (83
11/1
12109 ( 18
12/09170
01I 83
06/26179
06/23/01
11/02/79
0831(78
04/13/82
06113180
09(28184
01172/90
01/28/83
03/02(79
08 1 30/78
09/1 7184
09 /80
03130w
07107(87
.....__
. . ..._-_.-.-—
02 82
. —_____
05(10102
iioni
08172180

o6 .w /8l
._... .
03112 )81
06/12183
._....._
O6 /8I
09/30/83
09130 / 85
06/07/83
07/1 6 1 19
06/13/82
0&i l8t
._.._._.__ ...
0 0 01/84
.__._. —
04/13/02
06M4182
07t27/83
03112181
._________
08117/84
04/09/82
06/10/83
07/01 ( 81
03/ 16(82
.
04114 ( 89
0000 (86
05110182
iv mo
0 8 1 7 2
03 4 /
oiia
2 3/
26
-
0 1104 /
04/02/
06/12)
——
091301
09 /30(
..._.
12(131
09(27.’
12 hZ
0 1120
07/20
07127.
O4/1
10(15
0001
011721
08111/
0
0602/
17 /
00
04/16
01 1W.
....._...—
.... . -
05(20
08128
05/10
12113
Come n ..-.—.—.- .—-.--—
Do awve .__.... —__________ —
GeocgA ..__———..—————.———_________
Ns .....
. .. . ..
anm
- - -______ .
Kansas ................._.._.—.. ——.———. — —— ......_. .. .__.._.._.__—. —
. .......
Ke 1uckV ———. . _. -. .__.. - ....
MaryW ——_______ — . . . — ——
M.cnigan .- —.—-—-. -— . . . .__. .. ..,
U iiesota ......- .___— -... . . - ... ..... .. . •..
.
Uia ou — —______ .. .. ...._ . .. . . ... . ... • . ... -
-. - —— ——
NeCi 3Za
P4ev Ga ..__. —— — ——— — .-. . . . .
Ne J y ........_____________ ... •. ...._.
Ne Y01 — . ._......_
No18iCa lv . ..____________
NO 51 Oaaoia ..._ ——
CI i ..... -_________________________________________
O eg01
P.nnsyP UiS —
Rho6s Is —
S Cwotni. .- —
Temasas.
u :I - ._....__-—
-—
——————.
Vu9m (
Wçw . .. _— —
Ws.t&qun - .._ ._ ... . . .... . ..... . — .. ..
ws. Vi is -. ..__ .. -. . — . . .. — - - -- . ... .. . .. ——
- . . .. - .. - .
Wyoming . — — ...__.__ .
- — . ... - . ..— —. .
0 1r3(Y7 5
06(18/81
34
... .
27
09/2 4’
39
Nurree( 01 Fuly AuU1Oltz P0 9 /sins (Fed.rsl F bas Pretre.ime.1. GeAe4 Peiii —24
-------
9404 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0357)
5O3.4I Reporting.
Class I sludge management facilities.
POTWg (as defined in 40 Cl R 501.2)
with 8 design flow rate equal to or
greater than one million gallons per day.
and POTWs that serve a population of
10.000 people or greater shall submit
the information in § 503.47(b) through
§ 503.47(h) to the permitting authority
on February 19 of each year.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budgot under control number 2040—0157)
Appendix A to Pert S03—Procodure to
Determine the Annual Whole Sludge
Application Rate tori Sewage Sludge
Section 503 13(a)(4)(ij) requires that the
product of the concentration for each
pollutant listed in Table 4 of S 503 13 in
sewage sludge sold or given away in a bag
or other container for application to the land
and the annual whole sludge application rate
(AWSAR) for the sewage sludge not cause the
annual pollutant loading rato for the
pollutant in Table 4 of §503 13 to be
exceeded This appendix contains the
procedure used to determine the AWSAR for
a sewage sludge that does not cause the
annual pollutant loading rates Lfl Table 4 of
5503.13 to be exceeded.
The relationship between the annual
pollutant loading rate (APL.R) for a pollutant
and the annual whole sludge application rate
(AWSAR) for Ia sewage sludge is shown in
equation (1)
APLRAWSAJ 1 (3)
Where
APLR=Annual pollutant loading rate in
kilograms per hectare per 365 day
period.
C=Pollutant ConCSotr9ticn in r illigrams,
per kilogram of total solids (dry weight
basis)
AWSAR=Annual whole sludge application
rate in metric tons per hectare per 365
day period (dry weight basis)
0 001=A conversion factor
To determine the AWSAR. equation (1) is
rearranged into equation (2).
APLR
AWSARe
Ce0.0oi
The procedure used to determine the
AWSAR for a sewage sludge is presented
below
Procodure
I Analyze a sample of the sewage sludge
to determine the concentration for each of the
pollutants listed in Table 4 of S 503 13 in the
sewage sludge.
2. Using the pollutant concentrations from
Step I and the APLRS from Table 4 of
§ 503 13. calculate an AWSAR for each
pollutant using equation (2) above
3. The AWSAR for the sewage sludge is the
lowest AWSAR calculated in Step 2.
AppeMj B to Pail 3O3—Pathogea
Treatment Pr
A Processes to Significantly Reduce
Pathogen, (PSRP)
I Aerobic digestion__sewage sludge is
agitated with air or oxygen to maintain
aerobic conditions for a specific mean cell
residence tune at a specific temperature.
Values for the mean cell residence time and
temperature shall be between 40 days at 20
degrees Celsius and 60 days at 15 degrees
Celsius.
2 Air drying—Sewage sludge is dried on
sand beds or on paved or unpaved basin,
The sewage sludge dries for a minimum of
three months, During two of the three
months, the ambient average daily
temperature is above zero degrees Celsius.
3. Anaerobic digestion—Sewage sludge is
treated In the absence of air for a specific
mean cell residence time at a specific
temperature Values for the mean cell
residence time and temperature shall be
between 15 days at 35 to 55 degrees Celsius
and 60 days at 20 degrees Celsius
4 Cornposting—.using either the within.
vessel, static aerated pile, or windrow
composting methods, the temperature of the
sewage sludge is raised to 40 degrees Celsius
or higher and remains at 40 degrees Celsius
or higher for five days. For four hours during
the five days, the temperature in the compost
pile exceeds 55 degrees Celsius.
5. Lime stabllizatton__Sufflcsent lime is
added to the sewage sludge to raise the pH
of the sewage sludge to 12 after two hours of
contact.
B. Processes to Further Reduce Pathogees
(PFRP)
1. Composting_tjs g either the within-
vessel composting method or the static
aerated pile comnposting method, the
temperature of the sewage sludge is
maintained at 55 degrees Celsius or higher
for three days
Using the windrow composting method,
the temperature of the sewage sludge is
maintained at 55 degrees or higher for 15
days or longer During the period when the
compost is maintained at 55 degrees or
higher, there shall be a minimum of five
turnings of the windrow
2. Heat drying—Sewage sludge is dried by
direct or indirect contact with hot gases to
reduce the moisture content of the sewage
sludge to 10 percent or lower EIther the
‘2’ temperature of the sewage sludge particles
exceeds 80 degrees Celsius or the wet bulb
temperature of the gas in contact with the
sewage sludge as the sewage sludge leaves
the dryer exceeds 80 degrees Celsius.
3 Heat treatment—Liquid sewage sludge is
heated to a temperature of 180 degrees
Celsius or higher for 30 minutes
4 Thermophilic aerobic digestion—Liquid
sewage sludge is agitated with air or oxygen
to maintain aerobic conditions and the mean
cell residence time of the sewage sludge is 10
days at 55 to 60 degrees Celsius
S Beta ray Lrradiaiion —Sewage sludge is
irradiated with beta rays from en accelerator
at dosages of at least 1 C) megarad at room
temperature (ca. 20 degrees Celsius)
6 Gamma ray irradiation—Sewage sludge
is irradiated with gamma rays from certain
isotopes, such as Cobalt 60 and Cesium 137,
at room temperature (ca. 20 degrees Celsius)
7 Pasteunzatton.... .The temperature of the
sewage sludge ii maintained at 70 degrees
Celsius or higher for 30 minutes or longer
IFR Doc. 93—2 Filed 2—18—93, 8 45 aml
eiua.o COOS IeIo-ei-
ENViRONMENTAl.. PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 501
(FRL-.451 5—73
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Sewage Sludge
Permit Regulations; State Sludge
Management Program equlrements
AGENcy: Environmental Protection
Agency
AC’flOp : Final rule, technical
amendment
SUMMARY: Under existing regulations
that establish sewage sludge permitting
and State sewage sludge program
requirements, approximately zo.ooo
publicly owned treatment works and
other treatment works treating domestic
sewage are required to submit permit
applications within 120 days after the
promulgation of standards applicable to
their sewage sludge use or disposal
practice(s). The final sewage sludge use
and disposal standards will be
published in the Federal Register on or
near the same date as this final rule To
facilitate the management of these
applications, on May 27, 1992, EPA
proposed to revise these rules to stagger
the submission of permit applications
Additionally, EPA proposed to extend
the time period during which the initial
set of applications must be submitted
from 120 days to 180 days after
promulgation of the technical standards.
In response to comments received on
the May 27, 1992, proposal, EPA is
issuing a final rule which requires
permit applications in phases and
extends the time period in which the
initial applications are due following
the publication of the final use or
disposal standards.
On July 28. 1986. EPA promulgated
final regulations for application
requirements for facilities that discharge
only non•process wastewater. which
resulted in internal recodification of
§ 122.21 Conforming changes were not
made to § 123 25(a)(4) which refers to
the relevant portions of section 122.
These technical corrections are being
made as part of this rule
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of
this final rule is March 22, 1993.
-------
Feder2J Ra )s*er/ Vol. 58. Nob 32 / F idav, February 19 1993 / Rules and Reg zJatlons
9405
AOORassE The pebik ro 4 is loceted
at EPA Headqu ey imqr
Protection Agency, room 220 NE. 40!
M Sbeet SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
For acxess to the record, call (202) 260—
6599 between 9 e.m. and 3:iO pm. for
an appointment.
FOR FURThER W0RMAT)ON CONTACT:
Pamela Meriikns, Permits Div,ston (EN—
336). Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Sboet SW.. Washington. DC
20460. (202) 260—6599.
SUP#LEMQ4TARy lNcO UA11ON:
I Backgsound
A. Water Quality Act of 1987
B. EPA ’ , Sewa Sludge Management
C. Dle”uulon of May 27. 1992, Proposed
Rule
11. Di. uanon of Today’s Final Rule sad
Response c Comments
A. Cenatal
B. Applicability
C. Permit Application Deadlines
0 TIme Period for Compiling Application
Data
E. Compliance with the CWA and Part 503
F State Programs and the Permitting
Authority
C Technical Correction to Section 22. 23
II Regulatory Dewelopment Process
A E. ’eOydez 12291
B. Paperwork Reduciian Act
C. Regulatorj Flasslslity Act
Appeadiz A.—L of Ragi eh Sewage
Slud .Cautactu
1. Background
Implementation of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) has increessd the extant to
which wastewates Is treated before
being discthazged to surface waters. At
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWsI. unpleinentation of secondary
treatment raqiurements under the
National Pollutant Diecharge
Ehriunation System (NPOES) program,
under section 402 of the CWA. has
improved effluent quality while
moreasing th. amount of sewage sludge
being generated. Proper managemeru of
this growing amount of sewage sludg, is
becoming tnanenngly important as
efforts to remove pollutants from
wastewater have become ma’. effective.
Several options exist ía’ dueling with
these vast quantities of sewage sludge.
One such option La beneficial us.. The
Agency considers a wege sludge a
valiiia le resouz unce it contains
nutrients and has phyzial properties
that make it useful as a fertilizer and
coil conditioner. Sewage sludge has
biten used for its ben.fIaal qualities on
agricultural lands, in forests, (or
land aping projects. end to reclaim
strip-mined land. EPA will continue to
encourage such practices.
Regulation of th. use or disposal of
cowags sludge L3 Important. however.
because improper use or dispoeui can
adversely affect surface water, ground
water, wetlands, and public health
through a variety of exposure pathwsye.
The multi-media nature of the risks and
exposure pathways requires a tightly
coordinated comprehensive approech
that protects pubhc health end the
environment, helps ensure that solving
problems in one medium will not aeaia
problams for another, and enceurages
the beneficial use of sewage sludge.
A. Water QuaIityAct of 1987
Section 406 of the Water Quality Act
of 1987, which amended sectIon 405 of
the CWA. established a comprehensive
program for reducing the risks to public
health and the environment from the
use or disposal of sewage sludge. The
1987 revtn one to the CWA reiterated
EPA ’s obligation to promulgate
standards for sewage sludge that protect
public health and the environment from
reasonably anticipated adverse effects of
pollutants in sewage sludge during its
use or disposal. Furthermore, the 1987
amendments required that all ? XFDES
permits issued to POT”Vs and other
treatment works treating domestic
sewage contain conditions
Implementing sewage sludge standards.
unless such conditions are included in
a permit issued under subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. part C of the
Safe Drinking Water Ad, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, the Clean Air Act, or under a State
program approved for administering a
section 405(0 sewage sludge permitting
program. The amendments also
provided that the Administrator may
issue separate permits that unplernent
the sewage sludge requirements to
treatment works treating domestic
sewage that are not subject to section
402 of the CWA or to any of the other
listed permit programs era i-uv ,d
State programs. Moreover, the
amendments provided that the
standards for use or disposal are
enforteable directly against any user or
disposer of sewage sludge under section
405(e) of the CWA. hi other words, a
treatment works treating domestic
sewage, as well as any user or disposer,
must comply with the standards by the
statutory compliance deadlines whether
or not a permit incorporatfng the
standards has been issued to the
treatment works treat ing domestic
sewage.
S EPA’s Sewcge Sludge Management
Program
b response to the February 1987
amendments to theCWA, EPA. (1)
Reproposed regulations for State sludge
management programs (first proposed
on Febi’uuy 4, 1988 (51 FR 4458)} and
(2) proposed revisi cue to the NPO
program regulations to provide for
including sewage sludge requirements
in NPDES permits. This was done on
March 9, 1988 (53 FR 7642). Final rules
were promulgated on May Z 1989 (54
FR 18716). These regulations establish
permit requirements and procedures. as
well as requirements for States wishing
to Implement approved sewage sludge
managemem programs as either part of
their NPDES programs or under separats
authority. These regulations establish
the programmatic framework far
implementing the technical standards
for sewage sludge use or disposaL
Central to the sewage sludge
permitting program is the development
of standards that protect public health
and the environment from reasonably
antic pated adverse e ects of pollutants
in sewage sludge that is used or
disposed. On February 8, 1989 (54 FR
5746), EPA proposed standards for the
usoor disposal of sewage sludge if the
sewage sludge is applied to the land.
distributed and marketed, placed in
sludge-only landfills (monofills) or
suth.ca disposal sites, or fired in a
sewage sludge incinerator. These
standards will be codified at 40 OR
part 503 and will be published in the
Federal Register on or noer the same
date as today’s final rule. Among other
things, part 503 will likely replace the
current part 257 for the disposal of
sewage sludge if the sewage sludg. is
used or disposed in accordanrsu with
part 503.
On November 9, 1990 (55 FR 47210),
EPA published a notice regarding the
availability of information end data
collected during the National Sewage
Sludge Survey and the anticipated
impacts of this information on the
proposed part 503 standards. At that
time, EPA proposed a number of
changes to the part 503, regulation as a
result of the survey and as a
consequence of information and
comments provided by scientific peer
review panels and public comments on
the proposed pert 503 rule. As noted
above, the final part 503 regulation wifl
be published In the Federal Register on
or near the same dat. as today’s final
rule.
C. Discussion of May 27. 1992, P vposed
Rule
Under the current regulations,
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) and other treatment work.,
treating domestic sewage are required to
submit permit applications within 120
days after the promulgation of standards
(40 OR part 503) oppliceble to their
sewage sludge use or disposal
-------
9406 Federal Register I vol. 58. No 32 / Friday, February 19. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
practice(s). EPA estimates that UP to
20.000 permit applications may be
submitted to EPA at one tame as a result
of the current requirements. To facilitate
the management of these applications,
on May 27. 1992. EPA proposed to
revise the existing rules to stagger the
submission of permit applications. In
the first phase, EPA proposed to require
permit applications from treatment
works treating domestic sewage
required to have (or requesting) site-
specific limits in the initial period
following promulgation of part 503.
(These are primarily sewage sludge
incinerators.) The second phase would
require limited background information
from sludge-only treatment works
treating domestic sewage (that were not
addressed in the first phase). The last
phase would require treatment works
treating domestic sewage with NPDES
permits (that were not addressed in the
first phase) to submit sewage sludge
information during the NFDES permit
renewal process (i.e.. over the five year
permit cycle) Additionally, EPA
proposed to extend the time penod
during which the initial (“first phase”)
set of applications must be submitted
from 120 days to 180 days after
promulgation of part 503
II Discussion of Today’s Final Rule and
Response to Comments
A Genemi
In developing the final rule, EPA
carefully considered public comments
received on the May 27, 1992, proposal.
In total, EPA received comments from
12 commenters. The majority of
comments were from PQ TW 5 and
municipalities EPA also received
comments from one State agency, one
industry, and one environmental group.
EPA’s response to comments will be
included as part of the preamble to this
final rule.
The proposed rule noted that
applications were due within a certain
period of time after the “promulgation”
of applicable sewage sludge use or
disposal standards. Since promulgation.
for regulatory purposes, is generally
synonymous with the date the rule is
published in the Federal Register, EPA
is clarifying the final regulations by
stating that 2ermit applications are due
after the “publication” of applicable
sewage sludge use or disposal
standards, This clarification is also
consistent with the CWA requirement
that compliance with part 503 be within
one year (or two years if construction is
required) after “publication” of an
applicable sewage sludge use or
disposal standard,
B. Applicability
One commenter was uncertain about
who would be affected by today’s rule.
Under the Federal program, all
treatment works treating domestic
sewage must apply for a permit. The
May 27, 1992, proposal did not address
who had to apply for a permit because
this was not being changed. The
proposal merely addressed the timing
for submittal of permit applications, The
final regulations addressing sewage
sludge, which were promulgated in May
1989, addressed the scope of the
permitting program in detail (54 FR
18725—18732), That discussion is
summarized bnefly below.
All treatment works treating domestic
sewage must apply for a permit. A
treatment works treating domestic
sewage is defined in § 122.2 and 501.2
as “a POTW or any other sewage sludge
or waste water treatment devices or
systems, regardless of ownership
(including federal facilities), used in the
storage, treatment, recycling, and
reclamation of municipal or domestic
sewage, including land dedicated for the
disposal of sewage sludge. This
definition does not include septic tanks
or similar devices,’ For purposes of this
definition, domestic sewage means
“waste and waste water from humans or
household operations that are
discharged to or otherwise enter a
treatment works,”
In summary, as explained in the
preamble to the May 2, 1989,
regulations, the definition of treatment
works treating domestic sewage
includes facilities that generate sewage
sludge or otherwise effectively control
the quality of sewage sludge or the
manner in which it is disposed. (Note
that land application is not considered
disposal since the sewage sludge is
being beneficially reused ) Under this
definition, “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” consequently
encompasses facilities that may process
sewage sludge as would a generator, but
that are separate from the generator’s
facilities, Thus, commercial sewage
sludge handlers (like commercial
composting operations) that process
sewage sludge from POTWs for sale or
give-away are included in the definition
since they alter the quality of sewage
sludge. However, commercial handlers
that only distribute or land apply the
sewage sludge without changing the
quality are not automatically considered
treatment works treating domestic
sewage and are not required to submit
permit applications unless specifically
requested to do so by the permitting
authonty (54 FR 18726) (The permitting
authority will be the EPA Regional
Office or a State with an approved
sewage sludge program.)
Also included in this definition is any
treatment works which treats, in whole
or in part. human-generated or
household type wastes (domestic wastes
or domestic sewage) as part of its
wastewater treatment. This includes
industrial treatment works that treat
site-generated domestic wastes along
with process or other wastes generated
at the site. It does not, however, apply
to sludges which are hazardous wastes,
that are covered under subtitle C of
R A. While industrial treatment works
treating site-generated domestic wastes
can be considered treatment works
treating domestic sewage under the
definition, EPA did not propose to
address these facilities in the first round
of part 503 and such facilities would
not, therefore, be required automatically
to submit permit applications after the
first round of part 503 is published EPA
can, however, individually request
permit applications and issue these
facilities permits on a case-by-case basis
when necessary to protect public health
and the environment (54 FR 18726—
18728). When technical standards are
promulgated that do apply to these
facilities, they will have to comply with
the permit application requirements of
today’s rule. The extent to which
industrial treatment works that treat
domestic wastes generated off-site are
covered by the part 503 rule, is
addressed in the part 503 rulemaking,
published in the Federal Register on or
near the same date as todays final rule
If part 503 applies to these facilities,
they will be required to submit permit
applications according to the deadlines
established in today’s final rule.
Treatment works treating domestic
sewage also include owners or operators
of disposal facilities such as sewage
sludge incinerators, monofills, and
surface disposal sites. These facilities
must also apply for a permit. Monofills
and surface disposal sites are “lands
dedicated to the disposal of sewage
sludge” (54 FR 18726). Facilities that
send the sewage sludge they generate to
a treatment or disposal facility must also
submit a permit application, The
permitting authority has the flexibility
to cover both the generator and the
treatment/disposal facility in one permit
or separate permits (including covering
one or both under general permits).
Under the Federal program, the
definition of treatment works treating
domestic sewage does not extend
automatically to land where sewage
sludge is beneficially used, such as farm
land and home gardens (54 FR 18726)
Thus, permits would not be required for
such site owners (except in an unusual
-------
Federai Register I Vol. 58, No. 32 I Friday, February 19,1993 / Rules and Regulations
9407
situation where the site-owner was
designated as a treatment works treating
domestic sewage by EPA under
§ 122.1(bJ(4)), EPA cannot envision a
situation where it would issue a permit
to a home gardener who uses sewage
sludge products aa a fertilizer or soil
conditioner.
Another commenter was concerned
about how this rule affects those
facilities that send sewage sludge to
municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLFS). These landfills are regulated
under the part 258 regulations
promulgated tointiy under RCRA and
the CWA (56 FR 50078). Part 258
establishes minimum criteria for
MS%VLFs. including location
restrictions, facility design and
operating criteria, groundwater
monitoring requirements, corrective
action requirements, financial assurance
requirements, and closure and post-
closure care requirements.
Requirements differ for new and
existing MSWLFS Regulations for
permitting MSWU’s will be contained
in a separate rulemaking
This commenter also pointed out that
the C’iVA does not allow the issuance of
a RCRA Subtitle 0 permit to operate as
an adequate substitute for NPDES
sewage sludge permit conditions for the
sewage sludge generator. EPA generally
agrees that a MSWLF’s permit would
not, in most circumstances satisfy the
CWA requirements for the generator’s
permit to include conditions to
implement the sewage sludge
regulations. The actual MSWLF will
continue to be covered under part 258
and will not be required to apply for a
permit underthe part 122, 123, or 501
permitting regulations. However. EPA
expects sewage sludge generators who
send their sewage sludge to MSWLFs to
have some sewage sludge requirements
in their NPDES permits. These facilities
must submit permit applications in
accordance with todays final rule. Part
503 proposed to address requirements
for sewage sludge going to MSWLSs. but
the Agency decided that it was not
feasible to develop pollutant-specific
limits (or this sewage sludge.
Consequently. EPA established, in the
case of sewage sludge co-disposed with
municipal solid waste. a performance
standard under section 405(d)(3) of the
CWA. EPA determined that the
requirements established in part 258
(e g. liners and leachate systems) will
onsure that pollutants are not released
into the environment and that public
healtn and the environment are
adequately protected.
Part 503 proposed to require that the
generating facilities ensure that their
sewage sludge meets the part 258
requirements and that the sewage sludge
only be seal to State-permitted MSWLFs
(54 FR 5794). In other words, each
treatment works treating domestic
sewage must ensure that the sewage
sludge it sends to a MSWLF for disposal
is not hazardous (5258.20) and does not
violate the prohibition on disposal of
liquids in landfills (5258.28).
Furthermore, sewage sludge that is used
as cover for a MSWLF must be suitable
for that purpose (5258 21). Facilities
that send their sewage sludge to
MSWLFs must apply (or permits in
accordance with today’s final rule.
C. Permit Application Deadlines
Prior to the promulgation of today’s
rule, any POTW with an existing NPDES
permit had to submit permit application
information when its next application
for NPDES permit renewal was due, or
within 120 days of publication of an
applicable sewage sludge standard,
whichever came first (55 122 21(c)(2)(i)
and 501 15(dUI)(ii)(A)) The preamble
discussion to the May 2. 1989. notice
(54 FR 18737). made it clear that all
POT’Ws covered by the part 503
regulation had to submit permit
applications within this 120-day period
Under §5 122.21(c)(2)(ii) and
501 15(d)(1)(iiflB), any other existing
treatment works treating domestic
sewage, not subject to the NPDES
program (i.e.. a “sludge-only facility”).
had to also submit the permit
application information within 120 days
of publication of an applicable sewage
sludge standard or when requested by
the Director, For treatment works
treating domestic sewage commencing
operation after an applicable part 503
standard was published,
§5 122.21(c)(2)(iii) and
501.15(d)( I )(ii)(C) required that permit
applications be submitted at least 180.
days prior to the date proposed for
Commencing operations.
These application deadlines would
have meant that approximately 16,000
POTWa and an estimated three to five
thousand other treatment works treating
domestic sewage would have had to
submit application information within
120 days after publication of part 503.
EPA did not intend to reopen existing
permits immediately or Issue new
permits to all facilities who sent in the
permit application information within
this 120-day period. Rather. EPA’s
original intent was to use the
information to identify priorities for
permit modification or issuance The
May 27, 1992. proposal noted that
several changes have occurred since
promt’I ,ation of the permit
requirements that make this approach
tess necessary and less practical
First, EPA is working to enhance the
direct enforceability of the part 503
standards, Section 405(e) of the CWA
states that it will be unlawful for anyone
to dispose of sewage sludge except in
accordance with the regulations.
Second, as a result of the National
Sewage Sludge Survey, as well as peer
review and public comment on the
proposed part 503 rulemaking, EPA has
improved knowledge of the prevalence
and relative risks of different sewage
sludge use or disposal practices.
Consequently, the Agency is better
equipped to direct permitting activities
to those treatment works treating
domestic sewage that require pnonty
attention.
Third, EPA is concerned about
effectively using limited resources.
Completing an initial screening of up to
20,000 applications would be a
monumental task and the Agency does
not believe it to be feasible within a
short time penod. Further, much of the
information submitted within 120 days
of when part 503 is published may be
outdated by the time work can actually
begin in evaluating the information and
developing permits Consequently,
treatment works treating domestic
sewage would likely need to submit
new/updated information,
Several comments were received on
the discussion of this new approach in
the May 27, 1992, proposal. One
commenter was concerned with how the
self-implementing nature of part 503
would influence reporting, record
keeping and enforcement. The
rnonitonng, record keeping and
reporting requirements expected to be
established in part 503 will become
effective within several months after the
rule is published. (Note that part 503
will be published in the Federal
Register on or near the same date as
today’s final rule ) These requirements
will provide the baseline data from
which compliance evaluations will be
performed and, where required, upon
which enforcement actions will be
taken. Part 503 is expected to require
the submittal of information necessary
to ascertain compliance and the rule
will outline the minimum requirements
for data collection by the regulated
facilities. These data are then required
to be reported to the EPA after the
effective date of part 503 at the
frequency specified in the regulation.
This will be true even in the absence of
a permit. Therefore, inclusion of
monitoring, record keeping, and
reporting requirements in part 503
enhances the self’implementation or
direct enforceability of part 503.
Permits, when issued, will also include
monitonng, record keeping, and
-------
9 ’)8 Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
reporting requirements that. in
appropriate CU’CumstaflceL may be more
comprehensive than part 503.
Other commanters were concerned
about the reliance on the self-
implementing provisions of part 503
and suggested this should not be a
substitute for a strong permitting
program. EPA agrees and will rely
largely on the self-implementing nature
of part 503 until permits can be issued.
The OVA requires the Agency to
include requirements to implement the
part 503 standards in NPDES permits
issued to treatment works treating
domestic sewage. Furthermore, the
Agency has the authority to issue
permits to facilities without NPDES
permits under section 405(0(2) of the
CWA. In addition, the Agency believes
that permits are necessary for several
other reasons. For sludge-only facilities.
permits are an effective means of
bringing newly-regulated facilities into
the program. Permits add certainty to
each party’s obligations by spelling
them out in a single document. Permits
also facilitate compliance by specifying
requirements. denoting how compliance
will be measured, and providing a time
for questionslchaflenges to be addressed
through the permit issuance and public
comment process rather than through an
enfortement action. Additionally, a
permit can provide a partial “permit as
a shield” defense for compliance with
the permit (S 122.25(8) (2)). The process
for public participation. which is a part
of every permit. is also an important
goal of the CWA and it helps to build
public aaeptance of the beneficial use
of sewage sludge Permits can allow
consideration of site-specific factors to
adjust national standards in appropriate
instances (for incinerators, some
standards must be set through a permit).
Furthermore, permits clarify
relationships between additional parties
and the permittee’s responsibilities
when other parties are involved. Lastly,
permit “boilerplate” provisions
supplement the technical standards by
establishing general duties for
permittees and identifying additional
specificity. For example, the boilerplate
will contain provisions addressing the
following: The duty to notify the
permitting authority of changes in use
or disposal practices. a reopener clause
allowing the permit to be reopened
when new technical standards are
promulgated. a duty to report
noncompliance and mitigate adverse
environmental consequences of
noncompliance; a duty of proper
operation and maintenance: and
detailed monitoring and reporting
requirements.
One commenter requested that EPA
include information on the intenm
program in the final rule, suggesting that
if this program had been fully carried
out, EPA would not experience the
anticipated rush of permit applications
soon after part 503 is published and
hence, the regulations would not need
to be changed. In response to this
suggestion, EPA believes that it made it
clear in the May 2. 1989, regulations
that even if a permittee had sewage
sludge limits in a permit when an
applicable sewage sludge use or
disposal standard was published, the
permittee must apply for a new permit
within 120 days of that standard’s
publication (54 FR 18737). In addition,
permitting authorities would have
received new information from each
facility, since they would be looking for
specific information to ensure
compliance with the technical standards
of part 503 (Although the interim
program requires the placemer.t of
sewage sludge requirements in permits,
the requirements could not possibly be
the same as the requirements which will
be promulgated under part 503 later this
year ) Section 122 44 (C) (4) specifically
states that permits issued to treatment
works treating domestic sewage roust
include a reopener clause to include
applicable standards for sewage sludge
use or disposal. As noted in the
proposed rule, today’s final rule does
not delay compliance with the part 503
standards—it merely requires permit
applications to be submitted in phases
Another commenter suggested that
applications only be submitted when
requested by EPA EPA does not believe
this is the best approach to requiring
permit applications. The Clean Water
Act generally envisions implementation
of the sewage sludge program through
permits. Since EPA contemplates the
eventual permitting of all treatment
works treating domestic sewage, the
Agency prefers that the submittal of
permit applications be triggered
automatically rather than through
individual letters sent to all treatment
works treating domestic sewage. For
those needing site-specific requirements
to implement part 503. requiring permit
applications within a reasonable time
after part 503 will facilitate compliance
with the statutory deadlines.
One commenter thought that it would
be unwise to delay the submittal of
permit applications if it meant that the
development of”rnanagement plans”
would also be delayed (Because the
proposed regulations did not discuss
“management plans.” we assume this
refers to “land application plans” under
§5 122.21(d)(3)(ii) and 501 15(a)(2)(ix)
Instead, the commenter suggested that
all treatment works treating domestic
sewage that will be required to apply for
a permit. develop and keep on file a
“management plan” within one year of
promulgation of part 503. The
commenter suggested that if a State
intended to apply for authorization,
such a requirement would expedite and
facilitate a smooth transition in issuing
permits. Furthermore, the commenter
suggested that EPA require notice from
all treatment works treating domestic
sewage when their plans were complete
EPA does not agree that it is necessary
to require treatment works treating
domestic sewage to develop land
application plans prior to submitting a
permit application. Rather, EPA
intended the plan to be submitted with
the permit application and be subject to
permit issuance procedures—.including
the public notice and comment
procedures. By accommodating
applicants that have not yet identified
all land application sites, the land
application plans are meant to fill the
gap in the permit so that permit
modifications are not necessary each
time a new land application site is
chosen. Therefore, EPA believes it is
inappropriate to require the
development of such plans until permit
applications are filed. EPA
recommends, however, that if a
treatment works treating domestic
sewage knows that it will need to do a
land application plan, then it should
begin developing the plan well in
advance of filing the permit application
As for State programs, nothing
prohibits States from requiring these
plans sooner than when permit
applications are due. Furthermore. EPA
would encourage States intending to
submit programs for approval to
establish State requirements that would
make the transition process easiar - -
En light of the discussion above, and
in response to comments received on
the proposed rule, EPA is adopting the
proposed approach to phase in permit
application submittals as articulated
below.
1. The First Phase
In the first phase, EPA proposed to
focus on all treatment works treating
domestic sewage required to have (or
requesting) site-specific pollutant limits
as provided in part 503 This first phase
includes several types of treatment
works treating domestic sewage but
targets. in particular. sewage sludge
incinerators.
The proposal stated that focusing on
sewage sludge incinerators first is
appropriate because available data
indicate that, of the most common use
or disposal practices. these facilities
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 32 / Friday, February 19. 1993 I Rules and Regulations
g4og
pose the greatest risk to public health.
Several commenters oblected to this
statement and requested to see
supporting data. This statement was
based upon the data developed for the
February 8. 1989. proposed part 503
regulations. The supporting document,
“Human Health Risk Assessment for
Municipal Sludge Disposal. Benefits of
Alternative Regulatory Options,’ is
available for review as part of the docket
to this rule. Appointments to review
this document at EPA Headquarters can
be made by calling Pamela Mazakas at
2021260—6599. This document may also
be purchased through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) at
a cost of S43 00 plus shipping and
handling (NTIS 5PB89—136626). This
information showed that incineration
was associated with the largest number
of cancer cases and lead-associated
adverse health effects of the use or
disposal practices evaluated at that time
(54 FR 5782). It is important to note that
none of the use or disposal practices
were found to be a significant risk.
Further, the final part 503 standards are
designed to provide an equivalent level
of protection from all use or disposal
practices regulated under that rule.
Other cornrnenters asked for
clanfication of what is considered a
treatment works treating domestic
sewage that is required to have (or able
to request) site-specific limits. One
commenter specifically requested how
EPA would classify, for purposes of
seeking site-specific limits, storage
lagoons and in;ection of sewage sludge
into the soil at a dedicated site on which
no crops are grown. Although EPA
appreciates the coir lexity of these
issues, the availabi. v of site-specific
limits is determineti under part 503 and
these issues will be addressed in the
preamble to part 503. (Note that part. 503
will be published in the Federal
Register on or near the same date as
today’s final rule.) As discussed below,
today’s rule lengthens the time during
which permit applications may be
submitted after part 503 ii published.
Permit applicants should have ample
time after part 503 is published to
determine whether site-specific limits
are required or desired.
Under the proposal, EPA noted that
requests for site-specific limits would be
considered after this first round of
permit applications only for good cause
One commenter disagreed and
suggested that requests for site-specific
limits should be available any time data
supported thorn. To set permitting
priorities end control the permit
application process, EPA has
determined that it is appropnate to limit
the availability of site-specific requests.
If available data support site-specific
limits, the request should be made when
such data are discovered. If additional
date are discovered after the initial 180-
day period after part 503 is published,
then good cause may exist for
consi cferation of site-specific limits.
Other examples of good cause include
instances when a treatment works
treating domestic sewage changes its
surface disposal site or switches from
one practice to another (e.g., surface
disposal to incineration).
One commenter raised the issue of
defining “existing” facilities, Unlike the
NPDES program, permits axe not
necessary for either existing or new
facilities to operate. Furthermore, the
technical standards are the same for
new and “existing” treatment works
treating domestic sewage. Existing
facilities and new facilities will be
responsible for ensuring compliance
with part 503 within one year after part
503 is published (or two years if
construction is required).
The only real difference between new
and existing facilities is when they have
to apply for permits An existing facility
must apply for a permit according to
todays rule—within 180 days for a
facility required to have or requesting
site-specific requirements, at the time of
its next NPDES permit renewal (for a
facility with an NPDES permit), or, for
a sludge-only facility, it must submit
limited data within one year and a
complete application within 180 days
from when requested by the permitting
authonty. EPA is retaining existing
requirements for new facilities which
must apply for a permit 180 days prior
to beginning operation. This provision
also applies to new “sludge-only”
facilities who must submit full permit
applications 180 days prior to beginning
operation.
The commenter mentioned that it had
a facility under construction now which
should be complete at about the same
time as the publication of part 503. For
purposes of today’s rule, EPA will
consider new treatment works treating
domestic sewage as those which began
construction after the publication of an
applicable sewage sludge use or
disposal standard. For this reason, the
commenter’s facility would be
considered an existing facility and
would be required to submit its
application within 180 days for site-
specific requirements. at the time of its
next NPDES permit renewal, or it must
submit limited data within one year and
complete applications within 180 days
from when requested by the permitting
authority, as appropriate
One commenter suggested that EPA at
least require permit applications within
120 days for land application of sewage
sludge that does not meet the “super
clean” sewage sludge criteria
anticipated in the part 503 rule (55 FR
47259). EPA does not agree with the
suggestion to require permit
applications within 120 days of when
part 503 is published for land
application unless sewage sludge meets
“super clean” criteria. EPA expects that
the direct enforceability of the part 503
standards together with associated
record keeping and reporting
requirements will provide protection.
The standards for land application of
sewage sludge which is not “super
clean” will be as protective as the
standards for land application of “super
clean” sewage sludge. Furthermore, if
the permitting authority anticipates a
problem, it has the authority to request
permit applications sooner than the
time frames established under today’s
final rule.
For the reasons stated above, EPA is
adopting the proposed requirement for
treatment works treating domestic
sewage required to have (or requesting.)
site-specific limits to submit permit
applications within 180 days of when
part 503 is published §S 122.21(c)(211i)
and 501.15(d)(1)(ii) (A). (See discussion
below for further information on the
extension of the time period from 120
days to 180 days.) (Note that part 503
will be published In the Federal
Register on or near the same date as
today’s final nile.)
2. The Second Phase
Instead of requiring an immediate
submittal of a complete application
from sludge-only t.reatment works
treating domestic sewage. EPA proposed
that they submit limited background
information within one year of
publication of an applicable sewage
sludge use or disposal standard. (To the
extent these treatment works treating
domestic sewage were required to have,
or wanted to request, site-specific limits.
EPA proposed that they come forward
during the first phase and submit permit
applications within 180 days of
publication of an applicable sewage
sludge use or disposal standard.)
EPA proposed that these sludge-only
treatment works treating domestic
sewage submit the following
information to the Director
(1) Name, mailing address and
location of the treatment works treating
domestic sewage;
(2) The operator’s name, address,
telephone number, ownership status.
and status as Federal. State. private.
public or other entity;
(3) A description of the sewage sludge
use or disposal practices (including.
-------
9410 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 32 / Friday, February 19. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
whore applicable, the location of any
sites where sewage sludge is transferred
(or treatment. use, or disposal, as well
as the name of the applicator or other
contractor who applies the sewage
sludge to land if different from the
troatinent works treating domestic
sewage, and the name of any
distributors d the sewage sludge is sold
or given away in a beg or similar
enclosure for application to the lund, if
dilferent from the treatment works
treating domestic sewage);
(4) Annual amount of sewage sludge
generated, treated, used or disposed (dry
weight basis); and
(5) The most recent data the treatment
works treating domestic sewage may
have on the quality of the sewage
sludge.
Some treatment works treating
domestic sewage are not cuirently
subject to the existing NPDES program
fo’r effluent discharges (i a., they are
sludge-only facilities). EPA will use this
second phase to create an inventory of
these sludge-only treatment works
treating domestic sewage and to set
permitting priorities
One commenter suggested that the
limited information being submitted by
sludge-only treatment works treating
domestic sewage is inadequate to set
priorities and that, at a minimum, they
ought to be required to submit sewage
sludge quality data. EPA agrees that
sewage sludge quaLity data are
important and proposed in
§ 122 21(c)(2)(iii)(E) and
501 15(d)(1)(ii)(C)(5) that existing data
be submitted. EPA believes this
provision is adequate since the
proposed part 503 regulation bad self-
implementing monitoring and record
keeping requirements which would
generate data on sludge quality If. as
anticipated, these monitoring and
record keeping requirements are in the
final rule, they will be effective soon
after part 503 Is published and.
therefore, all treatment works treating
domestic sewage should be generating
new data, which would be available
data required under
§ 122.22(c)(2)(jji)(E) and
501.15(d)(1)(ji)(C)(5), EPA believes that
receiving these data from “sludge-only”
treatment works treating domestic
sewage will provide adequate
information to establish permitting
priorities
EPA believes that it is appropriate to
only require limited data from “sludge-
only” treatment works treating domestic
sewage. As noted above, this data will
serve to inventory the sludge-only
racilities as well as provide the
permitting authonty with information to
set permitting priorities. Additionally,
the permitting authority maintains the
ability to require any treatment works
treating domestic sewage to submit full
permit applications at any time if it
determines a permit is necessary to
protect public health and the
environment, One commenter was not
sure how the permitting authority
would be able to require complete
applications from sludge-only treatment
works treating domestic sewage.
Sections 122 21(c)(2)(iv) and
501.15(d)(i )(ii)(D) of today’s final rule
state that the permitting authority
maintains the ability to require permit
applications sooner than the times
defined in the rule—for any treatment
works treating domestic sewage One
corn menter thought these provisions
were inconsistent with the provision
requiring only limited data from sludge-
only treatment treating domestic
sewage. The limited data submitted by
the sludge-only treatment works treating
domestic sewage is only preliminary
data This limited information will
allow the permitting authority to set
permitting priorities If the permitting
authority determines that the sludge-
only facility needs to submit a full
permit application, it may request a full
application either after reviewing the
limited data, or prior to the one year
deadline for the submission of the
limited data if necessary. It would not
be necessary for the sludge-only facility
to be in noncompliance before the
permitting authority can request it to
submit a full application. As noted
earlier, the facility may become one of
the permitting authority’s priorities
either by the nature of its practice or by
the fact that other facilities already have
permits.
To clarify when sludge-only facilities
must submit their limited data, EPA is
considering the ultimate use or disposal
of a generator’s sewage sludge to be the
generator’s use or disposal practice—
even if the sewage sludge use or
disposal is camed out by someone else.
Therefore, sludge.only treatment works
treating domestic sewage will have to
submit their information within one
year after publication of part 503 if the
sewage sludge they generate is
ultimately land applied, incinerated in
a sewage sludge incinerator, placed in a
surface disposal site, or disposed in a
MSWLF For oxample, ifs sludge-only
treatment works treating domestic
sewage generates sewage sludge and
sends that sewage sludge to someone
else’s sewage sludge incinerator, the
generating treatment works treating
domestic sewage will still have to
submit its information within one year
after publication of part 503. (In this
case, the Incinerator will also be
considered a treatment works treating
domestic sewage and will be required to
submit permit application information
as well.)
A few commentere were concerned
about how sludge-only treatment works
treating domestic sewage will know to
submit information, The sewage sludge
implementation regulations have been
in existence since 1989. EPA has held
numerous workshops in an attempt to
reach most of the regulated community.
EPA will continue its efforts to identify
and notify sludge-only permnitteee of
their obligations. Realizing that sludge-
only facilities are not part of the existing
NPDES program, EPA will be working
with trade associations and other
organizations to distribute information
on the regulations to this group.
Furthermore, many States already
regulate sludge-only facilities and EPA
intends to work closely with State
agencies to ensure that such facilities
are notified of their requirements under
the Federal program.
In light of the above discussion, EPA
is adopting the proposed changes to
require sludge-only treatment works
treating domestic sewage (not required
to have or requesting site-specific limits)
to submit iimited data within one year
after publication of part 503
( 4 122.21(c)(2)(iii) and
501.15(d)(1)(jj)(C)), (Note that part 503
will be published in the Federal
Register on or near the same date as
today’s final rule)
3 The Third Phase
The third phase consists of treatment
works treating domestic sewage with
NPDES permits not addressed under the
first phase. The proposal required that
these treatment works treating domestic
sewage submit the application
information in accordance with NPDES
permit renewal procedures. Such
procedures require permit applications
at least 180 days before the NPDES
permit is due to expire. Thus, permit
applications would be submitted over
the course of a five year permit cycle.
In the interim period, before permits are
issued to these facilities, the part 503
stondards will be directly enforceable,
providing protection to public health
and the environment. Furthermore, if
EPA determines that it is necessary to
require sewage sludge application
information and to reopen a permit
before renewal, it may do so at its
discretion under the authority of 40 CFR
122.62(a) (3) and (7) to protect public
health or the environment,
Several commenters wanted
clarification for situations where an
NPDES permit has been
-------
administratively continued (or
extended). Today’s rule requires NPDES
permitteee (not required to have or
sacking site-specific linuts) to submit
sewage sludge data at the time of their
next NPDES permit renewal
applications. NPDES perinittees,
however, should have been submitting
general information on sewage sludge
with their permit applications since
1989 when part 122 was revised to
require this (54 FR 18716). Therefore.
the permitting authority should already
have basic sewage sludge information
from any NPDES permittee who filed a
permit application after 1989. and
sewage sludge requirements should be
included In the NPDES permit Such
permittees do not have to automatically
resubmit new data during t.ha term of an
administratively continued permit until
the next permit application is due EPA,
however, expects the permitting
authority to use its authority to ask for
additional sewage sludge information.
which may be necessary to ensure
compliance with part 503. sooner than
the next regularly scheduled application
deadline under §122 21(c)(2)(iv)
Likewise, for any facilities which may
be operating under a permit that was
administratively continued prior to
1989, sewage sludge data would not be
required to be submitted until the next
NPDES permit application is due.
Again, the permitting authority should
use its disaetion to ensure that
adequate information is included in the
permit application process and to
expeditiously incorporate pert 503
requirements into reissued permits.
One cornmenter was concerned that
permit applications with sewage sludge
information would not be submitted for
up to 6 orB years because of the backlog
in permit issuance. Another commenter
suggested that if States fail to seek
program approval, it would take EPA “a
decade or two to do the job which must
surely exceed that envisioned by
Congress.” The Agency açees that it
will not be possible to issue all permits
immediately given limited resources.
EPA believes that sewage sludge
management remains a local concern
that should be bandied atthe State and
local LeveL Until States obtain program
approval. EPA will do its best to ensure
that the sewage sludge program is being
implemented in a manner that takes into
account the risks posed by sewage
sludge use or disposal. It is Important to
note that the Agency will also continue
to encourage and assist States to assume
responsibility for Implementing the
sewage sludge program. The CWA
requires compliance with pert 503
within one year after its publication (or
two years if construction Is required),
regardless of what is embodied in an
NPDES permit Thus. EPA’s ability to
enforce compliance with the standards
is not wholly dependent upon issuance
of permits.
EPA is adopting the proposed
language to require that permit
applications from these treatment works
treating domestic sewage be submitted
in accordance with NPDES permit
renewal procedures. Such procedures
require permit applications at least 180
days before the NPDES permit is due to
expire. (Sections 122.21(c)(2flii) and
501 15(d)(1 )(ii)(B).)
D Time Period for Compiling
Application Data
EPA proposed to focus the application
requirements on those treatment works
treating domestic sewage required to
have (or requesting) site-specific
pollutant limits. Todays final rule has
the same focus. Because 120 days may
be insufficient to generate the necessary
information for site-specific permits.
EPA proposed to extend the time penod
to 180 days after publication of part 503
Two commenters noted that they
appreciated the increase from 120 days
to 180 days but stated that they did not
believe 180 days would be sufficient
either Similarly, one commenter
suggested that EPA require the
submission of all information except the
site-specific analysis (unless already
completed) within the 180-day period.
This commentar suggested applicants be
required to submit a rationale for the
need for additional time to complete the
site-specific analysis and a schedule for
completing the analysis durrng the 180-
day period but that the actual analysis
could be submitted later. The Agency
believes that part 503 will be explicit
enough so that facilities will be able to
gather the necessary information. EPA is
driven by the compliance deadlines
required by Congress in the CWA. EPA
believes that the 180-day period
established in today’s rule strikes a
balance between Congress’s compliance
date and EPA’s need to receive complete
information in permit applications for
those facilities whose standards need to
be established on a site-specific basis.
One commenter objected to the
extension from 120 to 180 days for site.
specific applications and wanted to see
more darification on which applicants
fall into this group and the potential risk
they pose As noted earlier in this
preamble. determining which facilities
are required to have (or able to request)
site-specific limits. is an issue that will
be determined in the part 503 rule.
Therefore, this will be discussed in the
preamble which accompanies that rule.
9411
Furthermore, now that the Agency has
a better understanding of the likely part
503 requirements, the Agency has
determined that 120 days is too
restrictive and that 180 days is more
appropriate. For example, sewage
sludge incinerators may need to submit
air dispersion data and conduct control
efficiency tests (trial bums) that could
take a considerable period of time to
complete. EPA believes the 180-day
deadline will foster the submittal of
complete and accurate applications.
EPA is adopting the changes as
proposed to extend the time period from
120 days to 180 days after part 503 Is
published for treatment works treating
domestic sewage to submit permit
applications.
For consistency, EPA also proposed to
modify § 122.1(b)(4). This provision
states that a user or disposer of sewage
sludge designated as a treatment works
treating domestic sewage must submit a
permit application within 120 days of
being notified by the Regional
Administrator that a permit is required.
EPA proposed to extend this time
period from 120 days to 180 days alter
a treatment works treating domestic
sewage is notified that a permit is
required EPA received no comments on
this change and it is being adopted as
proposed.
For a summary of the general changes
to the existing reqwrements for when
permit applications have to be
submitted (under parts 122, 123. and
501) made by today’s rule, see Table [ I—
1.
TAs& li—i .—SUMM.aJIy OF GE1wER . .&.
CHANGES MADE BY TODAY’S Ftt Ruii
Old vs jw . Ne r are-
ms
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
to I ys (cr is-
spe ufl
NPOES ps,mi*-
tss&
NOn-NPDES
S m 5 e
age etidge
slthli 120
days amer
p a n see
.9. —
a; Ica aoi i
M *i 120
days altor
pa n 503
S n s
.9. —
appUca aon
omun
esi tee
days &
—503
brW se
ags Uidgs
v n I SO
days aCe’
pan sos
-------
9412 Federal_Register_/ Vol. 58, No. 32 I Friday, February 19. 1993 / Rules and Reguiations
TA&E Il-I .—SUUMARY OF GENERAL
CHANGES MAOE BY TOOAY’S Fi
Rul.E—Continued
Old rs jW5-
mun
PISw rQajrs.
mama
Fsciiftiss nd rs.
SI4Tit S .
S bnlt sew.
jlIdldhs i
9SU 9S
Q. s idge
(or rs ie noJ
ippi son
.g ,ecaaon
sfl.-eoe f IC In-
Wdoims 5cn
orTTIaDon
I .NPOES pur.
w n 120
II Sis Ins
mi ll ie,.
y5 after
puil 503
promulga-
t
next
NPOES per.
m l renee,i
ipp 5 n
Non.NPOES
&.bnftuw.
SuInWlMmfted
penn iless
sg sludge
S.ssgs
r ou.-
eppI ion
sludge r or-
)
l omi..ion
wIth 120
ys efter
pail 503
—.
x
m.Dcn wIth-
fl I ysur
11W pert
503 piLica-
don,
A 5çllcant may r a ai .ds . flc poQulsnt i nIts
later icon I shmang of good cai a
I The pemvm g authority may recJiea* that pem%d
apcf Dons be sibnflhed WdSr than ale thees set
bun Ii all wale. Pen agodcadorw are ae 180
days after the penlumig auciolty ma as aud I a
E Compliance With the CWA and Part
503
Several commenters expressed
concerns over the part 503 compliance
deadlines (one year alter publication or
two years after publication if
construction is required). EPA has no
authority to provide additional time for
compliance since these deadlines were
specifically set by Congress in section
405(d)(2)(D) of the Clean Water Act.
F State Progmnis and the Permitting
Authonty
Far consistency, EPA proposed to
include the above changes to the
permitting procedures Into 40 CFR
123.25(a)(4) by aoss-referencmg the
part 122 provisions being amended
today. This means that States which
seek approval of a modification to their
NPDES programs to regulate sewage
sludge use or disposal would be
expected to have comparable
reguiations as part of their programs.
EPA received no comments on the
proposed change and it is being adopted
as proposed.
EPA will be responsible for issuing
permits that implement the sewage
sludge use or disposal standards, unless
those standards are implemented
through certain other Federal permits or
permits issued by a State with an EPA-
approved sewage sludge management
program. Because no States have
received EPA approval of their State
sewage sludge management programs
yet. EPA will be the permitting
authority initially and all application
information must be submitted directly
to the appropriate EPA Regional offices,
unless notified otherwise by the
Regional office. (Appendix A lists the
addresses for the EPA Regional offices
and the States within each Region.)
One commenter was confused about
where permit applications are to be sent
in “approved States.” In States with
approved sewage sludge programs. the
permit application information is
submitted to the State agency which has
been approved by EPA to administer the
federal sewage sludge program in lieu of
EPA. Treatment works treating domestic
sewage should note that a State can
have an approved sewage sludge
program even if it does not have an
approved NPDES program. Sunilarly,
iust because a State has an approved
NPDES program, does not mean it has
an approved sewage sludge program as
well. Questions about the current status
of State program approvals at any
particular time should be directed to
EPA Regional offices.
Currently there are no States with
formally approved sewage sludge
programs, although several are operating
under Memoranda of Agreement with
the EPA Regional Offices for intenm
sewage sludge programs. Once the part
503 regulations are final, the intenm
programs will no longer be effective and
all sewage sludge data should be
submitted to the Regional EPA Office,
until a State receives formal sewage
sludge program approval. In States with
approved NPDES programs. the part of
the permit application containing
sewage sludge data must be sent to EPA.
while the rest of the permit information
is sent to the State, unless otherwise
directed by the EPA Regional office. To
clarify this further, the ending phrase of
4 122.21(c)(2)(ii) has been modified to
instruct treatment works treating
domestic sewage with NPDES permits to
submit sewage sludge data “at the time
of their next NFDES permit renewal
application” instead of “with their next
NPDES permit renewal application.”
Several commenters requested
clarification on the interaction between
the Federal program and State
programs—specifically addressing
permits, enforcement and reporting. The
Federal program will not supersede or
replace a State program. Rather, until a
State receives formal program approval.
the regulated community may be subject
to both the State and Federal programs.
This could moan that a treatment works
treating domestic sewage could be
required to obtain two permits, conduct
monitoring, and report results--both
under the Federal and State programs.
The Federal permit may include more
stringent requirements than a State
permit, and vice versa. Section 122.1(f)
allows States to have sewage sludge
requirements that are different from, or
more stringent than, those in the Federal
regulations. The State will continue to
enforce its requirements and EPA will
enforce the Federal requirements In
States with approved sewage sludge
programs, the States will be primarily
responsible for enforcement while EPA
will maintain enforcement and
oversight authority.
Although in the short term treatment
works treating domestic sewage may be
subject to two separate programs, EPA is
working to assist States in their
applications to take on Federally
approved programs so the requirements
can be rolled into one program instead
of two.
C. Technical Correction to 5 123 25
On July 28, 1986, EPA promulgated
final regulations for application
requirements for facilities that discharge
only non-process wastewater At 51
26991, EPA redesignated 4 122 21(h)—{o)
as (i). —{p) and added a new 4122 21(h).
Conforming changes were riot made to
§ 123 25(a)(4) which refers to relevant
portions of section 122. These technical
corrections are being made as part of
today’s rule.
Ifl. Regulatory Development Process
A. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
major and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. A major rule is defined as a
regulation that is likely to result in.
(1) An annual effect on the economy
of S100 million or more;
(2) A major ln ease in the costs or
prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State and local
government agenLies, or geographic
regions; or
(3) A significant adverse effect on
competition, employment, investment.
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
Today’s final rule imposes no new
aiteria but rather lessens the burden for
submitting permit applications. Instead
of requiring the submission of all permit
applications within 120 days after the
publication of part 503. the submission
of applications is to be done in phases.
This avoids the potential for a treatment
works treating domestic sewage to have
to submit two applications because
information became outdated before a
permit could be written. Therefore, this
final rule does not constitute a major
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 32 / Friday, February 19. 1993 I Rules and Regulations
9413
rulefTuaking. These regulations were
submitted to the Offica of Management
and Budget (0MB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Information collection
requirements contained In this rule
were detailed in Information Collection
Request 228.10. These requirements
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 at seq.
and aie currently assigned 0MB control
number 2040—0086.
Public reporting burden for this
collection of information Is estimated at
four to five hours per response, with an
average burden 0(4.83 hours per
response. including 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 the burden, to
Chief, Information Policy Branch. PM—
223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street. SW. Washington,
DC 20460; and to the Office of
Management and Budget. Washington.
DC 20503, marked “Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.”
C. Regulatoty Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
5 U.S.C. 601 at seq., EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of its 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 final rule most directly affects
treatment works that use or dispose of
sewage sludge that are already required
to obtain permits under existing Federal
or State programs. Today’s rule merely
changes existing regulations to provide
for the submittal of permit applications
in phases. In most cases, small facilities
will have additional time to submit their
applications. Accordingly, I hereby
certify pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
these amendments will not have e
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 122
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information, Reporting and
recordkueping requirements. Sewage
disposal. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution controL
40CFR 123
Confidential business information,
Hazardous materials. Reporting and
recordkeeplng requirements. Sewage
disposal, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control. Penalties.
40 ( ‘R 501
Confidential business information.
Environmental protection. Reporting
and recordkaeping requirements.
Publicly owned treatment works,
Sewage disposal, Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated. November 25, 1992.
F. Hess, Rabkhl LL
Acting Adm,n,smnor.
For the reasons sat out in the
preamble, parts 122, 123, and 501 of
title 40, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATiON SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authonty The aean Water Act. 33 U.S C.
1251 etseq.
2. Section 122.1 is amended by
adding an 0MB control number to the
end of the section and by revising the
second sentence of paragraph (b)(4) to
read as follows:
j123.1 Purpos.and.cop..
• . • a a
(4) • Any person designated as a
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage” shall submit an application for
a permit under § 122.21 within 180 days
of being notified by the Regional
Administrator that a permit is required.
a a • *
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget wider 0MB control number 2040-
3. Section 122.21 Is amended by
redesignathng paragraphs (c)(2) (I). (II).
and (iii) as (c)(2) (ii). (iii). and (v)
respectively and revising newly
redesignated paragraphs (c)(2) (ii) and
(iii) : and adding new paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
and (c)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
j lfl.21 Application fore permit
(ippllcabl. to Slate programs, .ee 123.25).
a a a a •
(ci S a
(2) Permits under section 405(f) of
CWA (I) Any existing “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” required to
have, or requesting site-specific
pollutant limits as provided in 40 (YR
part 503. must submit the permit
application information required by
paragraph (d)(3)(li) 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, “treatment works
treating domestic sewage’ may only
apply for site-specific pollutant limits
for good cause and such requests must
be made within 180 day of becoming
aware that ood cause exists.
(ii) Any’ treatment works treating
domestic sewage’ with a currently
effective NPDES permit, not addressed
under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section.
must submit the application information
required by paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this
section at the time of its next NPDES
permit renewal application. Such
information must be submitted in
accordance with paragraph (d i of this
section.
(iii) Any other existing “treatment
works treating domestic sewage” not
addressed under paragraphs (c)(2) (ii or
(ii) of this section must submit the
information listed in paragraphs
(d112)(iii) (A)—(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). The
Director shall determine when such
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage” must apply for a permit.
(A) Name, mailing address and
location of the “treatment works treating
domestic sewage:”
(B) The operator’s name, address,
telephone number, ownership status.
and status as Federal, State, private.
public or other entity
(C) A desaiption of the sewage sludge
use or disposal practices (induding,
where applicable, the location of any
sites where sewage sludge is transferred
for treatment, use, or disposal, as well
as the name of the applicator or other
contractor who applies the sewage
sludge to land, if different from the
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage,” and the name of any
distributors if the sewage sludge is sold
or given away In a bag or similar
enclosure for application to the land, if
different from the ‘treatment works
treating domestic sewage”):
(Dl Annual amount of sewage sludge
generated, treated, used or disposed (dry
weight basis); and
(El The most recent data the
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage” may have on the quality of the
sewage sludge.
(iv) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c )(2)
(ii. ( Ii ), or (iii) of this section, the
-------
9414 Federal Register I vol. 56. No. 32 / Friday, February 19. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
Director may requite permit
applications from any “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” at any time if
the Director determines that a permit is
necessary to protect public health and
the environment from any potential
adverse effects that may occur from
toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
• S S S S
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
4. The authority citation for part 123
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Clam Water Act. 33 U S C. 1251
et seq.
5. Section 123.25 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
S 123.25 R.qulrem.nt. for p.rmlttlng,
(a)
(4) § 122.21 (a)—{b), (c)(2). (e)—(k), and
(m)—(p)—(Appl ication for a permit);
S S S • S
PART 501—STATE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
REGULATiONS
6. The authonty citation for part 501
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act. 33 U.S C. 1251
et seq.
7. Section 501.15 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) (A).
(B) and (C) as paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) (B).
(C) and (E) respectively and revising
newly designated paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)
(B) and (C). and adding new paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii)(A) and (d)(1)(ii)(D) to read as
follows-
5501.15 R.qulr.m.nts for permItting.
S S S S S
(d)
(1) *
(ii) (A) Any existing “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” required to
have (or requesting) site-specific
pollutant limits as provided under 40
CTR part 503. must submit the permit
application information required by
paragraph (a)(2) 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. “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” 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.
(B) Any “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” with a currently
effective NPDES permit. not addressed
under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section. must submit the application
information required by paragraph (a)(2)
of this section when the next
application for NPDES permit renewal
is duo.
(C) Any other existing “treatment
works treating domestic sewage” not
addressed under paragraphs (d)U)(ii)
(A) or (B) of this section must submit
the information listed in paragraphs
(d)(1)(ifl(C)(1)-.(5) of this section. to the
Director within one year after
publication of a standard applicable to
its sewage sludge use or disposal
practice(s). The Director shall determine
when such “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” must apply fora
permit.
(1) Name, mailing address and
location of the “treatment works treating
domestic sewage”;
(2) The operator’s name, address.
telephone number, ownership status.
end status as Federal, State. private,
public or other entity:
(3) A description of the sewage sludge
use or disposal practices (including,
where applicable, the location of any
sites where sewage sludge is transferred
for treatment, use, or disposal, as well
as the name of the applicator or other
contractor who applies the sewage
sludge to land if different from the
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage,” and the name of any
distributors if the sewage sludge is sold
or given away in a bag or similar
enclosure for application to the land, if
different from the “treatment works
treating domestic sewage”);
(4) Annual amount of sewage sludge
generated, treated, used or disposed (dry
weight basis), and
(5) The most recent data the
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage” may have on the quality of the
sewage sludge.
(D) Notwithstanding paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii) (A) , (B), or (C) of this section,
the Director may require permit
applications from any “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” at any time if
the Director determines that a pormit is
necessary to protect public health and
the environment from any potential
adverse effects that may occur from
toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
S S S S S
Editorial Note This appendix will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations
Appendix A—List of Ragional Sewage
Sludge Contacts
Region I
(Maine, New Hampshn ’e. Vermont.
Connecticut, Massachusefis. Rhode Island)
Thelma Hamilton, Municipal Evaluation
Section (WMC), Water Management Division.
U S EPA—Region I. FFK Federal Building.
Boston, MA 02203. Phone 617) 565—3569
Region 2
(New York. New Jersey, Puerto Rico. Virgin
Islands)
Alia Roufaeal. Water Management
Division, U.S. EPA—Region II. 26 Federal
Plaza, room 837. New York. NY 10278,
Phone (212) 284—8663.
Region 3
(Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia. Maryland. Pennsylvania)
Ann Carkhuff, Permits Enforcement
Branch, Water Management Division
(3WM55), U S. EPA—Region III, 841
Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Phone. (215) 597—4406.
Region 4
(Alabama, Florida. Georgia. Kentucky,
Miuiuippi. Tennessee, North Carolina,
South Carolina)
VInes Miller. Municipal Facilities Brunch.
Water Management Division. U S EPA—
Region IV. 345 Courtland Street, Atlanta. C
30365. Phone. (404) 347—2391.
Region 5
(Indiana. Illinois. Michigan. Wisconsin.
Ohio, Minnesota)
John Coiletil. Water Quality Branch, Water
Division (5WQP—16J), U S EPA—Region V
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Qilcego. IL
60604—3590. Phone (312) 886—6106
Region 6
(Arkansas, Loui.siana, New Mexico.
Oklahoma, Texas)
Stephanie Kordzi. Water Management
Division (6-WPM), U.S EPA—Region Vi.
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, suite 1200.
Dallas, TX 75202—2733, Phone (214) 655—
7520.
Region 7
(Iowa. Kansas. Missouri, Nebraska)
John Dunn. Water Compliance Branch.
Water Management Division. U S. EPA—
Region VII. 726 Minnesota Avenue. Kansas
City, KS 66101. Phone’ (913) 551—7594
Region 8
(Wyoming, Utah. North Dakota, South
Dakota. Colorado, Montana)
Bob Brobst, NPDES Branch (8WM-C).
Water Management DIvision. U S EP&—
Region VIII. 999—18th Street. Denver Place—
Suite 500, Denver, CX) 80202—2405. Phone
(303) 293—1627.
Region 9
(California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Guam.
American Samoa, North Manana Islands.
Pacific Trust Territories)
Lauren Fondahl, Pretreatment Section (W-
5—2), Water Management Division, U S
EPA—Region IX. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco. CA 94105. Phone (415) 744—190Y
Region 10
(Oregon. Washington, Idaho. Alaska)
Technology/Standard. Questions
Dick Hetherington. Water Permits Section
(WD—134). Water Management Division. U S
EPA—Region X. 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98101. Phone (206) 553—1941
Permit Questions.
-------
Federal R2gister / Vol. 58, No. 32 / Friday, February 19. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 9415
Laura Pelten. Water Petmita Section (WD-.
134 . Water Manegetnent DtvIjloa. U.S.
EPA—Region X. 1200 6th Avenue. Seattle.
WA 98101. Phone: (206) 553—1647.
IFR Doc. 93—3 FIled 2—18—93: 8.45 aml
etWNG CoOt NIO-oO-N
-------
Federal Regiater / VoL 58, No. 26 F Wednesday, February 10, 1993 /Notlces
7889
Western Gas interstate Co.; Filing
February 4. 1993.
Take notice that on February 1.1993.
Western Gas Interstate Company
(“Western i. pursuant to the
Commission’s Order of December 31,
1992 tendered for filing proposed
changes to its FERC Gas Tariff to be
effective no later than May 1. 1993.
Western states that It filed these tariff
sheets in cQmpliance with the
Commission’s Order that only currently
effective services be Included, while
services and costs which are assodatod
wflh its restructuring proceeding be
excluded..
Western has if led tariff sheets revising
its currently effective tariff, new rates
reflecting a cost of service that excludes
restructuring costs, and a revised
Statement N. Western has also Included
a cost study demonstrating the Impact
on each customer of the switch to SFV.
Any person desiring to protest said
filing should file a protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
825 North Capitol Street. NE.,
Washington. DC 20426. In accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure 18 R
385.211. All such protests should be
filed on or before February 11. 1993.
Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will
not servo to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are
on file with the Commission and are
available for public Inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Seaetwy.
[ FR Doc. 93—3159 FUed 2-9—93; 8:45 aml
Office of Fossil Energy
(FE Dodist N g3- -Nm
Western Natural Gas and Transmission
Corp.; Order Granting Blanlest
Authodentlon to import and Export
Natural Gas from and to Canada
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of an order.
SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of
the Department of Energy gives notice
that it has Issued an order granting
Western Natural Ga, and Transmission
Corporation blanket authorization to
import from Canada up to a maiamum
of 40 Rd of natural gas and to export to
Canada up to a maximum of 20 Rd of
natural gas over a two-year terra
beginning on the data of first Import or
export.
A copy of this order Is available b
inspection and copying In the Office of
Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-056,
Forrestal BuildIng. 1000 ndspusiiisnr’i
Avenue. SW.. W ’titblngtan. D( 20585,
(202) 588-8478. The docket room is
open between the hours of 8 a.ni. end
4:31) p.m.. Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Issued La W th1ngton. DC. Febrwy 4.
1993.
Clfford P. T uwakl.
Director. Office of No lan! Gas, Office of FueLs
Programs. Office of Pond Ron .
(FR Dec. 93-3172 Filed 2-4-43; &45 smi
mime sect
ENV1RONMEJITAL PROTECT1OII
AGENCY
(FRL —4593-6 )
Revision of the Ohio National Pollutant
Dlacharg. Elimination Systam
Program To Authort ths Issuance Of
Gsn.ral Psrrntta -.
AGENCY: 12.5. Environmental Protection
A flCY.
ACTiON: Notice of approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
flimin jou System General Permit -
ProgramoftheStateofOh lo. -
suuuanv: On August 17. 1992, the
Re iozial Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). Region 5. approved the Stale of
Ohio’s National Pollutant Discharge
fliminsition System (NPDES) General
Permit Program. On July 2. 1992, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA) submitted a formal request
for approval to revise its NPDES Permit
Program to authorize the Issuance of
general NPDES permits. This action
auth rira . the State ofOhioto Issue
general permits In lieu of Individual
NPDES permits. Based on its review of
Ohio’. legal authority, U.S. EPA
determined that no statutory or
regulatory changes were necessary for
the State to administer a general permit
program. U.S. EPA has thus determined
Ohio’s program modification to be non-
substantiaL
FOR PJRThER U4FO AflON NTACY: Mart
Gluckman, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Region 5 (WQP—18fl.
77 West Jackson Boulevard. Qiicego.
illinois 60604—3507, (312) 888—6081).
SUP9LEMEHTARY INFORMATION:
I Background
U.S. EPA regulations at 40 GR 122.28
provide (or the issuance of general
permits to regulate the discharge of
wastewater which results from
IL Diacuulon
The State of Ohio submitted in
support of Its request, copies of the
relevant statutes and regulations for
implementing the program. The State
has also submitted a statement dated
July 22. 1992. by the Attorney General
certifying. with appropriate dtatlons to
the statutes end regulations that the
State will have adequate legal authority
to admtrnler the general permit
program as required by 40 G’R
123.23(c). In addition, the State
submitted a program desaiption
supplementing the original application
for the NFDES program authority to
adnhini 4er the general permit program.
including the authority to perform each
of the activities set forth In 40 GR
123.44. The State has also submitted an
Amendment to the Memorandum of
Agreement between the State of Ohio
EPA and U.S. EPA, Region 5 specilying
the procedures through which general
permits will be Issued and iidrninlgtered
by the State. Based upon Ohio’s
program desciption and upon Its
experience in administering an
approved NPDES program. U.S. EPA has
‘concluded that the State will have the
necessary procedures and resources to
admInister the general permit program.
111. Federal Register Notice of Appruv.i
of State NPDES Programs as
Medthcatsona
Today’s Federal Register notice
announces the approval of Ohio’s
authority to issue general permits.
nhq*ai 1liifly IfTn4Lsr operations. ire of
the seme type wastes, require the same
effluent limitations or operating
omdltlons, require similar monitoring
and are more appropriately tiuUed
under a general permit rather than by
Individual permits.
Ohio — - . authorized to administer the
NPDES program en March 11, 1974. As
previously ippiuvud. the State.
program did not include provisions for
the Issuance of general permits. A
number of categories of discharges can
be appropriately regulated by general
permits. Par these reasons, the Ohio
EPA requested a revision of the State’s
NPDES program to provide for the
issuance of general permits. Storm water
dI i .charges are currently under
consideration for the general permit
program, though additional categories
could be considered in the future.
Each general permit will be subject to
U.S. EPA review and approval as
provided by 40 C’R 123.44. Public
notice and opportunity to request a
hearing Is also provided for each general
permiL
-------
7890
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 26 / Wednesday, Februaq 10, 1993 / Notices
IV. Ra,lew Under Ex .cutlve Order
12291 and Lb. Regulatory flexibility
Ad
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this nil. from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to sectIon 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Ad.
U.S. EPA La required to prepare a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for all
rules which may have a significant
impact on a substantial number of imaU ,
entitles. Pursuant to sectIon 605(d) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 at seq.), 1 certIfy that this State
General Permit Program will not have a
significant impact an a substantial
number of small entitles. Approval of
the Ohio NPDES State general Permit
Program establishes no new substantive.
requirements. nor does It alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. Approval of the Ohio NPDES
State General Permits Program merely
provides a simplified administrative
process.
Dated January 25.1993.
David A. Uflrkh.
Acting Regional Adnunzziiator.
IFR Doc. 93—3155 FIled 2—9—93, 8.45 aml
eaii.a c cc . . r
(OPP 5I; 1I
Lawn Car. Pesticide Advisory -
Commiflss
AOOICY Environmental Protection.
Agency (EPA).
ACflON Notice.
SUMMARY Under Public Law 94-409.
notice Is hereby given that the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances will be holding a second
Lawn Care Pesticide Advisory
Committee meeting on February 25—26..,
1993. The purpose of this meeting, a
follow-up to one held on May 12_ 13, ,:
1992, late help EPA gain further liitlght
on lawn case pesticide issues. Topics fur
discussion are slated to Includ.c
Posting, notification and reglstzle*
EPA, $dv 44a4flg gui .4*nt ststa
inspections during FY—02 1 h . from
recent EPA workshops on residential
post-application exposer. and lawn care
beneths current congressional v1ty
and the need fur future Advisory
Committee meetings. The Advisory
Committee Is composed of a balanced
group of participants from the lawn and
garden care service Industry, pesticide
rnanuI urem and formulators,
environmental and consumer advocates.
congressional staff. and public sector —
representatives including State health
end pestiddA regulatory officials, and
other Federal Government officials. The
emphasis will be on both sharing
Information and experience, as well as
exploring for possible Advisory
Committee recommendations.
DATE9: The meeting will be held on
February 25.1993 from 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m.. and on February 28. 1993 from
8 30 a.m. to 1 p.m..
ADORESSES: The meeting will be held at
Embassy Suites Hotel. 1900 DIagonal
Road. Alexandria, VA (703) 684-5900.
FOR FURThER I(FO ATION CONTACT Dr.
Michael Firestone, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, 401 M
Street. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
(202) 260—2897. SInce space La limited.
those wishing to attend as observers
should contad .Mrs. Marjorie
Fehrenbech at (703) 305—5017.
Dated February 3. 1993.
Victor J. ri...
AcfingAssistaiu Admuustrntor for
Prevent ion, Pesticides and Toxic Subst n,ces.
IFR Doc. 93—3062 FIled 2—9-43: 8 45 ami
a j ccc i U 4 J
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSiON
FIeld Testing of th. Proposed EBS
T.chnology
Felaus ly 3, 1993.
The Comm eaIon will be field testing
proposed Emergency Broadcast System
(EBS) technical (universal and optional)
parameters over the next several
months. The proposed standards are
— outlined In the F(X Notice of Proposed
Rule MakinglFurther Notice of Proposed
Rule Making. FO Docket 91-301 and
91—171. paragraphs 42 through 71. The
NPRM(FNPRM was adopted by the
Commlaalon on September 17, 1992 and
released on October 8. 1992.
Th. teats are being conducted to
assure that the proposed new standards
will be compatible with all technologies
that deliver emergency alert -
Information. We are recommending that
sveral tests be conducted with at least
one ted In the east and one In the west
of the U.S.
In order to assure representation from
all sectors of the telecommunications
Industry, we invite equipment
manufacturers, cable, broadcast stations
and other interested pestles to
participate Lu these tests.
The results of the field tests will be
made a part of the official docket record
In the rule making proceeding. We
envision that the final equipment
slandardswould be reflective of the
entire Commission record developed.
Those who are Interested In
participating in the tests should contact
the EBS Staff at (202) 632—3906.
Federal Conimisslon.
Deans 1. Seazcy,
s- .
[ FR Dcc. 93—3097 Flied 2—0-93: 8:45 asnl
c.iP coca
Appllcaticns fur Corisofidatad Hearing
1. The Commission has before It the
following mutually exclusive
applications for new FM stations:
Aco it drp’ -
L.
FSs N
d
No
I.
& Ci Ccm.
n a 6oea C
psny. ri E o
IA.
a. sssmi. 8es .e-
V Ccn sny. LP.
EJdon
BPI4—OIIOO8ME
OPt s-Si IDIOMA
92—316
s he V -
I Con ewe. ASS
2. Utnre . MB
..
A. So Bio cca-
I Co Ml tI&
B,Sierea&M,p
M A.
BPH —41 iooc&e
BPM-011004M0
92—311
.
a — - ss
1.Co, ,. ..p.s ,h.,8
2. utewes, A,S
2. Pursuant to sectIon 309(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934. as
amended, the above applications have
been designated for hearing in a
consolidated proceeding upon the
Issues whose headings are set forth
above. Th. text of each of these issues
has been standardized and Is set forth in
Its entirety under the corresponding
heading at 51 FR 19,347, May 29. 1986.
The letter shown before each applicant’s
name, above, Is used above to signify
whether the Issue in question applies to
that particular applicant.
3. If theTe are any non-standardized
Issues In this proceeding. the full text of
the Issue and the applicants to which It
applies axe set forth In an Appendix to
this Notice. A copy of the complete
in this proceeding Is available for
Inspection and copying during normal
business hours In the F(X Docket,
Branch (Room 230). 1919 M Street NW..
Washington. DC. Th. complete text may
also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractors.
Downtown Copy Center. 1114 21st
-------
Monday
February 8, 1993
I I
ri1
Part II
Environ mental
Protection Agency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permit and Reporting
Requirements for Discharges From
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations;
Notice
i I
-------
7610
Federal Register I VoL 58, No. 24 I Monday. February 8. 1993 / Nqtlcas
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION
- AGENCY
(FRL-4552-8l
National Pollutant Dt.chirg.
Eiiminatlon System G.nsrel Prmit and
Reporting Requirements for
Discharges From Concentrated Animal
Feeding Op.ratlons
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACtiON: Region 6 public notice of the
final permitting dedsion. General
NPDES permits for dis harges from
confined animal feeding operations .
SU ARY: Pursuant to sectIons 301. 304
(b) and (c). and 306(b) and (c) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) 40 CFR 122.23
defines concentrated animal feeding
operations as point sources subject to
the NPDES permit program. 40 GR part
122. appendix B lists the criteria for
determining a Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation (CAFOs) (5122.23).
40 CFR part 412 establishes the effluent
[ imitation guidelines for Feedlots
pursuant to sections 306 (b) and (c) of
the Clean Waler Act.
This is to give notice that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6. has made a final permitting
deca.sion and will Issue the following
Permits under the National Pollutant
Discharge El iminatlcn System. The
permits will become effective 30 days
after the date of this Public Notice. Any
substantial riinngee from the Draft
Permit are cited.
This notice of the issuance of separate
general permits for cnnr . ntratad An,ms%I
feeding operations in fou States
(Louisiana. New Mexico, ( lklnhniiia .
and Texas) without authorized NPDES
State programs on Indian lands in New
Mexico end Oklahoma. Separate general
permits are being noticed for each State.
DATES: The permit will become effective
on March 10. 1993.
AOORESSES: The Issuance Is based on a
final staff review of the administrative
record and comments received. A
Response to Comments is available by
writing to: Ellen Caidwell. Permits
Branch of Water Division (8W—PS). U.S.
• Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 6, 1445 Rosa Ave., suite 1200,
Dallas. Texas 75202 (214) 855—7190.
The public record is located at EPA
Region 6, and is available upon wntten
request Requests for copies of the
public record should be addressed to
Ellen Caidweil at the address above. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying Further information including
the admunstrative record may be
viowe4 at the above address between B
a.m. and 4i30 p.m.. Monday through
Friday.
oa JRThE 54FORMAT N CONTACT
Ellen Caldwell. (214) 655—7190.
SUP#WIENTARY INFORUAT1OIC
Contents of this Preamble
Part L ( anges to the Draft Permit.
Part [ I. Reaponajveneu S ””’ ’y
Part [ U. Economic Impact
Part IV. Effect of Additional Federal
Regulations
A. National Environmental Policy Act
B. Executive Order 12291
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
U. Regulatory Flexibility Act
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—
Region 8. Public Notice of the Final
Permitting Decision.
Part L Changes to the Drafi Permit
Based on information received during
the public comment period the Agency
had made minor changes to the
conditions in the draft permit. The
following are changes which were made
to the draft permit which was proposed
July 22. 1992 (57 FR 32475):
1. Under Part I, Section 8.1. Existing
Facilities and Section D . owners or
uprnitui of concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFO). esdefined
in 40 C7R part 122 appendix B, are
authorized under the terms and
conditions of this general permit upon
submission of a notice of intent (NOfl.
This NO! form has been included as
appendix B of this general permit
2. Under Part I. Section 8.4.
Expanding Facilities, facilities
expanding operations to more than the
number of animals specified in 40 R
pert 122 appendix B(s) will be required
to submit a new NO! prior to
construction of the expansion.
3. To comply with statutory
requirements in 40 GR 122.49; Part I of
the general permit. Section C.
Umitations on Coverage has been
changed to limit from permit coverage:
CAFOe which adversely affect a listed
or proposed to be listed endangered or
threatened species or its ciiticel habitat:
CAFOs which adversely aff
properties listed or eligible for listing In
the National Register of Historic Places.
4. Item 4. of Part 1. Section C. has been
changed to limit from coverage CAFOs
that discharge all their runoff and waste
water to a publicly owned sanitary
sawer system
5. The term “waters of the U S.” has
been clarified in various parts of this
general permit, listing the defined
waters in 40 CFR 122.2. This regulatory
definition applies for every reference to
waters of the U S. in this general permit.
8 Part Ill. Section B has been
clarified to state more clearly that when
provisions In an approved Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) plan are
substituted for a applicable Best
Management Practices (B!vfl ) or
portions of the Pollution Prevention
Plan (PPP). the PPP must refer to the
approprIate section of the SCS plan and
a copy of this SCS plan must be kept on
site.
7. Date log requirements indicating
monthly inspection of the retention
facility have been changed to quarterly
inspections.
8. Requirements for manure which is
sold or given to other persons for use
have been moved from Part Eli. Section
B. to Part Ill. Section B.2.f.(2HJ) These
requirements have been changed to
require the perinittee to maintain a log
of manure sold In wet tons, dry tons, or
cubic yards and the permittee must
make available to the hauler any
nutnent sample analysis from that year
9. Requirements for Retention
Capacity Calci laUons. Retention
Facility Embankrnents. Retention
Facihty Dewatenng. and permanent
markers have been moved from Part Ill.
Section B 1. to Part m. Section 8 2 1(21
(B), (C). (D). and (E) respectively Slight
changes have been made to these items
for clanfication.
10. The requirement that facilities
shall not expand operations, either in
size or numbers of animals, prior to
a nding or enlarging the waste
hi.iirlllng procedures ai d structures to
accommodate any additional wastes that
will be generated by the expanded
operations has been added to Part In.
Section B.1.b.
11. Part Ill. Section B.d. has been
modiflq4 that new facilities shall not be
built tifi water of the U.S.
12. Part II I, Section B.f. has been
changed to clarify that water retention
- facilities or holding pens may not be
located in the 100-year flood plain
unless the facility is protected from
inundation and damage that may occur
during that flood event.
13. Part III. Section B.g. has been
modified that facilities shall not locate
waste water retention facilities. oolding
pens or waste/wastewater disposal sites
closer to water wells than specified by
State requirements.
14. Part UI. Section B.l. has been
modified that waste handling.
treatment. and management shall not
result in the contarninatlon am drinking
water.
15. Part III. Section B.1. has been
modified to require the proper disposal
time of dead animals to be three (3) dav
Instead of 24 hours.
18. Items a. and o. of Part lB. SecUo
B. have been moved from the Pollution
Prevention Plans.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 24 I Monday. February 8. 1993 / Notices
7611
17. Part 111. Section B.2.a. has been
changed to clarify that the Pollution
Prevention Plan may refer to the Scs I
Conservation Service plan when the
SCS plan do mentation contains
equivalent requirements for the facility.
18. The schedule for completion of
Pollution Prevention Plans has been
modified in Part ifi, Section Bib. to
separate large fa litjes, medium
facihties, and small facilities with
different time requrrements for
completion.
19. The time requirement for changes
In a Pollution Prevention Plan which
does not meet minimum requirements
after notification by the Director has
been changed from 30 to 90 days in Part
Ill, Section B.2.d.
20 Part III, Section B.2.I.(2)(F) has
included a requirement that a rain gauge
shall be kept on site and properly
maintained and that log of all
measurable rainfall events shall be kept
with the Pollution Prevention Plan. This
also replaces the requirement in the
draft general permit in Part IV,
Monstoruig and Reporting
Requirements, that requires information
from the nearest available weather
station concerning precipitation events.
21. Under Part Ill, Section
B.2.f.(2)(}fl(a), documentation of no
hydrologic connection has been
cmplified and condensed; no longer
requiring depth to ground water.
thickness and lithology of the
uppermost aquifer. anda piezomethc
map This item now allows far
documentation of no hydrologic
connection to be certified by a qualified
ground water scientist.
22. Site-specific conditions are now
considered in the design of liner
co stiucticn in Part m, Section
B.2.f.(211H)(b).
23. The requirement for liner
inspection has been removed from Part
Ill, Section B.2.t(2)(H)(c),
24. Part ff1. Section B.2.f.(2)(H)(c) now
includes the requirement that no trees
shall be allowed to grow within the
potential distance of the root zone.
25. These requirements:
Documentation of liner maintenance
scell be kept with the Pollution
Pre ention Plan. The permittee shall
have a Soil Conservation Service
enurneer, Professional Engineer, or
qualified groundwater scientist review
the documentation and do a site
evaluation every five years. or once
every permit term whichever comes
first, have been added to Part m, Section
21 12)(Hllc).
26. Part Ill, Section B 2.fJ2)(H)(c) has
. een changed to only require the
.nstaflauon of a leak detection system or
monitonng wells when notified by the
Director that the potential eidsta for the
contamination of surface waters or
drinking water. Documentation of
compliance with the notIficatIoi and all
sampling data must be kept with the
Pollution Prevention Plan.
27. “It shall be considered ‘Proper
Operation and Maintan*nce’ for a
facility which has been properly
operated .’ and that lain danger of
Jmwjj t overflow due to chronic or
ostastrophic rainfall, to discharge waste
waters to land application altos for
flitering prior to discharging to waters of
the U.S.” has been added as Part In,
Section B.2.f.(2)m( ),
28. “The operator shall notify the
appropriate flab and wildlife agency in
the event of any significant fish.
wildlife, or migratory bird/endangered
species kill or die-off on or near
retention ponds or in fields where waste
has been applied, and which could
reasonably have resulted from waste
management at the facility” has been
added to Part Ifl, Section B.2.f.(2)(I)(h)
to provide protection from land disposal
or application of waste water.
29. Where land application sites are
isolated from surface waters and no
potential exists for runoff to reach a
water of the U.S., application rates may
exceed nutrient o ’op uptake rates as
provided in an approved state program.
No lana application under this section
shall cause or contribute to a violation
of water quality standards has been
added as Part Ifl. Section B.2 .f.(2)W(h).
30. Part In, Section B.2.f.(2)(J)
requires. (1) A descnpuon of waste
handling procedures and equipment
availability; (2) the calculations and
assumptions used for determining land
application rates: and (3) any nutrient
analysis data if laboratory analysis Is
done to he included in the Pollution
Prevention Plan if manuie is land
applied.
31. Storage and/or surface disposal of
manure in the 100-year flood plain or
near water courses is allowed If
protected by adequate berins or other
structures; Part I I I. Section B.2.f.(2)W(a).
The clarification: The land application
of wastes at agricultural rates shall not
be considered surface disposal in this
case and is not prohibited, has also been
added.
32. “Where land application sites are
isolated from surface waters and no
potential exists for runoff to reach a
water of the U.S ,apphcation rates may
exceed nutrient cnop uptake rates as
provided in an approved state program
No land application under this sectIon
shall cause or contnbute to a violation
of water quality standards’, has been
added as. Part III, Section B 2.f.(2)(J)fi)
33. The Item on good housekeeping
requirements has been removed from
Part III, Section 8.2. Pollution
Prevention Plan requirements.
34. The requirements for the
evaluation of R8coniniendad
Management Practices listed in
Appendix A has been removed Part 111.
Section 8,2. Pollution Prevention Plan
requirements.
35. Discharge sampling requirements
have been modified based on CAFO size
to separate large facilities, medium
facilities, and small facilitie, with
different schedules for analysis in Part
IV, Section
38. Analysis requirements for total
phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and
nitrate nitrogen have been removed
from Part IV, Section A.7.
37. Items for Anticipated
Noncompliance, Other Noncompliance
Reporting, Bypass of Treatment
Facilities, and Upset Conditions have
been removed from Part IV.
38. Items regarding Toxic Pollutants
and Oil and Hamrdous Substance
Liability have been removed from Part
V.
39. Definitions for Agronomic rates,
Beat Available Technology, Best
Conventional Technology, Hydrologic
connection, and Qualified groundwater
scientist have been added to, and the
definition for Bypass h 4 a been removed
from Part VU.
40. The definition for Concentrated
animal feeding operation has been
clarified in Part VU.
Part IL Responsiveness Summary
Many Issues, questions and ccmments
were submitted to the Agency during
the public comment period. Below is a
summary of the issues raised and the
Agency’s responses.
A. Cojvections and GenernJ Permitting
issues
1. Several commenters requested
corrections of language in the fact sheet
published with the proposed permit. A
fact sheetis pu shed to explain the
permitting decisions used to develop a
proposed permit. A responsiveness
summary or a response to comments
accompanies the final permit and server
‘as the explanation of the permitting
decisions made in response to the
comments received. Because the Fact -
sheet will not be published again,
correctiuns to it will not be necasaai-v.
Where the comments illustrate
confusion or misunderstanding of issues
or terms explained in the fact sheet,
they will be addressed in the
responsiveness suinm Iy under the
appropriate subject heading.
-------
FeI l J iatis’ I VoL 53, No. 24 / Monday, Fehrt q 8, 1Q93 / Nntfrn ,
2. Alseoat all commenter. requested
ansi In wrIting to th. questhnil .
comments, and onacems which they
submitted. Unfa tneateiy many
comments re received with ns mtu
adthesa. It Is the
responsibility af ’.& to provide.
responsiv eM lLfl flW7 to all persons
that provided c n nta dining the
public hearing process or public
cni’ ent penod (40 ( ‘R 124.17). EPA
regrets tint 11 will nat be able to send
a response to r nmmenjg to those
commentars that neglected to provide
the Agency with $ Mum addreu
however, the publication of this
responsiveness summary will serve to
Inform those persons of the Agency’s
decisions.
3. Many of the comments received
express concern that the only reason
that Region 6 is issuing the permit Is in
response to special Interest groups
opposed to the dairy industry in Tom
The commentere are concerned that
EPA willbe swayed in its p w tthig
de sions by portions of reports which
were taken out of context to reflect a
worst case scenario. These persons
requested that Region 6 not rush its
efforts for the Region to use all available
sources of lnfotmation to develop a
reasonable general permit A few
persons questloned whether Region 6
would really listen end consider the
testimony and comments made at the
pubLic heanngs which were held In
each state.
EPA reviews all docoments referred to
in comments which are subnuff d
during the comment period. EPA weighs
all scientific and factual information.
and ather comments whether submitted
In writing during the period.
or as testimony during the public
hearmg process as required In 40 C R
124.11 and 124.12.
4. Many persons pointed out that
farmers are natural conservationists, and
as such are natural environmentalists.
Some persuol opposed the perm
because they believed that hnre
was being blamed fes neimally
occunong circumstances”. Many
persons were concerned with the
perception of agrimibme era semen of
pollution that would aommpsny the
issuance of this permit These
commenters suggest that the private
citizens winch upe ute these facilities
are more fnrmliar with what is “Proper
Operation and Management’ of a CAPO
than EPA. and that they can make better
determinations about the protection of
the natural resources of the land and
water.
While EPA agrees with the
commenterl that most farmers are good
natural conservationists. it l.a apparent
from the growing bedy of Infoimatlen
that water quality problems exist which
are attributable 4 trn imal waste
T. gem nt. Pi snn . for this way very,
however’. It is EP A’. respnni.ihillty to
regulate all point wur of p&.lution
under the authority of the Clean Water
Act. These fariuitlea are included In the
definition of a point source in part 502
of the Act. Region 8 believes that the
requirements reflected in the final
general pennit do coincide with the
good management priw fr s already
established In the agricultural
community. and wi II not prove too
burdensome for those operators which
have established good environmental
practices.
5. The Region received several
comments expressing the need for a
permit to be available for unpermitted
CAFOs to be compliant with the Clean
WaterAct. CAFOs in Region 6 maybe
discharging in vIolai.lon of the Clean
Water Act Rngian 8 believes that the
first step In mprov [ ng water quality and
Clean Water Act compliance is to
provide a permitting vehicle which will
be protective for the environment and
cost effective for the operators of
CAFOs.
6. While many commentaTe and
produces gruOps endorse the Region’s
use of. general permit. some
commenters question the need fara
permitting program in Region 6 states.
Many persons questioned if any water
quality problems exist in RegIon 8
which are associated with animal
wastes or CAFOs. Many commenters
suggested that EPA exhaust all state
delegation activities before issuing a
general permit These comznentem
stated that they believed it would cause
confusion over jurisdiction if there were
both state and federal level regulation
with which to comply.
Region 6 believes that the time for
federal permitting action In the four
states at4rntn i tered by this Region is
past due. EPA Region 8 conies the
burden of a large permitting program
and must prioritize its workload. The
most Important aspect of this priority
system is the impairment of water
quality. It has become apparent that
animal wastes are one of the major
contributors to water quality problems
En many watersheds a oss the nation.
In Region 6 the water quality
inventones i h ich are complied by the
state water quality agencies show a
significant number of water bodies
which are being impaired by the
contribution of animal wastes. In Texas
there are at least four segments of state
river bosnia which are not meeting the
standards set by the state. Of the water
bodies which are listed as impaired in
Okb’hnm the wa rs Impaired by
totalS lake QRgTneels out of 21.
and to river segments out of 42. In
addition. Ok1Ahnm has d .z nted
several flab hills sse i4i t A with CAFO
runoa Oklaho ma coll cts more specific
lnforn fl .m on CAFO associated water
quality problems which may explain the
higher numbers. Several segments of the -
Lake Pontcliartreln Basin an Louisiana
are impaired by CAFO.. as well as two
other river ba n . In that stats. New
Mexico. which has fewer surface waters.
his more documentation on
groundwater cont tn2* problems.
however. CAFO impairment of the
Pecos River Bas i n ii being tracked by
the state.
EPA agrees with the commentere
Inclination toward the delegation of the
NPDES program anthonty to the Stales
of Region & Section 402fb) of the Act
allows states to request authority to
adminicter the NFDES program in lieu
oi the EPA. This means that States must
interpret and apply national standards
through day-to.dey program actions and
mount a vigorous program of
comphanc” end enLorcement. To
assume delegation a formal program
parkiiga consisting of a Memorandum of
Agreement. a Program Desaiption. the
Attorney General’s Statement and a
latter from the Gavamor must be
submitted to the Region. The Region
must carefully review the par ge for
statutory completeness. Currently there
are 39 states which have been
authorized the NPDES program. Of the
39 states, the one State in Region 6 to
have bean authonzsd is the State of
Arkansas. At the present time. EPA has
not received an approvable program
from any -of the remaining four states.
Louisiana. Texas. Oklahoma. and New
Mexico. Region 6 is continuing to work
closely with states in the Region,.
assisting them in their efforts to assume
the NPDES program. Until the State has
assumed authority for the NPDES
permitting program. the permattee will
be responsible for compliance with both
State and Federal requirements. States
which administer the NPDES program
must control CAFO5 with the same
degree of stringency and in a manner
consistent with the federal regulations.
7. Several of the comments received
suggested that this permit was more
stringent than the federal regulations. A
few persons questioned why the four
States in Region 8 would be subject to
the general permit and not the other
States in the uation. Region 6 has
developed a general permit which
rofl s the federal program
requirements which exist now. These
requirements include a technology
standard which was implemented in
-------
Federal Ragister I VoL 50, No. 24 / Monday. February 8, 1993 I Notices
7813
1974, and the minimum technology
‘andard for storm water permit., (a
llution Prevention Plan) which was
iabllshed in 1991. The permit also
includes Best Management Practices
which the Agency believes are
necessary to protect water quality from
improper management of animal wastes.
EPA would like to remind the public
that a federaiiy administered permit
must include compliance with some
federal programs which are not required
of state adminiatered permits (e.g. the
requirement of an environmental review
and possible Environmental Impact
Statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act).
Additionally. RegIon 8 Is only
authorized to permit facalitles In Texas.
Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico,
Region 6 oversees the program
administered by Arkansas.
8. Many conimenters from Oklahoma
were concerned with EPA’s authority to
regulate CAFO facilities in their state
because the state does not recognize
CAFOs as a point source. Many
commanters and producer groups
questioned why EPA would have the
need to regulate facilities which were
already sufficiently regulated under
existing state programs. Many
commenters stated that the permit was
re stringent than the state
uirements. These commenters further
quested that EPA simply adopt the
existing state program or permit Instead
of using the proposed general permit
and that the permit should contain only
the state water quality standards and
requirements.
Section 502 of the Clean Water Act
includes concentrated animal feeding
operations in the definition of point
sources to be regulated by EPA through
NPDES permits. This requirement of
federal law is reflected in the definitions
at 40 CFR 122.23 and Appendix B
which define concentrated njmnl
feedin 8 operations as a point source.
Section 301 of the Act clearly states
that EPA cannot be less stringent than
currently defined in the national
technolo ’ standards. Ilowever. It
should be noted that any more stringent
state treatment standards are required to
be included in NPDES permits by this
section of the Clean Water Act EPA
must, at a minimum, include the
technology standards established by the
Agency.
9. Many of the comments provided by
operators, producer groups. and state
agricultural agencies request that EPA
se the information and services
ilable through the USDA Soil
.isarvation Service and state
itgncuiture Departments and Extension
Services in the development of the
permit Many persoss expres..d the
opinion that the states had developed
: sound water quality management
programs and that RegIon 6 should use
them. Additionally, some onmment
suggested that EPA should consult with
the varying state agencies before
proposing any new programs In that
state.
During the comment period and In the
process of final decision making , EPA
has cx,nsulted with both the regu’ated
community end agricultural agendas In
all the States. In addition EPA has
consulted the expertise of the USDA
Soil Conservation Service and the U.&
Fish and Wildlife.
10. Several comments requested that
the general permits for the four States be
the same in regards to the requirements
in the permit to provide economic
equity. Conversely, many persons
expressed doubt about EPA’s ability to
provide a general permit which would
take into a ount the diversity of locale,
geography, and climatic conditions that
exist in Region 6. Some concerned
citizens question EPA’s use of a general
permit for and its ability to protect
water quality.
In developing this general permit.
Region 6 has tried to maintain
consistent requirements for each of the
four states. However, where more
stringent state standards exist and are
needed to protect water quality In that
state. specific state language as
requirements have been Included in the
general permit Region 8 has also tried
to include requirements which will be
protective of the environment while
allowing for site specific variation when
it is appropriate to provide adequate
envIronment protection. EPA has
included management practices and
pollution prevention requirements to
insure the protectiveness of the general
permit while at the same time has
allowed for site specific variation where
It can be documented as appropriate.
The permit provides for the protection
of water quality and site specific
flexibility.
11. A (ow commenters stated the
opinion that shorter, clearer permits
which were easier to comply with
would produce more compliance, and
therefore, provide more environmental
protection. Many commantera suggested
that EPA use incentives for
environmental protection instead of
burdensome regulations.
Region 6 has worked with the public.
the regulated producer groups. state and
federal agencies to Insure that this
permit will be protective of water
quality and will still be clear to the
permittee. In addition, Region 6 has
made a considerable effort through
workshops/puhlle hearings and this
responsiveness summary that the
regulated public understand the permit
conditions. Region 6 believes that the
regulated public will understand and
comply with the terms of this general
permit.
12. Many ownerioperators and
producer groups requested that the
permit be re-proposed as draft or
submitted to the CAFO industry to
review prior to final issuance. When
EPA makes substantial changes to the
permit requiz ments, the Agency may
elect to provide an additional public
comment period on the changes. EPA
has made only minor changes to the
draft permit. Region 6 has attempted to
make both the format and the Language
of the permit dearer. The requirements
of “no discharge”. Best Management
Practices and the documentation of a
Pollution Plan remain the same. EPA
will not be ie.propoeing a draft permit.
The permit will become final 30 days
after the data of publication in the
Federal Register.
13. Some person were concerned that
more government professionals would
have to-be hired at considerable salaries
to enforce the requirements in the
permit. Others suggested the EPA
should utilize the Idea proposed In
Texas to utilize state health inspectors
for water quality assessment Health
Inspector’s on average, visit these
facilities once per month.
Congress authorizes EPA’s operating
budget. EPA assumes the responsibility
of apportioning Its’ budget to best
address society ’s challenges to water
quality. Information from the States will
help Region 8 determine its inspection
priorities.
14. Many comments were received
expressing concern that many of the
water quality problems associated with
animal feeding operations were a result
of smaller, unregulated facilities. Many
commenters note that these guidelines
and requirements apply to the larger
facilities, and requested that EPA
develop regulatory guidelines for small
facilities which do not fall under the
regulation of this permit Several
concerned dt4 an . expressed the
opinion that the Boaque River Basin
watershed was over populated by dairy
and cattle operations; and that this
concantrations of operations was unique
to this watershed. These citizens
requested that this watershed be
excluded (rum the general permit and be
required to obtain Individual permits in
order to protect surface water and
ground water resources.
EPA agrees that, of the watershed,
which are impaired by animal wastes,
the malority of th. operations in those
-------
7614
Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 24 I Monday, February 8, 1993 / Notices
watersheds are not specifically Lsted as
point sources in 40 CFR 122.23. This
may indicate that nan-point source
facilities are significant contributors to
water quality impairxnenta. However
small facilities can be designated as a
“point source” by the Director after a
site assessment has been done, and can
be regulated using this permit or
another oernutting action.
EPA toes not believe that the Bosque
River watershed is unique in Region 8.
There are several watersheds in Region
8 which are neavily populated by
animal feeding operations and which
have impaired water quality. A review
of these watersheds with State water
quality officials indicates that the water
quality impairment Is likely to result of
many factors. These factors would
Include the number, types and sizes of
facilities, the nature of the watershed,
the climatic conditions of the area, as
well as, contributions from unregulated
facilities and non-compliance problems.
EPA believes that the first step in
protecting the water quality in these
watersheds and others in the Region
from water quality impairments from
ammal wastes is the issue of this general
permit. This will provide stringent
requirements which are protective of
water quality, and at the same time
provides EPA with a strong enforcement
tool against non-compliance. EPA
points out that the Issuance of this
general permit doe. not preclude the
Director from requiring facilities on the
Basque watershed to apply for an
individual permit Region 8 I a also
concerned about the animal waste
contributions of the non-point sources
on regional watersheds. For this reason
Region Bla an active participant of the
national workgroup to study EPA’s
activities and its regulation of CAFIJs.
15. Many commentere questioned
why Region 8 has “linked” the Storm
Water NPDES program with
Concentrated AnI ”,’ 1 Feeding
Operations (CAF Several operators
and producer asaodatlona believe that
CAFOs are exempt from the Storm
Water Program beceuss their Standard
Industrial mflcetion (SIC) code is
0211. Several commenters requested
clarification of the reference to the
Storm Water Program which requires --
facilities covered by the program to ‘at
a minimum obtain coverage under a
general permit promulgated for storm
water”.
The regulations which were
published November 18, 1990 (55 FR
47990) require specific industries to
apply for NPDES permits which cover
storm water discharges. The final
regulation listed 14 categories of
industries which have “storm waler
discharges associated with industrial
activity” which require permitting.
Category 1 of the storm water
regulations included all facilities which
have National Effluent Guidelines,
Feedlots (facilities with concentrations
of 1000 animal units or more) have
National Effluent Guidelines listed at 40
Q R 412. These facilities were required
to apply for their storm water related
discharges on or before October 1, 1992
or gain coverage under a permit which
has been issued to cover storm water
discharge requirements. EPA has
Included the technology requirements
published for storm water discharges in
the genera.! permit for CAFOs. This
genera! permit includes permitting
requirements based an the effluent
guidelines for process waters (all
produced waters and runoff from the
areas of animal confinement) earl
Pollution Prevention Plan to address
requirements for all storm water related
discharges. This general permit satisfies
all permitting requirements for the
feedlot Industry and CAFOs.
18. Several comments received
recp.iested a definition of storin water
runoff. Storm water runoff includes
runoff caused by rainfall, snowmelt. or
drainage which flows overland instead
of percolation into the soils due to
saturation. This term Is no longer
Included in the CAFO general permit.
17. Many commentars who
understood the coverage and technology
requirements of the storm water
program were concerned that the storm
water permitting strategy as outlined by
EPA would cause storm water minimum
requirements to be in the process of
change for several years, and that this
would require that the regulated public
under this program to be “shooting at a
moving target” when trying to construct
or meet permitting requirements.
It is true that the requirements for
storm water discharges from many
industries are still being developed.
However, the technology standard
applied to feedlot operations is very
protective of water quality and has been
In place since 1974.
18. Many commenters noted that the
economic analysis for the national
effluent guidelines was done twenty
years ago. Several persons stated that
the angina! cost of construction was
estimated at %24,000-28,000, and that
the cost of constructing the same
structures today are much higher
(estimated at $100,000). Many persons
requested that an economic analysis be
done to determine the cost of the
proposed permit requirements. The
regulated public expressed concern that
the cost of compliance with the permit
technology and recordkeeptng
requirements would be a serious burden
on the family owned facilities. Several
commenters noted that the cost of the
Texas permitting program had cost
dairies up to $200 per cow. They
estimated that the requirements in the
proposed permit would cost dairies
$300 per cow. Many persons expressed
the opinion that the state regulatory
programs were adequate; and that a
federal permit was duplication and a
waste of tax dollars. A few commenters
point out that the Labor Statistics Board
noted the agriculture industry as having
a 5% inaease in employment while all
other Industries have dropped. These
commenters state that agribusiness
supports many employees end related
businesses, and an economic impact on
the daisy industry will have an
economic impact on the national
economy. Commenters asked If the
Agency had taken into e unt the
effect this permit would have on small
businesses. These commenters
reminded EPA of the current
Administrations efforts to reduce the
regulatory burden on small business
They explain that this additional cost
doing business would drive up costs
and have a detrimental effect on the
nations economy.
Challenges to the requirements
established In effluent guidelines must
be made when the guidelines are
publicly noticed. In Issuing a perm ittinE
action, EPA is under no obligation to
defend either the technology or the
economic analysis done In establishing
an eidstfng effluent guideline or new
source performance standard, Howe’ e ,
Region 6 has provided information in
this res onsivenesa summary which
comp81 s the current status of the
economic impact to the economic
analysis which was published with the
guidelines. Region 8 has also made an
attempt to include the Impact of the
required Best Management Practices e. d
Pollution Prevention Plan, The July 22,
1992 draft notice summarized EPA’s
belief that this permit would be mere
economically beneficial to the regulated
community than the Individual
application process.
The Clean Water Act requires that
EPA consider a “no discharge”
technology where it is feasible when
establishing effluent guidelines for
industries. In the economic analysis that
was done in the early 1970’s it was
established that the waste products
generated by concentrated animal
feeding operations were reusable
resources and need not be dischargea
into waters of the U.S. The original
economic analysis for construction ol
the basic technology was done when the
BAT requirements for the national
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 24 I Monday. February 8, 1993 / Notices
7615
effluent guidelines (40 Q R part 412)
were published in February of 1974.
Several commenters indicated that the
original economic analysis we. no
Longer realistic to determine economic
impacts on Concentrated Anintel
Feeding Operations. In addition, several
cominenters felt that the cost of these
draft requirements would be so
burdensome as to force them to
discontinue their operations. Several
commenteze felt that the economic
impact of thscnntinuing these
operations would be even mare severe
for the communities in which they
operate. In response, the Agency
performed updated cost estimates (using
November 1992 dollar values) for the
improvements required for various
concentrated animiil feeding operations.
using installation and cost Information
provided by the Soil Conservation
Service, Tarleton State University
institute for Applied Research. and the
Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
These comparisons indicate that the
costs originally developed were
reasonable and realistic for today Table
I gives a summary of those cost
estimates, with a range of approximate
values, from basic, minimum
requirements to full Installation of all
best available technology, for various
rperations.
TARLE 1—APPROXIMATE COST ESTIMATES
FOR WASTE STORAGE PONDS, Divui-
SIONS D MONrroRIr G
I o of oçer-
s ion
c,2 ret -
a
Co t
sirs 090(aion
Dairy
Beef ...
S e . ....
Poultry
200hse*—
*20.000.
300 hseO—
140.000
750 hsed—
$4 000.
9.000 aid—
*85 .000.
700 hsed—
365000.
1.00OheeO— .
370.000.
2.500 head —
$6 000
100.000 bIrds.—
$165000
The cost estimates developed when
the original regulations were
promulgated in 1974 were
approximately 324,000 to 328.000 for
installation of a comparable “no
discharge technology” type of system.
These costs established in 1974, when
extrapolated to 1992 dollars using the
standard Engineering News Record cost
indexes fbr construction of this lype of
waste management facility, increased to
aoproximately $98,000. The cost
estimates shown in Table I were
developed from current cost information
(1992 dollars) for these types of
icilities. This comparison clearly
cows that the cost estimates are well
.jithin the original estimates for the
,nstallntion of the required technology.
Information has been received from
other environmental professionals.
currently engaged in providing these
services, on the costs associated with
Improvements based on the
requirements of the draft regulations.
This information indicates that these
coat estimates are within the range of
rnwrnahle and realistic costs for these
types of av.ILable technology. One
report prepared by an individual had
ca s for specific items that were up to
ten times the currant costs for these
available service ., and had many items
listed In their costs estimates (e.g. on-
8lte dewatering equipment, application
prepared by an engineer, plastic covers
for manure pile., etc.) that are not
required under the requirements of this
final permit. Even with all of these sidle
unnecessary costs added into the
estimate, the economic impact was an
increase of less than 4 percent over
current costs under existing state
regulations.
PA provides economic analyses in
establishing a requirement of a new
technology. A is not required to
provide an economic analysis for the
best management practice. (BMP’s) or
recordkeeptng included in permits to
insure the compliance with effluent
limitations and a record of that
compliance. However, Region 6
recogniees that the cost of compliance
with the management practices and
recordkeepmg requirements of the
permit constitute an additional cost to
the permittee. Region 8 has made a
sincere iffort to reduce the burden of
these requirements by reducing andlor
modifying many of these where water
quality will not be compromised.
The pollution prevention plan
required by the final permit will have
several components, including a site
map of tt facility (existing maps or
U S C.S. maps may be used), a li.t of the
potential pollutant sources, size of
retention capacity and site specific
factors, construction specifications,
information on direct hydrologic
connections, land app lication rates and
calculations, waste handling
procedures. and recordkeeping
requirements. Cost estimates provided
by environmental professionals for
drawing this information together and
developing a pollution prevention plan
range begin at approximately $2500 and
increase, depending on the amount of
work involved. However. theie
estimates were based on the Pollution
Prevention Plan (PPP) which was
published with the proposed permit
which Included more documentation
than the PPP In the final permit.
Region 6 believes that some of the
documentation and all of the
re dkaeplng can be prepared by the
operator at litil. espense. Much of this
Information is already required by state
specific programs, and therefore the
pollution prevention plan is a v h1de to
compile the pertinent Information and
determine the additional measures that
will be required to reach compliance
with this final permit There is no
requirement that a Professional Engineer
prepare the pollution prevention plan. It
may be prepared by a representative of
the Soil Conservation Service, an
Piiglneer or other environmental
professional, or, in many cases, the
facility operator himaelL The pollution
prevention p 1 an must Include all
components listed In the requirements
of this final permit, much of which will
be provided by the facility operator
anyway. The facility operator may
choose to compile this Information and
develop the pollution prevention plan
himself, thus reducing the cost even
further. The recordkeeping requirements
are for documentation of ongoing
implementation of this final permit, and
should be done by the facility operator
and staff. The cost of additional outside
profesalon.al, should not be required to
provide this information. Several
commentere Indicated that no other
state or region had requirements as sthct
as those required In the draft permit. In
response, the Agency believes that the
requirements listed In the draft permit
reflect the regulations as they are now
In place. and as they have been since
the national effluent guidelines were
promulgated in 1974. Many of the best
management practices and pollution
prevention plan requirements reflect the
best technology available as developed
In 1991 in the storm water program.
In addition, there are several states
that have requirements as strict or even
stricter than the minimum requirements
set forth in the draft permit. In a report.
“Livestock and Poultry Waste
Management Problems and Solutions.”
prepared for the Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, in
May 1991. summaries of several state
programs indicate that Ohio, Oregon
and Florida all have pmgi ams that
reflect more stringent requirements.
Additional states, such as California and
Kansas, also have requirements as strict
or stricter than the Agencys
requirements for this permit.
While EPA does not wish to place an
economic burden on the meat, poultry.
and dairy industries, it must remind the
regulated public that permitting
responsibility and the retention
technology for these uidusthes were
established as regulation. almost 20
years ago. Those facilities which remain
-------
7616
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday. February 9, 1993 / Notices
unpermitted and without the retention
capaaty to retain the 25 year. 24 hour
storni event I vIolation of
federal law since 1976 or forth. life of
their business, which ever came later.
These fecilitles which have been
noncoinpLant with the requirements of
the regulauona and the Clean Water Act
have enjoyed an economic benefit over
other facilities which have complied
with the established requirements.
19. Many commenters expressed
concerns over how this permit conforms
with the Paperwork Reduction Act arid
the Regulatory F1e db1lity Act. Some
cominenters questioned how the Agency
could state that this permit would be
less paperwork and how it would asate
an economic benefit for the regulated
community. In addition, several
commenters were concerned about the
effect of this permit on small businesses.
EPA’s action In today’s permit does
not require EPA to perform additional
activities under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The Agency notes that.
while some paperwork is required in
order to c eet the requirements of this
final permit, it is substantially less than
the amount of paperwork required to
file an application and comply with an
individual National Permit Discharge
fllminntion System (NPDES) permit.
Permits are required for these facilities
under the Clean Water Act of 1972. and
the two vehicles available for permitting
are this General Permit and an
individual permit Individual permitting
is very time-consuming for both the
applicant and the Agency, and requires
much more paperwork. effort and
expense for the applicant In addition.
the documentation requirements of the
General Permit for pollution prevention
activities are the minimum acceptable
requirements to the Agency for any
industrial permit for CAFOs and would
also be included In any Individual
permit issued for a concentrated animal
feeding operation. Thus, compliance
with this final permit does reflect the
principles of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 at seq.. as well as
providing an economic benefit in the
form of reduced costs for application
and compliance. The Information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submissions made for the NPDES
effluent guidelines and the storm water
programs under provisions of the Clean
Water Act.
Section of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, requires that the Agency assess the
impact of rules on small entitles. The
regulatory definition of Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations
promulgated by EPA In 1976 (40 CFR
part 122. appendIx B) addressee
medium and large operatIons (300
slaughter cattle. 200 dairy cattle. 750
swine, 150 homes, 3000 sheep or lambs.
16,000 turkeys, 9000 laying hens or
broilers, 1500 ducks, or 300 anImal
units, or more). Therefore, this permIt
excludes small businesses with
operations of less than thee, numbers of
animals, unless spedfically designated
by the Director. The Director would
evaluate these factors as well as
potential impacts to water quality of
surface waters of the U.S. or significant
contributions of pollutants to those
waters, in the designation process.
B. Comments on Part I of the General
Pemut—Coverage and Ehgibthty
1. From the comments received it is
apparent that many persons may be
confused about the definition of a
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
as a point source of pollutants requinog
an MPDES permit. Some comments
questioned if pasture areas were subject
to regulation.
The regulatory definition found at 40
CFR 122.23 and part 122 appendix B
encompasses all animal operations
which have industrial characteristics.
The definition “concentrated animal
feeding operation” includes the number
of animals confined; the length of time
the animals are confined at the facility;
and the type of the confinement The
definition does not include areas of the
facility where ctops or forage a’ope are
maintained throughout the growing
season. The definition is included in the
Part VU. of the general permit.
2. Several comments received voiced
disagreement with the appropriateness
of the phrase “confined in pasture
operations”
Confined In pasture operations
represents the restriction of pastured
animals by a fence, wall, natural
impasse or other such barrier to prevent
these animals from free movement off of
property or pasture. Confinement of
animals on pasture lands are not
regulated under this permit. This
general permit regulated the pollutants
from areas where animals are confined
in concentrated situations.
3. Many persons requested that EPA
explain the significance of the “Alta
Varde’ court decision, and how that
relates to the exemption from I ’IPDES
requirements for those facilities which
do not discharge. Some persona believe
that the decision in this case removes
the incentive for facilities to “over
build” to avoid permitting
requirements, and therefore, the extra
environmental protection of a system
that truly never discharges. Several
commenters believed that the retention
capanity design to contain the 25 year.
24 hour storm event excluded a facility
from P4PI)ES permitting requirements
it is not within the scope of EPA’s
authority to determine the significance
ofthecourtsnilingintheAita Verde
case. In the Alto Verde case the courts
ruled that a retention structure winch
wu built to retain all runoff from the 25
year, 24 hour storm event was not
exempted from obtAining an NPDES
permit, and that all discharges from
such a facility would be considereo .n
violation unless in compliance with an
NPDES permit Rmi wt6 believes the
Alto Verde case corroborates the
explanation given by Region in the
preamble of the proposed permit
published July 22. 1992 (57 FR 324Th)
Where a facility has built a retention
system which has the capacity to rela.n
the 25 year. 24 hour storm event, and
the facility maintains that capacity
properly, any discharges due to the
o currence of extreme rainfall eveztg
will not be a violation of the Clean
Water Act ilthoso discharges are in
compliance with an NPDES periml The
regulations at 40 G R part 122 appeoaix
B state that if a facility discharges oclv
in the event of the 25 year. 24 hour
storm event, then the facility is oat
considered to be a point source
discharger. This means the only
discharges which can be discharged
without violating the CWA are thcse in
compliance with an NPDES permit. or
as a result of the statistical event which
happens only about once every 25 veers
The Court in Alto Verde ruled tflat the
design capacity of the retention
structure is irrelevant in deteroun cg
Clean W4ter Act jurisdlcncn. It is r.ot
possibt For a facility top with
certainty the design capacity needed to
retain the volume from largest secession
of chronic rainfall events that may occ r
between 25 year, 24 hour events
(approximately a 25 year period)
4. Many persons requested
clarification on whether the definiucn
includes stockyards fadlitles. These
commenters contend that these
operations do not generate much css1es
and that the requirements in the permit
would put an economic hardship an
these businesses. Several commer ters
requested that EPA add the word
“consecutive” to the reference to 45
days in the definition. One comrwnt€r
requested that the definition be chazged
to include facilities on which anima s
were fed and maintained for 29 da .s c,.t
of a 12 month period.
The definition requires EPA to
regulate facilities through NPDES
permitting if animals are on the ‘acuity
for 45 days or more out of a 12 month
period. Region 6 believes strongly that
-------
Federal Ragisser I Vol.58, No. 24 I Monday, February 8. 1993 1 NotIces
— Cl
/u
it is clearly the Intent of the regulation
•o Include feedyards and stock yardi
‘uch have animals maintained and fed.
4sdaysayeratthefadlltiesltls
irrelevant whether they are the same
aninials for the 45 day duration. or
whether ft is a consecutive 45 days. It
is beyond the scope of Region 6’s
authority to amend a promulgated
regulation.
5 Many persons and producer groups
requested clanficatlon on the terms
“continuous flow watering systems”
and “liquid manure handling systems”
to determine which poultry operations
will be subject to permitting under
NPDES.
Poultry facilities which have n
discharge at all to waters of the U.S. are
not point sources under the regulatory
definition (40 CFR 122.23 and 122
appendix B) and are not required to
obtain NPDES permits. This describes /
poultry houses which are excluslve, y
under roof, which have no liqwd 9r
fluid wastewatars, and which removes
or distributes all solid wastes and
manure to proper agricultural uses
shortly after collection. However,
Region 6 believes that facilities which
are described In the regulatory
definition as a point source. i.e.. have a
process water discharge, must have an
NPDES permit. This includes those
alities which stockpile or land -
.sposa of manure such that rainwater
or the adjacent watercourse removes
significant amounts of pollutants to
waters of the U.S. These facilities have.
in fact, established a a,ide liquid
manure handling system and are
considered to be point source
dischargers if the number of nnimnlg
confined at the facility meets the
regulatory definition of concentrated
animal feeding operations.
6. Many parsons supported the
concept of general permit coverage with
the no submittal of a notice of intent to
the Director. However. many persons.
state and federal agenmes expressed
concern that EPA would not have a
record of the perniittees for enforcement
of the permit. Many commenters stated
that if EPA was not going to track the
permittees directly, it should not
impose the program and leave CAFO
regulation up to the states.
1 egion 6 agrees that a Notice of Intent
is an appropriate tool in confirming
which facihues are covered by the terms
and conditions of the general permit.
Region 6 is including a NO! form as
appendix B of the general permit. EPA
believes this will enhance the Region’s
-iility to track and enforce the terms of
a general permit.
7 Many persons requested that
facilities which have applied to Region
6 for an NP1DES permit prior to the
issuance of the general permit be
granted coverage under the permit when
is Issued. And, that the coverage
extend retroactively back to the datçthe
application was submitted.
In acoordance with Part LB.3. of the
general permit facilities which have
applied for an NPDES permit will be
covered automatically by this permit
However. EPA cannot extend the
authority of an NPDES permit into the
past end is not able to cover facilities
from, the time of application. The Clean
Water Act requires that any discharge be
In acoordance with an NPDES permit.
This is why a permit application is to
be filed 180 days prior to discharging
into waters of the U.S.
8. Many comments expressed concern
that pet mit coverage was only for a five
yeaflerm. Facility owners and bankers
stated that it would be impossible for
facilities to obtain loans on a facility if
Its environmental requirements could
change In five years. Sections
402(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act and
U.S. Code section 1342(’b)(l)(B) requires
that permits under NPDES be issued for
a fixed term not to exceed five (5) years.
Federal regulations found at 40 O ’R
122.46(a) clearly state that NPDES
permits are effective fur a fixed term not
to exceed 5 years. EPA can require that
a permit be renewed more frequently.
but cannàt extend the duration beyond
the 5 years. All NFDES perm.ittees,
which Include many different categories
of Industries, have addressed the
budgetary concerns of meeting permit
limitations which may change after a 5
year term since the inception of the
NPDES program In 1972.
9. Several comments were received
regarding the coverage of duck facilities
after 1974. The commentera felt this
only added confusion to the
requirements and further, that they had
no knowledge of any duck facilities In
any of the four states covered by the
permit EPA has reason to believe that
there are some duck breeding facilities
In the Region. In addition, this general
permit will provide requirements for
any new facilities which may begin
operation in the future.
10. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
requested that EPA participate in a
meeting to discuss and evaluate
environmental impact data gathered by
the Fish and Wildlife Service. While
being supportive of the general permit.
Fish and Wildlife suggested additional
permitting requirements to insure the
protection of endangered and threatened
species and their habitat.
EPA met with and discussed data
obtained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and discussed several
permitting requirements to Insure
Impacts to endangered and threatened
species were addressed. RegIon 6
included several requirements to the
final permit to Insure compliance with
the Endangered and Threatened Species
Act. No facility can gain coverage under
this general permit If there would be
any adverse impacts to an endangered
or threatened species or their habitat
Several permit requirements were added
In response to comments by several
entities and agencies. It was the Best
Professional Judgement of EPA that
these requirements be included in the
permit to insure that all impacts be
properly addressed. Among these are: 1.
The permittee will immediately report
any fish or bird kills to the Fish and
Wildlife office nearest to the facility: 2.
A site specific rain gauge will be
required to establish permit compliance;
3. NotIce of Intent be required of the
facilities to be covered: and 4. The use
of pasture or crop lands to “filter”
discharges prior to entering a water of
the U.S. he allowed as a msnagement
practice for those facilities which are In
danger of Imminent discharge, even in
the event of saturated conditions. EPA
believes that the conditions of the final
permit will be effective In preventing
discharges and management practices
from affecting fish and wildlife,
including endangered species.
11. Many persons were confused with
the terms used in the Agency’s decision
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (ND’A); and terms used in
the coverage portion of the general
permit to describe the requirement of an
environmental review pnor to coverage
for new facilities with Performance
Standards for New Pollutant Sources (40
GB Past 412). The terms commented on
were: environmental review;
environmental assessment or
environmental evaluation; and
environmental Impact statement
The term “environmental review”
will be Included In the permits
definition section to give a regulatory
definition of the process the Agency
uses In Its evaluation under the National
Environmental Policy Act. The terms
“review”, “assessment”, and
“evaluation” are distinct phases
associated with the NEPA process, their
meaning being the same as would
appear In a common dictionary.
However, the following definitions are
provided to clarify the terms as used by
EPA.
An environmental review is defined at
40 GB 6.101(c) as the process whereby
an evaluation of the environmental
information provided by the permit
applicant Is undertaken by EPA to
identify and evaluate the related
-------
7618
Federal ga l - / Vol. , N e.. 24 / Monday, February 8 i9 / NM1 ”..t
nviroomeiital Imp 4 . to d eem. II
the, will been lflgI I&. 5 Impari tothi
lunmsot hum the facility. The
EPA Is required by law oc hiri this
environmental review prior to _____
any permit to. Ilty with New Seur
have been through the ragnisiary review
process and apply to any facility
onnatructed after the standard became a
regulation. The Agency Is prohlláted
from permitting any discharge with new
source standards unless th. review h
been dome and a finding has been made.
The tones envn’cnmeiggj orsesameni
and envUonzner zI .vuluatfon as ’
defined at 40 R 6.105(d) uc la,
public doaiments for which EPA Is
responsible and are prepared to provide
suffiaent data and analysis to determine
whether an EavuvnmenwJ Impact
Statement (US) or Finding of No
Significant Impact (FNSIor FONSI) Ii
required. When the environmental
review Indicates that there are no
signiflrm t impacts anticipated or when
the project Is altered to slim in,de any
uigiuficant adverse Impacts. $ FNSI shall
be Issued and made available to the
public. The FNSI shall list any
r!utIgeiion moasmes necessary to make
the r mmended alternative
envlionmentally acceptable. The public
Is allowed to comment en the Agencya
finding, and to provide fn(nrinetion
either supporting the FNSL erie the
cenDaly doing the p it public
comment period.
The Agency. however. may determine
that It must prepare a Notice of let set
and En onnieatd Impact Statement.
This process Is deemibed at 40 ( R
6.105(e). When the environmental
review Indicates that a significant
Impact may occur and itigniflr I
adverse impacts cannot be aHmini.tsd
by making changes to the project, a
notice of intent to prepare an EIS shall
be published In the Fedomi Eagless.
Draft and final US shall be prepared
and disseminated. The final EIS shill
list any mitigation meesures necawary
to make the alternative environmentally
acceptable.
U’A would like to r.’Ubiui operators
that the decisions desathed shove must
‘go to Public Notice for a minimum of 30
days pilot to a final ‘ l’ cfsien being
made. The entire pr can take
several months to complete. An
Environmental assessment and review
should be initIated by the permittee
several months in advance of
constructing a new faailty or expansion
of a facility to over 100 anImal units
(part a. of the regulatory definition at 40
GR peat 122 appendIx B or. peat a. of
the regulatory definition that is
Loduded in Part VU. of this permit).
12. Many p ew i m .jied en the
need fl on Envlr a1 Impact
. tg*anianl far discharges from CAFOe.
Some mnwf questlomd the need far
en Enyfronmargal Im Statement
(US) Indicating the the of en EIS
would piec, a — n ml herders
on the regulated HH y p.rw
— . .- that the
burden would dhowursg. new
biiuinuseen or expansion of existing
The Agency Is required by law to
prepare en US where It finds that
gnifi snt environmental Impacts may
ocour sea result of the new lity. In
this caw, all CAFO, with 1000 iml, .l
units or mote (part a. of the regulatory
definition that Is Included In Part VU. of
this pennat) that have hen d
since February of 1974 are considered to
be the “new wi ” which have new
source par mance standards. The EPA
Is mandated to seguI. . in accordance
with the authority provided to It by
Congress end La not authorined to
d veat the law regenilass of its
mom1c impact.
13. Some comments expressed
dI eemerg with the Finding Of No
SI niRrnnt impact which was p th1ith.d
with the proposed general pennil Some
of thee. m—ts cited water quality
reports for the Erath and Bosqus County
aress. The_ ‘ tats believed that
dime to the lvInrmi of C_A fz
this ems the wsL quality Impacts from
discharges from the rat marst
uctw would constitute a dgIIIfir UVt
— a r id that CAFOs on the Boequ.
River Ossin watmubed s id be
evaluated in en Esivimeanootsi Impact
Statement.. Several letters expressed the
opmwo that EPA had not sufficiently
walnasad Lbs potential impacts in this
watershed, and had made judgmants
based on insufficient study of the
known wets quality problems In the
ares. in addition. these commalitlire
stated the opinion that EPA ’s use of a
general permit to regulate all CAFOS
was inappropriate. These commentass
believ, that Erath County. Terres should
be excluded from the general permit. It
was the stated opinion of these
conunentera that EPA had not
adequately addressed water quality.
drinking water’ aquifers, closure of
facilities, and odor controL
While EPA agrees with meniers
that animal west have had an Impact
on this watershed (see answer A. it),
Region 6 believes that the Finding of No
Significant lmpsct is appropnate for the
facilities which are already in operation
and which will be compliant with the
permit requirements. The permit
requirements are considered to mitigate
for any water quality impacts once the
new --
der’J,. . .rd to inaumwenenvli ..m.antally
fa 41arb _ and the efflner Hmrta a
no d1schiarg take l unt the sta
water quality standards hr the receivu
ea
In preparing the proposed permit. a
list of possible Inip tia from CAFO
facilities was compiled from vanous
sources to determine the potential
environmental finparli from
conce trutud Animal feeding arid
ma1n ance op .t1on activities.
Among the ,, lmpiwts arm (1) Si ace
wets p lity impacte from dIartharges
and the handling of the w s
generated at the site; (2) groundwater
impacts i used by seepage from the
retention lagoons and over-epplication
of the wastes to Iarid (3) endangerment
to public health by the con’aminatmon of
drinking water by the animal wastes
which ar e genenstad at thee. tadUUes
(4) public health mneance caused by
odors and the resulting attraction of
Insects to the ares (3) adverse ffct to
endangered species and other wildlife
by th. location or by the land
application, disposal, or management of
the animal westes; and (6) air quality
Impacts from the nthbutIon of
m’sban . and other gaas. which are
asmoated with the maaag it and
storage (jan&mal wsstes.
Thesi Impacta were ev,.iuat.d in the
development phaa , of wntl.ng the drafi
— permit The — uui
proposed in July l1u 4 n . _ ri many
rspnr te to mitigate eromitrol the
enviromnumsal Impacts meodated with
CAFOs. Riuaiid on the infni . .tlon
mentioned eheve, the Agency evaluated
agrfnulhiral inhrmatlon, state water
quality toveritmias and re a,rta . arid
natln a1lnfrii, ,iitIon on water quality
problems assor a nd with animal waste
management. ft w the finding of the
EnvUommemtej Services Division at
RegIonS, that the conditions of the
permit and time effluent guidelines
provided adequate reqnizemants to
control. er TTthlgiItls all significant
impacts hens Cozuemtrst.d Animal
Feeding Opallona which ware already
constructed arid operating.
It Is the finding of RegionS that the
most frequent water quality and
environmental impacts are those
associated with the land disposal of
wastes generated by CAFO facilities.
EPA has included specific requirements
In the proposed permit to regulate the
waste disposal activities. Additionally.
the anvizonmentaj ment indicates
that uv rflows from the wastewater
contmnmeuta be cnmralled by
frequent removal of i nranIratad
wastewaters and diversion of rain
waters. Also, discharges from properly
-------
Federal Raqjjs / VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8. 1993 I Notices
operated fadlitle, contain significantly
less pollutants than a facility which has
been improperly operated and wastes
have been allowed to acoumujate in the
retention structure. Region 6 believes
that it is the accumulation of wastes
which would result In a mare
concentrated wd &equent discharge
that would cause envixonmenmi
damage. The proposed permit includes
the necessary mitigation recordkeeping
and monitoring to determine if the
discharges are in compliance with the
permit requirements for proper
operation and management.
The Clean Water does not give EPA
the specific authority to address ground
water and facility closure requirements
for CAFO (see answer D.25. for a
discussion of the closure requirements).
However. Region 6 believes that the
pollution prevention and required
management practices under the permit
are protective of ground water quality.
To the extent that there is protection
under more stringent State statutes, the
permit protects drinking water. The
permit provides stringent requirements
which are protective of water quality,
and at the same time provides EPA with
a strong enforcement tool against non-
compliance.
Region 6 Is aware that these facilities
have contributed to significant water
quality problems in areas where these
facilities are concentrated on a
particular watershed. EPA has
considered all available information to
determine If more stringent permit
conditions are needed. Region 6
believes that the water quality
impairments in the Bosque River Basin
are mostly attributable to non-point
sources and non-compliance with the
current state program. It Is the finding
of this Agency that facilities which are
operating in compliance with this
general permit will not have a
significant Impact on the environment.
It is the determination of this Agency
that the permit conditions of “no
discharge” coupled with the required
best management practices and
pollution prevention will be protective
of State water quality standards. If
facilities covered by this generalpermit
are found to contribute to water quality
impairments the permit may be
reopened to Include more stringent
program elements, or the facilities may
be required to apply for individual site
specific water quality based permits.
14. One coinmentor requested that
EPA place sthct siting requirements In
the permit which would eliminate all
CAFOs In the Region.
EPA does not have the authonty to
reqwre a six mile separation from all
pnvate residences and public buildings
and areas, nor does the Clean Water Act
provide the authority to EPA to
elimInate business. The authority under
which EPA operates, is limited to the
regulation of discharges of pollutants to
surface waters of the U.S.
15. Many comments were received
requesting EPA define such term, as
‘alternative general permit” “Individual
permlt” nd “this general permit”
which are used in Part LI). of the
pneral permit. These terms were In the
proposed general permit preamble, fact
Sheet, and permit. The section of the
permit containing the bulk of these
terms has been restructured for
clarification. EPA regrets any confusion
about the regulatory language In this
part of the general permit Where ever
the term ‘this permit’ appears It means
this general permit which was proposed
on July 22, 1992. General permit Is a
term which descubes a permit which is
intended to cover a large group of
permittees with one permit; this avoids
the administrative and resource burdens
involved In individual permit Issuance
Alternative general permit, alternative
NPDES general permit, and individual
NPDES permit all refer to a permitting
action separate from this general permit
which may be required in the vent that
coverage by this permit Is not adequate.
Simply stated thi, provision means
that EPA has the authority, based on Its
judgement , to determine the
appropriateness of this general permit
with regards to any particular facility. If,
based on site specific conditions, or
waterquality concerns, EPA believes
that this general permit does not
provide adequate requirements, EPA
can require the facility to apply for an
individuhi permit, or a different general
permit M application for an Individual
permit requires site specific Information
so that more site specific permit can
be developed which addresses the water
quality concerns at that Individual
facility. Or, It may be the determination
of EPA that a different general permit
would provide more appropriate
controls for the facility, If this Is the
case, the Director could require the
facility owner/operator to apply for, and
than comply with the other general
pe t
C. Comments on Part fi of the GenemJ
Pen’rnt—Effluent Limitation&
1. Many comments received requested
Information on the technical
information used to develop the Effluent
Guidelines for foedlots, and the basis for
the application of these guidelines to
concentrated animal feeding operations.
The Information requested Is contained
In the Development Document for
Effluent Urnitatlon, and New Source
7819
Performance Standards—Peedjot Point
Source Category. PublIshed January
1974. ThIs document I .. no longer for
sale through the U.S , Government
Printing Office, but can be reviewed at
a Covenimezit Repository Ubrary. Most
large city libraries, State libraries, and
University libraries provide an area for
government documents, and as such are
Government Repository libraries. In
preparation of a permit for feedlots EPA
must, at a minjmrum Include the
technology requirements established in
the effluent guidelines. The effluent
guidelines apply to all CAFOs of 1000
animal units or more (feedlots), Region
8, In preparation of the proposed
permit, reviewed possible permitting
requirements which would be protective
of State water quality standards. It was
the best professional judgement of EPA
that the effluent guidelines would be
minimum technology requirement
which couldbe placed in a general
permit which would be protective of
water quality. Therefore, EPA ha,
applied the effluent guideline
technology to all facilities covered
under the general permit. While this
may appear to some persons to be
placing a more stringent requirement on
the facihitie, which have less than 1000
animal units, these smaller facilities
have the permitting option of applying
for a site specific Individual permit It
Is the belief of Region 6 that the cost of
other treatment options which would be
protective of water quality would be
more expensive than the requirements
In the general permit. It is the opinion
of Region 6 that this general permit
provides the most cost effective
permitting option for facilities under
WOO animal units which are subject to
Clean Water Act requirements.
2. Several comments receIved
requested that the terms BAT and BC ! ’
be defined in the general permit. BAT,
Best Available Technology applies to
the control of to,dc pollutants and
pollutants which are not classified as
toidc or conventional pollutants. BAT
control of these pollutants is achievable
through application of production
processes and available methods,
systems, and techniques. For this permit
the required BAT, as desaibed In 40
Q R 412.13, requires that there be no
discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters. The
design standard requires the retention of
all wns pwaters and runoff from a 25
year, 24 hour storm event, and the
proper operation and maintenance of
the retention capadty. BC ’!’, Best
Practicable Contiol Technology applies
to the control of conventional
pollutants, The limitation, established
-------
7 2O
F.daI Ri r / VoL 58, No. 24 I Monday, February 8, 1993/ Nod
In 40 R 413.22 dflRi e the quality
quantity of poUutants or pollutant
properties, which may b. discharged by
a point source (CAFO) sub4ec to the
provisions of this subpart after
application of BCr. Th. BAT
requirement of “no dlschargs’ meats all
BCT standards for the control of
canventional pollutants. EPA has
Included a definition of these terms In
Lb. dafln Uon section of the general
permit (pan
3. Several cnmmenhl were received
requesting a d finItt 0 ala 25-year. 24-
hour at event This term Is defined
In part V I I of this final permIt 25-year.
24-hour storm event Is defined as the
maxImum 24-hour preapitatlon event
with a probable recunance interval of
once In 25 years. as defined by the
National Weather Service In TOChIUCa I
Paper Number 40. “Rainfall Frequency
Atlas of the United Stales”. May 1961.
and subsequent amendments or
equivalent regional or state rainfall
probability information developed
therefrom. This means that this storm
event has a probability of occurring
once every 25 years and Includes the
maximum predpitatloo occurring over a
24 hour period.
4. Several persons requested that EPA
define “chronic or ‘catutrophic”
yninhull events. The terms chronic and
catastrophic nlnfnll elJPsI r In the
effluent guidelines requirement at 40
part 412.
These refer to events which may
result In an overflow of the required
retention structure. Catastruphic rainfall
conththms would mean any single event
which would total the volume of the 25
year. 24 hour storm event. Catastrophic
conditions could also Include tornado,,
hurricanes or other catastrophic
conditions which could cause overflow
due to winds or mei 4tan1rid damage.
Chronic rainfall would be that eerie. of
wet weather conditions which would
not Fo nide oppatunity fer dewatering
and which total the volu of the 2.5
year. 24 how storm s, .
5. Several concerned war.
confused about the required technology
established In the National Effluent
Guidelines.. It I, Lb. undstandlng of
thee. r1t17 ,,n that properly sized
facilities should discharg. only in the
event of the 25 year. 24 hour storm
event. The effluent gu1d 1n e establish
a requirement of “no discharge of
waste water pollutants from the
facility ’. However, the guideline
provides for rio limitation to be pieced
on overflows from retention structures
which are properly conitns ted and
operated to maintain the capacity of the
25 year. 24 hour storm event. If chronic
or catastrophic ratnfall cause an
o flow frem a facility which has beers
operated to , n.titlatn the required
volume cap ty. then that overflow Is
in compliance with effl t guidelines
end this
A facility which only discharges In
the case of the actual 25 year. 24 hour
storm event Is excluded fr the
deRnitlon of riw,anUeted intm l
feeding operation (40 R 122.23 and
part 122 appendIx B) and Is, therefore,
not considered a point source discharger
subject to NPDES permit requirements
under the Ad.
6. Several nnlrnanter$ ware
concerned that the ? 4 stnnal Effluent
Standards for CAFOa were more
stringent than the State Standards. The
Clean Water Act requires that States set
water quality standards. Where the..
state standards are more stringent than
the national technology requirements,
EPA is required to use the more
stringent standard. EPA cannot be less
stringent than the national technology
standard In the development of NPDES
permits. (Also see answem A.4-6.)
7. Several cnrrmAnta received
requested a definition of ”ail process
waste water”. Process waste water refers
to any process generated wasta water
and any precipitation which ce. into
contact with any manure, litter, or
bedding, or any other raw material or
Iniermedlate or final material or product
used In or resulting from the production
of animal or poultry or direct products
(..g., milk, e s). Process generated
waste waler is defined as water directly
or Indirectly used In the operation of a
CAFO for any or all of the following
induding but not limited to: Spillage or
overflow from animal or poultry
watering systems. washing, cleaning, or
fhiithing pens, barns, manure pits, ox
other faedlot facrliiles direct contact
swimming. or sprey cooling of
anhnaL, . and dust controL This
definition is Included In the definition
section of the CAFO general permit, part
8. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
submitted comments expressing
concern that pisys lakes are hour 8 used
an1m l waste retention ponds at
many CAFO, in the western U.S. to the
detriment of migratory birds which use
the same playas for loafing, feeding, and
breeding. Many other commenters also
questioned the use of plays lakes as
retention structures for CAFOs,
essentially contending they are waters
of the S. to which the permit should
prohibit discharges. Other commentars
disagreed, however, noting that cleaning
outa pleyt lake and biuId inga new
retention structure at the same facility
would be very costly and probably
would act provide any envuunmencal
bmaflL On. comtnenter stated. tha use
of. play. lake Is more environmentally
round b usa they are naturally lined
with nll lw a d day which protects
ground water.
There Is merit to each of these
concerns. Many email plays lakes have
historically been used . as retention units
by CAFO. with vaiylng degree of
environmental effod. Some have been
rendered unfit for some of the uses
which unconijiminassid lakes enjoy.
Conversely. some may have been
Improved, La., but for their use as a
retention basin they would be dry much
of the year and thus lack significant
value as wildlife habitat. Some may
have both adverse and beneficial effects
on wildlife. In eeme Instances,
moreover, constructing an artificial
retention pond to Uminate the use of
the playa for wastewater retention might
Impo . . a severe economic burden on a
CAFO operator without any egnificant
environmental benefit. Wildlife
currently attracted to the playa because
of the wastewater it contains might wail
begin frequenting the artificial retenuoc
pond.
Moreover, there are
Jurisdictional issues associated with
plays lakes which E PA Region 8 cannot.
as a practical matter , resolve in I suJng
thee. general permits. In accordance
with EPA’s regulatory definition of
“waters of the U.S. at 40 GR 122 , a
plays lake isa water of the U.S. If its
“uso, degradation or destruction could
affect Interstate or foreign commerce
• .“ ‘There am various types of
commerce which may be affected by the
degradation of many playa lakes, hut
EPA has to data asserted jurisdiction
over thea only on a case-by-case basis,
genereffy In the context of enforcement
actions. It is fair to say, however, that
EPA RegIon 6 generally regards playa
lakes supporting significant migratory
bird use to the waters of the U.S.
40 ( R 122.2. however, also excludes
“waste trea unt systems” from its
definition of ‘waters of the U.S.”
Although a portion of that regulation
prohibits the use of naturally occiming
waters from the ambit of the waste
tre hmerit system exclusion, that same
portion baa been stayed since July 1980.
when EPA Indicated It would
“promptly” r nnaider issues associated
with the prohibition. See 45 FR 48680.
Aa rslingly, a specific plays may be a
waste treatment system aver which EPA
does eat assert Ju.nsdlctlon even though
it would otherwise be. water of the
U.S. U nti1jhe Agency proumulgatesa
regulatory clarification. de g , ,
Is a
water of the U.S. or a waste treatment
system Is another case-by-case process.
-------
! ed at Raglater / VoL 58. No. 24 / Monday , Febinary . 1993 t Nc*ices
7621
Moreover, beceuje y playes a ,.
hydrologically isolated from *her

aate treatment system. there as. many
cases in which the jwisdlctiujsj lens. Is
a dose one.
Because diwhargers are responsible
far compliance with CWA sectIon 301 (a)
regardless of whathar or eat EPA has
made a p ar d t i stinn on the
junsdiiiional sf*hi . of a particular
receiving water, EPA may o iinnolly
bring an enffircernant astlon for
nnnnthnri,p,j diw hin gas tea water body
the di argerregnrdsd Its waste
treatment system. Although oath case
must. be determined inzlividualiy, EPA
Region 6 may consider the following
non-excissive factors In deciding
whether specific playas are troatment
systems or waters of the U.S.:
a. Hydrologic separation. At a
minimum, oil waste treatment systems
must segregate wastewatar from other
waters of the U.S., allowing the operator
to maintain dominion over the waste
pnor to its discharge to waters of the
US In thecaseofplayaswhjch are
naturally segregated from other waters,
capacity of the playa thus becomes an
important consideration. Uzing more
plays than reasonably necessary for
treating or retaining antiQpaind
volumes of wastowater indicates the
)erator has not attempted to segre aie
S wastewater from other waters of the
11 S , e.g.. thrmigh L -uction of a
watertight bonn aaOas the pisys.
b. Public access and multiple
dischargers. A surface water used or
susceptible to use by various parties Is
rarely a waste treatment system because
such use may interfere with or be
incompatible with Its use as a waste
treatment system. A urding1y.a plays
over which the discharger cannot or
does not exercise exclusive control will
generally be regarded as a water of the
U.S.. not a waste treatment system. It
should be notedthat discharges are a
type of use. Because ane wastestream
may interfere with another’s treatment,
a playa receiving more than. one entity’s
discharge is probably no entity’s waste
treatment system, but a waler of the U.S.
This might not apply to the case o(two
CAFOs with the same operations and
wastes discharging to the same playa.
c. Physical modifications. Physical
alteration of a natural playa to improve
its ability to function as a waste
treatment system provides an indication
of waste treatment system status. As a
corollary of sorts to the first factor listed
“hove, for instance. increasing the
acity of a plays to acoommodate
.-te treatment needs is a strong
Anthcation that the resulting surface
water body Is a waste re —tw it . yiJiiw _
notawetuofibe U.S.
d. Other wost treatment opti a . The
a’d,tance of a proven, prertfrtj . and
preferable alternative tresiment m hod
for the waste abeam at l.sa*a militates
against a finding that a surha. wa
body isa waste treatment system.
theposal via deep in ectionwell , for
example. is a proven method onnnicmjy
used by onthore oil and gas operators
forcompiying with EPA effluent
guidelines applicable to produced
water, Hence. EPA would be nnlikiilyto
finds playe 1 ke was an oil and a
operator’s waste treatment system. In
the case of a CAFO. however, sur6ra
retention benna may sometimes be.tbe
only zestmentfdiapomi option
available.
a. Consistency with state low. Some
states have adopted laws restricting or
prohibiting the use of naturally
occurring waters as waste tme nt
systems. If finding & water body is a
waste treatment system is Inconsistent
with such laws. EPA Region 6 will
consider it a water of the U.S. A stale
law or decision to allow use of. natural
water body as a waste treatment sy
Is not., however, a determinative factor
In an EPA decision on the nine ma.
L Inthvidual Section 404 permiL lithe
U.S. Army Carps of Engineers ben
Issued a permit for the disdiarge of
dredged Or fill material to a play. lake
Incidental toe plays’s use as a waste
treatment system, EPA Region 6 will
probably consider it a waste tre nt
system. The existence of a nationwide
or general permit authorizing such work
ma playa, however, will be given little
if any weight because neither EPA nor
state water qIlality agencies have an
opportunity to consider individual
waterbodje, in conned o with the
Issuance of such a permit
EPA reit ’atea that these factors are
neither exclusive nor regulatoiy they
are simply examples of the sort of
fectore EPA will probably apply In
making Individual daterminahrm.
Thej j pjicat on in the Context of an
adminiitratiye or judicial enforceth f
A titi may thus be challenged In that
I rcament action . In an effort to plam
i ñ ittaes on notice that discharges to
playes may be considered discharges to
waters of the U.S.. however. EPA has
amended the proposed permits’
references to ‘waters of the U.S.” by
adding exemplary language regarding
rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and
playa lakes.
Even If a specific plays is dearly a
waste treatment system, the operators of
that system should make every effort to
avoid damage to wildlife resources.
much as migratory birds. Many migratory
birds protected by the Migratory Bird
Txeaty Act andJortheEndangem j
Species Act may frequent eurfam water
bodies, regardles, of their jurisdictional
status under the Qeen Water Act.
Harming such protected birds by
operating a treatment system may
subject the operator to significant
aiminal liability under those laws.
D. Comment, on Part of the General
Pezmit—Spec ioj Conditions,
Management Prnctzce,, and Other Non-
Numeric limitations
1. Many persons were concerned with
the phrase “other than discharges
associated with proper operation and
maintenance of the CAFO” In Part ILA.
Prohibitions. Several comments stated
that pesticides should be considered as
proper O&M. and that the dilution of
pesticides in the ponds would render
them harmless. The State of Texas asked
If the disposal of “off spec” milk could
be discharged to the retention structure,
The Agency wishes to stress that the
retention technology with the allowance
to overflow In extreme rainfall
conditions can only be applied to the
wastes associated with the operation
and maintenance of a concentrated
animal foedlng operation. The disposal
of other wastes In the ponds would be
a violation of th. regulatory
requirement The authority for this
requirement Is established In 40 R
122.45(h). The disposal of “off spec’
mllkisapartofibeopon and
maintenance of a dairy tacility. Also, the
use of pesticIdes, cleansers,
thnnfectants are common and often
necessary to the operation of any animal
feeding operation. Region 6 caution.
operators to use pesticides judiciously
and ln ardan c ewj t 1 1
requirements. Where appropriate the
operator should limit the use of
pesth r na, and use those which are
more readily degraded. This could limit
pesticide Impacts on the environment
and limit the need to do expensive
pesticide testing If the retention
structure should need to discharge.
Region 6 doe, not believe that the
dilution of pesticides in the retention
structure, will render them harmless.
Many pesticide. are very toxic to fish
and wildlife In the parts per trillion
range and do not break down readily
T wo examples of activities and wastes
which are excluded by this provision
are as follows; 1. The Introduction of
human wastewaters Into the retention
structure. The discharge andlor land
application of materials that are
potentially contaminated with human
pathogens are covered by regulatory
requirements In sectIon 405 of the Clean
Water Act. 2. The act of any operator to
-------
7822
Federal Register I VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday. February 8, 1993 / Notices
pt any outsid. waste (waste sot
generated at the CAFO) to be Introduced
into the retention structure.
2. Several pmnmii r nmtnonted on the
requirement to structurally restrict
uncontsminRted waters which may run
on to the facility. Also many persona
question the requirement for the
facilitIes to be protected front flood if
located in a floodplain. The Agency
believes that unrestricted flow through
the facility area would result In
unnecessary and unplanned large
volumes of water which would have to
be retained. The Agency believes this
practice would lead to frequent non-
compliance. The Agency also believes
that the protection from flood waters is
consistent with the no diiu hnrgo
requirement for facilities which are
located in floodplamns. This provision
applies to all waste management areas
except the land application of wastes as
an agricultural practice. Properly
applied. animRl wastes provide no more
environmental risk than chemical
fertilizers which would be used on the
same land.
3. Several comments received
concerned the placement of a waste
retention facility near water welts. Many
coinmenters requested EPA reword the
requirement to clarify their intent
Several Slates requested that the
distances reflect State health
department standards.
PA has clarified the Best
Management Practice refarTing to the
proxumty of waste mAnfigoment
facilities to water wells. (Part ULB.Lg.)
It Is EPA ’s responsibility to include any
State requirement which would be more
protective of public health In permitting
actions. EPA agrees with States that
these should be In accordance with the
specific dissanras cited In the State’s
health codes, therefore, the best
management practice. restricting the
placement of retention arid waste
handlIng facilities near public and
private water wells has been changed to
refer to the State’s requ1r ents.
4. Many persona end produ groups,
especially groups b States outside
Region 6, questIon EPA’s authority to
protect ground Water In en NPDES
permit. Clean Water Ad specifically
refer, to ground water in three sections,
however it does not give clear authority
to EPA to regulate ground water quality
through NPDES permits. Where States
..hgi aia zti ements to protect gound
water, or
protected in an approved Water Quality
Management Plan. EPA Is fully within
Its authority to protect ground water
quality. EPA is authorized b section
301 of the Ct in u a any more
stringent state treatment standard or
requirement Region 8 has not Included
requirements to specifically protect
ground water quality. The permit does,
however, protect the sources of surface
water from th. leakage of pollutants
through the unlined retention
structures. This requirement along with
best management requirements for the
proper waste handling and disposal will
have the added environmental benefit of
providing some ground water
protection. The permit also includes
provisions which relate to the
protection of public health from the
contamination of drinking water as
reflected In State Standards.
For clarification all mention of ground
water protection has been removed from
the general permit.
5. Many commentate objected to the
requirement of recordkeeping in the
general permit Many people stated that
it wag too burdensome and that
paperwork would not protect the
environment Several persona and
producer groups supported some of the
required recordkeepurg. Specifically,
logs of water levels, structural integrity
Inspections, and lo of manure removal
from the facility. Several concerned
citizens suggested that facilities should
also keep records of all pesticide usage
at the facility. Many persons stated the
opinion that the recordkaeplng
requirements be eumin*ted and be
replaced by annual or semi-annual
inspections by EPA. Several
Commentera believed that the Inclusion
of BMPs and the requirements in the
Pollution Prevention Plan ware beyond
the scope of EPA’s authority.
EPA has simplified and clarified the
recordkeoping requirements in the
permit. The records required are those
which facilities must have to show
compliance with the national standards.
Many of the record requirements are
provided by the USDA Soil
Conservation Service. Region 8 does not
believe that the recordkeeping required
to document all pesticide usage Is
necessary to protect water quality. The
permit requires that the pennittee use
pesticides In acoordanco with label
requirements. In this wea the use has
already been regulated by EPA. The
permit also requires the permittee to
sample all discharges to waters of the
U.S. for any pesticide which may be
present in the discharge.
Region 8 regulates and permits dose
to 100.000 pernuttees. The staff required
to do semi.annual inspections at every
permitted facility in Region 6 would
require a substantial increase to EPA’s
budget. This expenditure would have to
be placed on the taxpayer in order to
save the operators of facilities from the
burd i of their compliance
recordkeeping. EPA does not agree the’
this is an appropriate use of tax dolfr
The Clean Water Act gives EPA bit
authority to devaioppermlt con ditlons
n wy to meet effluent guidelines
and water quality standards.
Specifically, sections 40 1(a) (1) and (2)
of the Act give EPA authority to
prescribe conditions for permits to
assure compliance with applicable
regulations. Further, EPA has the
authority to impose Best Management
Practices (BMPs) as permit conditions to
ensure that technology-based effluent
limitations are properly Implemented in
permits. Additionally, it Is EPA’s best
professional udgement that the BMPs
and pollution prevention requirements
are needed in the permit to protect for
water quality.
Tracing EPA’s statutory end
regulatory authority to control
wastewater discharges from CAFOs,
federal regulations found at 40 ( R
122.44 state that NPDES permits must
include technolcgy.based effluent
limitations based an limitations
promulgated under section 301 of the
Clean Water Act. Effluent limitations
have been Imposed on CAFOS by federal
regulations found at 40 Q ’R part 412.
The regulations at 40 G R 122.44(k)
state NPDES permit shall Include Bec’
Management Practices to control or
abate the discharge of pollutants whe,.
numeric effluent limitations are
Infeasible or thes.practlcee are
reasonably necessary to achieve effluent
limitations and standards or to carry out
the intent of the Clean Water Act. The
regulations described for CAFOs at 40
QR part 412 are not expressed as
nuxn pa limitations, and are cleariy
effluent limitations which can be
implemented by the use of B}.fl’s. EPA
therefore believes that It has authonty to
require EMPs ass condition of the
general CAFO permit and believes
BMPs to be the appropriate vehicle for
the protection of water quality.
6. Many comments were received
requesting. cempIL.nc schedule for
the development of the plan and
compliance with provisions. EPA agrees
that the smaller facilities under the
general permit will require more time to
prepare a plan. Facilities under 1000
animal units must be compliant with
this provision as outlined In the
schedule in Part U I B.2.a. of the final
permit.
7. Many comments received requested
that the permit allow Soil Conservation
Service animal waste management plans
to replace the pollution prevention
documentation. Other commenters
request that documentation of
compliance with the waste management
-------
F- 4 —el RagI ter I VoL 58. . 24 1 Monda r Páruazy 8. 1903 1 NoI s
7623
provlsiu e. J Mk
and. nonstruction,. and lines
letmminatice frees the S( be
on dared noreplianon w h the
pollution v.ntfcn requirement, .
The proposed pi rwlt ci irifriuu
language which allowed dociunaeia on
under SCS pLans to nabstitutu far parts
of the pollution pmvention. plan. The
Agency hes amended the permit to
include more speolfic language (in Part
IThB.2.) concerning the subsUtution ci i
SCS documen cnfdedslong for the
permit equiremonts,
8. A few manters questioned who
would be considered “qualified
person nel for purposes of development
of a Pollution Prevention Plan and
responsibility for compliance with, the
provisions and recordkeeping. The
owner or operator of the fadlity is
responsible for designating this task to
an employee. or doing it themselves. U
the task is designated to a person other
than the permfnoe. ft is the puruütt eg
responsibility to determine the
qualifications of the employee to
understand and comply with the
requirements. This parson must be
named in the plan.
9. A few persons objected to the
requirement that all sampling data be
kept on site. Sampling data is part of the
qrmit compliance record of the.and
.ist be kept at the facility A does
. ot believe this places any burden. on
the perm.ittee and allows EPA to
evaluate permit compliance.
10 Most Comm enters were concerned
with the requirement to have afl of the
necessary dewatering equipment “an
site’ The equipment is expensive and
is often shared by several operators in
close vicinity of one another. The
commenters suggested the language be
changed to say “available”. Region 6
agrees that the req ,ulrement to have the
equipment on sire would be
unnecesaanly burdensome to small
operations and is not necessary to
proper operation and, maintenance. The
permit language has been changed to
reflect the availability of the eq&ripment.
However, the permit now requires that
the permittee document the availability -
of the equipment in the Pollution.
Prevention Plan.
11. Several persona and State agencies
commented that the information from
the nearest weather station might not
accurately reflect the rainfall at the
facility. These comments suggest thata
rain gauge should be kept on site and
the rainfall from, any measurable event
recorded and kept with the pollution
‘ention plan. EPA agrees with the
.nmeot and has included the
requirement in the final permit.
13. A f. e cm m ntera
requirement for &oolca ran rn1 we.e
necessary. ‘ conlmeuitese believed
this ulrenrent would not result La
further envlroements.j protection. “
Inorassed sediment entering the pond
structi could reduce the otmega
capacity andeould result in
noncompliance with the no discharge
ecpñreme comments requested that
existing facilities be “ andfeUieed”or
exempted from structural oquremazits ,
Llne , and constructina ep rificetInn&
EPA. a ees with commentars that
stni ires whIch exist and exhibit good
maintenance and structural integrity
should be wmmpt from the Construction
spedficailons. It is not EPA’. Intent that
these facilities be reconstructed.
However, documentation of appropriate
retention capacity and liner assessment
will be i ’equi ,red byallracllitlesj n
accordance with the terms of the permit.
14 Some comments requested that
the requirement for gram or riprep to
stabilize the well, of the retention
structures, be diangad to allow for other
means of stabjIi tion. The comments
stated that in very cold or dry
conditions grass would not survive and
nprap- was a very expensive altemetiva
The commentei’s stated that other
methods could be used to ’ prevent
deterfornt on end that the Agency
should allow for this flexibility.
The Agencyagreeew this position
and has simply required that the
sthictures be stabilized egmns erosion
and detenoratjoij,
15. SeveraL comments note that the
design. capacity roust take into account
the volume of wet manare, and gu esta
that this is broad a statement. The
commen that this be
changed to the volume of manure which
will enter thj poxid.ft lathe Agency’s
intent that only the volume fmanri,
which will would reasonably be
expected to enter the retention. struthirw
would have to be accounted for. The
language in the final permit has been
changed to reflect only the manwetobe
retained in the structure,
18. Many comments questioned the
requirement of liners to protect from
hydrologic connection. Many
commenters believed that this
requirement was to protect ground
water, Q most of EPA Reg iqn
surface water flow ja ined , ,
much of the year b round
i ’aterinflo , . As a result. contarrii jG
which leak from containment structures
to the ground water will typically move
underground toward local streams and
rivers where they will be thscharged
and affect water quality EPA has
included a liner requirement
spedfically wha.. ther. I, potential for
pond leakage te Impair surface waters.
Raglce6stroagly believe, this is
consistent with the effluent guideline
requirement of. “no’ diesharger”
te olo ’. It Is EPA’s po tion that a
discharge throrraji the bottom of the
retention uctwe ounstitutes.
violation of th. required technoLo
requirement If significant pollutants
from that discharge reach a surface
water, Also, see answer a4.
17. Several comments received
requested clarification of hydrologic
connection, and how this could be
docaunanted. Hydrologic conn ion
refars to the interfiow and oxrthanga
between suthce water and ground
water, in the cnnti w of this permit, the
Intent of the reduction of hydrologic
connection Is to reduce ground water as
a flow path which would result in the
transfer of pollutant materials from
CAFO contamment structw’es to surface
waters, This definition has been
included in the d initin section of the
CAFO general permit, Part VU. The
condition, in the general permit have
been simplified to allow a pmf&iainnal
determination that hydrological
connection does not o to the degree
that surface water contamination would
result.
18. Many comments requested that
the “liner requirement” apply only to
new fo 1itia& The commenters state
that these facilities haves “biological
seal” which prevents leakage. These
persons note studies by Texas A&M
which show facilities which are
properly mAintained seldom leak. EPA
agrees that the process of plugging and
gleisation may provide appropriate
sealing of a pond under certain
conditions, however, the permit
requires the permittee to have specific
donizeontation an site that a liner is not
necessary.
19. Many commenters request that the
hydraulic conductivity and thickness
requirements (1.x10 7 , arid 1.5 feet) in
the permit language change to be
consistent with the Soil Conservation
Service tOrilnital standards for liner
constructien. EPA agrees with the
Cnrnmnn tars that the technical
determinations made by the SCS or by
another professional using SCS
Technical Notes 716 and 71.7 (or the
current equivalent technical aiteria)
would protect for hydrologic
connection. These determinations take
into account, the site specific variables.
Mditionally, a professional will not
design the facility in structurally
unstable area or on unstable soils.
Where site specific conditions are not
assessed by a professional, EPA believes
that the more conservative requirement
-------
7024
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 24 / Monday 1 February 8, 1993 / Notices
of 1.5 feet of material compacted to
1xiO hydraulic conductivity (or its
equivalent in an alternate material) is
appropriate.
20. Many comments were made on
the liner maintenance requirements of
liner inspection end monitoring walls.
The commenters included many State
and Federal agricultural agencies as
well as State water quality
professionals. The Agency has
reevaluated its proposed requirements
of liner inspections and monitoring
wells. EPA agrees with the agricultural
professional that liner inspections
would result in structural and biological
damage to the liners. This requirement
has been removed from the final permit
EPA also agrees with the water quality
professionals that the indisaiminate
drilling of monitoring wella for every
facility could result in the
contamination of ground water and
drinking water aquifers. EPA also
recognizes the States’ concern that
specific ‘acxhties may have the potential
to leak end contaminate State waters.
The anal permit requires only those
facilities which have been notified by
the State or the Director to install
monitoring wells to check for liner
integrity.
21. Many conirnentars were
concerned with the concept of
agronomic rates, and the requirement
that manures and wastewaters must be
land applied at rates which consider the
nutrient op uptake. Many comments
suggest that the land application be
Hunted to available nitrogen. Many
commenters requested a definition of
“agr000mic rates’. Several persons
noted the ‘slow release” nature of
manure and requested that we take this
into account. EPA agrees with the
commenters that plant needs define
agronomic rates. It is not EPA’s Intent to
presaibe the specifics of agricultural
use of wastes, but to insure that the rates
used are consistent with EPA water
quality goals and good agricultural
practices. Where agrf cultural practices
indude high application rates of
phosphorus near water bodies which are
phosphorus impaired. It is EPA’s intent
that appropriate cultural practices be
used to limit the potential runoff of
nutrients.
22. Many commenters stated that
manure was more environmentally safe
than chemical fertilizers. However,
some commenters believed the manure
and waste products should be tested for
nutrient content. Many comments stated
that manure records should be kept in
whatever unit of measure the farmer
wanted. One commenter asked if weigh
tickets wouid be required with the log
of manure hauled away. EPA agrees
that, properiy used, manure Is a more
environmentally favorable fertilizer
source than chemical fertilizers.
However, it has been the finding that
the improper or over application of
animal wastes has impaired watersheds
in each of the Region’s States. EPA
believes the removal of large quantities
of wastes should be logged only (no
weigh tickets are required by the
permit). The permit has been changed to
allow other appropriate units of
measure.
Where the manure is analyzed. due
information will be made available to
the hauler. EPA will not require that
manures and wastes be analyzed,
however, the permittee must use
appropriate information about the
nutrient content of the wastes to
determine and document land
application rates at the facility.
23. Many persons objected to the
requirement that stock piles of manure
or land disposal sites would have to be
protected from flooding if placed in the
100 year floodplain; and manure was
not to be stockpiled near water courses.
Many persons believed this restricted
the ability of the operator to compost
the manures to be used on the field.
Region 6 believes that those
requirements are consistent with the no
discharge requirement of the national
standard. Significant amounts of
manure, placed in floodplamns and near
water courses, could be discharged
during rainfall or high water events. The
permit requires the permittee protect
against such occurrences. Region 6 does
not believe this will substantially impair
the pennittees ability to compost wastes
at the facility. The permittee can
compost manures in locations away
from water courses and transport the
composted manure to the field when it
is to be land applied.
24. Many concerned persons
a itidzed EPA for not Including
adequate odor controls in the general
permit. EPA’s authority under the Clean
Water Act does not extend to odor
control at these facilities. Region 6
believes that the requirements in the
permit do require the best management
of the waste products from such
facilities, and therefore, will reduce to
the mainmurn extent possible problems
which result in excessive odors.
25. Several commentera believed the
permit should include requirements for
‘dogure’ of a facility. These citizens
believe that these facilities constitute an
extremely mobile industry and that
when environmental regulations
tighten. these facilities move to new
locations leaving significant wastes
behind exposed to runoff.
EPA has no specific authority to
regulate the closure of these facilities.
However, it should be noted, and the
regulated community should be awai
that CAFO facilities with over 1000
animal units are considered to “have
storm water discharges associated with
industry activity”. In accordance with
regulations published in the Federal
Register on November 16. 1990 (55 FR
47990 Definition 14) all facilities or
inactive sites where significant
materials remain exposed to storm water
must have a NPDES storm water permit.
Therefore, sites vacated by large CAFO
facilities will be required to remain
permitted until all significant maten&s
are removed.
K. Comments on Part IV of the Generci
Permit—Mozutonng and Reporting
Requirements
A range of comments were recei’.ed
on the requirement for discharges and
overflows from the retention structures
to be sampled and analyzed. Some
commenters rejected the need for any
sampling, many provided informaticn
or stated opinions on which parameters
should be analyzed, but most
commenters questioned the need to te 1
for focal coliformn bacteria. The US. F sh
end Wildlife Service suggested the
discharges be analyzed for metals,
pesticide, hormone and antibiotic
contzimination. The Service also
requested that permittees be required u
do instream studies to determine if
these conla.minnnts were being released.
EPA agrees that the full scope of
sampling may not be necessary to track
the detrimental effects of a discharge.
Additionally, review of State water
all inventories and information
water quality experts indicates that
chronic eutrophication in watersheds .s
related to the improper or over
application of wastes and not to the
discharge from a properly operated
facility. For this reason, Region 6 has
induded only those chemical
parameters which are likely to produce
acute effects as the resuit of a discharge.
EPA Is also concerned with the
protection of human health which
relates to the focal bacteria discharged
into the surface water. The parameters
which must be analyzed are BOO, TSS.
ammonia nitrogen. fecal coiform
bacteria, and any pesticide that could
reasonably be in the discharge.
EPA must develop permit conditions
which satisfy the intent of the Clean
Water Act. As desaabod in 40 GR
122.48. EPA shall specify reporting
requirements in permits which are
based upon the Impact of the reguli
activity. Fecal coliforms. exauted in
mammalian feces, are dearly a
-------
Fedei’al Register / VoL 58. No. 24 / Monday , February 8, 1993 / Notices
7625
parameter pertinent and applicable to
the “activity” of a confined Anlmn
feeding operation.
EPA has Included many of the perthlt
requirements eu ested by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Region 6 agrees
with Fish and Wildlife that immediate
notification will allow the Agency the
option to study the impacts of
discharges. However, the data which the
Service has collected are specifiC to
geographic area and relate to pond
sediments (mostly from historical waste
management). Where this data may
indicate that there are metals present in
sediments of particular retention
systems, EPA does not believe the body
of data which exists at this present time
indicates the potential for discharge of
significant amount of metals from these
facilities under rninfiill conditions. EPA
is unaware of any approved method to
test for hormones or antlbioth In
wastewaters. Region 6 believes further
data could be gathered In the next five
years. If this data indicated metals in
discharges from CAFO facilities. EPA
can address metals in this permit when
it is reissued. The permit already
requires that permittees analyze the
sample for pesticides which may be in
the discharge.
F. Comments on Part Vof the General
Permit—Standard Permit Requirements
Many persons remarked that several
requirements In this part of the permit
related to Industrial diechargers and do
not relate to CAFOs. and these items
should be deleted from the final permit
to avoid confusion. The Agency agrees
with the comxnenters that much of the
standard permitting language Is directed
at activities not found at a CAFO,
Therefore, RegIon 6 has removed those
sections of the standard permitting
language which do not pertain to
CAFOs. Items for Anticipated
Noncompliance, Other Noncompliance
Reporting, Bypass of Treatment
Facilities, and Upset Conditions have
been removed from Part W. Items
regarding Toxic Pollutants and Oil arid
Hazardous Substance Liability have
been removed hum Part V.
G Comments on Part VI of the General
Permit—Reopener Cia use
The Department of the Interior Fish
and Wildlife Service requested that the
Agency include in the Reopener that the
Agency would undergo a consultation
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife if the permit
is reopened. EPA is required to work
with other regulatory agencies and often
‘onsult on permitting actions. It Is not
lecessary to notify the permittee of all
administrative activities which are
undertaken when permits are reopened,
only the reason the permit may be
reopened. Therefore this will not be
Included In the final permit
I . Comments on Part V I I of the General
Pemut—Deflruuons
Many requests were received by EPA
on words, term and phrases which the
public requested defined or clarified.
The Agency has provided clarifications
in this responsiveness summary ii the
responses to comments for that
particular section of the permit where
the term was used. In addition, EPA has
included several definitions to the final
goner .l permit These are: “Agi’onomlc
Rates”, “Best Available Technology”
(BAT), “Best Conventional Technology”
(BCfl, “Hydrologic connection”,
“Process wastewater”, “Qualified
groundwater scientist”.
Several persons point out that the
term 10-year, 24-hour storm event Is
never mentioned In the general permit.
This term has been deleted from the
final general permit.
I. Comments on the Appenthces of the
Generv.i Permit
Most of the persons commenting on
the general permit were opposed to the
“Recommended Best Management
Practices”, manure nufri ant
Information, and op nutrient
Information that was published with the
proposed permit. Many persons
believed that more usw”frlendly and up-
to-date Information was available
through State and Federal agencies
which work with the agricultural
community.
EPA agrees with the commentars and
has renfoved such information from the
final permit. The, Agency has replaced it
with listinge of lnformatiàn sources and
agencies to assist operators in the proper
operatloa. and management of CAFO
facilities, and a listing of publications
which were submitted by State and
Federal agencies.
Past IlL Economic Impact
EPA believes that this general permit
will be economically beneficial to the
regulated community, in that it provides
en economic alternative to the
Individual application process the
facilities covered by this permit would
otherwise have to face. The
requirements are consistent with those
already Imposed by effective Federal
regulations and State requirements.
An economic analysis was done when
the BAT requirements for the national
effluent guidelines (40 G ’R part 412)
were published. Region 6 believes that
the same economic and technology
rationale would apply to the smaller
facilities covered by this permit. Also,
RegIon 6 belIeves that this permit Is the
most economical permitting option
available to the smaller facilities with
NPDES application requirements.
Region 6 has also provided a
comparison analysis in the
Responsiveness Suminsuy to show the
applicability of the 1974 analysis.
If, however, any smaller facilities
believe that this economic analysis for
the guidelines containment technology
would not apply to their facility and
that they would be able to achieve
necessary water quality requirements of
the receiving stream, through the use of
biological or equivalent tieatment
systems, those smaller facilities may
apply for Individual permit coverage.
Part IV. CnaipIL iiri . With Other
Federal Regulations
A. National Environmental Policy Act
Finding of No Significant Impact
To All Interested Government
Agencies and Public Groups: Pursuant
to the requirements of section 511(c) of
the Clean Water Act and the
environmental review procedures of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) at 40 (PR part 6, “Procedures for
Implementing the Requirements of the
Council on Environmental Quality on
the NatIOnal Environmental Policy Act”
for the National Pollutant Discharge
PIImInatjo System (NPDES) New
Source Program, the EPA has conducted
a general anvironmenmi review of the
following action:
1. Action. Issuance of Geperul NPDES
Permit for New Source Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO).
defined In 40 (PR part 122 appendix B
and 40 (PR part 412, and located In all
parts of the State. The discharge of
proces. wastewatar from these facilities
Is subject to the requirements of 40 (PR
122.23 and 40 (PR part 412, and to the
application of the new source
performance standards promulgated on
February 14, 1974, under the NPDES
permit program.
2. Environmental Effects Generally
Associated with C.4FOs. A summary of
the potential Impacts from CAFOs on
the environment and the mitigating
affects of the permit requirements were
published with the proposed permit (57
FR 32475).
3. Finding. On the basis of an
additional review of the impacts
commonly associated with CAFO
operations, Information and comments
received during the public comment
period, and other available information,
the EPA has made a final decision that
the issuance of the General NPDES
Permit will not result in any significant
adverse environmental Impacts and that
-------
762.8
F.d RigiMer I VoL 58 No. 24 / Mimday, Fe rnary 8, 19 3 / No’4
en Environmental imps S $
(EIS) Is not required. This Finding of No
Significant Impact (FNSII CAFO
f aQlltfe slnp laceando attb.
time of 1esuan alibi ____
Applicants for CAFO ( wilt t 1 0 5 proposed
allay the issuance of the General Permit
shall stthi .it an wproprlath ElI) end
undergo envi -oainan1al review pnar to
the start of construction. Comments
regerding this decision not to prepare an
ELS are discussed in the attached
Responsiveness Summgiy.
New CAFO subject to Natinn.t
Effluent Guidelines (40 ( R Part 4121
will be required to complete en
EnvironmentaL Review with the Agency
pnarto coverage under the permiL New
facilities are any CAFO not in operation
as of the issuance date of th e. . general
permits. These faciuitieL pner to
conafluction must complete an
environmental review with this Agency.
The Initial form to start the procem of
an environmental review has been
provided in appendix C of the permit.
The permittee must have documentation
of “No Signifkent lmpact ova
completed Environmental Impact
Statement. In etxordance with an
environmental review conducted by th.
Agency. as a dition of coverage
un the permit. This dot2t4nn
mi be retained en eta.
H. Endangered Species Act
The final permits published today
will authorize no discharge other than
upsets and bypasses . which are
relatively infrequent oonuie .
Accordingly, EPA Region 6 determine.
that issuance of these permits is
unlikely toadvuz ly affect any listed
threatened orendangered species or
designated a ticai habitat. EPA Region
9 han siihv,iitted copies of these permits
to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv EPA
RegIon 6 consulted the U.S. Fla b &
Wildlife Servise regarding this
deieruilnatlon. EPA ban .dthesesd all of
U.S. Flab & Wildlife Servim ______
Part I of this document outline . changes
which we mad. to lb. 8ziaI p.TnIiL
The Responsiveness Sevunery In Part II
explains the Agencys final permitting
dedsions with respect to lb.
raised by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
C. Executive Order 12291
The Othco of Management end Budget
has exempted this on from the
review requirements of Executive Or
12291 pursuant to sectIon 8(b) of that
order.
0. Papero.vrk Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities In this
— permit imdar the Pepewmk
Reduction Ad. 44 U.S.C. 3501 at ssq
The Information collectf m requirements
of this permit have already been
appwvad by the CMos of Management
and Budget In submissions . for lb.
ES pe progiam under
previsions of the Case WeterAd..
£ RegulcteryFlexihilityAct
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
3 U.S.C. 601 ets .q.,EPA is required to
prepares Regulatory F1 .r nhility
Analysis to asi the Impact of rules en
email entitles. No Regulatory Pte 4h4Hty
Analysis Is epdre&howeve.. where
the h of the agency cert that the
rulewill not have a a]gpIfirtnt
economic Impact ens
number of ll entities.
Today’s general permit would
generally make the NPD S regulations
more flexible end less burdensome for
permute... This permit does not apply
to small animal feeding operations
unless specifically designated by the
Director. Asxorthngly. I hereby certify.
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). that these
amendments, llpromulgeted.. and that
these general permits, when issued. will
not have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of sms.ll entities.
Aetber 11y Clean Waler Ad. 33 U.S.C. 1231
at seq.
Dated January 5 1998.
LI Wy
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Fliminetlon System for Storm Waler
Discharges From Crnw— .trsted áInim l
Feuding Operations in the Stats of
hi compliance with the provisions of
the (isan Water Ad. 33 U.S.C 1231 at
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. Public Law 100—4. the
‘i Ct’’.
Owners and operators of Conomireted
Animal Feeding Operations except
those sites excluded from coverage In
Part I of this permit, are authorised to
discharge In dance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements.
and other provisions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit m i nt be
kept at di, site of the concentrated
animal feeding operations.
This permit will become effective on
March 10, 1993.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge under the National Pollutant
Discharge FJiinination System shall
expire at midnight. on March 10. 1998.
Signed this fifib day of Jesusry, 1993.
Myrea a.
Wa t arMaaasomerd Director.
A faidsm to Discharge Under the
NatI’ .l Pollutant Discharge
PIlnvin ton System fer Storm Waler
Discharge. From Cuncenfrated ftnimal
Feeding Operations in the Stale olNew
Monks
ICeneril Pennat No. NMCO10000I
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Watar Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act o11987, Public Law 100-4. the
‘iSct ’ ’.
Owners and operators of Concentrated
Aniri 1 Feeding Operations except
those site. omluded from coverage in
Put! of this permit. are authorized to
discharge in ordance with effluent
limitaticms. . monitoring requixenients..
and other provisions set fcii.h herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the site of the omt. nuLnited
animal Feeding urp t1On&
This permit will become affective on
March 10. 1993.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge under the National Pollutant
Discharge in t1r n System shall
expir . at midnight. en March 10. 1998
Signed this 9flh day of January. 1993.
I 4yranO. I- on.P.E,
W Mar4! pMvana Düector.Jlegien 6.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
doeal Pollutant Discharge
PH,niatloe System (or Storm Water
Discharge. Frem CJin.c,eb .aled Animal
in the State of
ICenerat Permit No. O 0iOOOO
In complience with the provisions of
the Clean Waler Ad, 33 U.S.C 1231 at
sec. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, PublIc Law 100-4, the
..‘ t ..c,_
Owners and operators o(Cosicentrated
Animal Feeding Operations except
those sites excluded from coverage in
Part I of this permit, are authorized to
discharge In atxordance with uent
limitations, monitoring requirements.
and other provisions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the eta of the concentrated
animal Feeding operations.
This permit will become effective on
March 10. 1993.
This permit and the authorization tr
discharge under the National Pollutni
Discharge FiIminnHon System shall
expire at midnight. on March 10. 1998.
-------
Federal Ragister / VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday . February 8. 1993 / Notices
7627
Slgiied this fifth day of January. 1993
Myreis 0. lC.m.l. . .fl P.E.,
WatsrMa7agenjDirec . Region 6
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
liminalio System fur Steam Water
Discharges From Cancenfrated (nimnI
Feeding Operations in the State of
Texas.
(General Permit No.: TXGOI0000J
In compliance 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 Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations except
those sites excluded from coverage in
Part I of this permit, are authorized to
discharge in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements.
arid other provisions set forth heroin.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the site of the concentrated
animal feeding operations.
This permit will become effective on
March 10, 1993.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge under the National Pollutant
Discharge Rumination System shall
expire at midnight. on March 10. 1998,
Signed this fifth day of January, 1993.
Ayrvn 0. rimI.on . PL .
Water Management Director, Region 6.
NPDES General Permit for Discharges
From Conc.ntrat.d Animal Fs.dlng
Operations
Table of Contents
Part L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area.
B Coverage and Eligibility.
C. Limitations on Coverage.
D. Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
E. Notification Requirements.
F Permit Expiration.
Part II. Effluent Umitallon,
A. Discharge Limitations For All Categories
Of CAPOS Other Than Ducks Facilities
Established Prior to 1974.
B. Releases In Excas, of the 25 year. 24-how
Storm Event.
Part UI. Special Conditions, Management
Practices, and Other Non-Numeric
Limitations.
A Prohibition on Unauthorized Substances
B Proper Operation and Maintenance
Requirements.
Part IV Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Discharge Notification.
‘i Written Notification.
Penalties for Falsification of Reports.
Retention of Record,.
E. Availability of Reports.
P. Planned Cha g,* .
C yto Provide Information_.
H. Other In irmation.
L Signatory Requirements.
Part V. Standard Permit Reqwrexnent , ,
A. Duty to Comply.
B. Inspection and Entry.
C. Toxic Pollutant,.
D. Penalties for Violation of Permit
Conditions.
B. Continuation of the Expired Genera].
Permit.
F. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a
Defense.
C. Duty to Mitigate.
H. Proper Operation and MaIntsn*rr ’ .
I. Penalties for Falsification of Monitoring
Systems and Reports.
J. Property Rights.
K. Severability.
L State Laws.
? t Permit Actions.
Pail Vi Reopener Clause
Part VU. Definitions
Part L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area
The permit covers all areas
administered by Region 8 in the States
of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma
and Texas.
B. Coveruge and Eligibility
Unless excluded from coverage in
accordance with paragraph C or D
below, owners or operators of animjil
feeding ‘operations that are defined in 40
R part 122 appendix B as -
concentrated animal feeding operations,
and are subject to the requirements 40
Q’R 122.23 are eligible for coverage
under this permit
1. Exisnng Focthbes. Owners or
operators of existing Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are
authorized under the terms and
conditions of this permit upon the
submittal ,pf a Notice of Intent (NOI) 1 to
gain coverage under this permit.
Perinittoes must retain on site a copy of
the permit and the pollution prevention
plan as required by this permit
2. CAFOs With Expired Permits or
Pending Applicctions Upon the
submittal of a Notice of Intent all
facilities which bare expired permits
and have reapplied in aixordance with
40 0’R 122.21(d); and all facilities
which have submitted applications In
accoriinnrii with 40 C]R 122.21(e) are
automatically covered by the terms of
this permit A permittee may request to
be excluded from coverage by this
permit by applying for an individual
permit In accordance wIth 40 QR
122.28(b)(3)(Lll).
3. New Facilities. Owners or operators
of new Concentrated Animal Feeding
‘The NotI at Inlest Porn Is Lacludsd In this
p m lIsppesdIxB.
Operations (CAFOs) are authorized
under the terms and conditions of this
permit upon the submittal of a Notice of
Intent 1 to gain coverage under this
permit The owner or operator of a new
CAFO, must submit a Notice of Intent
five (5) business days prior to any
discharge from the Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation. Permittees oust
retain on site a copy of the permit and
the pollution prevention plan as
required by this permit Additional
requirements for new facilities are as
follows:
a. Requirements for New CAFOs with
more than the number of enimi’ ,ls
specified in 40 R part 122 appendix
B(s) 2 (or definition 7.a. of this permit).
New Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation facilitlee subject to National
Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR part 412)
shall, prior to constructing, complete
the form provided In appendix C of this
permit. The form must be sent to: Mr.
Hector Penn (6E-FF), U.S. EPA Region
6. 1445 Roes Ave., Suite 1200. Dallas,
.Texas 75202.
b. The permittee shall have
documentation of”No Significant
Impact” or a completed Environmental
Impact Statement, in accordance with
an environmental review conducted by
this Agency, as a condition of coverage
under this permit. This documentation
shall be obtained and retained on site
prior to the submittal of the Notice of
Intent
4. Ezponthng Facilities 2 Facilities
intending to expand operations to more
than the number of animals specified in
40 Q R part 122 appendix B(s) (or
definition 7.a. of this permit) will be
subject to 40 CR part 412 and will be
required, prior to construction of the
expansion, to submits new notice of
intent and to complete the form
provided In appendix C of this permit
The form must be sent to the address In
paragraph LB.3.a (above). The
permitteee shall have documentation of
‘No Significant Impact” or a Completed
Environmental Impact Statement, in
accordanrai with an environment review
conducted by this Agency, us -
condition of coverage under this permit
This documentation shall be obtained
and retained on site prior to the
submittal of the notice of intent.
5. Other Animal Feeding Operations.
All other animal feeding operation are
encouraged to comply with the terms
and conditions of this permit
fl. ovtMeea In Pail LB.3.M. er. reulemesta
of Psd.raI psoçens under lb. N ’- ’
£nvfronmesof Policy A.ct of 1969 and will not
apply to mi II seca suthority for lb.
NPD psa ha. hues essum.d by lb. sss.
-------
7628
Fedil 1eg eter I’ Vol. 50, No. 24 1 Mmiday, February 8, 1093 / N cos
L I IJlTIiMfiQflg on Cc ege
The folicering d thargee from
Ciiüutod Animal Feeding
Qper tinti. (CAP( ) era not cowered by
this permit
1. tn m A”i” Feuding
Operation, that the DL ba
datermined to be or may re..nnahjy b.
exp ed to be onntrlbutlng to a
violation of & Water quality afendard .
and which have bean notified by the
Director to ai for an IndIvidual or
alternative general permit In ac xdance
with part LD (below) of this permit
2. Concentrated Animal Feuding
Operations which adversely aff ,urt5 .
Listed or proposed to be Listed
endangered or threatened species or Its
tmi habitat
3. 4 kn4mal Feeding
Operations which adversely affects
properties listed or eligible For Listing in
the Nanonal Register of Historic Places.
4. Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations that discharge nil their
runoff and wastewater to a puhhcly
owned sanitary sewer system which
discharges in a rdance with an
NPDES perrniL
5. Concentrated Duck feeding
operations eatahhihed prior to 1974.
0. Requiring an hidividua! Permitor an
iifternative General Permit
1. The Director may require any
person authorized by this pemiit to
appiy for and obtain either an
l dividnaL NPOES permit or an
alternative NPDES general permit an
provided in 40 R i272R(bM2)(i). The
Director will notily the owne, or
operator in writing that a permit
applicatien is required. lien owner or
operator fails to au it In a timely
manner an Individual NPDES permit
application required by the Director,
then the applicahithy of the general
permit to the Individual NPDES
permittee is autnm.sI4 lly tervniruita4 at
the end of the day specified for
application submittal.
2. Any owner or 0 atm authorized
by this permit may requeut to be
excluded from the covsrsg.of this
permit by applying for an Individual
permit an provided In 40 ( R
122.2B(b)(Z)(Ufl. The owner or operator
ShalL submit an Individual applir.tion
(Form I and Form 2B) to the Director
with reasona siipportlngthe request.
3. When an Individual NPDES permit
LS issued to ..n owner or operator
otherwise subject to this permit, or the
owner or operator Is approved for
coverage nader an alternative NPDES
general permit, the arpplicabihty of this
permit to the facility is aotomationlly
terminated on the effective date of the
Individual permit cionth.dst.d
approval far coverage render the
alternative general permit When an
individual NPD permit Is denied to
en owner or operator otharwia aubIu
tothLs permlt.ertheowneim operator
Is denied for coverage under an
alternative N JES generat permit, the
permittea Is automatically reinstated
underth1sperm itonthedat.o(s
denial. unless otherwise spedfled by
the D1 ctor.
H. Nolificxuzion Reqwremenls
1. Owners or operators of fecilitf si
authorized by thi. permit shall nhmit
a Notice of Intent (NO!) tobecovered
to the Director. The form (or the Notice
of Intent for this permit Is In appendix
B of this permit. Notifications must be
made withIn 90 days of Issuance of this
permit or upon completion of new
facility. The Notice of Intent Form (or
photocopy thereofl shall be signed by
the owner or other signatory authority
in accordance with Part VU. (Signatory
Requirements), and a copy shall be
retained on site In accordance with Part
VLD. (Retention of Records) of thin
permit. The address for Notice of Intent
submission to EPA is:
U.S. A Region a.
SW—KA General Permits,
P0. Box 50625
flails. . Texas 75270.
aA copyof the Notice of Intent must
also be sent to the state agency whore
the C mi ntrated Animsil Feeding
Operation La locatedi
Lowslanai Gary AydeLl. Administrator.
Water Pollution Central Division,
Statsof Lorusiana. Dept. of
Environmental Quality. P.O. Box
82215. Baton Rouge, LA. 70884—2215
Texasi Texas Water Commi jiian,
Agriculture Department, P.O. Box
13087, AustIn, TX. 78711—3087
Oklahoinai State of______
Department O(AgriQLItUrs. 2800 N.
Lincoln Bird., Oklahoma Oty. OX.
73105-4208
New Meidcu: Quiet, Water Quality
Bureau, New Mexico Environmental
Department. I tOO St. Francis Blvd..
P.O. Box 28110. Santa Fe, NM. 87502
F Permit £zpimflon
Coverage under this pornut will
expire ve (5) years from the data of
Issuance. The conditions of an expired
permit continues In form until the
effective date of a new permit. (40 CFR
1218).
Put U. Ilmlktfa a
A. D1schcxgtLimitr oiw Ftsr AU
Categories Then Thick Facilities
c nA1iahad Prior to 1974
1. The hullowing llmltathnis mtahBah
thequantity orpualltyofpothztantsor.
pollutant properties which may be
discharged bye Commntratud Anlinsi -
Feeding Operation In compliance with
this permit after application of the best
available technoIo economically
achievable or new source performance
tandards There shall be no discharge
o(proceu waste water pollutants to
waters of the U.S ( Including lakes,
thers,stroazna, wOiI2nll . and plays
lakes er defined In 40 CI R 1.22.2) except
In atxcrdazuce with Part IL B Q Ith iS
permit
2. Limitations e . hti ihed far
concentrated duck feeding operations
which began operations after the
establi hmsnt of New Source
Performance Standards In 1974 are
subject to the new source performance
standardi There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to waters
of the U.S. (including streams. rivers,
lakes, wetlands, and playa lakes as
defined in 40G’R 1213) except
speafled In Part UB. of this permiL
B. Releesac in £rcess of the 25 .eor 24-
hr Storm Event
Process i mtO pollutants In the
overflow may be discharged to waters of
the LLS. whenever rainfall events, either
chronic or catastrophic, cause an
overflow of process waste water from a
facility designed, constructed and
operated to omtam all process
enerated waste waters plus the runoff
year, 24-hour rain f ,fl event
for the location of th. point source.
There shall be no effluent limitations on
discharges from detention uree
constructed and utained to contain
the 25 year, 24 hour storm event lithe
discharge is the result ala ra nfjsil event
which e ds the desr capacity and
proper maintenance. Retention
structures shall yin#.. n all
ters plus the peer. 24 hour
storm event
Part in. SlC Woes,
Management Practices, and Other Nun-
Numeric Limitations
A. Ptvhilii nn on Unauthorized
Substances
All discharges to containment
structures shall be composed entirely of
Wastowaters from the proper operation
and maintenance of a Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation and the
precipitation from the snimiil feeding
operation areas. The disposal of any
-------
Federal Reri / Vol 58. No. 24 / Monday. FMruery 8, 1993 I Notices
7629
materials (other than dLschara es
associated with proper operation and
maintenance of the CAFO) into the -
containment structures are prohibita(
by this perrnil
B. Proper Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
The facilities avered by this permit
are required to document the attainment
of Best Available Technology (BAT) and
Best Conventional Technology fBCT).
and all Best Management Practices
lUMPs) used to comply with the effluent
lunitations in this permit. Such
documentation shall be included in the
Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
outlined in Part tILB.2. of this permit
and shall be made available to the
Director upon request. Where
applicable, equivalent meenwes
contained iii a site specific Animal
Waste Management Plan prepared by
the U.S Department of Agriceltuze Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), may be
substituted for the Best Management
Practices and Pollution Prevention Plan
requirements in this Part of the permit.
Where presisiong mthe Soil
Conservation Service plan are
substituted for applicable Best
Management Practices or portions of the
Pollution Prevention Plan, the Pollution
Prevention Plan must refer to the
Ippropriato section of the Soil
.onservation Seivicø plan. lithe
pollution prevention plan contains
reference to the Soil Conservation
Service plan. a copy of the Soil
Conservation Service plan must be kept
on site
I Best Management Pmctices. The
following Best Management Practices
(BMPs) shall be utilized by concent rated
animal feeding operations ownersl
oparators, as appropriate, based upon
existing physical and economic
conditions, opportunities and
constraints, Where the provisions in a
Sod Conservation Service plan are
equivalent or more protective the
çerlnittee may refer to the Soil -
Conservation Service plan an
documentation of comp1Ian with the
Bost Management Practices required by
this permit.
a, Control facilities must be designed,
ccnstructed, and operated to contain all
procos.s generated wastewaters and the
contnmineted runoff from a 25-year, 24-
hour rainfall event for the location of
the point source. Calculations. may also
include allowances for aurfom
retention, infiltration, and other site
specific factor,. Waste control facilities
-iust be constructed., maintained and
anaged so as to retain all
.ontaininatod rainfall runoff from open
lots and associated areu, proonu
generated wasteweter, arid all other
wastes which will enter es be stored in
the retention sthithne,
b. Fecilitres shall not expand
operations, either in sue or number, of
animaibi , prior to amending or enlarging
the waste handling procedures and
sfructur e to a’ rommodate any
additional wastes that will be generated
by the expended operations.
C. Open lots and associated wastes
shall be isolated from outside surface
dz jnage by ditches, dikes, bwins,
tertecea or other such sthictuieg
designed to carry peak flows expected at
times when the 25 year, 24-hz. rainfall
event oonirs.
d. New facilities shall not be built in
a water of the U.S. (including streams,
rivers, lakes, wetlands, and playa lakes
as defined in 40 R 12 12),
e. No waters of the U.S. shall coma
Into direct contact with the anirnalg
confined on the Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation. Fences may be used
to restrict swh access.
f. Wastewa retention facilities or
holding pens may not be located In the
100-year flood plain unless the facility
is protected from inundation and
damage that may occur during that flood
event.
g. There shall be no water quality
Impairment to public and neighboring
private drinking water wells due to
wade handling at the permitted facility.
Facility wastewater retention facilities,
holding pens or waste/wastewatey
disposal sites shall not be located closer
to public or private water wells than the
distancds specified by State regulations
or health codes or State issued permits
for that facility.
h. Waste handling, treatment, and
management shall not result In the
destruction or adverse modification of
the oratical habitat of endangered or
threatened species, or ccntribute to the
taking of endangered or threatened
species of plant, fish or wildlife.
I. Waste handling, treatment, and
management shall not aeate an
envlronznentaj or a public health
hazard; shall not result In the
contaminitlon of drinking water, shall
conform with State guidelines andior
regulations for the protection of surface
water quality.
J. Solids, sludges, manure, or other
pollutants removed In the course of
treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be disponed of In a manner such
as to prevent significant pollutants from
being discharged to waters of the United
States.
k. The operator shall prevent the
discharge of pesticide contaminsited
waters into waters of the United States
All wsste from dipping vats, post and
parasite trol units, and other
facilities utilland for the application of
potentially hawdona or toxic chemicals
shall be handled and disposed of In a
manner such an to prevent any
elgniflrent pollutants from entering the
water, of the United States,
I Dead animals shall be properly
disposed of within three (3) days unless
otherwise provided for by the Director.
Animals shall be disposed of in a
manner to prevent ConteminaUou of
surface water, of the United States or
a public health hazard.
m. Collection, storage, and disposal of
liquid and solid waste should be
managed In acoordance with recognized
practices of good agricultural
management. The economic benefits
derived from agricultural operations
carried out at the land disposal site shall
be secondary to the proper disposal of
waste and wastawater,
n. Appropriate measures necessary to
prevent spills and to clean up spills of
any toidc pollutant shall be tnktm
Where potential spills can occur
materials handling procedures and
storage shall be specified. Procedures
for cleaning up spills shall be identified
and the necessary equipment to
Implen)ant a cleanup shall be available
to personneL
e. Special requirements for discharges
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of 100,000
or more. Faciliuas discharging through
a municipal separate storm system
serving a population of 100,000
population or mare shall comply with
applicable requirements in the
municipality’s storm water management
program. Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation facilities must comply with
the requirements in the municipal storm
water management program developed
under an NPDES permit issued for the
discharge of the municipal separate
storm sewer system that receives the
CAFO facility’s discharge, provided the
operator of the CAFO has been notified
of such conditions,
2. Poilutian Prevention Plans. A
pollution prevention plan shall be
developed for each facility covered by
this permit. Pollution prevention plans
shall be prepared In accordance with
good engineering practices and should
Include measures necessary to limit
pollutants in runoff The plan shall
desc’ibe and ensure the implementation
of practices which are to be used to
assure co ripliance with the limitations
and conditions of this permit. The plan
shall Identify a specific Individual(s) .1
the facility who is responsible for
developing the Implementation,
maintenance, and revIs1o of the
pollution prevention plan. The activitias
-------
7830
Federal Register I VoL 58. No. 24- / MOnday, February 8, 1993 / NotIces
and responsIbIlitIes of the pollution
prevention personnel should address all
aspects of the faduity’s pollution
prevention plan.
a. Where a Soil Conservation Service
plan has been prepared for the facility.
the pollution prevention plan may refer
to the Soil Conservation Service plan
when the Soil Conservation Service
plan documentation contains equivalent
requirements for the facility. When tho
permittee uses a Soil Conservation
Service plan as partial completion of the
pollution plan, the Soil Conservation
Service plan must be kept on site.
Design and construction aitena
developed by the Soil Conservation
Service can be substituted for the
documentation of design capacity and
construction requirements Part Ill D.2.f.
of the Pollution Prevention Plan
provided the required inspection logs
and water level logs (sections fl2)(A)
and f 2)(D) respectively) are kept with
the Soil Conservation Service plan.
Waste management plans developed by
the Soil Conservation Service can be
substituted for the documentation of
apphcadon rate calculations in sections
ft2) (H) and (I).
b. Unless otherwise directed by the
permitting authority: Large facilities
(those with 1000 animal units or more)
shall have on site and implement a
Pollution Prevention Plan or its
equivalent within 365 days (1 year)•of
the issuance date of this permit.
Medium facilities (those with less than
1000 a,,imal units but with 300 or more)
shall have on site and implement a
Pollution Prevention Plan or its
equivalent within two (2) years of the
issuance data of this permit. Small
facilities (those under 300 AnimAl units
which have been designated by the
Director as a point source) shall have on
site and implement a Pollution
Prevention Plan or its equivalent within
thiee(3) years of the designation by the
Director. New facilities shall have and
Implement a Pollution Prevention Plan
or its equivalent prior to the submission
of a Notice of Intent to be coveted by
this permit
c. The plan shall be signed by the
owner or other signatory authority In
accordance with part IV.L (Signatory
Requirements), and be retained on site
In accordance with part IV.D. (Retention
‘S Wia s Maoag t Ptai a wblch h*v, be
pr.psted since january i. 1585 vs conaldvsd by
th. Soil Cocair,.tion S.vk. to o ntaLu adsqual.
ana t prvtlc.s. To toiws the FotucUon of
wt quality. th. Soil CocavvsU s Sanice baa
d.tvminad that SCS pLans prepared pilot to 19e9
mue be iviawed with th. Soil Ccnsvatloe
Sar,ic. oi westu man 85t protsulonal balore
D ansb 1995. scs baa d.ea ui.d that all plans
should be reyluwed rev, flee(5) yws to in sure
pzopv mana5 ant of wutan.
of Records) of thi, permit The plan
shall be updated as appropriate.
d. If 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 permittee
shall make changes to the plan within
00 days after such notification unless
otherwise provided by the Director.
e. The permittee shall amend the plan
prior to any change Lu design.
construction, operation, or maintenance,
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States or if
the pollution prevention plan proves to
be ineffective in achieving the general
objectives of controlling pollutants in
discharges from Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations. Amendments to the
plan may be reviewed by the Director or
authorized representative.
1. The plan shall include, at a
minimum, the following items:
(1) Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources. Each plan shall provide a
descmption of potential sources which
may reasonably be expected to add
pollutants to runoff from the facility.
Each plan shall identify activities and
materials which may potentially be
pollutant sources. Each plan shall
include:
(A) A site map. or topographic map
indicating, an outline of the diainage
area of the concentrated animal feeding
area: each existing structural control
measure to reduce pollutants in
wastewater and precipitation runoff:
and surface water bodies.
(B) A list of significant materials that
are used, stored or disposed of at the
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
(such as pesticides. cleaning agents,
fuels etc.). And a list of any significant
spills of these materials at the facility
after the issuance date of this permit, or
for new facilities, since date of
operation.
(C) All existing sampling data.
(2) Waste Management Controls. The
Pollution Prevention Plan for each
facility shall include a desaiption of
management controls appropriate for
the facility, and the permittee must
implement such controls. The
appropriateness and pnontlee of any
controls shall reflect the Identified
sources of pollutants at the facility.
(A) The plan shall Include the
location ends desaiption of existing
structural and non-structural controls.
Structural controls shall be Inspected at
least four times per year for structural
Integrity and maintenance. The plan
shall include dates for Inspection of the
retention facility, and a log of the
findings of such Inspections.
(B) Retention Capacity Calculations.
The plan must include documentation
of existing retention facility capacity
and the assumptions and calculations
used in determining the appropriate
volume capacity. The retention capacity
shall be based upon the 25-year 24-hour
rainfall event and the facility design
should Include a top freeboard of two
feet and in no case less than one foot
Retention facilities shall be sized based
upon the following volumes:
(1) The runoff volume from open lot
surfaces plus
(ii) The runoff volume from areas
between open lot surfaces and the
retention facilities plus
(UI) The rainfall multiplied by the
area of the retention facility and wastes
basin plus
(iv) The volume of rainfall from any
roofed area that is directed into the
retention facilities plus
(v) All wastes and process generated
wastewater produced during a period of
time not less than 21 days or the amou..it
spec Ified in the State Water Quality
Management Plan including: (1) Volume
of wet manure that will enter pond plus’
(2) volume of water used for manure/
waste removal plus. (3) volume of
deanup/washwater plus: (4) other water
such as drinking water that enters the
retention facilities.
Where ropriate. site specific
infor i should be used to
detert. ‘etention capacity and land
applica n rates. All site specific
infomi on used must be documented
in the Pollution Prevention Plan.
(C) Retention Facility Embankments.
The plan shall Include a desaiption of
the design standards for the retention
facility eznbankments. The following
minimum design standards are required <
for construction and/or modification of
a retention facilltyi Soils used in the
embankment shall be free of foreign
material such as trash, brush, and fallen
trees. The embnnkmant shall be
constructed In lifts or layere no more
than six inches thick and compacted at
optimum moisture content Site specific
variation in embankment constructiin
must be accompanied by compaction
testing, certification by a Professional
Engineer, or be in accordance with SoIl
Conservation Service design standards.
Compaction tests must be certified by a
Professional Engineer. All embankment
walls shall be stabilized to prevent
erosion or deterioration.
(1)) Retention Facility Dewaterrng. The
plan must Indude a schedule for liquid
-------
7831
waste removaL A date log rwi4 t1ng
weekly Inspection of wastawatar level
in retention facility. Including .peci&
measurement of wastewater level w111
be kept with the plan. Retention’
facilities shall be equipped with either
Irrigation or evaporatlciii es liquid
removal systems c ipable of dewiteyiiig
the retention facilities. Operstois using
pits, ponds, or lagoons for storage and
treatment of storm water. manure and
process generated wastewater, Including
flui s water waste handling systems,
shall maintain in their wastewater
retention facility sufficient freeboard to
contain rainfall and rainfall runoff from
a 25-year rainfall event. The operator
shall restore freeboard fare 25-year
rainfall event after any rainfall event or
accumulation of wastes or procass
generated wasteweter which reduces
such freeboard, weather permitting.
Equipment capable of dewatering the
wastewater retantimi structures of waste
and/or wuatewater shall be available
woenever needed to restore the
freeboard required to accommodate the
rainfall and lnoffresultjng from the 25-
year rainfall event.
CE) A permanent marker (measuring
device) shall be maintained In the
W8.5t0 water retention fadlitie, to show
the volume required for a 25-year
ramiall event within the containment
ponds. The marker shall be visible from
the top of the levee. -
(F) A rain gauge shailbe kept on sate
and properly maintained. A log of all
measurable rainfall events shall be kept
with the POllution Prevention Plan.
(C) Concentrated animal feeding
operations Constructing a new or
modifying an existing wasteweter
retention facility shall Insure that all
construction and design is In
accordance with good engineering
practices. Where site specific variations
are warranted, the perinittee must
document these vanaijons and their
appropnateness to the plan. Existing
facilities which have been properly
maintained and show no sign . of
structural breakage will be considered to
be properly constructed. Structures built
in accordance with site specific Soil
Conservation Service plans and
spedficatlons will be considered to be
In compliance with the design and
capacity requirements of this permit if
the site specific conditions are the same
as those used by the Soil Conservation
Service to develop the plan (numbers of
animals, runoff area, wastes generated,
etc) All retention stractur, design end
onstructlan shall, at a minimum, be in
;cordance with the technical standards
jove loped by the USDA Soil
Conservation Service. The permittee
must ua them standards that em
current at the time of omstrt cni.
(H) LinsrRequzremerig The permitte.
shall Include In the plan, site specific
documentation that no significent
hydrologic connection exists between
the contained wastew and aur
water, of the United Statse. Where the
permittee cennot document that no
significeni hydrologic urTh
through ground water exists, the ponds,
lagoons and basins of the retontlon
facilities must have a liner which will
prevent the potential contamination of
surface Waters.
(I) Documentation of No Liner
Reqsuresnent. The parmitte can
document lack of hydrologic omneoti on
by althen (i) Dor umenUng that there
will be no slgnlfirnnt liu k fr
retention structure; or (2) d ’im ntlng
that any leakage from the retention
structure wouid not migrate to surface
waters. This documentation should be
certified by a Professional Eng neer or
qualifled groundwater adentist and
must include information on the
hydraulic conductivity and thickness of
the natural materials underlying and
forming the walls of the containment
structure up to the wetted perimeter.
For documentation of no significant
leakage, In-situ materials must, at a
minimum, meet the minimum ciiterf a
for hydraulic conductivity and
thickness desa’fbed below.
Documentation that leakage will not
migrate to a swiace water must indude
maps showing ground water flow paths,
or thar ’the leakage enters a confined
environment A written determination
by an S S engineer, a PrO SIOUaI
Engineer, or qualified groundwater
scientist thbt a liner is not needed to
prevent leakage of significant amounts
of pollutants Into surface waters via
perched’ar ground waters will be
considered documentation that no
significant hydrologic connection exists.
(ii) Liner Construction. Site-specific
conditions should be considered in the
design and construction of linars. Soil
Conservation SeMc liner requirements
or liner, constiw eci and maintained In
acandance with Soil Conservation
Service design specifications in
Technical Note 718 (or Its current
equivalent) shall be considered to
prevent hydrologic connection which
could result In the contamination of
surface waters. Liners for retention
structure, should be constructed In
accordance with good engineering
practices, Where no site-specific
assessment has been done by a Soil
Conservation Service, Profeesionaj
Engineer, or qualified groundwater
scientist the liner shall be constructed to
have hydraulic amduotlvtijes no greater
than lxlo-’ em/eec, with a thickness of
1.5 feet or greater or Its equivalency in
other materials.
(iii) Liner Mnaatanonce. Where a liner
is Installed to prevent hydrologic
conn on the peimittee must malr,fistn
the liner to inhl t Infiltration of
wagewaters. Liners shall be prot ed
from mfmaJ by fences or other
pvotacthe deviois. No trees shall be
allowed to grow within the potesti.i
distance of the root em.. Any
mechanical or structural damage to the
liner will be evaluated by a Soil
Conservation Service engineer,
Pro Ienal Engineer, or qualified
groundwater ecfentlst wIthin 30 days of
the damage . Documentation of liner
maintenance shall be kept with the
Pollution Prevention Plan. The
persuttee shall have a Soil Conservation
Service engineer, Professional Engineer,
or qualified groundwater scientist
review the documentation and do a site
evaluation every five years. If notified
by the SIalø or the Director that the
potential exists for the contamination of
surface waters or drinh_ng water, the
permittee shall install a leak detection
system or monitoring wells In
t zdance with that notice.
Documentation ohsimpliance with the
notification must be kept with the
Pollution Prevention Plan, as well as all
sampling data. Data from the monitoring
wells must be kept on site for three
years with the pollution prevention
plan. The first yen’s sampling shall be
consi dosed the baseline data and must
be retained on site far the life of the
facility.
(I) WosteweterRe n ,y,,j and Land
Application. Retention facihties shall be
equipped with either irrigation or
evaporation systems capable of
dewatering the retention facilities, or a
regular schedule of wastewater removal
by contract hauler. The Pollution
Prevention Plan must include all
calculations, as well as, all factors used
In determining land application rates,
acteege, and cups. Land applicaticra
rates must take into amount the nutrient
contribution of any land applied
manures. If land application is uf1II. d
for disposal of wastewater, the following
requirements shall apply
(1) The discharge or drainage of
Irrigated wastewater ii prohibited where
It will result in a discharge to water of
the U.S.
(ii) When Irrigation disposal of
wastewajer Is used, facilities shall not
exceed the nutrient uptake of the a’op
coverage or planned cup planting with
any land application of wastswater andI
or manure. Land application rates of
westewaters should be based on the
available nitrogen content, however,
Federal RegMer I Vol. 58, No. 24 1 Monday, February 8, 1983 1 Not1c
-------
7632
Federal Register I VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday February 8, 1993 / Notices
where local water quality is threatened
by phosphorus. the permittee should
limit the application rate to the
recommended rates of available
phosphorus flit needed cop uptake and
provide controls for runoff and erosion
as appropriate for site conditions.
(iii) Wastewater shall not be irrigated
when the ground Is frozen or saturated
or during yrnnfnll events (unles&to filter
wastewaters from retention structures
which are going to overflow directly to
a water of the U.S.).
(Iv) Irrigation practices shall be
managed so as to reduce or minimizn
ponding or puddling of wastewater on
the site. contRvrn nation of ground or
surface water, and the occurrence of
nuisance conditions such as odors and
files.
(v) It shall be considered “Proper
Operation and Maintenance” for a
fad lity which has been properly
operated. and that Is in danger of
imminent overflow due to chronic or
catastrophic rainfall, to discharge
wastewaters to land application sites for
filtering prior to discharging to waters of
the U.S.
(vi) Facilities Including ponds. pipes.
ditches. pumps. diversion and irrigation
equipment shall be maintained to insure
ability to fully comply with the terms of
this permit and the pollution prevention
plan.
(vii) Adequate equipment or land
application ares shall be available for
removal of such waste and wastewater
as required to maintain the retention
capeaty of the facility for compliance
with this periniL
(vul) Disposal of wastewaters shall
not cause or contribute to the taking of
any endangered or threatened species of
plant, fish, or wildlife: nor shall such
disposal interfere with or cause harm to
migratory birds. The operator shell
notify the appropriate fish and wildlife
agency in the event of any significant
fish, wildlife, or migratory bird/
endangered species kill or die-off on or
near retention ponds or In fields where
waste has been applied, and which
could reasonably have resulted from
waste management at the facility.
(lx) Where land application sites are
Isolated from gux waters and no
potential exists for runoff to reach a
water of U.S.. application rates may
exceed nutrient cop uptake rates as
provided in an approved state program.
No land application under this section
shall cause or contribute to a violation
of water quality standards.
(J) Manure and Pond Solids Handling
and Land Application. Storage and land
application of manure shall cot cause a
discharge of significant pollutants to
waters of the United States or cause a
water quality violation in waters of the
United States. At all times, sufficient
volume shall be maintained within the
control facility to accommodate manure.
other solids, wastewaters and rein
waters (runoff) from the concentrated
animal feeding areaa.
(I) Where the erm1ttee decides to
land apply manures and pond solids
that plan shall include: (1) a deaciption
of waste handling procedures arid
equipment availabilIty; (2) the
calculations and assumptions used for
determining land application rates; and
(3) any nutrient analysis data If
laboratory analysis is done. Land
application rates of wastes should be
based on the available nitrogen content
of the solid waste. However, where local
water quality Is threatened by
phosphorous, the application rate
should be limited to the recommended
rates of available phosphorus for needed
orop uptake and provide controls for
runoff and erosion as appropriate for
site conditions.
(ii) lithe waste (manure) Is sold or
given to other persons for disposal. the
parmittee must maintain a log of date
of removal from the feedlot; name of
hau1er and amount, in wet tons, dry
tons or cubic yards. of waste removed
from the feedlot. (Incidental amounts,
given away by the pick-up truck load.
need not be recorded.) Where the wastes
are to be land applied by the hauler, the
prem.lttee must make available to the
hauler any nutrient sample analysis
from that year.
(lii) The procedures documented in
the pollution prevention plan must
ensure that the handling and disposal of
wastes comply with the following
requirements:
(a) Adequate manure storage capacity
based upon manure and waste
production and land availability shall
be provided. Storage and/or surface
disposal of manure in the 100-year flood
plain or near water courses is prohibited
unless protected buy adequate berms or
other structures. The land application of
wastes at agricultural rates shall not be
considered surface disposal In this case
and is not prohibited.
(b) Runoff from manure storage piles
must be retained on site.
Ic) Waste shall not be applied to land
when the ground is frozen or saturated
or during rainfall events.
(d) Waste manure shall be applied to
suitable and at appropriate times and
rates. Discharge (run.offl of waste from
the application site Is prohibited.
TIming and rate of applications to shall
be response to aop needs, assuming
usual nutrient losses, expected
precipitation and soil conditions.
(e) Disposal of manure shall not cause
or contribute to the taking of any
endangered or threatened specie of
plant, fish, or wildlife; nor shall such
disposal interfere wIth or cause harm to
migratory birds. The operator shall
notify the appropriate fish and wildlife
agency En the event of a fish, wildlife,
or migratory bird/endangered species
kill or die-off on or near retention ponds
or In fields where waste has been
applied.
(I) All necessary practices to minimize
waste manure transport to water courses
shall be utilized and documented to the
plan.
(g) Edge-of-field, grassed strips shall
be used to separate water courses from
runoff carrying eroded soil and manure
particles. Land subject to excessive
erosion shall be avoided.
(h) Where land application sites are
isolated from surface waters and no
potential exists for runoff to reach a
water of the U.S.. application rates may
exceed nutrient a op uptake rates as
provided in an approved state program.
No land application under this section
shall cause or contribute to a violation
of water quality standards.
(3) Preventive Maintenance The plan
shall include an appropriate schedule
for preventative maintenance. Operators
will provide routine maintenance to
their control facilities In accordance
with schedule and plan of operation to
ensure compliance with this permit.
The permittee shall keep a maintenance
log documenting that prevEiitative
maintenance was done. A preventive
maintenance program shall involve
inspection and maintenance of all
runoff management devices (cleaning
separators catch basins) as well as
Inspectia and testing facility
equipment and containment structures
to uncover conditions that could cause
breakdowns or failures resulting in
discharges of pollutants to surface
waters.
(4) Sediment and Erosion Prevention.
The plan shall Identify areas which, due
to topography. activities, or other
factors, have a high potential for
significant soil erosion. Where these
areas have the potential to contribute
pollutants to waters of the U.S. the
Pollution Prevention Plan shall identify
measures used to limit erosion and
pollutant runoff
(5) Employee Tmining Whore
employees aie responsible for work
activities which relate to permit
compliance. those employees must be
regularly trained or informed of any
information pertinent to the proper
operation and maintenance of the
facility and waste disposal. Employee
training shall Inform personnel at all
-------
Federal Regia*rn I VoL 58. No. 24 / Monday , February 8, 1993 / Notices
7833
levels of responsibility of the general
components and goals of the pollution
prevention plan. Training shall Include
topic as sopropriate such as land
application of wastes, proper operation
and maintenance of the facility, good
housekeeping and material management
practices, necessary recordleepuig
requirements, and spill response end
dean up. The permittee Is responsible
for deteimining the appropriate trainin 8
frequency for different levels of
personnel and the polluti on praventlnn
plan shall identify periodic dates for
such training.
(6) inspection and Record keeping.
The operator or the person named in the
pollution prevention plan as the
individual responsible for drafting and
implementing the plan shall be
responsible for inspections and
recordkeeptng,
(A) Recordkeeping and h,ternoi
Reporting Procedures. lnddents such as
spills, or other discharges, along with
other information describing the
pollution potential and quantity of the
discharge shall be included in the
records. Inspections and maintenance
activities shall be documented and
recorded. These records must be kept on
site for a minimum of three years.
(B) Visual Inspections. The authorized
person shall Inspect designated
equipment and facility areas. Material
handling areas shall be Inspected for
evidence of, or the potential for,
pollutants entering the drainage system.
A follow-up procedure shall be used to
ensure that appropriate action has been
taken in response to the inspection.
(C) Site Inspection. A complete
inspection of the facility shall be done
and a report made documenting the
findings of the inspection made at least
oncelyear. The Inspection shall be
conducted by the authorized person
named in the pollution prevention plan,
to verify that the desa’iptkm of potential
pollutant sources is aocuzate; the
drainage map has been updated or
otherwise modified to reflect clment
conditions; and the controls outlined In
the pollution prevention plan to reduce
pollutants are being Implemented and
are adequate. Records documenting
significant observation made during the
site inspection shall be retained as part
of the pollution prevention plan.
Records of inspections shall be
maintained bra period of three years.
3. Other Legal Requirements, No
condition of this permit shall release the
ermittee from any responsibility or
eqwrementa under other statutes or
regulations, Federal. State or locaL
Pert I V. Monftorlng and Repeating
Requirements
A. Discharge Notification
U. for any reason, there Is a d1 chai’ge
to a water of the U.S.. the peTmitree Is
required to make verbal notification to
EPA at (214) 655—6593, and to netify the
Director and the State in writing within
14 workIng days of the discharge from
the retention facility. In addition the
.permlnee shall document the following
information to the pollution pzwvuution
plan within 14 days of becoming aware
of such discharge:
1. description end cause of the
discharge, including a description of the
flow path to the receiving water body.
Also, an estimation of the flow and
volume discharged.
2. The period of discharge, including
exact dates and times, and, If not
corrected the anticipated time the
discharge Is expected to continuo, and
steps being taken to reduce, eliminate
and prevent recurrence of the discharge.
3.11 caused by a precipitation
event(s), information from the onsite
rain gauge concerning the size of the
precipitation event
4. Unless otherwise directed by the
peTmitting authority: Large facilities
(those wIth 1000 animal units or more)
shall sample and analyze all discharges
from retention facilities. Medium
fadultThs (those with lass than 1000
animal units but wIth 300 or more) shall
sample and analyze all discharges, but
at a nia,dmum required frequency of
oncalysar. Small facilities (those under
300 smmzil units which have been
designated by the Director as a point
source shall sample and analyze all
discharges, but at a maidmum required
frequency of once per permit term.
Sample analysis shall be documented to
the Pollujion Prevention Plan.
5. Samples shall consist of grab
samples taken from the over-flow or
discharges from the retention structure.
A minimum of one sample shall be
taken from the initial discharge (within
30 mInutes). The sample shall be taken
and analyzed in ecoordance with EPA
approved methods for water analysis
listed In 40 CFR pall 136. Measurements
taken for the purpose of monitoring
shall be representative of the monitored
discharge.
6. Sample analysis of the discharge
must, at a minimum, Include the
following: Focal CoIiiorm bacteria; 5.
day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5); Total Suspended Solids (TSS);
ammonia nltrog ; end any pesticide
which the operator has reason to believe
could be in the discharge.
7. Sampling Waiver. In lieu of
discharge sampling data the permfttee
must document de Iption of why
discharge samples could not be
collected when the dlitharger I. 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.). Once
dangerous conditions have passed, the
perznlttee shall collect a sample from
the retention structur, pond or lagoon.
The sample shall be analyzed In
a rdance with Pert WA6. & 7.
(above).
B. Written Notification
All discharge Information and data
will be made available to the Director
upon request. Signed copies of
monitoring reports shall be submitted to
the Director if requested at the address
specified In the request
C PenalbsforF Jsifl ijo of Reports
The Act provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false statement,
ffipresentation, or certification in any
record or other document submitted or
required to be maintained under this
permit, Induding reports of compliance
or noncompliance shall, upon
conviction be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000 par violation, or by
Imprisonment for not more than six
months per violation, or by both.
D. Retention 0/Records
The permittee shall retain copies of
all records required by this permit for a
period of at least three yeais from the
date reported. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at
any time.
E Availability of Reports
in addition to data determined to be
confidential under 40 (YR pail 2,
Information submitted to EPA may be
claimed as confidential by the
submitter. If no claim Is made at the
time of submission, EPA may make the
lnfnrmatlon available to the public
without further notice. As required by
the Act, however, Notice, of Intent,
permits, the effluent data shall not be
considered confidential and any claims
of confidentiality for this information
will be denied.
F. Planned Changes
The p rm1ttee shall document to the
Pollution Pr ,vvntjon Plan as soon as
possible, any planned physical
alterations or additions to the pennitteci
facility. The permitte, must Insur, that
any change or facility expansion will
-------
7634
FaJ al Rag I VoL . Nn. 24 1 Monday, Fa uary 8. 1%3 I NtA1z
not resultin adiecharge In violation at’
this permit
C. Duty to Provide Thfoivnation
The permnittee shall furnish to the
Director, within a tnciAhl jm , any
Information which the Director may
request to detarmina compliance with
this periniL The permitter shall also
fuimah to the Director. upon request.
copier of records ruqwxed to be kept by
this permit.
H. Other tnfom,atioti
When the pemmittee ber.nma aware
that he failed to submit any relevant
facts or submitted Incorrect Information
in the Notice of Intent or in any other
report to the Director, he shall promptly
submit such facts or information.
L S ignator,rAeqwen
All reports or information submitted
to the Director shall be signed and
certified.
L All reports or information shall be
signed by the facility owner or opezator/
mena er where the authority to sign
documents has been assigned or
delegated to the operator/manager
a. For facilities owned by a
corporation: by a ipi .niaible corporate
officer. Far the purpose of this permit.
a respansible curporata officer means (l
a president. otary. tesseser. or vice
president of the corporation In charge of
a prlndpal business function, or any
other person who purforms 5 imilne
policy- or decision-making functions for
the corporation.
b. For a facilities owned by a
partnership or anle proprietorthlp by a
generel partner or the proprietor,
respectively.
c. For facilities owned bye
municipality. State. Federal. or other
public agency: by either a principal
executive officer or rim king elected
officiaL
2. All reporte requlredbythopermit
and other Information reqoestod by the
Director shall be signed by a persuu
desai above or by a duly autbesterd
representative of that parm A person
is duly sutharimd e entative only if
the authorization La made In writing by
a person desaibe abate, m d the
authorization specifies either an
Individ u a l ore poettion having
responsibility for the overall operation.
3. Certification. Any person sigmng a
document under this section shall make
the following certification:
I cetlify under penalty or law that this
docwnanl and aD at enu were prepared
under my direction or.u ...l.lun in
e rd s w4th y des1 ed to me
that qealtft pi .. . .Iy guth .imed
and svain ed th i L i m d.
Based on y 1y of the or
who man,ge the tystem. or those p.u s
directly responsible r gathaiing the
Information, the Lnformatier aibmitted Is, to
the bust of sey knowledBe and ballet.
urate. and plat.. I am a e that there
are slgplRr .int penalties for ni atticS *1as
lnh matton. Including the pouibiflty of fine
end Imprisonment for cwtng violattoeL
Pail V. Standard tsquir ents
A. Duty to Comply
The permitter must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Act and Is grounds for
enforcement actian for lou of
authorization to discharge under this
general permit or fur denial of a permit
renewal application.
B. Inspection and A’nt y
The permitter shall allow the
Director, or an authorizad representative
of EPA including the State, upon the
presentation of aedautiela and other
documents es may be required by law.
to:
1. Enter upon the permittees
premises where a regulated fecility or
activity is located or conducted, or
where i rds must be kept under the
conditions of this permit
2. Have a sa to and copy. at
reasonable F mi any i . ds that mint
be kept under the conditions of this
p it
3.1 apnct atxesscmable timesany
facilities. eqmpan ui (including
monitoring and coflifol oqiupmantl.
practices. or a ations regulated or
required trader this permit and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
timer. b the purpose of easunog permit
complia or as otherwise at thonzad
by the Act any substances or
parameters at any location.
C. Toxic Pollutants
shall imply with
effluent standards of prohibitions
established under a lon 307(a ) of the
Act her taido pollutants within the time
provided In the regulations t
establish them standards or
priiikik Hons. even if the permit has nut
yet been inodified to Ina pamala the
meqnizesnmt.
D. Penalties for Violation of Pe.rmiX
Conditions
The Act provides that any p 5mm who
violates a permit idition
Implementing sections 301. 302. 305.
307, 308. 31 g. or405 of the Actis
to a clvii penalty not to e, d
323.000 per day for h violation. Any
person who willfully or negligently
violates permit conditions
I inpl .—.-- . .’fr .g era 301. . 308,
307.308. 3 or405 of the Act. orany
p t omditlon er limitation is auh ect
to a fine of n lou than 32.508, nor
mere than 3 .000 per day of violati”n .
or by rmpriw 1Irn nt r nut mare than
one year, or both.
E. Continuation of the F pired General
Peiind
An expired general permit continuer
In force and e trail a new genera.!
permit is issued.
F. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not
a Defense
It shall not be a defense far a
pemmittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been n saaiy to halt or
reduce the peanilrted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
C. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee ll take all
reasonable steps to minamivia or prevent
any discharge in violation of this permit
which has a reasonable bkahhood of
adversely offuding human health or the
environment.
H. Proper Opemtion and Maintenance
The permitt shall at a ll times
properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtemmrns)
whithamethstafledarnsedbythe
permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit Proper
operation and maintenance includes the
operation of backup or amaliary
facilities or similar iy tmu3 only when
necessary to achieve compliance with
the condj áms of the permiL
r. Penalties for Falsification of
Monitoring Systems and Reports
The Act provides that any perem who
falsifies, tampers with, or keowmnsly
renders inami1 t any m onng
device or method required to be
maintained nodes this permit shell.
upon conv tiun. be punished by fines
and imprisonment desimbed in Part
VD. (Penalties for Vlolatioa of Permit
Conditions) of this perilHL
J. Property Rights
‘fli. iss ’ ” of this permit does nor
convey and property rights of any sort.
or any exclusive pnwiLi es. nor does it
authorize any injisy to private property
or any Invasion of personal rights. nor
any Infringement of Federal. State or
local laws or regulations.
£ Severobrlity
The provisions of this pnsmil are
severable. and if any provision of this
-------
Federn] Register I Vol. 58. No. 24 / Monday . February 8. 1993 / Notices
7635
permit, or the application of any
provision of this permit toasty
circumstance, 13 held Invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this permit. shall not be affected
thereby.
L State Laws
Nothing in this permit shailbe
construed to preclude the instituUc of
any legal actiOn or relieve the pernitnee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established puz uant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
suthonty preserved by section 510 of
the Act.
M. Penrut Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked
0: reissued, or terminated (or cause. The
fihng of a request by the permittee for
a permit modification, revocation and
raissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition
Part VI. Reopener Qaua.
If effluent limitations or requi:errerils
are established or modified in an
approved State Water Quality
Management Plan or Waste Load
Allocation and if they are more stringent
than those listed in this permit or
control a pollutant not listed in this
permit, this permit may be reopened to
;nclude those more stringent limits or
reqtnrements
Part VII. Definition,
25- Year 24-Hoar iwnfcJJ £ienr means
U € rnaiumu.rn 24-hour precipitation
event with a probable recurrence
iziter al of once in 25 ,ears, as defined
by the National Weather Service in
Tecnnical Paper Number 40. “Rainfall
Frecriency Atlas of the United States,”
May 1961, and subsequent amendments.
or eqwvalent regional or slate rainfall
probability information developed
iherefrom.
Agmnom,c Rates means the land
appl;cstion of animal wastes at rates of
application which provide the a’op or
forage growth with needed nutrients for
optimum health end growth.
nzmalfeeding operation means a lot
Cr facility (other than an aouauc animal
procuction facility) where animals have
teer are, or will be stabled or cor.fined
and fed or maintained for a total of 45
days or more in any 12 ’montb penod,
and the animal confinement areas do
not sustain cops, vegetation, forage
‘ rowth. or post-harvest residues in the
ormal growing season. Two or riore
s.czrnal feeding operaucns under
:crumon ownership are a single en aJ
feeding operatIon If they adjoin each
other, or if they use a common area or
system for the disposal of wastes.
Animal unit means a unit of
measurement for any animal fee ng
operation calculated by adding the
following numbers: The nuniber of
slaughter and feeder cattie and dairy
boilers eiultiplied by 1.0, ph. the
number o( mature dairy cattle
multiplied by 1.4. ph.. the number of
&wine weighing aver 55 pounds
mu t1pIIed by 0.4. plus the number of
sheep multiplied by 0.1. phia the
number of horses multiplied by 2.0. -
1000 animal units will refer to group a.
in definition number 8. 300 animal
units (but less than 1000) will refer to
group b In defini lon number 8.
Best Available Technoiogy (‘BAT’)
means the best available technology
which is economically achievable
established under 301(b) and 402 of the
Act, The a’itena and standards for
imposing technology-based treatment
requirements are listed in 40 G’R 125.3.
Best Conventional Technology
f”BCT”) means the best convenuonal
polh tant control technology which is
economically achievable established
under 301 (b) and 402 of the Act. The
a’iteria and standards for imposing
technology-based treatment
requirements are listed in 40 GR 125.3.
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” Best Management Practices e so
include treatment requ:resnents,
operating p ocedurvs, and practices to
control site runoff, spillage or leaks,
sludge or waste disposal, or drainage
from rsw ’snatertal storage.
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation means an “animal feeding
operation” which meets the a’itena in
40 GR part 122, appendix B. or which
the Director designates as a significant
contributor of pollution pursuant to 40
G R 122.23. Animal feeding operations
defined as “concentrated” in 40 GR
part 122 appendix B are as follows:
a. New and existing operations which
stable or confine and feed or maintain
for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-
month period more Lhan the numbers of
animals specified in any of the
(allowing categories:
1 1.000 slaughter or feecer r ,aiI e.
2. 700 mature dairy cattle (wøetber rttlker,
or erv cow.);
3 2,500 swine eigtug over 55 pouccs.
4 500 horses:
5 10.000 sheep or lambs,
6 55,000 t’i ’keys,
7,100.000 leafing hen, or holler, when the
fedlity hu unlimited aintlnuouu flow
watering systems;
L 30.000 laying hens or broiler, when
fadilty has liquid manure handling system:
9. 5,000ducksor
10. 1,000 anim*l units from s combinatica
of slaughter steers ad heifer,, matins dairy
cattle, swine aver 55 pound, sad sheep;
b. New and existing operations which
thecharge pollutant., into navigable
water, either through a man-made ditch,
flushing system, or other similar man-
made device, or directly into waters of
the United States, and which stable or
cenfino end feed or maintain for a total
of 45 days or mote in any 12-month
period more than the numbers or types
of animaLs in the following categories:
1, 300 slaughter or feeder cattle;
2.200 mature dairy can]e ( hethe-miixers
or dry cows):
1 750 swine weighing over 55 pounos,
4. 150 horse ,,
5. 3.000 sheep or lambs,
6. 16,000 turkeys,
7 30.000 laying hen, or b oiiers when the
fadlity has unlimited continuou, flow
watering systems;
8 9.000 layIng hen, or broilsi when the
facility baa a liquid manure handling system,
9 1.500 ducks; cit
10. 300 animal units (fr rmnhinatjun
of slaughter steers end heifer,, mature dairy
cattle, swine over 55 pounds and sheepj.
Provided, however, that no animal
feeding operation is a concentrated
animal feeding operation as defined
above if such animal Iseding oneration
discharges only in the event of a 25.
year, 24-hour storm event.
Control Facthty means any systern
used (or the retention of all wastes on
the premises until their ultimate
disposal. This includes the retention of
manure, liquid waste, and runoff from
the feecilot area.
Environmental Review means the
process whereby an evaluation of the
environmental information provided y
the permit applicant is undertaken by
A to identify and evaluate the related
environmental impacts to determine if
there will be a significant impact to tao
environment from the new facility (40
GR 6,101(c)).
Feed lot means a concentrated,
confined animal or poultry growir.g
operation for meat, milk, or egg
production, or stabling, in pens or
houses wherein the animals or pculL-
are fed at the place of confinenient and
cop or forage growth or produciton is
not sustained in the area of
confinement, and is subject to 40 (YR
part 412.
Groundwater means any substface
water,
Hydrologic Connection means the
intarfiow end exchange between swface
-------
78
F Rag .r I Vol. 58. No. 24 1 Mmday, Feliruary 3. 1993/ No&
through an and ound w dor or
groundwater. In the couteat of this
permit. the reduction of bydrologic
connectIon is to reduce the groundwater
flow contact resulung In the transfer of
pollutant material.. horn Concentrated
AniTmd Fasdir.g Operation cni teIm ant
structures into surface waters.
Land Application means the removal
of wastewater end westeselide from a
control facility and distribution to, or
incorporation into, the soil mantle
primarily for disposal yillpoem.
Linermeene any besTier in the form of
a layer. membrane or blanket. 1 alled
to prevent a significant hydrologic
connection between liquids contained
In retention structures and waters of the
United States.
Process Wastew any
process generated wastewater directly or
Indirectly used In the operation of a
foedlot (such as spillage or overflow
from emma! or ou1try watering
systems; washing. cleaning, or flushing
pens. barns, manure pita. direct contact
swimming. washing. or spray cooling of
animals, and dust cuntioU end any
prempitation which comes into contact
with any manure or litter, bedding. c i
any other raw material or intermediate
or final metenel or product ed In or
resulting from the production of enITn lc
or poultry or direct products (e.g.. miL
es setentjan Facility or Retention
StrurteJesTTi n all collection ditrthes .
conduits and awake for the cofl 11im of
runoff and wastewater. and all banns,
ponds and lagoons used to store wastes.
wastewaterl and manures.
Severe Property Damage means
suhss,nnlal phyaical diimi ge w propesty.
damage to the treatment lities whisi
causes them te be . laopessble. or
aube . awl permenant of
natural reaowces which an reasonably
be expected to ocour In the ah e 0 r of
a bypass. S.vm. property desna does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays In production.
The Act n*sn the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as em d . also
known as the Clean Water Ad, found at
33 U.S.C. 1251 at seq.
Tare Poll utardz mean any pnflntent
listed as toxic under aectlcm 301(a) (1) of
the Act.
Qualified Groundwater cieirtist
means a scientist or engineer who ha..
received a barca1 iuzeate or post-
graduate degree In natural sciences or
engineering arid has sufficient training
and experience In groundwater
hydrology and related fields as may be
demonstrated by state registration.
professional certification, or completion
of aocredited university programs that
enable that individual to make sound
professional judgments regarding
groundwater monitoring, contamination
fate and transport, and wi-n 1iV8 action
(40 G’R 258.50(f )).
Appendix A—Stat. Specific PermIt
Langu.gs forth. Stats at New M.rdco
This NPDES permill.. anlsod.d to protect
surface waters resources that ae “waters of
the United States” from contamination
resulting from wui.m trated animal feeding
operations through either surface of
,ubsuz cenwayan . This permit Is . -
intended to pmtea ground wew resowom
from cont ,rn nation. Compliance With this
permit does not sb.olv. the permutes from
the med to comply with New Mexico Water
Quality Contt’ol Commirsion Regulations for
the protection of ground water. For
information on thom stete regulations pIee
contact tte new Mexico Environment
— Gan ñ . end
Rainediatlon Basnsi. P.O. 3ox 11O. , Santa
Fe, New 67502 or all L5O5 ) 827—2000
Stats SpeaJk iR La,guege for the ots
of
Part LC . L IthtiuuP on Cuver e . The
fellowtng point source discharges are not
authorized by this general permlt
7. “New” Concentrated Feeding
Operations rrenm ucthg after the
effotst date of the Oklah Water
Quality Standards (Oklahoma Annotntsd
Cods Title 785. (Qa 45) e cdve
Jun. 25. 1902) to the frillawsag
w &L
a. W. dIea .eI .ideA as “Outoendieg
Resource Waters” ar idior “Scenic
Rivers” in Appendix A of the Oklahoma
Water Quality Standardr,
b. Oklahoma waterbodiss located within
the wsAeraberis at wa*arbodias
designated as “ “ Rivers” in
Appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards: and
C. Waterbodles located within the
boundaries of Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards Appendix B areas which ore
specifically desi 5 rzat d as ‘Orr tanding
Resource Waters” is App nrl’ A at
Oklahoma Waler Quality Sta1ithrds
State Specific Ponul Language for the Store
of Texas
Part I V.
A. Discharge Nonfir um. If. far any r .
there 1. a discharge. the permutes is
required to notify the Director ag writ
wIthin 14 days of the discharge from the
retention facility. Written notaflcauan of
discharges from retention structure. to
waters of the U S. shall be reported to the
State within five (5) worhing days. In
addition the permittee shall document
the followIng inhanmtlon to the
pollution y .w . .aatio4 plan w ln 14 days
swan of discharge.
coos
-------
Fl J R I Vol. No.24 / Manday, Fi uffly a, 1993 1 Noth 7837
APpE mIx a
NOTICE OF INTENT (NOl) to be Covered by
the General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
This notification shall not be made to EPA. Region 6 if prohibited
from coverage under Part l.c. of this permit.
Nar e and Address of Facili’ty Cinclude County or Parish) :_
Telephone Number:
Jar e of Operator: __________
.a e, Address and Telephone Number of O rr er (if . ferent): _____
\‘unbers and Type s of ani ajs confined at the facility (e.g.
feeder pigs, dairy COWS, etc.):
::: i acreaGe occu ied by the facility: ______________________
ana ongitude LocatiQQ of the. Facility:
LATITuDE — degrees ____ minutes ____ seconds
LONGITUDE ____ degrees — minutes — seconds
ece ving stream (if known):_
:t3te Per ut Number (if aPplicable) :_
3 i nature
5Gnat Jre r ust be n accoroance ..‘ith Date Signed
r: ‘.I of the General Permit
-------
7638 Fed i1 Ragiatar / VoL 58, No. 24 / Mrnd y. Februay 8. 1993 / NotIca
NOTICE OF TER!IINATION (NOT)
NPDES Per iit Number: ___________________________________________
State Permit Number (if applicable)
Date NOt was submitted: _____________________________________
Name and Address of Facility (include County or Parish):
Telephone Number: ________________________________________________
Name of Operator:_
The following infornation is required only if changes have been
tade to the facility since the submittal of the Notice of Intent:
Name and Address of Owner (if different)
Numbers and Type(s) of animals confined at the facility (e.g.
feeder pigs, dairy cows, etc.):
Total acreage occupied b/ t. ’.e fac lit:: _____________________
at:tude anc Longituce ocaton of the Fac: _y:
____ decrees ____ .-uzes seconds
LcuG:TUDE ____ degrees ____ nir.utes seconds
Receiving stream if kno’jn
Reason for the termination of per t coverage:
(Add attached sneets if necessar:
S i.crat re
—us: e .n c:r-ianc - Date Cianea
Par: : :e :ere .
-------
Fed.rà L iM I Vol. 58, No. 24 1 M day. Fu xuiry a, 1993? Noti s 7631
APP 1DIX C
BASIC FORMAT FOR ENVTRON1 fENTA’L ASSESSMENT
This is e 5as forriat for i’e En ironmentaJ Assessment prepared by EPA Region 6 from
the review of the applicant’s Environmental Information Document (EID) required for new
source NPDES permits. Comprehensive informauon should’ be provided for those items or
issues that are affected; the greater the impact, the more detailed information needed. The
EID should contain a bnef statement addressing each item listed below, even if the item is
not applicable. The statement should at least explain why the item is not applicable.
A. General Information
Name of applicant
2. Type of facil
3 Location of facility
4 Product manufactured
B Descnpcion Summaries
I Describe the proposed facility arid construction activity
2 Describe all ancillary Construction flO directly involved with the production
processes
3. Describe briefly the manufacturing processes and procedures
4 Describe the plant site, its history, and the general area
C Environmental Concerns
Historical and Archeological (include a statement from the State Historical
Preservation Officer)
- 2 Wetlands Protection and lOO- ezr Floodplain Management (the Army Corps of
Engineers must be contacted if any wetland area or floodplain is affected)
3 Agncwturai Lanas (a primp farmiand sutement from the Soil Conse ation
Ser ice must be included)
4 Coastal Zone Management and Wild and Scenic Rivers
5 Endangered Species Prot&tion and Fish and Wildlife Protection (a statement
from the U S Fish and Wildlife Service must be included)
6 Air. Water and Land Issues. quality, effects, usage levels, municipal services
used, discharges and emissions, runoff and wastewater control, geology and
soils involved, land-use compatibility, solid and hazardous waste disposal,
natural and man-made hazards involved.
7 Biota concerns: floral, faunal. aquatic resources, inventories and effects
S Community Infrastructures available and resulting effects: soc idl, economic.
health. satet educational. recreational, housing, transportation and road
resources
-------
7640 Fed r*1 Register / VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday, ‘ February 8, 1993 / Notices
BASIC EN\ IRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT GUIDELINES
FOR E\ SOURCE CATEGORY INDUSTRIES EPA REGION 6
( eneriI Intormation
A same of Apphcani and Proposed FaciIi —
B De cripiion t Site and Location __________
C Descr otion of Protect Product and Process
-------
Federal Ragliter I Vol. 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 I NoUcee
APPENDIX 0
•VONTACTS AND REFERENCE MMERIAI. ,S
To report ul1s r adterrn.ine mpac:s On endangered or threatened epecias,
: nta the Fign and Wildlife Servi.ce Office nearest you that is listed below:
F sn & Wil 1_ e Serv ce
Reg onal Office
500 Gold Avenue, SW
P.O. Box 1305
Albuquerque, NM 97103
(505) 766—2914
FLe1 Office
7.1 Stadium 3r.ve iast
Suite 252
Arlington, TX 6O1
‘817) 895—7830
Field Off ice
17629 El Caruj,o Real
Suite. 211
Rou t , TX 77058
(713) 286—8282
Field Office
do Corpue Chriat ,
Campus Box 338
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, TX
1512) 888—3346
Field Office
22 South Ho.i to ,
Tulsa, OK 74127
518) 581—7458
New Mexico
78412
Suite A
Field Office
3530 Part American High..ay NE
Suite 0
Albuquerqa.ze, NM 8710
i505 ) 883—7877
State University
Field Office
611 East 6t Street
4th Floor
Aus: n, TX 78701
(512) 482—5436
Field Off..ce
825 Caliste Saloom
Brandywine II. Suite 102
Lafayette, LA 70508
(318) 264—6630
ForGeneral Information and Reference Materials, pleas. centact the
aporopr ate State Agency listed below:
Louisiana
..Qu. .ciana Ccc;erat.;e Extens on -
Serv
: _ira State J ..
‘ acp L ail
3a::- ‘c4ce, LA
sc., :a —
.ouisiana 3epar ent of
E ivircnnentaI Quality
Office of Water Resources
F 0. Box 82215
Baton gouge, LA 70884—2215
(504) 76E—0595
Louisi,ana Department of Agriculture
and Forestry
P.O. Box 94302
Baton Rouge, LA ‘C804-5303
5C4) 22—1:24
C:r.servat_:- 3er .ce
:f Acr _.:jre
e_’—e—t 3t:eet
exar r...a, LA
iew Mexiro Cocperative Extension
Service
Jew Mex .c State University
P.O. Box IAE
as C:..ces, ‘ M 88003
,5G5 1 46— 34C4
ew Mexico, environment 3epartment
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
(505) 827—2850
New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Box 30005, Department 3189
Las Cruces, NM 88003—0005
(SOS) 646—3007
Soil Conservation Service
U. S. 3eoartment of Agriculture
E1 ’ C lo Avenue S W, Room 3301
Albuauervue, ‘ M 271O2-]i
•lC ) o—l73
-------
7 IZ
F zol Ec u4iw / Vol. 53 No.241 M ay. F ru y 8, 19 I Nvtt ’-
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Cooperat_ .’e x:ens .on
Serv .ce
Oklahoma State ‘er5Lty
214 Agr Ltural a11
St .11uater, OK 74078—0469
(405) 744—5425
Oklahoma Department of Agr .c Lture
2300 N. L .ncoln Blvd.
Oklahoma C .ty. OK 73105—4298
(405) 521—3864
Oklahoma ConserVat3 .Qfl Comnu.ssLon
2800 N. N .nco1n Blvd.. Room 160
Oklahoma Cit ’ ) ’, 0 73105
(405) 521 —2384
So .1 Conservat .Ofl ServLce
u.s. Department of Agr2.culture
USDA A’,ric .i1tural Center Bldg.
St_11wat r, OK 74074
(405) —4488
Texas
Texas Agric Lt zra1 Exrensi .on Serv .ce
Texas A & M Universi.ty
3O Agrict1t ral gineer ng Bldg.
Co leqe Stat.oi , TX 77843—?1?’
(409) 845—7451
Texas Water COm t .sSLOfl
qr .cultura1 Sect .on
P.O. Box 12087
Aust .n. TX 78711—3087
(512) 475—4573
Texas Department of Agr .culture
P. O. Box 12847
Aust .n. TX 78711
(512) 463—7476
Texas State So .l and Water
ConservatLon Board
311 North 5th
remple. TX 76503
(a 17) 772—2250
5o C nservat .Ofl Serv .ce
U. S. Department of Agrr l: .ire
Poage Bldg.
101 5. street
rem ple. TX 76501—7682
(817) 774—1261
FoLlowLng .s a Li.st of available sourtes for reference material c* proper
operat .one and ma .ntenance of concentrated an .mal feeding operat .ofl5. Also
.ncluded are sources for reference c-f preferred management practices as
recogn .zed by the agr .cultura1 .- dustr’/. -
GENERAL PEPtRENC!S
•:at.onal geer ‘andbook Part 651. Aqr ltura . Waste Mana emeflt .eld
and oak (1992) ?.O. Box 2890, as nqtoit. D.C. 2CC12-
:eg ck s:e Uardbcok ‘PwS—8. c:ersi . fl Ag 1: . ral nai.neer
• Ej Jn .:ers:t7 cr ‘ .sso .rr:. C . - Tc-:a. MO ss:::.
S AtZDA DS 1992. Standa 3. En neer .r a pr ct ces and Data . 39tPt E t. cn (1992)
AmerLoan Soc .ety of Agrz.cuitura! Eng .rTeer . 2950 NLIeS Road. St. Joseph, ?tI
49085—9659.
2S Year. 24 Wour Rainfall (Inctresl. Technical Paper 40. United States
Department of Ca teree. Weather 9txreau . Wasflingtofl. p.C.
r uo APPT..IcAT:ON
Animai Waste Ut lz m on Cropiarrd and Pastureland, L.R. Shuyter (1979).
‘JSDA Ut_l :at.ort Re ear h Report rto. 6. Washington. D.C.
Ar...ma,.. .aste t_1 ..zac.. r T C c 1arrd ,ind ast reiar.d. ‘J. S. Lr rTnTefltaL
: :_:n Agerc 1 9 .. ?A- C - —) . J S. C vern eflC ?r .nt_nq
D.C.
REFERENCE MATERIALS
-------
Feder*I Re ister / Vol. 58. No. 24 I Monday, February 8, 1993 / Noticea 7643
S ne L.açoon Effluent AppL .ed to Coastal Beri udagra .o: I. Forage field.
Qual ty, and tle ient 9 moval, .J.C. Burns, P.W. We .terrnan . .D. lUng, G.A.
Curjn n s, M.R. Overcash, L..G ode 19SSj. .ournal of nv1ronn enta1 Qual. .ty.
tffec:_ve-.egg of Fcres: and Crass 3u fer Str ps n I prcv ng the Water
Q al_:y of Mar.ure PcUuted Runoff, R.C. doyle, G.S. Stanton iS77). ASAE
Face: 77—Z O1, !t. Josepr.. MI 4908E.
C:r Crcwth a-o Co os t. .on n.Relat..on to Soil Fert l ty: . Jptage of N.
F ard and the : 1s:: buç on n Different Plant Part. Dur ng t e C:ow .r.g
Seasc , .... Manaa 19 ). Ag:cn. 3cur al 4:217—222.
C a ;es .n the P ’ys :al Prope : t .es of Soil by Fertilizer ard Manure
pp cat on , .3. Bis ..as , B..M. Incole and K.X. .Jha ( 969). Fertil..:er Newa,
‘Jo . 4 , No. , pp. : -:6.
Waste, Uti....:aticn on Cropland and Paet...reland. A Ilanual for
vauat.en Aa:cr.cmic an env ronmental Effect.,’ United State. Departrer.t of
r c ture (1979). Sc . and Educ. A n. Util. Res. Rep. 6.
£ te Se ect.cn a Felated to :atcn and Disposal of Orgaflic aste9, -
.‘ . ittv, K. F1aci (1977). ercan Scc ety of Agron., Sods fcr
ace- t :f 0:a-: .artes ar ‘a :e ater2 , C apte 13.
-. —: c: c - :s::cs
!c ‘ t:e—t Ccr.:er.t of Manures .r an Ar. d C. ate , .M. rrir;tcn , C. .
Fäc ,c 9EC). Proceecirgs of Fcurz :n:ernaz ona1 on .gr .: . .ltural
—aste, Amar .l1o, ‘ exas.
:.‘es:ocic aste C’ arac:erizatcn-a New A;proac . C.L.9arth l9EE).
Was:e t.l..zat. ..on and Managerrent, Proceeding. of the Fift
:-: . - a:cnal 5yirpcs..... of Ag o.a1z. ral astes, ASA.E, St. cseph, MI, p. 86.
va.acje ‘J t: e-’ts .n 1. .vestock waste , ’ P.W. Wester nan, L.’i. Safley, .r.,
:.:. arker. G.M. C e9crer. I 19SEj Agr.cultural Waste tl_zat . ,on ara
‘ race—ert, P : oceec.- s cf : e _f: :rzer- atcna_ Syrpcsi. m of ?g: :u1 .,:a
.as et, : ::se , p ’:. p. 9E
• 5 c: . c :::
e:e: :, e .:s: :E :—e—: : a:r. rc..se ! E-a: r.
2 .9E :— .r ire- a. Q_a.:y, 9.44&—. .
: -=: ‘ 1 ra eo: - - : r - .a:er _:
! -es e- 99C; e as Agr..z .altural 2x:e-s :, Se:”:.:e,
. :; ar ..re a’- d .rq sters ar o £ _p—e”:, ‘ 2:. : M £ -eete, 19E3 ’,. e,as
:;:.:. ,1:ral Zxte—sc- Eer .ce , 3—’ .46.
?00n Cc—t:cl or Da..:y Far:’s .’ D .1 “. .eete” i19€2 ) E ras
- ::. : ..:a Ex:ens_cn Ee:v..ce. 3—:3E .
o:e’a-a:e—e-: £CS C: —s :.a:. ’- ‘ractce Sta—oar . Ccce
:e e —.e-: f cr: t.re. Sc C:nse:.at , - Sor .ic ,
c — 2 C
:e :: :o --— C :nte- it.: Z ::;o ta”car :co 4:E :c—
.c.. z - — ‘ -: : - :—tc: at ’,
-
-------
7644 Fmi4 L Re/ VoL . No. 24 / Mouday, February L t 3J Ng t4r
‘Fencing, SCS Ca rvati.ori Pract._ce St.and.a.rd. Coda 3,82 ( .98Q . United States
Department of egrcia1 .t.ire. 5oi k CQn.s.exvation Service. 4ae.huiqtOrt. D.C.
waste Storage Structure. SCS Conservation Practice Standard. Coda 32.3
(1980). United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Coneervatiofl Service,
Washington, D.C.
4 Filter Str p,” SCS Cor.servat On Practice Standard. Code 393 (L982 . Wiited
States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, Washington. D.C.
“Pond Sealing or O4 . ’ SCS Coraazvat ..on Praoti.ca Standard. Coda 521 (1 R4t
United States Department of Aqric alturs. Sc i.l Conservation Service.
Washington. D.C.
“Waste Treatm t L.aqooo.” SCS Corservetjon P actics Standard. Code 359 I9S4j.
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
Washington. D.C.
“Diversion.” 5C5 C srv&t.iO P a.ctice Standard.. Coda 362 (LgSS . rtited
States Department of Agriculture. Soi.l Cor servaticfl Service. Wasb.ingto .. D.C.
Guide on Design. Operati .Ort end Management of jiaerobi. L.agoorts. - ri ical
Note Ser. 711. SNTC t19& . Unit.ed Sr..atas Depa .jnaot. o.f Agricti1t .Lre . Sc .L
Conservation Service, WaShLrlgtOrL D.C.
“Interim Engineering Standard for Swine and Poultry Disposal P1.t. S. IC
(1987). United States Department of Agricu1t . re. Soil Conservation Service,
Washington. D.C.
-:nter n Standard for Dead Poultry Composting.” (1989). United States
Department of Agriculture. Sail Conservation Service. Auburn. Alabama.
“Design and Const.r Ct.iOo de.rte.s. for Coriai.d .e.rin4 Seepage from Agri.ru.Ltuxal
Waste Storage Poads and re.atnen.t. lagoons.” :erhni.caL Note Ser. 716 199C).
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. roz-t
Worth, texas.
FEF RE 1CES FOR O1 HO
0k.3:a So L et.i-tv -‘ar bcok . .zon 9 ). Oklahoma State
ers:. C: era: .1e Ex:enS.o Ser . .:e .n ::c:erat-:fl a Qk_a.r.Cma
P_ar.: Foot . :a: . :n Scc_et: .
Ck.aro a Facts. ar. ppLcaton. f estoc U.anure.” Faa: s eet ::c.
O lanc a State Jni:erS_ty cooperatise Ex:er.6.on Service.
“0k.ahoma .cts OSU Sc l test. C rac.ioria.” Fact Sheet 2225. Oklanoxna
State ,n versit’/ Cooperative Extension Service.
,e tc < aste c.L _ t .es Ua d o g uwps_la. M. dwest. Plan Service. Iowa.
State r.iversity, Ames, Iowa 50011.
REFERENCES FOR TSX S
“25 Year. 24 9our Rainfall (nches),” Technical Paper 40, tmnited states
Decar:ment of C : er :e. Weat.. er B .. reaii. Washi..ttgton. D.C.
“‘ .‘... - S::ra:e ?er.c a.s. e’ac Jater e’:e. :pment 3card. e or: o.
‘ä5
:: er C : rce.’c Procosses.
:_ 3 - -o coe . £ :_:r . ..:eo States ecart ’ent of
-e. D.C.
FR Dcc. 93-4050 Fl Ied 2—6-93: 6:45 aml
_ -
-------
6964
Federal Regsster I Vol. 58. No. 21 / Wednesday. February 3. 1993 / Notices
Applicant: Reichhold Chemicals. Inc.
Chem,ccl (C) Polyurethane
prepotymer.
Use (Cl Adhesive component
Import Volume Confidential.
Number of Customers Confidential
Worker Exposure. Confidential,
Test Marketing Period Confidential.
Risk Assessment PA identified no
significant human health or
environmental concerns Therefore, the
test market activities will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment
T—93—7
Date of Receipt December 7, 1992.
Close of Review Period January 20.
1993 The extended comment penod
will close February 13. 1993.
Apphcant Reichhold Chemicals. Inc.
Chemical: (C) Polyurethane adhesive
Use (C) Adhesive
Production Volume Confidential.
Number of Customers Confidential
Test Markeluig Period Confidential
Risk Assessment EPA identified no
signifIcant environmental concerns
EPA identified potential health
concerns for lung sensitization based on
data on an analogous chemical
substance However. EPA does not
expect significant inhalation exposure
for workers exposed to the TME
substance. Therefore, the test market
activities Will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment.
The Agency reserves the right to
rescind approval or modify the
conditions and restrictions of an
exemption should any new information
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. January 15. 1993
Qiarle, M. Auar.
Director. Chemical Control Division, Office
of Pollution Prevention and To.vce
IFR Doc. 93—2540 Piled 2—2--93. 845 arnj
eu o co e,r
(LAG290000 sed TXG290000 FRL-455 - .7l
Proposed NPDES General Pesmits for
Produced Water and Produced Sand
Discharges From the Ott end Gas
Extraction Point Source Category to
Coastal Waters In Louisiana and Texas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Extension of comment period of
draft NPDES general permit .
EPA Region 6 is extending the closing
date for Comments from February 5,
1993 to Mardi 15. 1993 on the draft
general permits for produced water and
produced sand discharges to coastal
waters in Louisiana arid Texas. These
permits were proposed on December 22.
t9 2 in the Federal Register (57 FR
60926)
SUMMARY: The prc posed draft permiss
prohibit discharges of produced water
and produced sand derived from Oil
and Gas Point Source Category facilities
to coastal waters of Louisiana and
Texas. Facilities covered by these
permits included those in the Coastal
Subcategory (40 G ”R 435, subpart D i.
the Stripper Subcategory (40 CFR 435,
subpart F) that discharge to coastal
waters of Louisiana and Texas. and the
Offshore Subcaregory (40 CFR 435.
subpart A) that discharge to waters of
Louisiana and Texas As proposed the
permits’ prohibitions will become
effective 30 days after their final
publication. The Region may also issue
an administrative order requiring that
permiltees discharging produced water
from existing Coastal, Stripper or
Offshore wells to other than “upland
area” waters in Louisiana and other
than “inland and fresh” water in Texas
comply with the permits’ produced
water discharge prohibitions within
three years after final publication of the
permits.
Sig ied this 25th day of January. 1993
Myron 0. Knudsen. P E..
Director. Water Management Division. EPA
Region 6
(FR Dcc. 93—2542 Filed 2—2-43. 8 45 am)
WNQ CO
Office of Research and Development
(FRL 45S -9i
Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and
Equivalent Methods; Equivalent
Mthod Oseignatlons
Notice is hereby given that EPA. in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53, has
designated two additional equivalent
methods for ambient air monitoring, one
for the measurement of ambient
concentrations of ozone, and the other
for the measurement of’embient
concentrations of sulfur dioxide.
The new equivalent method for ozone
is an automated method (analyzer)
which utilizes the measurement
pnnciple based on absorption of
ultraviolet radiation by ozone at a
wavelength of 254 nra This new
designated method is identified as
follows
EQSA—0193-09 1, “Lear Siogler
Measurement Controls Corporation
Model ML 9810 Ozone Analyzer.’
operated on any full scale range
between 0—0 050 ppm and 0—i 0 ppm.
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled.
at any temperature in the range of 15 C
to 35 C, with a five-micron Teflon filter
element installed in the filter assembly
behind the secondary panel. the service
switch on the secondary panel set to the
EN position: with the following menu
choices selected Filler type’ Kalman.
Pros/temp/flow comp: On. Span comp
Disabled. Diagnostic mode. Operate;
with the 50-pin 110 board installed on
the rear panel configured at any of the
following output range settings Voltage
10 V. 5 V. 1 V. 0 1 V. Current 0—20 mA.
2—20 mA, 4—20 mA; and with or without
any of the following options’
Valve Assembly for External Zero/
Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive
The new equivalent method for sulh .r
dioxide is an automated method
(analyzer) which utilizes a meesurem
principle based on UV fluorescence
The new designated method is
identified as follows
EQSA—0193--C 192. “Lear Siegler
Measurement Controls Corporation
Model ML 9850 Sulfur Dioxide
Analyzer.” operated on any full scale
range between 0—0.050 ppm and 0—1 0
ppm. with auto-ranging enabled or
disabled, at any temperature in the
range of 15 C to 35 GC. with a. five-’
mia’on Teflon filter element installed in
the filter assembly behind the secondary
panel. with the service switch on the
secondary panel set to the IN position.
with the following menu choices
selected: Filter type- Kalman, Pres/
temp/flow camp On. Span comp
Disabled. Background’ NOT Disabled.
Diagnostic mode: Operate; with the 50’
pin 110 board installed on the rear panel
configured at any of the following
output range settings’ Voltage, 10 V. 5
V. I V. 0.1 V: Current 0—20 mA. 2—20
mA, 4—20 mA; and with or without any
of the following options:
Valve Assembly for External Zero/
Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
internal Floppy Disk Drive
Both of these methods are available
from Lear Siegler Measurement Controls
Corporation. 74 Inverness Drive East.
Englewood. CX) 80112—5189 A notice ol
of selected institutions. The FDIC select
reinsurers to engage in actual
reinsurance receipt of application for
these methods appeared in the Federal
Register. Volume 57, Number 133.
September 21. 1992. page 43456
-------
Federel R tiE r / VoL 58. No. 21 / Wednesday, Febxu y 3. 1993 / Notices
6965
A test analyzer n.preesntadve of . h
of these methods has b tested by the
applicant. in accmdance with the test
procedures specified i.e 40 R t 33.
After reviewing the results of these tests
and other information submiuad by the
appIk ants. PA has determined, In
acxordanca with part 53 that these
methods should be designated as
equlvalant methods. The 1n inatIon
su’bmitted by the applicants will be kept
on file at EPA ’s Atmospheric Research
and Exposure Assessment Laboratory,
Research mangle Park. North Carolina
27711 and wiulbo available
Inspection to the extent consistent with
40 G ’R part 2 (EPA ’s regulations
implementing the Freedom of
Information Act).
As a d aignatad equivalent method.
either of these methods is acoaptahie for
use by States and othar air monitonng
agencies under requirements of 40 R
part 58. AmbIent Air Quality
Surveillance. For such purposes, the
method must be used In strict
accordance with the operation or
Instruction manual associated with the
method and sub oct to any llmithtjona
(e g.. operating temperature range)
specified in the applicable designation
(see description of the methods above).
Vendor modifications of a designated
method used for purposes of part 58 are
permitted only with prior approval of
EPA. as provided In part 53. ProvisIons
concerning modification of such
methods by users are specified under
§ 2.8 of appendix C to 40 GR part 58
(Modifications of Methods by Users).
In general. a designation applies to
any analyzer which Is identical to the
analyzer described In the designation. In
some cases. sivnilRr ’analyzeTt
manufactured prior to the designation
may be upgraded (e.g.. by minor
inodjflc tin or by substitution ala new
operation or insfructloa manual) so as to
be identical to the diwignnwd method
and thus achieve designated status at a
modest coat. The manufacturer should
be consulted diwa,mlng the fe*dhlllty
of such upgrading.
Part 53 requlreathatsellersaf
designated methods comply with
certain conditions. Thee. canditi one are
given in 40 ( R 53.9 and are
summarized below:
(1) A copy ol’ the approved operation
or instruction manual must axompany
the analyzer when It is delivered to the
ultimate purchaser.
(2) The analyzer must not generate
any unreasonable hazard to operators or
to the environment.
(3) The analyzer must function within
the limits of the performance
specifications given In Table B-I of part
53 for at least one yser alter delivery
when maintained and op Md In
CCOTdIIT1I I with the operation manuaL
(4) Any analyzer offered sale as.
reference or equivalent method must
bears label or sticker lndlcatfngtbaa It
has been designated as a reference or
equivalent method in accordance with
part 53.
(5) If such an analyzer has two or
more selectable ranges. the label or
sticker must be placed in close
proximity to the range selector and
Indicate which range or rang have
been Included In the reference or
equivalent method dasigniitlnn
(6) An applicant who offers analyzers
for sale as reference or equivalent
.methods is required to maintain a list of
ultimate purchasers of such analyzers
and to notify them within 31) days if a
reference or equivalent method
designation applicable to the analyzer
has been canceled or if adiustroent of
the analyzer is necessary under 40 (YR
53.11(b) to avoid a cancellation.
(7) Au applicant who modifies an
analyzer previously designated as a
reference or equivalent method Is not
perm.ittadto sail the analyzer (as
modified) ass reference or equivalent
method (although ha may choose to sell
It without such representatlnn). nor to
attach a label or sticker to the analyzer
(as modified) under the provisions
described above, until he baa received
notice under 40 G’R53.14(c ) that the
original designation or a new
designation applies to the method as
modified. oruntilhehasapp [ iedfor
and received notice under 40 CFR
53.8(b) of a new reference or equivalent
method determination for the analyzer
as modified.
Aside from occasional breakdowns or
malfunctions, consistent or repeated
noncompliance with any of thee.
conditions should be reported to
Director. Atmospheric Research and
— Assessment boreio
Methods Research and Development
Division (MD -il), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
Designation of those equivalent
methods will assist the States In
establishing and operating their air
quality surveillance systems under part
58. Technical questions concerning
either method should be directed to the
manufacturer. MdItlanaI information
concerning this action may be obtained
from Frank F. McElroy. Methods
Research and Development Division
(MD-77), Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Assessment Laboratory. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Re rth TI4angIe Park, North Carolina
27712. (919) 541—2622.
th
MostestAdmhuse ’atcrft r Research mid
(FR l c. 93—2338 Piled 2—2—63: 8:45 sm
. ijss coot
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public iformatlon Collection
Reqt r,m.nt Subsnftted to Office of
Man.g.merit and Budget for Revises
Jamiar 27. 1993.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to 0MB for review and
dearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.SC 3507)
Copies of this submission may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor. International Transcription
Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW.. suite
140. Washington. DC 20037. (202) 857—
3800. For further Information on this
submission contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, (202?
632—7513. Persons wishing to comment
on this Information collection should
contect Jonas Neihardt, Office of
Management and Budget. room 3235
NEOB. Washington. DC 20503, (202)
395—4814.
0MB Mzmbes 3060-0105.
Tide: Licensee Qualification Report
Form Mzmber FCC Form 430.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (Including small businesses).
Frequency of Response: On oomsioo
end annual reporting.
Rfthnnfnd Annual Burden: 1.900
responaee 2 hours average burden per
responae 3.800 hours total annual
Needr and Usen The FCC Form 430.
Lfreneee Qualiflt ation Report Is filed
by new applicants or annually be
licensees if substantial t4 *ii ø ocour
In the organizational structure to
provide Information concerning
corporate structure. alien ownership.
and thasa er of applicant or licenses.
Part 22 applicants are required to file
FCC Form 430 when soliciting
authority for assignment or transfer of
czmtrul If a current one is not on file
er required by item 18 on FCC Form
490. Information Is used by
Commission staff to determine
whether applicants axe legally
qualified to become or to remain
common carrier telecommunicatiOns
licensees, as required by the
-------
4 J
Fen ral Re i .ster ‘vol 58. No 11 / Tuesday. January 19, 1993 / Notices
Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended.
In accordance wIth 40 GR 2.306( I ),
EPA has determined that under EPA
contract nuixiber 8a-WO-0032 , RTI will
require access to C I submitted to EPA
under section. 4. 5, 6. and 8 of TSCA
to perform succesaflully the duties
specified under the contract. T1
pesonnel will be gkven access to
information submitted to EPA under
sections 4. 5.6. and 8 of TSCA. Sante
of the information may be claimed er
determined to be CBL
EPA is issuing this notice to Inform
afl submitters of information under
sections 4,5,8, and 8 of TSCA that EPA
may provide RTI access to these CBI
materials on a need4o-know basis only.
All access to TSCA ( I under this
contract will take place at WiTs
Research Triangle Park. NC facility only.
RTI will be authorized a’ r .a to TSCA
CB1 at its facility under the EPA
contractnr Requirements Lot the
Control and Security of TSCA
Confidential Business bfonnation
security manual. Before access to TSCA
CB 1 15 authorized at RTVs site. EPA will
approve RTI’s security csrttficafion
statement, perform the required
inspection of its fad.lity, and ensure that
the facility is to compliance with the
manual. Upon completing review of the
Cl i materials, Rfl will return eli
transferred material, to EPA.
Clearance for access to TSCA C l
under this contract may continue until
Jtly2 , 1991.
Rfl personnel will be required to sign
nondirciosure agreement.. and will be
briefed on apprupnate security
procedures before they are permitted
access to TSCA Cl i.
Datodi Janaszy 4, 1093.
Genr , A. mM&
AuiigDuec,r. Jafoimataosa Managew4at
Djvasjo,i, Office o/Polhjtlan Pre eniion arid
Toxzcs.
IFR Doc. 83—1181 Ffled 1—15—43; 8.4S em)
(FfiL -4553 .
Ccr n.d S.wer O Ccn
Policy; Draft Guldwc. A’fsiIabHlty
AGENCY: £avfrunmental ProtectMm
Agency.
ACTtOW2 Notice of availability .
SUanSARY: This notice announces the
avadability of the draft g 1h i1nr i
document entitled Coniblned Sewer
Overflow Control Policy”.
DATES: Comments must be received by
EPAbyMaoi .1993.
ADDRESSES: Copies of this document cen
be obtained by writing or callipg Mr.
Richard Kuhhnsn, Office of Westawater
Enforcement and Compliance. WH—546,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street SW.. Weshington. DC
20460, (202) 260—5828. Comments on
the document should be sent to Mr.
Richard Kublinan at the above address.
FOR FURThER W FO AT1ON CONTACT:
Richard Kuhhnen at (202) 280-5828.
suPPt.EMEwr Y WONMAT1ON: The main
purp of the draft Policy are to
elaborate on the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’.) National
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Strategy published on September 8,
1989, at 54 FR 37370, and to expedite
compliance with the requirements of the
Clean Water A (CWA). While
implementation of the 1989 Strategy has
resulted in progress toward controlling
combined sewer overflows (CSOe).
significant public health and t rjter
quality risks remain.
The Policy is bemg developed to
provide guidance to perraittaes with
CSOs, Net ial Poliutani Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) euthori ties
and State water quality standard..
authorities, on coordinating the -
planmng, selection, sizing and
construction of CSO controls that meet
the requirements of the CWA and allow
for public involvement during the
decis on-making process.
Contained in the Policy me provisions
for developing apprapnate, site-specific
NYLNSS permit requIrements for all
combined sewer systems that overflow
as a result of wet weather events and
anfescemont lrnt.latfves to require the
immediate elimination of overflow, that
occur during dry weather, and to ensure
that the remaining CWA requirements.
are complied with as s
practicable.
The permitting pmv siona of the
Policy were developed as a remit of
extensive input & crved during a
negotf. policy dialogue. Tb.
negotiated dialogue was conducted by
the cthce of Water and the Office of
Water’s M n g nent Advisory Group.
Representatives from State.
environmental and municipal -
organizations participated in the ,
negotiated dialogue.
The enfoicarneat initiative,, including
one to be Initiated in 1 993 on CSOs
duruig.dry weather, were deveibped by
EPA ’s Office of Water and Office of
EnIor .
The rna or previsions of the Policy
I SO pennittees ehould immediately
un rtsk. a proces . to accaziately
characterize their conthinad sawer
system. demonstrate implementation
nine minimum control., and develop
long-Intro CSO auiuol plan. Once the
long-term CSO control plan is
completed, the permittee will be
responsible to implement the plan a
recommendations an 8 U
practicable;
State water quality stan ard (WQSI
authorities should be Involved in the
long-term CSO control planning effori
coordinate the review and possible
revision of WQS and implementation
procedures on C O-impacted waters
with the development of the long -terrn
CSO control plan:
NPDES authorities should issue!
reissue permits to require immedi ite
compliance with the techrialogy-äasec
and water quality-based uracierits
the CWA. and after ammp et1on of the
long-term ( O . uutru ) plan, incorpor
the following additional permit
requirements—performance andayds
for the selected controls based on
average design conditicms. a past
Construction water quality assessment
program. monitoring for compLance
with WQS. and a reopener clause
authonmog the NPDES authority to
reopen and modify the permit if it is
determined that the CSO controls fail ti
meet at protect designated uses.
NPOES authorities should also, as
noted above. commence enlercemeni
actions in 1993, against all CSO
perTnitteea which base CWA violations
due to CSO disdiarges during dry
weather. In addition, NPDES authonhe
should ensure the imphanentetian of
the nine minimum control,, noted
above, and Incorporate a schedule, with
appropriate milestone dates, to
implement the required long.term CSO
Luutrul plan Into a civil Jcdical ection
or adm1nlstr ti,e order. Schedules for
implementation of the long-term CSO
control plasm may be phased bawd an
the relative importance of adverse
impacts upon which WQS and
designated uses. and on a pntunttee’s
Rnendal capability.
Notwithstanding tb. pernnthng and
enforcement provislona of the Policy.
pemmittees will be . pvcted to comply
with any CSO-related requirements in
NPDES pex:mlts. cnns”nt decues or
court orders which predate the final
policy.
Dawdi Jannary 4. 1993.
Lajuana S. WUclier.
As .sldo.nt Admuua-trator for Writ.
Dated January 5. 1093.
Iterhet 11. t , fr.,
Awstani Adonnutrotor for Enforcement
(FR I oc. 23.-till PtIsd 1-15-43; &45 exil
eam.sm coos me
-------
1 .992
-------
t .0326
Federai Regl5teT / Vol 7, No 246 / Thesday. December 22. 1992 / Notices
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
ffi-4546—7; LAG290000 and TXG299 0OJ
?ropoeed NPDES General Permits for
Produced Water and Producsd Sand
Discharges From th. OH and Gas
Extraction Point Source Cat.goiy To
Coastal Waters in Louisiana and Texas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency ( A).
ACTiON: Notice of draft NPDES general
permit
SUMMAHY: ‘A RegIon 6 is proposing to
issue general NPDES permits
prohibiting discharge. of produced
water and produced sand derived from
Oil and Gas Point Source Category
Fadlitiea to coastal waters of LonI*Ij niu
and Texas. Facilities covered by these
permits include those in the Coastal
Sulicategory (40 Q ’R Part. 435, subpart
D), the Stripper Subcategory (40 R
part 435, subpart F) that discharge to
coastal waters of Louieuu and Texas,
and the Offshore Subcategozy (40 R
part 435. subpart A) which discharge to
coastal waters of Louisiana and Texas.
As proposed, the permits’ prohibitions
will become effective 30 days after their
final publication. Region foray also
issue an administrative order requiring
at permittees discharging produced
Lter from existing Coastal, Stripper or
iffshore Subcategory wells to other
than “upland area” waters In Louisiana
end to other than “Inland and fresh”
waters In Texas comply with the
permits’ produced water discharge
prolubitions within three years after
final publication of the permits.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
permits must be submitted by February
5. 1993.
A0DNESSE$: Comments on these
proposed permits should be sent to the
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
FON PJ THER P4FORMAT1ON CONTACT
Ms. Ellen Caidwell. EPA Region 6,1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202.
Telephone (214) 655—7190.
SUPPL ARY 5WORMATiO 5
Supplementary information (fact sheet)
provided In this notice Is organized as
follows:
LLegalBaa ls.
IL Regulatory Back ound.
Ill. Facility Coverage.
IV. Types of Discharges Covered.
V. Compliance Delays.
VL Specific Permit Conditions.
A. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BC!’) Conditions
Produced Water
4. Improved performance of BF
technology
b. Granular filtration
C. Membrane filtration
d. BI&nglt I trea ent
a. Rein jection
L Bvaluabon of option. using BCI met test
& Sim maiy of BC ! ’ for produced water
2. Produced Sand
a. BC!’ Cost Analysis for No Discharge
b Summary of BC!’ for Produced Sand
B. Best Available Technology
Emnornically Achievable (BA’!’)
Conditions
1. Produced Water
. Sources of Data and Information
b aisracteristics of Produced Water as
Related to BAT
C. Derivition of BAT (BPJ) Permit
Requirements
(1) Carbon nd on
(2) BioIngI *I
(3) ( himi . l precipitation
(4) Granular filtration
(5) Membrane Bitradon
(6) Improved performançe o!BFT
te hnoIogy
(7) Ram jedion
d. BAT Cost Analysis for No Discharge
a. BAT Option Selection
2. Produced Sand
a. Derivation of BAT (BPJ) Permit
Requirements
b. Selection of “No Discharge” BAT
Limitation
c. Cost Evaluation of BAT
C. State Rules and Regulations, and State
Water Quality Standards
1. Produced Watei
a. Qiarecteristics of Produced Water as
Related to Water Quality Standards and
Regulations.
(1) Volume
(2)Q i s r act a r i sth
(3) Fate and envuonmental impact of
produced water
(4) BiologIcal toxicity
b. Louisiana State Regulations for
Produced Water Discharges
(1) Discharge. to upland waters
(2) Discharges to intermediate, brackish or
saline waters
C. Texas Rules for Produced Water
D
d. Louisiana Water Quality Standards
(1) Narrativ, standards
(2) Numericai oriteria
(3) ftxing zoner
(4) ModelIng of produced water discharges
a. Texas Water Quality Standards
(I) Narrative standards
(2) Numerical aiteria
(3) LC5O acute toxicity effluent standard
(4) Mildng zones
(5) Modeling of produced water discharges
L Texas Haxardous Metals Regulation
& Stmim ry of Water
Requirements based on State Regulations
and Water Quality Standards
(1) Louisiana
(2) Texas
2. Produced 5
a. State Regulations for Produced Sand
b. Louisiana Water Quality Standards
c Texas Water Quality Standards
d. Swnm ry of Produced Sand
Requirements based on State Water
Quality Standards
D. Summ .ry of Produced Water ani
Produced Sand Requirement,
LLsgalBaers
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C. 13 11(a).
renders it unlawful to discharge
pollutants to waters of the United States
In the absence of authorizing permits.
CWA section 402. 33 U.S.C. 1342,
authorizes EPA to issue National
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits allowing discharges on
condition they will meet certain
requirements, Including CWA sections
301, 304, and 401,33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314.
and 1341. Those statutory provisions
require that NPDES permits Include
effluent limitations requiring that
authorized dlschazxes:
(1) Meet standards reflecting levels of
technological capability.
(2) Comply with EPA-approved state
water quality standards and
(3) Comply with other state
requirements adopted under authority
retained by states under CWA 510,33
U.S.C. 1370.
Two types of technology-based
effluent limitations must be Included In
the permits proposed here. With regard
to conventional pollutants, I.e., pH.
BOD, oil and grease, TSS. and focal
coliform, CWA section 301(b)(1)(E)
requires effluent limitations based on
“best conventional pollution control
technology” (BC’!’). With regard to
nonconventional and toxic pollutants,
CWA section 301(b)(2) (A), (C), and (D)
require effluent limitations based on
“best available pollution control
technology economically achievable”
(BAT),a standard which generally
represents the best performing existing
technology in an Industrial category or
subcategory. BAT and BC!’ effluent
limitations may never be less stringent
than corresponding effluent limitations
based on best practicable control
technology (BPT), a standard applicable
to similar discharges prior to March 31,
1989 under CWA 301(b)(1)(A).
Frequently, EPA adopts nationally
applicable guidelines identifying the
SF!’, BC!’, and BAT standards to which
specific Industrial categories and
subcategories are subject. Until such
guidelines are published, however,-
CWA section 402(a)(1) requires that EPA
determine appropriate BC!’ and BAT
effluent limitations In Its NPDES
permitting actions on the basis of its
best professional judgment (BPfl. BPT
standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category are codified at 40
ci ’R part 435. with BFT standards
which were applicable to the Coastal
Subcategory at subpart D. Because EPA
has not promulgated BAT or BC’!’
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 1 Notices
60927
guidelines for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category or any
of Its Subcategories, the BAT and BC ! ’
effluent limitations Regi on 6 proposes
here are based on BPJ, after
consideratf on of fi ’Ctn?5 listed at 40 R
123.3(d) (2) and (3). As explained
hereinafter, those limitations will
prohibit any H. charge of produced
water or produced sand to “coastal”
waters In Louisiana and Texas.
Although the Agency typically Issues
NPDES permits to the operators of
individual faá.litles, It may also Issue
“general permits” applicable to a class
olslmilai diachargern within a disceet
geographical area. See generally NRDC
v. Costle. 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cl i . 1977);
40 ( R 122.28. Issuance of such permits
Is not controlled by the procedural rules
EPA uses for Individual permits, but Is
Instead subject to sectIon 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553, as supplemented by EPA
regulations. e.g.. 40 CFR 124.58. EPA
must, however, comply with the
substantive requirements of the CWA
without regard to whether It Is Issuing
an individual or general NPDES permit.
IL Regulatory Background
Because operations within the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Souzce Category
vary widely, EPA has subcategorized it
for the purpose of developing
technology.based effluent guidelines.
Those subcategories now codified at 40
QR part 435, are the ‘ Offsh ”
“Onihore.” “Coastal.” “Stripper,” and
“Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use”
subcategories.
As co ifled at 40 GR part 435. EPA
guidelines based on the application of
best pract4cable technolo t (BPT)
prohibit the discharge of produced
water and produced sand from the
Onshore Subcategory, but allow such
dlst4IAYges subject to various limitations
from familties In all other subcategories.
BPT guidelines for the Coastal
Subcategory, fot Instance, allow the
dttrjtiirge of produced water subject to
an ailand grease limitation of 72
milligrams per liter (mg/i) daily
mj v1mum and 48 mg/I month!’y average,
representing the performance of oil-
water separation technolo v In 1979.
See 40 CR 435.42.
On December 27, 1983, RegIon 6
proposed a general permit for “Inland
Waters,” covering in part the same
geographical area as the permits
proposed today. 48 FR 57001. That
proposed permit, which was based on
the Agency’s BPT guidelines, was never
Issued In final form. Nor could Region
6 now Issue that permit as proposed.
Since March 31, 1989, CWA section 301
baa required EPA to apply Industrial
effluent limitations based the mare
stringent BAT and BC ! ’ standards,
rendering the Agency. BPT guidelines
obsolete.
EPA has been developing BAT
guidelines for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category for
several years. but to date has not
promulgated such guidelines. The most
recent guidelines development action
potentially affecting the Coastal
Subcategory occurred on November 8,
1989. when the Agency published a
notice discussing possible amendment
to the current definition of “coastal”
and alternative approaches to
developing BAT guIdelines. 54 FR
46919. In developing today’s proposal,
Region 6 has considered Information on
which that notice was based, together
with information the Agency received in
response to Its publication.
On Jima 7, 1990, RegIon 8 proposed
general permits for discharges from
drilling activities of Coastal Subcategory
facilities In Texas and LouisIana. 55 FR
23348. Because produced water and
produced sand are normally associated
with production, not drilling, activities,
those draft permits Included no
proposed effluent limitations on those
waste streams. EPA will probably
promulgate the final Coastal “drilling”
permits before It promulgates the
Coastal produced water and sand
permits proposed today, but reseives the
option of Issuing unified general
permits covering all discharges from
Coastal Subcategory drilling and
production activities in a single final
publication.
iacoverage
The part 435 guideline definition of
“coastal” was promulgated In a final
rule on AprIl 13, 1979. See 40 Q’R
435.31(e); 44 FR 22069. Under that
definition, “coastal”means “(1) any
body of water landward of the territorial
seas as defined in 40 C’R 125.1( , or
(2) any wetlands adjacent to such
waters.” There are three ambiguities
associated with this definition. First, It
fails to Indicate whether a Coastal
Subcategory facility Is one which
rHqcharges to a “coastal” water or one
which Is constructed In a “coastal”
water. Second. “40 G’R 125.1(gg)” is no
longer an EPA regulation, having been
deleted In a June 7, 1979 revisIon to part
125. See 44 FR 32948. Third, the
“wetlands adjacent” term of the
definition suggests to some that
wetlands which are not adjacent to
other waters may not be “coastal.”
In Region 8, these ambiguities were
resolved on February 25, 1991, when
the Region issued four final NPDES
permits prohibiting discharges from
Onshore Subcategory f iIIHea In
Loiii n& Texas, New Mexico, and
Oklahnma. 58 FR 7898. After pynmin4
the regulatory history that Indicates that
the basis for subcategorlzatlon lay in
technological difference, associated
with facility location, not discharge
location, EPA determined that a Coastal
Subcategory facility was one In which
the wellhead was located over a surface
waterbody. 58 FR 7698—7699. Noting
that former 40 Q’R 125.1(gg) had been
a verbatim recitation of CWA section
502(3), RegIon 8 relied on that statutory
definition of “territorial seas.” 58 FR
7699. Ins somewhat similar vein,
RegIon 8 found the part 435 reference to
“adjacent wetlands” was adopted before
the Agency’s jurisdictional definition
Included a reference to “wetlands” and
had thus been Intended to Indicate all
“waters of the United States” ahoreward
of the territorial seas were “coastal.” 56
FR 7699,
Region 8 contInues to interpret the
part 435 “coastal” definition in that
fashion. As proposed, the permits thus
apply to all Louisiana and Texas
facilities with wellheads located in
“waters of the United States,” as
defined at 40 (YR 122.2. FacilIties
which would be considered “Onshore’
but for the decision In AP I v. EPA, 681
P.2d 340(5th Cli. 1981) wIll also be
subject to the permits If EPA Issues
them as proposed. See 47 FR 31554
(July 21, 1982).
In addition, Region 6 Is proposing to
prohibit the discharge of produced
water derived from Offshore
Subcategory facilities to “coastal”
waters. As discussed later In this Fact
Sheet, the discharge of these produced
waters, as well as produced waters from
other Subcategory facilities to “coastal”
waters would violate state water quality
standards and certain state regulations,
The Minerals Management Service
(MMS9I—004) has Identified eleven
major produced water disposal facilities
which treat both O hore and Coastal
Subcategozy produced water, then
discharge It to Loul”4ana coastal waters.
If the permits are promulgated as
proposed, they will prohibit such
facilities from discharging Coastal
Subcategoiy preduced water at any
location and prohibit the discharge of
Offshore Subcategory produced water to
“coastal” waters, i.e., any water of the
United States ahoreward of the
territorial seas. They will not, however,
prohibIt the discharge of Offshore
Subcategoiy produced water to offshore
waters, even If It has first been treated
at a shore .based facility. Otherwise, the
permits would operate as a disincentive
for the voluntary onshore treatment, of
that produced water.
-------
Federal Regii ter / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22. 1992 I Notices
The Stripper Subcategory applies to
those onshore facilities producing no
mote that ten barrels of oil perday
while operating at the m,mmum
feasible rate of production and In
accordance with recogntmd
conservation pm . See 40 R
435.60. EPA has devel pod no BPF
effluent limitation guidelines for the
Stripper Subcategory. r nlng that
such low production re lax provide
Insufficient capital for Mi flttlng
pollution i. iinjI but has
also suggested that fwther study of jo
disposal options iglit result in BFT
guidelines prohibiting thu discharge of
produced wa from Stripper
Subcategory facilities. See 42 FR 44942,
44948 (Octobtr13, 1978). GIven the lee.
stringent cost anaiyaiz involved In BAT
determinations, It esems u ble BAT
SffluAnt limitations for stri 1 .,p rs would
prohibit the din±srge of produced
water. Indeed, according to verbal
communications from the Oklahoma
Corporation Co nrni. lon. ft appears the
State of Ok ”mn has already
e1imin ted all dripper well discharges
to surface water over which fthu
junadlctinn RegIon 8 has not to date,
however, done an Independent coat
analysis for mnking a BAT
determination for the Stripper
Subcatogor .
Nevertheless, Stripper Subcat ury
facilities which discharge into coastaJ”
waters of Louisi n* and Texas will also
be sub jec1 to the general permits’ no
discharge limitations for produced
sands and water If the permits are
issued as proposed. As applied to
Stripper Subcategory wells, those
limitations are required to assure
compflRn1 With. state water quality
standards and other reçilzeinants
Louisiana and Texas have adopted
pursuant to authnrfty they retain under
CWA sectIon 510. Those standards and
requuaxnenta are discussed In a later
section olth ls notice.
Under CWA. an NPDP permittee’s
“discharges ” Include discharge.
performed on Its behaliby another
party. Including a contractor. EPA
RegIon B recently learned that some
operators aublect to the discharge
prohibitions oZone of its Onshore
Subcategory genera! permits
nevertheless believed they were not
liable for discharges by parties with
whom they contracted for produced
water disposaL To avoid such confusion
n the future, the gt av ul permits EPA
Region 6 todaypropoass prohibit
permittees from causIng es
contributing” to discharges prohibited
by the permits. Causing or u L thutIng
to such a discharge Indude. contracting
with another party which actually
discharges the pollutants or transports
them to a third party which actually
discharges them. In addition, disposal
contractors have been listed as a class of
permittees under the proposed permits,
a provision which will render operators
and their disposal contractors jointly
and severally liable for permit
violations. These provisions, which are
ner ... _ ry to a e complbmrn with the
discharge prohibitions of the permits,
arerauthurlz .i.4 by CWA section
402(a)(2 ).
hi summery, the permits will, If
Issued as proposed, prohibit discharge.
of produced water and produced sand
derived from facilities In the Coastal.
OfMui ,. , end StTiFpc Sub at , udee to
all ‘ .. t 51 of the United State.
ahoi 1 ,ward of the er boundary of the
Territorial Sees In Louisiana and Texas.
In addition, the permits will prohibit
the discharge of produced water and
produced sand Ierlved from facilities In
the Coastal Subonlagory to any other
waler of the United States. It lathe
responsibility of the perinittee to
dgt . .rmis if is discharge Is covered by
this pwudt Cunu..t National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Adm4nt*tratluu
(NOAA) nauthml charts can be of
assistance in locating the outer
botmdary of the general permit eras.
These charts cover the anthe coasts of
Texas and Louisiana at a 180,000 scale,
although certain ports and bays have
more detailed wv . They are
available from NOAA charts agents,
such asmarinasand marine supply
stores.
Similar dlsc.haxges from Onshore
Subcategory facilities are already
prohibited by Onshore Subcategory
General NPD Permits LAG3 20000 and
TXC320000. published . at 56 FR 7698
(February Z5, 1991). lssii nc of the
permits proposed today will thus lead to
AHmITvatInfl of virtually all produced
water end produced sand discharges in
Louisiana and Texas, with the exception
of Agricultural and Wildlife Waler Use
Subcategory facilities West of the 98th
—et
IV. Types of Discharges C v.zud
Only two waste ms are
specl.ftcelly covered uuderthe general
PvnuItS proposed here. They arer
(1) Prodinod wDt , which is water
and particulate matter associated with
oil and gas produ ..i g formations.
Produced sometimes called
“formation Waist ” or “brin, water,”.
Includes small whwx , of source water
and treatment chemicals that tesn to
the sorface with the produced formation
fluids and pus though the produced
water tinathig systems O.zrIuutly used by
many oil and gas apeiitur .
(2) Produced sand. which is sand and
other pertlonlete matter from the
producing formation and production
piping (including corrosion products),
as well as source sand and hydrofrec
sand. Produced sand comes to the
surface mixed with crude oil and
produced water, from which It is
8w15r111y separated by a produced water
desander and treatment system.
Produced send also Includes sludge
genu ut.,d by a iry chemical polymer
used In a produced water treetment
ayste
Other waste streams associated with
Coastal Subcategory oil and gas
activities Include drilling fluids (muds).
wefl treatment fluids, blowout preventer
fluids, well completion fluids,.
formation test fluid ., workover fluids,
treated waste water from dewaterad
drilling fluids and utliug , drill cuttings,
cement, dock drainage, desalinization
— domestic arid unk y
wastes, tracontaminated ballast/bilge
water, uncontaminated seawater, end
uncontaminated freshwater. As noted
above, Region 6 proposed general
NPDES permits regulating those waste
streams at 55 FR 23348 (June 7, 1990).
V. ( ‘m ipH.v r . DsIay
The refujection technology on which
the permits’ produced water discharge
prohibitions are based is fully evafla Ie
and has been su ssfufly used by oil
and gas operators for many year ,.
Inlorniation from the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
(LD J shows that, as of September
1991. there were 1500 oil and gas wells
In “ upIand areas” that either had ceased
or were to cases dis .hw- , of (rein ect)
produced water no later than July 1992,
and that out of a total of 464 wells In
non-”npiand areas” (and exchzding
tt . . .IhMial seas), 130 wese relnjectlng
produced wa and 32 more were on a
schedule to reinjed. Information from
the Texas Raiheed Commission (TRC)
shows that, as of October 1989. out of
a total of 7823 actIve oil an gas wells In
Texas, 8464 were Inland of the
Caapman Line and 1149 wem seaward
of the Caa ,u sn Line. The Coaprasu
Line Is a rough bo mdary separating
“inland and fresh” waters (to which
produced water cannot be discharged
according to state regulations) from
saline waters. This means that of 7813
wells, about 6400 were ruin jocting
produced water in obm ’ 1982.
As a practical matter, some op. . . t .. .. ,
whsub)ecttothlspermftend
are not already prohibited by state
regulations from discharging produced
water, will not be able to employ that
technology during the 30 day period
between the final publication of the
-------
Federal Register I Vol 57, No. 246 / Tuesday , December 22, 1992 / Notices
80929
permits arid their effective date. They
will have to construct injection wells to
Ruminate thairproduced water
discharges and will moreover be
required to obtain Claa II Underground
injection Control (UICJ Permits from the
appropriate State regulatory agencies,
e.g.. the LDEQ and TRC. each of which
is authorized to administer a Class II
UIC program under the Safe Drinking
Water Act in its own state. Even if they
started today, It is unlikely these
regulatory agencies could process the
number of Class II UlCperrnit
applications the oil industry would
require for complying with the proposed
NPDES general permits by 30 days after
the final permits are published. Region
6 also doubts there are enough drilling
contractors doing business in Texas and
Louisiana to physically construct such a
potentially large number of injection
wells at a reasonable cost in time for
short term compliance with final
general permit prohibitions on the
discharge of produced water. In
addition, time will be required for some
facilities to reroute produced water
collection lines in order to transport the
produced water to injection wells.
Accordingly, Region 6 anticipates wide
scale noncompliance with the produced
water discharge prohibitions as soon as
the permits become effective.
Past experience with general NPDES
permitting In Region 6 suggests that
imposing new requirements on an
industry-wide basis may lead to chaotic
situations in the absence of a phase-in
period. In 1986, for instance, EPA
issued a general permit regulating
discharges from offshore Subcategory oil
and gas facilities on the outer
continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico.
See 51 FR 24897 (July 9. 1986). That
permit required, inter alia, that all
offshore operators test their drilling
fluids for toxicity before discharge,
using Myridops.is bahia as test
orgRnIams. Although mysids had been
previously used for aquatic toxicity
testing in a number of state
environmental programs, never before
had there been a demand for them as
great as this permit feature coated.
When the permit became effective, there
was simply not a great enough supply
of mysids to meet this new demand and
Region 6 was thus compelled to stay the
Offshore general permit’s limitation on
drilling fluid toxicity until suppliers
were able to react. 51 FR 33130
(September 18, 1986).
Providing a phase in period is,
however, somewhat problematic.
Pursuant to CWA section 301 and 40
122.47(a)(1), NPDES permits may
not include provisions allowing
dlschargers to achieve compliance with
BAT limitations past March 31,1989.
Accordingly, the Region plans to Issue
a general administrative order under
authority of CWA 309(e)(3) when It
publishni the final permits. Although
the order will not authorfm discharges
of produced water, EPA will not
gener J1y initiate an enforcement action
against an operator to whom the order
applies as long as that operator compiles
with the order’s terms.
As now envisioned, a draft of the
general administrative order is
published as Appendix A to this notice.
Because this Is a somewhat unusual
situation, Region 6 Is tsldng the
somewhat unusual measure of soliciting
comment on the prospective terms of an
administrative compliance order. It
should be noted, however, that this will
not render the general order judirisily
reviewable in the same manner as the
final permit It Is well settled that EPA-
Issued administrative compliance orders
are not ripe for judicial review until the
Agency enforces them. See, e.g., Cilyof
Baton Rouge v. U.S. EPA. 620 F Zd 478
(5th dr. 1980).
As drafted, the administrative order
will apply to only those discharges from
existing wells to “coastal” waters of
Louisiana other than “upland area
waters” and to “coastal” waters of Texas
other than “inland or fresh waters”, and
from existing Coastal Subcategory walls
to other Waters of the United State.. The
LDEQ has adopted LAC33, IX, 7.708,
regulating discharges of produced water.
That State rule, which Is more fully
desaibed later in this notice, prohibits
discharges to “upland waters,” a term
generally denoting those Louisiana
surface waters located north of the nine
coastal parishes contiguous to the Gull
of Mexico. cease by July 1.1992.
Regulations of the TRC (Statewide Rule
8(e)) likewise piohibit the discharge of
produced water to inland and fresh
surface waters in Texas.
EPA moreover perceives no reason
that the order should apply to
discharges from new facilities, La., wells
spudded after the effective date of the
permits. If such wells are currently
envisioned, they are still in the plAnning
stage, so obtaining aocess to reinjectlon
facilities should at most merely delay
the time at which they can be drilied
and operated.
EPA Region 6 also solicits comment
on the final compliance date of the draft
order. In adopting [ AC. 33. IX. 7.708,
LDEQ has already considered this Issue
and established a schedule under which
facilities discharging produced water to
saline coastal waters must either cease
discharge or meat specified State
effluent limitations. That schedule,
which appeaxs to be only indirectly
based on water quality considerations,
will require all Louisiana operators tc
coznplywlth the rule no later than
January 1, 1997, e pt for operators
discharging to certain open bays along
the Gulf coast, who may seek
exemptions from the rule. In addition,
operators may continue to discharge to
major deltaic passe . of the Mississippi
River or to the Afrhaf Isya River if
authorized by a State-Issued permit.
Because It has adopted no prohibition
on discharges of produced water to
saline surface waters, TRC has not
adopted a corresponding schedule for
cessation of such discharges.
Region 6 has no desire to work at
cues purposes to either LDEQ or TRC.
It must, however, exercise independent
judgment In induding a final
compliance date in the administrative
order. As drafted, the administrative
order requires final compliance three
years after its issuance. The degree to
which this would require faster
compliance in Louisiana is uncertain.
depending on the date of EPA’s final
action on this proposal. EPA does not.
on the other hand, intend to allow any
discharger more time to comply with
Louisiana’s limitations than the State
allows. See CWA 301(b)(1)(C). Th e
proposed Louisiana permit thus
mandates compliance with the
requirements of LAd. 33, IX, 7.708 via
narrative limitation and the draft
admini traUve order does not affect that
permit provision.
EPA usually Includes interim limits
In the administrative com lianco orders
It Issues and Region a is ciinsidering
Imposing interim limits on produced
water discharges which would be
subject to the administrative order. It
might for example base such a limit on
the BPT Coastal Subcategory guidelines
(40 ClR 435 42). Because those
guidelines are based on a treatment
technology that has been available and
widely used for many years, its
adoption would arguably require little
operator effort. Region 8 believes,
however, that a number of operators
now discharging produced water to
coastal waters of Lotiiqisns and Texas
may not have installed separation
equipment capable of complying with a
BPT limit. To comply with an interim
BF limit, such operators may have to
make a substantial short-term
Investment in new oil/water separation
equipment which might be rendered
obsolete at the end of the administrative
order’s delayed compliance period. Thr
Enceased cost of purchasing and
Installing that equipment appears
unreasonable to EPA Region 6 in view
of the short-term and relatwely modest
-------
Federal_Register/ Vol. 57. Nc 246 / Tuesaay, December 22. 1992 I Notices
water quality rrnproveznents in which
its application would result.
This does not, of course, mean that
operators sub je to the permits and
administrative order cnn simply fsil to
control their dIsch r s until they
comply with final permit limits. The
draft administrative order contain, a
provision requiring operation end
maintenen of e asting pollution
control equipment, including oWwnter
separators, at all times. Requiring some
form o1dis harge Luu dtoring endiar
reporting in the administrative order
would render those operation and
maintenance pn. v Ion.s more
enforceable, but the draft order contains
no such monitoring end reporting
requiiernent Region Swill carefully
consider all su estIons for such
monitoring end reporting roquiremente
in view of Its competing desire to avoid
unnecessary paperwork.
Dated Deoaziber 9, 1992.
W. B. H tkw.y.
Act ia I e5WI CI Admizustw Regions.
VI. Speci6c Permit Conditions
Appropriate permit conditions are
based on
(A) Best Conventional Po1luta t
Control Technn t ogy (BC!’) to control
conventional pollutnnts,
(B) Best Available TreAtnlRnt to
control toxic and
pollutants.
(C) Louisiana Produced Water
Regulation,
(D) Louisiana Water Quality
Standards
(El Texas State regulations, and
(fl Texas Water Quality Standards.
Discussions of the rationale for
specific effluent limitations for
produced water and produced sands
appear below For convenience, thesa
requirements and their regulatory ba i
are anss-referenced by the type of
discharge in Table I.
A Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technalogy(BCT) Conditions
Since no Coastal Subcntegury effluent
guidelines beyond B?!’ exist, the Region
is establiching SC!’ effluent limitations
on a best professional Judgment basis
(BPJ). The BPJ evaluations Includ, a
review of produced water treatment
options developed by the Agency for the
proposed Offshore Subcategoiy
guidelines (50 FR 3459L August 26,
1985: 55 FR 49094. No mb ,r 26,1990;
and 56 FR 10664, March 13. 1991), since
those treatment options will be
applicable to w kl produced waters.
s expldkwd In the following pager ,
3CT reqmrements for produced water
re the same as existing BPT limitations
(48 rug/i daily average. 72 mg/I daily
m umom oil and grease), because a
more stringent treatment option did nat
pass the BC!’ cost test. The Region Ii
proposing as a BC!’ requirement that the
discharge of produced sand be
prohibited, because the zero discharge
requirement passes the BC!’ cost test.
i.Produced Water
As explained In the following pages,
BC’!’ requirements fur produced water
are the same as existing SF!’ limitations
(48 mg/I daily average, 72 mg/ ! daily
maximum oil end grease) because a
more stringent tr minient option did not
pass the BC!’ coat test.
As discussed below, the technology
evaluated for possible produced water
BC!’ controls more stringent than BPT
Include improved performance of B?!’
technology, filtration, biological
trest t and rein jection. Due to the
similarities between Coastal and
Offshore produced water chaxacteristice
and control technologies, the same BC!’
produced water control technologies are
evaluated for Coastal that were
evaluated in the proposed Offshore
Subcategory guidelines (50 FR 34591; 55
FR 49094, November 26,1990; and
August 26, 1985; 56 FR 10664, March
13, 1991). The B?!’ limitations. 49 mg/
I doily average end 72 mg/i daily
meximum, en oil end grease have been
promulgated t 44 FR 22069 (April 13,
1979) and codified at 40 Q’R pert 435,
SubpailD.
a. Improved performance of RPT
technokgy. This technology consists of
improved operation and maintenance of
existing gas flotation equipment. more
operator attention to treatment system
operation, end possibly resizang of
certain treatment system components
for better treatment efficiency. The 1985
Offshore guidelines action, which
included results burn a 30 platform
study, found that improved BPT
perform ce could achieve a 59 mg/i
oil and grease maximum concentration
for discharged produced water.
The March, 1991, proposed Offshore
guidelines reanalyzed the 30 platform
data related to improved BPT
performance evaluation, and found that
oil and greme limitations achieved
through SF!’ performance
would be 38 mg/I as a daily maximum
and 27 mg/i as a monthly average.
Because ofa lack of adequate
documentation on samples used in the
ori al 30 platform study upon which
the 1m 1 .iwvvd HF!’ performance test was
conducted, this treatment was not listed
as a prefvu d A n . 1 option in the 1991
proposed Offshore Guidelines. A,
however, received additional data on
performance of knywvvd gas flotation
technology in response to the 1991
proposal, and as part of a petition
requesting that the method for
determining compliance with the oil
end grease [ lmltsbo one that measures
only “Insoluble” oil & grease. The date
now being used In arriving at the final
dedslan on produced water limits in
the Offshore Guidelines Is WA’s 30
Platform Study, the OOC’s 42 Platform
Study (1990). the OOC’s 83 Platform
Composite Study (1991) and EPA ’s “Oil
Content In Produced Brine on Ten
Louisiana Production Platforms” (1981).
EPA Is, therefore, reconsidering
Improved performance gas flotation
treatment for produced water for the
Offshore Guideline,, and as will be
discussed later in this Fact Sheet, Is
expected to have this treatment s the
preferred BAT option for the final
Offshore Guidelines. The Improved
performance gas flotation, however,
does not pass theBC!’cost test for the
Offshore Guidelines. The Region Is
taking the position that improved
performance gas flotation will also not
pass the BC!’ cost test for the Coastal
Subcategory wells.
b. GranuLar filtration. Granular
filtration removes suspended matter, as
well as oil and grease from produced
water. The 1985 Offshore guidelines
proposal indicates that granular
filtration can reduce total suspended
solids (TSS) and oil and grease beyond
the BPT level of control treatment far
offshore and coastal produced water. It
found, howeyor. that granular filtration
systems are not useful in the removal of
soluble materials and priority
pollutants. Beth the above cited 1985
and 1991 Offshore guidelines proposals
found that granular filtration technology
warranted further consideration for new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and BC!’ and reserved this option. The
1991 proposed Offshore guidelines
suggest that granular filtration could
achieve oil and grease discharge limits
of 16 rug. !! daily average and 29 mg/I
daily maximum.
The Region han not adopted granular
filtration as en add-on BPT technology
option for BC!’ In these coastal permits.
Although granular filtration is effective
in reducing discharge concentration
levels of oil and grease below SF ! ’. the
1991 proposed O hore guidelines
showed that this technology doss not
pass the BC!’ cost test (Is., the POrN
comparison test),
c. Mom brv.ne filtration. In considering
add-on technology to BFT, the Agency
also consiçlerod membrane filtration In
the 1991 proposed Offshore guidelines.
in this proposed rule, It was found
membrans filtration technology
reflected adequate treatment beyond
-------
Federal RegWer / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Notices
00931
the o hoie and was mare
ffir!m1t In the removal of organic
compounds than either B??or granular
flltrati an technologies. The proposed
guidelines found that membrane
filtration as a B?? add-on was capable
of achieving oil and grease discharge
Limits of 7 mg/I monthly average and 13
mg/I daily maximum.
Membrane filtration, at this time, does
not appear practicable as an add-on
option to OPT In the Coastal
Subcategory because of the lack of an
adequate data base derived from
facilities located In the area and because
the current data have not yet
demonstrated the technology to b e
readily available at facilities In the
Coastal Subcategory. In addition, the
1991 proposed Offshore guidelines
found that this technology did not pass
the BC? cost test.
d. Biologici,J treatment. In the 1985
Offshore Guidelines proposal, the
Agency considered biological treatment
tot produced water as add-on
technology to OPT as a means to reduce
the content of oil and grease in
produced water. Investigations showed
that there are severe problems with
a Iimi tl g and maintfiining biological
cultures In produced waters in effluents
with high diseolved solids
concentrations (brine,). Consequently.
in the 1091 proposed Offshore
guldelinea EPA rejected this technology
from further consideration as en add-on
BFT option for BC ! ’.
e. Reinfection. In the 1991 proposed
Offshore guidelines, EPA also evaluated
rein jecilon. which may also include the
removal of oil and suspended matter, as
a treatment option for produced water.
The removal of oil and suspended
material prior to injection may be
required to prevent pressure build-up in
the receiving formation. The application
ci rein jection technology results In no
Rein jection has not been adopted as a
EClievel of control for conventional
pollutants by the Region because this
technology does not pass the BC !’ cost
test (see Section VIAl.!, below).
f. Evviuation of options using BCT
cost test. The BC? treatment
technologies considered in the 1991
proposed Offshore guidelines (or
reconsidered as a result of comments)
and outlined above involve either
improved gas flotation (improved
performance BPT), filtration as add-on
to OPT (granular or membrane) or
rein jection. In the 1991 proposed
Offshore guidelines (and In
recnnsidemtlon as a result of
comments), all of these treatment
technology options were evaluated
according to the BC!’ cost tests. The
parameters used In those analyses were
TSS. and oil and grease. All of the BC!’
options failed BC? cost tests v pt for
B C!’ equal to OFT. (In th. basis of the
test results, the Agency set OCT -OPT for
produced waters In the offisbese In both
the cited 1985 and 1991 actions and I.e
expected to maintain this position in the
final decision on the Offshore
guidelines.
For this permit, the BC? cost test
results will be the same as for the
proposed Offshore guidelines. The
Region, however, has recalculated the
BC? cost tests for reln}ectlan because a
recent Region 6 survey of production
statistics and disposal coat data for the
Coastal Subcategory shows that the cost
is significantly higher than the $3.47 to
$3.71 per pound of conventfrmiil
pollutant removed developed from the
data set used Inthe 1991 proposed
Offshore guidelines.
The Regions OCT cost test for oil and
grease removal was based on the current
BPT limitation of 48 mg/I monthly
average. The oil and grease
concentration per barrel of produced
water is, therefore, 48 mg/I X 159 i/bbl,
or 7.632 mg oil and grease per barreL In
pounds this amount is equivalent to
o 0167 pounds per barreL The cost of
injection was found to vary according to
location (i.e.. coats related to facilities
located over land, marsh or water). The
range of these costs has been
determined by industry (Walk & Haydel,
1989) to be $0.20 to $0.52 per barrel
(1991 dollars). Per barrel costs
reevaluated from the data base used by
Walk and Haydel (M. Kavanaugh far
Avanti to EPA, 1117/92) was found to
range from 30.15 (for a large Land.based
injection facility with 100% capacity
utilization) to 31.02 (for a small bay.
based facility with 50% capacity
utilization) per barrel (1991 dollars).
UtilI’ing the lowest costs from the
reevaluated Walk and Haydel data, the
cost for rein jection of produced water Is
$0.15 per barrel, or 38.98 per pound of’
oil and grease removed. This cost
significantly exceeds the BC? base-line
cost of $0.48 per pound of pollutant
removed and, therefore, reinjedlon falls
the BC!’ cost test. The failur, of this first
portion of the BC !’ cost test (the POTW
comparison) obviates the need to
perform the second portion of the test
(Internal Cost Ratio Test).
g. Summoiy of BCT for produced
water The treatment options evaluated
for OCT are: Improved performance of
OPT technology, add-on granular
filtration to BF!’, add.on membrane
filtration, add-on biological treatment
and rein jection. These options are the
same asthoseconsidered in the 1991
proposed Offshore guidelines, since the
appropriateness of these treatment
technologies should be the same for
both o hore and coastal produced
water treatment As with the proposed
o hore guldal1n . , all of the
technologically proin ’ing treatment
options beyond OFF were rejected
because they did not pass the BC!’ cost
test. Therefore, the OCT level of control
for produced water remains the same as
OPT, 48 mg/I daily average and 72 mg/
I daily maximum for oil and grease.
2. Produced Sand
Produced sand, alter being separated
from the produced water, is either
transported In drums to approved non-
hazardous waste disposal sites, or
washed with water or solvent and then.
discharged. The primary pollutant of
concern under BC!’ Is oil and grease. No
OPT, BC!’ and BAT guidelines limits for
produced sand have been promulgated
for the Coastal or Offshore
Subcategories. The 1991 proposed
offshore guidelines did select BC’!’ for
proposed sand as “no free oil” without,
however, evaluating the no discharge
option under the OCT cost test. The
available options for BC? are either the
no discharge or the “no free oil” levels
of control. Since the no discharge option
Is the most effective at reducing the
discharge of conventional pollutants,
this option was selected for evaluation
under the BC’!’ cost test.
o BC? cost analysis for no Discharge.
This BC? coat analysis for produced
sands is based on the following
assumptions: Disposal costs will be
cimil r to those for muds and cuttings;
specific gravity of produced sand will
rangefrom2.6g/m ltoahighof2.8g/
ml, porosity of “settled” produced sand
will range from 30% to 50% (the
nnIIk Iy higher value is used to test low
sand to water volume ratio); all sands
are measured as TSS as per 40 CFR part
136 (Standard Method.. 209 C
(filtration)). The following calculations
were made:
—One barrel (159 liters) of sand at 30
to 50% porosIty yIelds 79.5 to 111.3
liters of produced sand;
—Specific gravities of 2.8 to 2.8 g/ml
yields produced sand weights of 455
to 684 pounds per barreL
A perbarrel costfor land disposal of
a barrel of drill cuttings and drilling
mud has been calculated in the
proposed 1991 Offshore guidelines to be
$35 to $51 per barrel. Of these costs. $7
to 310 per barrel had been allocated to
land disposal cost, with the remainder
being allocated to transportation costs.
Using a worst case scenario ($51 per
barrel disposal cost) and the lowest
estimates of pounds of pollutants
removed per barrel (estimated highest
-------
60932
Feüer .. . Register I Vcl. 57. No. Z4 I T’ . osday. December 22, 1992 / Not.ices
pOrosity 50%), the cost of land disposal
of produced sand Is $0.11 per pound of
TSS removed. This cost is well below
the BCT/POVW benchmark cost of $0.46
per pound of conventional pollutant
removed. Alternatively, the
Development Document for the -
proposed 1991 Offshore aubcategory
guidelines (EPA 44011-91-055, March
1991, page Vl—28) estimates rend
disposal of muds and cuttings costs to
be $33 to $111 per barreL A “worst
case” analysis, using the higher disposal
cost ($111/barrel) and the lowest
amount of TSS removed (445 lbs
derived from the highest porosity/barrel
of sand) results in a $0.24/pound
4 conventlonel pollutant removal cost,
also well below the POTW benchmark
of $0.48 per pound. Both cost exercises,
therefore, meet the BCT cost test for
conventional pollutants.
The above cost estimates are
definitely “worst case” because the
transportation costs, which are a large
part of the disposal costs for muds and
cuttings, are expected to be mtnimal for
produced sand. This is due to the small
volumes of sand produced per well and
the fact that, forthe most part. they are
Infrequently discharged. This Is the case
for Coastal Subcategory wells as well as
Offshore Subcategory wells.
The Internal Cost Ratio (ICR) test Is
the second pan of a BCT cost test. This
test assesses the ratio of current-to-BPT
In emental cost ratios. Quantification
of BPT costs for disposal of produced
sand are not available because the BPT
guidelines for the Coastal Subcategory
do not spedfically deal with this waste
stream. Onshore disoosal of some of this
waste Is a current industry practice. The
Offshore Operators Committee (OOC)
estimates that 32% of the produced
sands in the offshore (a 1991 May
survey indicates 13,225 barrels of a total
41.627 barrels) were disposed of
onshore. Therefore, It is assumed that
the disposal costs under BPl’aze
approximately the same as has been
calculated for BCF. above, and the
Industry Cost Ratio (ICR) will
approximate unity. Thus, this portion of
the BCT cost test also Is passed by the
zero discharge limitation for coastal
facilities.
b. Summaiy of BCT for produced
sand. The zero discharge limitation on
the discharge of produced sand Is
proposed for these permits because
onshore disposal coats fall n1ficanily
below the BC be rJ miirk removal cost
for conventional pollutants.
B Best Available Technology
Economically Aciiievable (BAT)
Conditions
1. Produced Water
As explained in the following pages,
BAT for Coastal produced water is
determined to be no discharge, based on
best professional Judgement.
a. Sources of dote and information.
Information used in determining BAT
for produced water Includes EPA
reports, guidelines documents,
responses to formal requests for
Information, data and Information from
state regulatory agencies, Minerals
Management Service ( iS)
environmental Impact and technical
reports, American Petroleum Institute
(API) studies, data provided by the
Offshore Operators Cnmmittee (OOCJ,
proceedings from industry conferences
and symposia, and published technical
journal reports. In addition, a number of
individuals in state agencies provided.
through personal communications, a
variety of data used preparing this
section. The references cited In portions
of the text, are listed at the end of this
fact sheet
b. Characteristics of produced water
as related to BAT. The pollutants
contained in produced water have been
characterized as including oil and
grease, dispersed and dissolved
hydrocarbons, heavy metals, treating
chemicals and radionucleides. Boesch
and Raballa (1989) have estimated
produced water discharged into Coastal
Subcategory waters and territorial seas
waters of Louisiana to be 1,952,386
barrels per day, revised in 1991 (MMS
91—004) to 1.954,049 barrels per day.
The same authors report that daily,
721,745 barrels of produced water are
discharged to the Coastal Subcategory
Waters of Texas,
In the proposed 1991 Offshore
guidelines a 30 platform study which
gave the concentrations of toxic
pollutants in produced water. The study
showed flow-weighted oil and grease
effluent concentrations averaging 89.8
mg/I. Priority organics present in
significant amounts were benzene, bis
(2-ethyihexyl) phthalate. ethylbenzane,
napthalene, phenol, toluene and 2,4-
dimethylphenol. The proposed Offshore
guidelines reported that produced water
also contains priority metals,
particularly cadmium, copper. lead.
nickel, silverand zinc, as well as
variable amounts of biocides, corrosion
and scale inhibitors, emulsion breakers,
treating chemicals (reverse emulsion
breakers, coagulants. flocculants),
antifoams and paraffiniasphaltlne
treating chemicals. In a study of OCS
produced water muted to coastal areas
for treatment and discharge, Rabalais et
al. (1989) listed 31 selected organic
compounds In the produced water,
including significant levels of benzene,
toluene and phenol. Produced water
from gas processing units may also
utilize hydrate inhibition chemicals.
The Region has concluded that the
above offshore produced water
characteristics will also apply to
produced waters in the Coastal
Subcategory.
A recent review (Avanti for EPA,
April 18. 1992) of DMR’s provided by
LDEQ has indicated a list of 44 organic
compounds and metals, Including
priority pollutants, are present in
Coastal Subcategory produced water
(see Table 2). It is assumed that the list
of contaminants In produce& Water
within the Coastal Subcategory will be
imi1i r in both Louisiana and Texas.
c. Derivation of BAT (BPJ) permit
requirements. In this discussion, oil and
grease Is being used as an Indicator
pollutant controlling the discharge of
toxic pollutants under BAT. EPA
considered, in the request for
comments. Offshore guidelines (50 FR
34591, August 26, 1985) as well as the
proposed Offshore guidelines (56 FR
10664, March 13, 1991), add-on
technology to BPT for the removal of
to dcs and nonconventional pollutants
under BAT. In these 1985 and 1991
actions, the Agency considered several
add-on technology options for possible
BAT control of toxics and priority
pollutants. Most of these add-on
treatment options are the same ones that
were considered in deriving the BC ! ’
level of treatment for produced water.
These options of carbon adsorption,
biological treatment, chemical
precipitation, granular filtration,
membrane filtration, Improved
performance of BPT technology, and
rein jection are discussed below.
(1) Carbon adsorption. In the 1985
above cited action, one BAT option the
Agency considered was carbon
adsorption as a BPT add-on to remove
priority pollutants from produced water.
This option was rejected in the 1985
action and again in the 1991 proposed
Offshore guidelines because of the
unknown effects that brines may exert
on the adsorption process and because
of the Agency’s limited data on cost and
performance data of this process. This
BAT option is also being rejected for
this Coastal Subcategory permit for the
same reasons,
(2) Biological treatment. The 1985
guidelines action considered the BA’I
option of biological treatment as add-on
technology to BPT; however It found
severe problems with ac Iirnfiting and
maintaining biological cultures to treat
-------
Fderal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Notices
60933
),rfne westes . Additionally, this
technology has not been tested with
waters having total dissolved solids
concentration level. ena,wite d In
produced w tei . The Agency rejected
this option for the Offshore Subcategory,
and the Region Is alsorejecting this
option for this Coastal permit for the
seme reasons.
(3) O emicri! precipitation. The 1985
and 1991 Offshore guidelines actions
considered the BAT option of chemical
precipitation as a possible add-on BFI’
technology for produced water. This
technology con be useful In removing
soluble inetaffic Ions from solution by
converting thaw to an Insoluble form.
l-lydrwdde precipitation and sulfide
precipitation were found to remove
virtually no zinc, the priority pollutant
found in most samples, from BPT.
treated produced water because of the
low concentrations of the metaL The use
of sulfide precipitation was found to be
problematic due to sulfide gas
generation, requirements for large
settling facilities and problems with the
disposal of Large quantities of aludge
generated by the proceu. The Agency
rejected this option for Offshore
guidelines, and the Region is also
rejecting ft for the Coastal permit.
(4) Granular filtration. In the 1985
and 1991 proposed Offshore guidelines
actions, the Agency considered the BAT
option of granular filtration as an add-
on to BPT. The Agency rejected this
option because most priority pollutants
or metals contained In produced
hydrocarbons and entrained In
produced water are En solution or in a
soluble form: therefore, no quantifiable
reductions In these pollutants are
obtained by granular filtration
technology alone. For these reasons, the
Region also is rejecting this option as
bemg BAT for produced water.
(51 Membrane filtration. In the 1991
proposed Offshore guidelines, the
Agency considered the BAT option of
membrane filtration as an add-en to
BAT for produced water facilities
located 4 miles or les, from shore.
Membrane filtration technology Is
relatively new as applied to the oil
industry: although. It ha. been applied
to a number of other Industries for some
time. For example, membrane filters are
used to separate oil, bacteria, solids and
ainu.lsiflad material from water in dairy,
pharmaceu?.tcal and beverage industries.
Although membrane filter technology
can reduce oil and grease to
concentrations of 13 mg/I daily
maximum and 7 mg/I monthly average.
the filter units require periodic chemical
cleaning and blow down. There Is a lack
of data on filter characteristica and filter
configurations needed to treat the
priority organic and metallic pollutants
brown to be present in produced wa .
as well as a lack of data on the levels
of priority po l lutant. remaining after
treatment with membrane filtration. In
spite of these unknowns, the 1991
proposed Offshore Guidelines
considered membrane filtration to be
the preferred BAT option for produce
water for facilities located 4 mIles or
less from shore. EPA has, however.
reconsidered the use of membrane
filtration as BAT for the Offshore
Guidelines as a result of comments
receIved on the 1991 propoeaLandaaa
result of additional data obtained by
EPA in April. 1991. For the Offshore
Guidelines, EPA has found that
membrane filtration Is not technically
avallableas aBAT treatment option at
this time. The region Is. therefore,
rejecting the BAT option of membrane
filtration as en add-on to BPT for these
Coastal permits.___
(6) Improved performance of BPT
technology ’. As discussed previously In
the BC ! section of this Fact Sheet, EPA
has reconsidered, based on additional
data, the use of Improved performance
BPT (Improved gas flotation) as BAT for
produced water for the Offshore
Guidelines. EPA has now found that
Improved performance BPT Is
economically and technologically
achievable for Offshore Subcstegosy
facilities.
Compared with the other BAT
options, the meet effective means of
removing oil end gas Industry produced
water discharges of non-conventional
and toxic pollutants to waters of the
U.S. continues to be rein jection. As
discussed below, the 1991 proposed
Offshore Guidelines rejected produced
water rein jection as BAT for Offshore
facilities. As shown by the following
discussion, the reasons given In the
1991 proposed Offshore Guidelines for
not adopting reinjection as BAT are not
applicable to the Coastal Subcategozy.
areas of Texas and Louisiana.
(71 ReinfectIon. In the 1985 prop
Offshore guidelines action, EPA
considered rein j on for all wells
located In shallow waters as the
pziifmi d treatment option to define
BAT. In this action, rein joction was
found to be technologically feasible for
meeting a zero discharge standard for
platforms located in water depths of 20
meters or less. The Agency conslilered
reinjection for all shallow water
structures e pt for gas wells, whith
were found to discharge considerably
less produced water (Ills of oil well
discharges). When EPA evaluated this
rein jection option for all wells located
In the Offshore Subcategory (sum of
both shallow and deep water wells) the
Agency found rein j on to be
technologically feasible and
econnmlcally achievable for new
sources but deferred a ainiil*r opInion
regarding rein jection for eidstlng wells
because of lack of data and estimated
cost (50 FR 34591). In considering zero
discharge for new sources the Agency
was prompted by studies which
Indicated Injection would provide the
most protection for environmentally
sensitive marine areas. These factor.
prompted the Agency to consider
variabl, depth limits and conditions
which would allow for alternative
onshore rein jection by an offshore
facility.
In the 1991 proposed O hore
Guidelines, the Agency stated that while
rein jection is generally technologically
F thle In all offshore areas nation wide
(to., suitable formation, and conditions
are available for disposal operations),
some specific areas may experience
problems In being able to inject due to
formitlnn charactarlstica or the
proidmityto seismically active areas.
There were also concerns about higher
air emissions and fuel use associated
with the large pumps used to rein ject
fluids. The 1991 proposed O hore
Guidelines also stated that rein jection
for all offshore wells nationwide would
result In a 4.9% productIon lose.
The reasons given In the 1991
proposed Offshore Guidelines for not
adopting rein jection as BAT are not
applicable to the Coastal Subcategory
areas of Texas and Louisiana. The
Coastal Subcategory areas of Texas and
Louisiana axe not seismically active.
Numerous geological studies have
shown that there em ample numbers of
Injection horizons with favorable
formation charectoristla in the Coastal
Subcategory areas of Texas and
Louisiana.
in the 1985 proposed Offshore
Guidelines, the Agency Indicated that
the additinnal energy requirement.
Imposed by zero discharge are due
primarily to the filtration and pumping
of produced water into Injection wells.
It was found that there would be small
inaemental energy requirements for
rein jection of produced water and this
would not alg ifir nt1y affect the costs
of pollution control nor measurably
affect energy supplies. The 1985 action
also found that w)ian additional
pumping Is required, additional air
emissions would be aeated due to the
use of diesel orgas e1 g1nn for
generating power and this concern was
reIterated In the 1991 proposed Offshore
guidelines. In contrast to these findings
for Offshore, power for rain jemion from
many Coastal Subcategory wells would
be obtained from local power companies
-------
,b *_ a..
. . . O. L4L . . . sua , L ecemo : 22, 1992 / NoUces
or genen.ted from power take-offs from
ex sling equipment, with no significant
inrn ease in emissions from onsite-power
generation.
The Region finds that rein jection of
produced water In the Coastal
Subcategory areas of Texas and
Louisiana Is technologically feasible.
When compared with other BAT
options, It is the most effective means of
removing oil and gas Industry
discharges of non . .conventlonal and
toxic pollutants to waters of the U.S.
These findings are supported by the
Agency s proposed 1985 and 1991
proposed Offshore guidelines actions
when the differences between Texas and
Louisiana Coastal Subcategory areas and
Offshore areas nationwide are
considered. In addition, as discussed In
section V of this Fact Sheet, about 6,400
of 7,600 oil and gas wells In Texas and
about 1,660 of 1,960 oil and gas wells
in Louisiana are already rein jading their
produced water.
d. BAT cost analysis for no discharge
The BAT cost analysis for the
produced water no discharge
requirement (Avantl, July, 1992.
Economic Analysis—Produced Water)
consists of three parts: The financial
impact of compliance with theno
discharge requirement on companies
involved in Texas and Louisiana Coastal
production, the Impact of compliance
with the no discharge requirement on
loss of future oil production In Texas
and Louisiana Coastal areas, and a cost
effectiveness analysis. -
(2) Basis of analysis. Since Louisiana
State Regulation LAC:33,IX,7.708
(discussed fully in section VLC.I.b of
this Pact Sheet) prohibits the discharge
of produced water to upland fresh
waters after July, 1992, EPA assumed
that the permit’s BAT No Discharge
requirement for those areas would have
no further cost to companies and no
in ementaI loss of future production.
Texas Statewide Rule 8 (discussed In
section VLC.1.c of this Fact Sheet)
prohibits the discharge of produced
water to Inland and fresh waters In
Texas. The BAT cost analysis, therefore,
assumes that for those areas there will
be no additional cost to companies and
no additioual loss of future reserves. For
these analyses, It was assumed that all
Texas waters inland from the Chapman
Line are fresh. The State’s prohibition
on discharges of produced water to
inland and fresh water areas was also
factored into the cost effectiveness
analysis.
As wilibe shown later Inthis Fact
Sheet, one of the bases for requiring no
discharge of produced water Is that such
discharges would violate water quality
standards in both Texas and Louisiana,
and that such discharges in Texas
would violate the Texas Hazardous
Metals Regulation. The BAT cost
analysis does not, however, assume
compliance with state water quality
standards and the Hazardous Metals
Regulation (Le., no discharge of
produced water Into stats coastal
waters), thereby making the cost
estimate conservative.
(2) Financial impact on companies.
Determining the potential financial
Impact of the BAT No Discharge
requirement on Coastal Subcategory
operators Involved three steps. The first
step was to identify the operators, their
produced water discharge volume, and
their financial characteristics. The
second step was estimating compliance
costs for each operator. The third step
measuring compliance costs relative to
short-run (working capital) and long-run
(equity) financial measures.
(I) Identification of Operators—
According to Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality and Texas
Railroad Commission records, there are
101 companIes operating In coastal
waters of Louisiana and Texas that
discharge Into Intermediate, brackish or
saline waters. These companies.
dIscharge 350 million barrels of
produced water annually. This
discharge volume Is distributed
unevenly among operators. Fifty five per
cent of the 101 companies discharge less
than 1000 bbl/day with the average
discharge among these companies being
950 bbllday. Eighteen of the 101
companies discharge 90% of the total
volume of produced water, and 10 of the
101 companies account for 80% of the
total volume discharged. There are 27 of
these 101 companies with publicly
available information. These 27
companies, therefore, were used as the
basis for the finanQal impact analysis
which measured compliance cost
relative to short-run and long-run
financial measures. The 27 companies
represent a mix of large and small
companies and produced water
dlschargem. The range of asset size of
the 27 companies Is $23 million to 587
billion and the range of produced water
disch rge rates is 32,000 bbllyear to 59.5
million bbl/year. These 27 companies
discharge 73% of the produced water
volume discharged by the total 101
coastal companies.
(ii) Compliance Cost to Operators—
Compliance costs of meeting the BAT
produced water No Discharge
requirement were calculated for each of
the 101 companies operating in
Louisiana and Texas coastal waters
using estimated reinlection costs from
Kerr Associates and the produced water
volumes from the above-noted State
agency records. The Ken study is a
reevaluation of a produced water
rein jedlon cost study by Walk. Haydel
& Assodates (1989) conducted for Mid-
Continent Oil and Gas Association on
the impact of Louisiana regulations on
the oil industry. The Kerr study
estimated after-tax cost of injecting a
barrel of produced water using a new
well (and assumIng 75% capacity
utilization). These costs are presented in
Table 3. These costs are a refinement of
the Walk, Heydel study end are
somewhat lower: although, they do not
reflect one of Kerr’s major concerns of
the Walk Haydel study that the
pretreatment assumptions (flltxetion of
the produced water prior to Injection)
represents an excessive cosLTbe Kerr
study said that a more realistic
pretreatment assumption, at
considerably lower cost, would be the
use of tank batteries to settle solids prior
to Injection. The cost of the filtration Is
still used In the Table 3 costs because
of the lack of cost data on tank batteries.
For this compliance cost analysis. It was
assumed that most operators will use
3,000 bbllday land-based (in Texas) or
marsh-based (In Louisiana) wells for
reinjection of produced water. It was
assumed, however, that diachargors
with the larger produced water volumes
will use larger wells to capture available
economies of scale. In this regard, the 5
largest dlschargers in Texas are assumed
to use 6,000 bbllday land-based wells.
In Louisiana, It was assumed that 7 large
dischargars will use 9.000 bbllday
marsh-based wells and 3 other large
dischargers will use 6.000 bbllday
marsh-based wells. In addItion, 3
Louisiana operators in bays will use
9.000 bbllday bay-based wells and 2
Louisiana operators in bays will use
6,000 bbllday bay-based wells. These
compliance costs represent, of course, a
worst case scenario since It will not be
necessary to drill all new injection
wells. Instead, dry holes and abandoned
wells can be used in a number of
instances or the produced water can be
used for secondary recovery projects In
other instances. The results of this
compliance cost analysis shows that the
annual state wide pollution control cost
for the Coastal EAT no discharge
requirement is 373.9 million in
Louisiana and $13.8 million in Texas.
(iii) Compliance Cost Relative to
Long-run and Short-run Financial
Measures—Measuring compliance costs
relative to long-run (equity) and short-
run (working capital) financial. measures
for the 27 companies used in the
financial Impact analysis showed a very
small equity change, ranging from less
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 I Notices
60935
than 0.001% to 0.24%, aa a result of the
BAT No Discharge compihince costs.
The one exception was a company
that had a 28% equIty thangs . This
company was an anomaly among the
group used In the analysis In that It had
the smallest assets of the 27 companies,
but was one of the largest produced
water dlschargers among the total 101
companies. There was working capital
Information for 17 of the 27 companies.
The analysis also showed a very “ mall
working capital change (0.001% to
3.1%) as a result of the BATNo
Discharge requirement.
(3) Impact on loss of future
production. This analysis est1n fe . the
oil production lost (oil not produced)
because of the added coat of complying
with BAT produced water No Discharge
requirements. At some point In the life
of every field, the cost of producing the
oil will become greater than the profits
to be made from producing It. The cost
of complying with the BAT No
Discharge requirements may, therefore,
cause this point to be arrived at sooner,
shortening the life of the field. This may
result In more oil being left In the
formation than would be the case if
there were no additional cost of
complying with BAT.
This analysis was performed for 38
Coastal Subcategory field, In Louisiana.
These fields were selected because there
was available data both on produced
water discharge rates and produced oil
rates for these fields. Although there
was produced water discharge
Information for all of the Louisiana
Coastal fields there was produced oil
rate Information on only part of them.
These 38 fields (4 bay fields and 32
marsh fields) dIscharge 59.5 million bbl/
year of produced water, which Is 19.8%
of the produced water discharged to
coastal Louisiana. These fields represent
a variety of fields In bays and marshes,
and are representative of the types of
Coastal Subcategory wells in Louisiana
and Texas. The water-oil ratios for those
fields.tange from .04 to 24.4, the
produ ed water discharge rates range
from 7,300 bbl/yearto 15.1 million bbl/
year. and the energy production rates
range from 8.700 bbl of oil equivalent
(flOE) per year to 4.2ZmlllIon BOEI
oil production loss analysis
estimates the amount of recoverable oil
production from the field without the
additional cost of BAT No Discharge
compliance, and subtracts from It the
4Imated amount of recoverable oil
production with the additional BAT
compliance cost. To determine the
amount of recoverable oil without the
additional compLiance cost it is
necessary to know what the total
rem ”lnIng recoverable reserves ate far
the field that Is, where the field lain
Its production life. That nformalion
was not available forthe 36 fields used
In this analysis. The amount of
recoverable oil production was,
therefore, estimated by using recent oil
production rates and assuming a
constant 15% oil production decline
rate for each of the fields.
Other factors involved in the analysis
are oil prices, oil production costs, BAT
compliance costs, and tax rates. All of
these factors were assumed to remain
constant throughout the produr tlon life
of the field. The price of oil was
projected to be $21 per bbL Oil
production costs, excluding the
produced water rein jection costs, was
based on “Coats and Indices for
Domestic Oil and Gas Field Equipment
and Production OperatIons 1987,1988,
1989” published by the Energy
Information Administration (EZA).
Production costs were scaled down from
EIA’s cost estimates for a 12-slot Gull of
Me dco platform. Costs for three model
oIl production facility sizes were
developed. The largest model facility
(used to analyze the large bay fields)
was scaled down to apprmdmately ½ of
the Culi•12 platform coat. The
intermediate size facility (used for small
bay and large marsh fields) was
assumed to be ½ of this largestmodel
facility’s cost. The small size produ on
facility (used for small marsh fields) was
assumed to be ¼ of this largest model
facility’s cost. These production costs
are presented In Tablet. A field may
contain both large and small production
facilities. The number and size of
production facilities in each of the 36
fields was approximated from
InformatIon on the number and size of
their produced water outfsll. A very
conservative BAT tzinpllanni cost was
assumedtobe$o.41ibbl Ta bl.3).ThJ,
compliance cost is conservative because
It Is based on the cost for a small , marsh-
based Injection well with no allowance
for economy of scale, use of produced
water for secondary recovery or use of
abandoned wells. A combined state and
local tax rate of 38.5% was used.
The production loss analysis for the
38 LouisIana fields showed that the
average loss of oil production for those
fields due to the cost of complying with
BAT (reinjection of the produced water)
was 8.2 percent of the estimated coastal
oil production without this compliance
cost. It Is reasonable to assume that the
same percent loss of estimated oil
production would occur in coastal
Texas fields, because similar geological
conditions occur In both state coastal
areas. It should be noted that this
estimated percentage loss of oil
production Is not meant to represent the
percent loss of oil production for all
coastal oil production facilities covere
by these permits. Such a percentage
production loss, lithe Information was
availabl, to calculate ft. would be much
lower, since the produced water BAT
requirement of No Discharge does not
have an additional compliance cost to
production facilities that might
potentially discharge to fresh waters Lu
Texas and to fresh waters In Louisiana.
Such produced water discharges are
already prohibited by state rules or
regulations desaibed In sections
VLC.i.b and c of this Fact Sheet. It
should also be noted that for Louisiana
production facilities currently
discharging to Intermediate, brackish
and saline waters (except possibly large
bays) the BAT requirement would have
only a small impact, since they will
have to cease discharge by January, 1997
anyway (see section VLC.i.b of this Fact
Sheet).
(4) Cost effectiveness analysis. The
cost effectiveness analysis estimates the
cost of pollution control per pound
equivalent (PE) removed annually. This
cost is then compared with the cost per
PE for BAT requirements for other
Industries. Pollutant PE’s axe calculated
to represent a weighted quantity of
pollutants that would have entered the
environment without the proposed
regulations or permits. PE’s are
calculated by multiplying each
pollutant concentration by the annual
volume of produced water discharged
and by a weighing factor that puts each
pollutant quantity on an equivalent
scale by accounting for varying degrees
of tordcity. For example, a pound of
radium Ii considered more toxic than a
pound of silver: therefore, the toxic
weighing factor for radium Is higher.
The toxic weighing factors are based on
a methodology that uses human health
and aquatic life cii tens developed by
EPA (Quality Criteria for Water, 1988)
for each pollutant For these permits,
marine toxic weighing factors were used
(resulting In a higher costfPE) since the
receiving waters for which there will be
an additional compliance cost due to
thes. permits will be mainly marine or
estuarlne. The complete methodology
and derivation of the toxic weighing
factors used for this analysis are
presented in Verser (1992).
The BAT cost per PE for these
permits, as well as those for a number
of other Industries, is listed in Table 5.
The coat per PE for these permits were
calculated by multiplying the cost of
disposal ((rum section d..(i). above) by
the total volume of produced water for
coastal Texas and Louisiana and
• divided by the total PE. These costs per
-------
60936
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 246 / Tuesday. December 2Z 1992 / Notices
FE present a worst case, I.e that they
used the disposal orta for small
injection well. (highest costlbbl) with
no allowance for a omy of scale. use
of produced water far .eomdary
re ivvry or use of abandoned wells. The
comparison with BAT cost per FE for
these permits with BAT guidelines far
other Industries shows that the BAT
cost for these permit. Is among the
lowest of the BAT costs for various
Industries.
(5) Summary of BAT cost o . eai eisfos
No Discharge. As demonstrated above,
the BAT No Discharge of produced
water requirement in these proposed
permits Is economically achievable. The
nancial irupeat of compliance with the
No Discharge requirement en most
companies involved In Texas and
Louisiana Coastal production Is
minimaL The estimated loss of
produdf en due to amnipilance with the
No Discharge requirement Is small
compared with total coastal production.
in addition, a comparison of th. cost
effectiveness of BAT (No Discharge) far
these permits with BATfor other
Industries shows the No Discharge
requirement to be among the lowest
BAT costs d equivalent for any
e. BAT option seier4ioa
The Region baa selected reinjectlon of
produced water as the appropriate BAT
effluent control for tmdc and
nonconv,nlional pollutants In these
Coastal Subcategory permits. The above
review Indicated that the other add-on
technologies to BF provide far less
removal of these pollutants from
produced water than does reiu}ecti an.
Rein jection provides total removal from
Waten of the U.& in Louisiana and
Texas of eon-conventional end tmdc-
pollutants due to produced water
discharge. in addition., the relniection Is
shown, as discussed above, to be
technologically available and
economically achievable.
2. Produced Sand
As explained In the following paged . ,
BAT for produced sand Isno discharge.
a. Der3vatian of BAT (BPfl pennit
As stated previously In sodlon VLA.2
of this Fact Sheet there are no
promulgated guidelines for produced
sand discharges. Currently, produced
sands are either transported to waste
disposal sites onshore, or washed with
“Ither water or solvent end then
ad. Otherthen the water or
Avent washing of produced sand or Its
disposal in waste disposal eltee, the
Agency Is unaware of any otber f .wwdW
technology capable of routinely cleaning
produced sand wicvpt for a system
developed by Shell Oil Company
(comments from Shell Oil Company to
A on proposed role. Offshore
GuIdelines, 56 FR 10664. March 13,
1991). The Shell system is reported to
have reduced the oil content of
produced sand to 5% to 0%, but this
system is only a prototype system,
untried by and may be unavailable to
th. industry In generaL
b. Selection of ‘Wo Discharge” BAT
limitation
Using BP P the Re len baa selected a
BAT “no discharge’ requirement for
produced sand seth. moat effective
means of controlling the discharge of
now ’n”venllonal end toxic pollutants
Into waters of the U.S. The prohibition
en discharges of produced sand in the
Coastal Subceteqcwy areas of Texas and
Louisiana Is technologically feasible.
and In the following section is shown to
be mlcellfecblevebls.
c. BAT cost oval ucticn of produced
The BAT cost evaluation farno
discharge of produced sand c ” s of
two peru: A r l iilatjan of the average
conspllaw cost per fadilty and a cost
effedlveuese analysis.
As will be shown later In this Fed
Sheet, the discharge of produced sand
would be In violation of the General
Critoria of the Lou1s 4 ” Water Quality
Standards. The BAT cost analysis does
not, however, asenme compliance with
these General Criteria (La., no discharge
of produced sand to Louisiana coastal
waters), thereby m*kIr g the
estimate omsarvetive.
(2) Compliance coat ana ’zis. The
volume of produced send generated I
th. coastal su&ztegcxy Is not well
dominianted. The volume of sand
requiring disposal was estimated using
a database developed by the Offshore
Operators Committee (0CC) and
submitted to the A for the
development of Offshore Guidelines
(COC, 1991). Acoording to the database,
the toW volume of produced sand
generated in atwelve .month period Is
41.627 bbls. The produced water
associated with this volume of sand is
309,631000 bbls. This is an average of
7440 bbls of water per bbl of sand. The
region estimates that a similar ratio
applies to Coastal Subcategory
produdn lides.
The volume of produced water
generated in the coastal subcategary Is
304.312,000 per year In Louisiana and
218,073,000 bbls per year In Texas
(Avanti, AprIl 18, 1992). Using the
a Vg 5 O volume of pivduced send per
barrel of produced water that was
derived from the 00Cc offshore data,
the volume of produced send requiring
disposal under the proposed general
permits approximates 41,000 bbla par
year In Louisiana and 29,000 bbls par
year In Texas.
The OOC states that produced sand
often Is handled like cuttings In that It
is sent for disposal as unnh* i doua oil
field waste under state regulations.
Wail. Maydel & Associates (1989)
provides disposal coats fcw oil field
wastes as 39.B6Ibbl of cuttings on the
Gulf of Mexico coast. This awt Includes
barging costs for offshore focilitles at
$i.soIbbl to 32.00/ 1 ,1 ,1. The use of te
for cuttings disposal from o h&e for
estimating the disposal coat of —
sand In coastal areas resulta In en
Inflated cost for produced sand. For one
thln& the transportation (barging) costs
for produced send will be mhIi isi at
most. Nevertheless, based on a high
estimate of Sio.o0/bbl far disposal of
produced sand (which includes barging
costs). the total annual casts for disposal
of produced sand under the proposed
general permits are 3409.000 for
Louisiana and 3293,000 for Tern This
Is an average annual cost per facility of
only $1800 in Louisiana and $1,850 for
Texas.
(ZI Cost effectiveness analysis. A cost
effectiveness test estimates the cost of
pollution control per pound equivalent
removed. Pollutant pound equivalents
(PE) are calculated to represent a
weighted quantity of pollutants that
would have entered the environment
without the proposed permits. PE’s are
calculatedby multiplying the pollutant
concentration by a weighing factor that
puts each pollutant quantity on en
equivalent scale by a undng for
varying dogr.ies of toxicity using copper
as the standard. For example, because a
pound of radium Is considered more
toxic than a pound of silver, the toxic
weighing factor for radium is hlgher
The toxic weighing factors are
calculated based on a methodology that
uses human health end aquatic life
aiteria developed by A for each
pollutant. The complete methodology
and derivation of the toxic weighing
factor used for this analysis are
presented In Verses (1992).
For produced sand, pollutant
concentration data were available only
for radium. The radium conrentradon of
produced sand was &iv’ .d from two
data sources. The first data source is the
CCC ’ . produced sand database
submitted In response to the proposed
Offshore Guidelines (OOC, 1991). The
database Includes Rs and mnSRA
concentrations for 19 produced emd
samples collected by member
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 248 / Tuesday. December 22, 1992 1 ‘IoUces
60937
companies from othboie f dHf1Al The
second data source was submitted by
Shell Offshore Inc. also for the eøluent
guidelines effort (Shell Offshore Inc.,
1991). The 29 samples reported by Shell
Offshore were taken as part eta
monitoring study fore produced sand
treatment technolo (C ntlnenta1 Shelf
Associates. 1991). A data set of the
combined results of these two studies
produces average concentrations of 37
pCUg Ra (range of 0 pCL/g to 172 pCI!
gland 37 pCiJg wEe (range of 0 pCL/
gte 180 pCi/g) for 48 produced sand
samples.
lnthecalculationofPE’ sfortheNo
Discharge requirement of produced sand
(Avantl, June, 1992). the Region made
the reasonable assumption that the
produced sand Radium concentrations
offshore will be &mi!ar to those of the
Coastal area since produced sands are
derived from s rnflar geological
formations. The total pound equivalents
for both Ra and are divided by the
total cost of compliance for each state.
The resultant removal cost per pound
equivalent of Ra and Is $106 for
both Louisiana and Texas.
(3) Summar,’, MT cost analysis for
produced sand
Because the average cost of disposal
per facility for produced sand are
n n mal (apprwdmately $1800 per
facility). analyses of specific companies
were not conducted. This disposal cost
per facility represents a high-end
estimate of the total costs. The cost
appears to be reasonable and acceptable
for waste disposal under BAT.
The cost effectiveness results are
pared to the cost effectiveness of
pxewious nile makings In TableS. This
Table shows a range of cost per pound
equivalent from SO to $404 (Ta 1981 3)
far a number of promulgated BAT
Industry guidelines. For these Coastal
permits the cost Is $106 ($71 In 1981$)
per pound equivalent.
The cost of produced sand removal
falisbelow the middle of the range of
ants. This analysis considered oniy
radium in calculating cost effectiveness
because of a lack of data an other
pollutants occurring In produced sand.
For example, limited data on oil and
grease concentrations show levels at or
around I mg/I (Continental Shelf
As odates, 1991). Thus organic priority
pollutants are almost certain to be found
In produced sand. If these organic
pollutants were added to this cost
rtfadivenesa analysis, ants per pound
equivalent would be lower. With the
p e nt analysis the cost appears to be
within the acceptable range of ants per
pound of pollutant removed, and Is
considered a 1 uiiictm b4e BAT coat of
permit compliance.
C State Rules and RegulatE one, and
Stole Waler Quality Standards
EPA I s required under 40 Cl’R
122.44(d) to include conditions as
necessary to achieve State requirements
and water quality standards us
established under section 303 of the
Clean Water Act. Discussed below are
produced water charecterlslice, State
rules and regulations that apply to
produced water, and the reduced
water requirements on State
Water Quality Standards. Then
produced sand characteristics and
produced sand requirements based on
State Water Quality Standards are
discussed.
1. Produced Water
a. Characteristics of produced water
as related to water quality stoiidardj
and regulations. The pollutants
contained in produced water have been
generally categorized as Including oil
and grease, dispersed and dissolved
hydrocarbons and entrained priority
pollutants, heavy metals, treating
chemicals and, to varying degrees,
radlonudlides.
(2) Volume. Boesth and Rabelals
(1989) have estimated that 1,952.388
barrels of produced water are
discharged daily Into all Louisiana State
waters. This figure was recently revised
to 1,954,049 barrels daily by! 4S
(MMS 91—004). Boesch and Rabalals
(1989), also estimated that 23% of this
produced water is discharged Into fresh
water areas, 22% into brackish water
areas. 17% into saline areas and 28%
Into open bay areas. The remi .ln ng 10%
Is derived from offshore.
EPA has recently completed a -
reevaluation of volumes of produced
water discharged to Coastal Subcategory
areas of Louisiana and Texas (Bowler &
Petra uoUo to EPA, March 17, 1992).
This report, based on a review of
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQJ and the Railroad
Commission of Texas (‘rRC) discharge
monitoring reports (OMR’a). indicates
that a total produced water discharges to
coastal areas of 1.4 million barrels per
day. Due to the Large volumes of
produced water Involved, and because
rhese water volumes can be expected to
lnaease In time with the aging of the
producing fields, continued di chaiges
and the environmental Impact of
produced water on these shallow water
environments Is viewed with concern.
(2/Characteristics. Produced waters
are usually of greater salinity than
normal sea water (35 ppt). and range
from 3 ppt In some restricted areas to
300 ppt (Rlttenhouse at aL 1989). In
coastal produced waters, ? OvlS (MM
91-0004) reported salinity ranges of.
to 192 ppt and Boeech and RAh*b .t .
(h’Q (S 89—0031) reported Sate 150 ppt.
While the ‘elinfty of brines can have
u e e negative effects on local
biological communities, produced
waters also contain relatively high
concentrations of organic compounds
Including entrained volatile aromatic
hydrocarbons (VAil’s), elkanes, metals
and. to varying degrees, radlonuclides
(NORM). Some VAil’s (benzene,
ethylben.sane, Toluene), as well as oil
and grease, TOC, TSS, pH. temperature.
chlorides, dissolved oxygen, and
toiddty are limited by state regulations.
A 30 platform Gulf of Mexico offshore
study by Bums and Roe (for EPA, 1982)
reported average effluent concentrations
for VAil’s at 2.4 mg/I for bonrane, .263
mg/I for ethylbenv ne and 2.8 mg/I for
toluane; phenol average concentrations
are reported at 2.1 zag/ i. Priority
pollutants, In addition to the precedIng .
contain significant amounts of bls (2-
ethythexyl) phthalate. naphihabme. One
would expeot ldm4Iftr values for
produced waters would be exhibited by
facilities In the Coastal Subcategory
areas of Texas and Louisiana. Indeed,
MMS (L Ith4S 91—0004) reports some
VAH LoiihJ,ii a, coastal area
concentrations exceed 5 mg/i and some
effluents exhibit simlier phenol
concentrations. Rabalals at aL (1989)
have Hated 31 organic compounds in
produced water, Includlug those
Indicated above. The report also
Indicates that produced waters exhibit
concentrations of 10 to 100 mg/i
aliphatic fatty adds, approximately I to
35 mg/I azuTlintic acidi and up to 35 mg/
1 saturated hydrocarbons. Rabalals
(1990) and St. Pe at aL (199(fl. also
report that toxic metals are present In
produced waters with nickel, vanadium
and barium In the highest
concentrations with zinc, copper and
chromium also being present In most
discharges. EPA Indicated (proposed
Offshore guidelInes, March 13, 1991)
that produced water contains significant
concentrations of priority metals,
particularly r dmlum, copper, lead,
nickel, silver and nc, Additionally,
produced water was also found to
contain variable amounts of blocidea,
corrosion and scale Inhibitors, emulsion
breaker, treating chemicals. antifoarns,
paraffine/asphaltfne treating chemicals.
and possibly anhydrate Inhibition
cher ui nha -
Concentrations of NORM (Ra-228,Ra-.
228) In coastal waters have been found
to have wide variability related to
geography and oil type. Studies have
reported NORM levels ranging front 605
-------
60938
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Notices
to 1.215 pC I /I (Proposed Offshore
sideline, March 13, 1991). Sthleokas
d St. P. (1990) report RadIum 226
.intants In produced waters that range
from 131 to 393 pQ/L An LDEQ study
of state waters (primarily coastal areas)
has found that Ra- .226 and R—228 o u
primarily in the soluble phase and data
from approxtinetely 450 dIscharging
sites indicete that produced water from
half of these site. exceeds 300 pQ/L
The data reported by a recent ? .O f S
study (OC Study. ? Qi4S 91—001)
indicates that produced WateIS esmplod
In the Louisiana coastal area (Coastal
Subategory as well as Territorial Seas
portion of the Offshore Subc2tegOry)
had 136.8 to 1040 pO/l with Inaeases
In radioa vfty hiked to Ln eases in
salinity.
(3) Fate and environmental 1m of
produced water. In the put. produced
water has bean discharged Into Co 4al
Subcategozy waters. Although much has
been written on the environmental
effects of discharges of these waters aver
the years. the stt pt here will only he
to review updated synth”.es of some of
the more 4gnifi t data sets. Bei ch
and R ha1a4a (1989) ln ifr id that
con$ai ln tion ceused by discharges of
dense water plumes (brine.) extends
yond the region in which acutely-
hal concentrations of cOntain in t
ireexpectadtobefoundJ&.4S .O .4S
dl—0001-4) has reported that some of
the pollutants in discharges of produced
water In coastal and open bay areas bad
a persistent effect on berithic
communities and have had a ra 1atanr*
t.i degradation. These conclusions also
reflect the views of others (e.g.. Daniels
and Means, 1989; RAh 1Ma . 1991:
Rabalais, at el., 1989; St. Pa at aL. 1990),
with St. P. at ii. concluding that
continued produced water discharges
into the shallow water, low energy,
unique hydrologloal inner coastal
environments will likely result in an
in In bath the level end extent of
conventional and nancrm,enticmal
pollutant contamination to areas of the
discharges. In support of the
Rabalals (1991) Indlcat.id that the largest
component of the organic load of
produced water Is the fatty adds and
aromatic adds. Saturated bydr ceth ms
were found to be the next
abundant. Volatile. and phenols
comprise the third moat abundant dais
of pollutants present In produced water
with bop” . and toluene comprising
75% to 85% of these compounds. Thee.
mpounds, although water soluble and
lly dispersed within the wa
umn, are acutely toxic to orgai i*
ihlgh concentrations. Polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAWs)
constitute the smallest fraction of
organic pollutants found in produced
water. PAH’s, however, axe the heaviest,.
most toxic and .nirlzonmentaily stable
component In produced water and axe
most likely to be aocuinulated In
sediments of the discharge area.
St.PeetaL(i991)lndf ntedthatthe
factors determining the degree of Impact
of produced water upon the
environment Is related to discharge rate
(amount), quantity of pollutants end
trace metals present In the produced
water, local hydrology, sediment
disruption (dredging activities, etc.) and
sediment type (espedally organic
content and texture). As In the case of
produced wat discharges into Coastal
Subcategoiy areas. dense Water phones
will tend to have cumulative long term
environmental effects du. to the low
energy, low mass a 4 ange waters
which typify areas In the Coastal
Subcetegory. The chemicals and frace
metals found within produced waters
discharged into these coastal areas have
been Judged to have bath a potential
co1og1c as well as huw health risk
(Daniels and Means, 1989).
(4) Bioioglori Toxicity. SL Pa at L
(1991) report a mean LC, 0 96-hour
mysid shrimp acute toxicity from
produced water at four sites In the
Louisiana coastal area it 4.3% with the
range of LC, 0 ’s being 2.6% to5 8% of
the effluent. Sheepahead 96-how LCse
acute toxicity tests yield a mean value
of 20.1%, wltharange of 7.2% to 33.8%
of the effluent. Utilizing the Agencys
method of determining an equivalent
chronic toxicity value from acute values
by means of acute/chronic ratios (EPA/
505/2-00-001. p.18). the sheepshead
chronic toxicity range reported by St Pa
etaL as Indicated above is eqwva]ent
to chronic values of .72% and 3.38% of
effluents. SL Pa at. al. also ran the 96
hour acute test an eluirlates from
sediments In the area which Indicated a
73.3% mortalIty of the test organism
HyoJello e.teca. in a separate study.
Envizo-Lab, Inc., conducted biological
acute end chronic toxicity tests on
produced water from West Delta Block
52 facilIty, Plaquemines Parish.
Louisiana for LG.S. Exploration.
Harvey, Louisiana. Enviro-Labs 7-day
chronic test of no observable effect
conomtretlon (NOw), Utilizing
Mysidopsis and Cyprinodon, Indicated
the followIn Mysidopsis survival.
grvwih and Mcundlty to be,
respectively, 1875%, 1.437%
2.875% effluent. Cyprlraodon urvlval at
1.437% effluent and growth value of
<1.437% effluent. The 96-hour acute
lethality LC 50 tests for Myridopsls were
5.8% to 25.8% effluent and far
Cyprinodon were 1.5% to 6.1% affluent
Boesch and Rabelals (2969) also
Indicated that produced water assays on
austacaans had LCis’i of lee. than 10%
produced water. Addltlanally, Rose and
Ward (1981) IndIcated that shrimp
larvae LC, 0 ’s were lees than 1%
produced water.
Produced water toxicity data from
offshore wells was submitted in
October, 1992 by the Offshore Operators
Committee to the Region. These data
showed that the produced water was
highly toxic. Seven-day chronic survival
data horn one company showed a mean
NOEC survival for myslds of 0.86%
effluent (With a minimum of 0.32% and
a maximum of 1.86% effluent) and a
mean NOEC wvival theepshead
minnows of 1.0% effluent (with a
minimum of 0.28% and a maximum of
2.7% affluent). Seven-day chronic
survival data from another pany
showed a mean NOEC survival b
mysids of 0.95% effluent (With a
minimum of <0.1% and a i .a mum of
5% effluent).
The largest produced water toxicity
data base (Avantl. 1992) used In thom
permits consists of self .mcezItorlng
compliance data required by Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
discharge permits. The data base has
results from 241 96-br LC, 0 tests using
msylds. 239 96-hr LC, 0 tests using
aheepsh.ad minnows, 228 chronic
toxicity tests using myslds and 223
chronic tests using sheepsbeed
minnows. The 96-hr IC , 0 myalda tests
had a mean of 12% effluent and a 95
percentile value of 1.3% effluent. The
96-hr LC,o sheepebeed minnow tests
had a mean of 27% effluent and a 95
percentile value of 2.7%. For the
chronic toxicity tests, the niysld
survival mean value was 4.5% effluent
and the 95 percentile value was 0.2%.
The sheepahead minnow survival mean
value was 8% effluent and the 95
percentile value was 0.5%. The toxicity
tests summarized in this Section
Indicate that discharges of produced
waters from coastal facilities axe
sufficiently toxic that their discharges
Into Coastal Subcategory water is of
great concern and, as discussed later In
this Fact Sheet, water quality standards
will not be met if their discharge is
b. Louisiana state regulations far
produced water discharges. (1)
Discharge to fresh water. Louisiana State
Regulation LAC33. I X. 7.706 prohIbits
discharges of produced water to fresh
water areas characterized as upland ”
alter July 1, 1992. The Regulation
defines “upland as ‘any land not
normally Inundated with water and that
would not, under normal cfrarmatances,
be characterized as swamp or fresh.
-------
Fedaval Regleter / VoL 57, No. 246 I Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Notices
60939
armed1ate, ) w*rfr4ih or saline marsh”
siid states “th, land and water bottoms
Df all parishes northof the nine parishes
odguous with the Gulf o(Me,don will
be considered In toto as upland areas.”
This Regulation does, however, allow
IIscharge to a major deltaic pass of the
Mississippi River orto the Atr hnfit1aya
River. indudisig Wax Lake Outlet.
below Morgan City, lithe discharge has
been authorized by a State permul
(2) Discharges to intermediate.
brackish or saline waters. This same
Regulation (LAC 331X,7.708) addresses
the discharge of produced water Into
intermediate, briir k4- h or saline waters
inland of the inner boundary of the
Tethtcrial Seas by requiring that either
dkrhArges cease, or comply with a
spedfic set of effluent limits. Allowance
is made far a schedule to either cease
discharge or comply with the
lim1tAtinng The schedule will be based
on the number of discharges (one to
three or more) an operator may have. An
operator with three or more d1 ,rhi rges
of pro ’” water must be In
compliance with one-third of the
discharges by January 1, 1993. two-
thirds by 1994 and be in full compliance
by January 1, 1995. Operators with no
more than two dIsr Iimges must bein
camp H*vw a by January 1. 1993. and
operators with a single discharge must
be in compliance by January 1. 1994. In
addition, facilities with produced water
discharges of 250 barrels a day or less
and a ma.iamwn oil production of 100
barrels per day, or the monetary
equivalent of gas . have an additional
year to comply with the above
requirements, In any event, discharges
must be either eHmin1 tHd orbe in
comn 1i r by January 1,1997. The
Regulation doss, however, allow
thschargers to certain open bays the
opportunity to show. on a case-by-case
basis. that their discharge should be
exempt from these Regulations.
Specifically. “Operators discharging to
the open Waters and at least one mile
from any shoreline In r ’ ndelaur
Sound, Brown Sound, Baratarla Bay,
C rninnd* Bay, TImb*Her Bay,
Tarrebonne Bay. East Cote BI*i’ rhai Bay,
West Cole fflanriis Bay, or Vermilion
Bay from production originating in
these areas will have two years after the
effective date of these regulations or one
year after completion of the U.S.
Department of Energy’s (DOE) study
concerning Louisiana coastal bays.
whichever comes first, to show on a
case-by-case basis that their particular
discharge should be exempt from these
regulations, if the DOE study. after
ccientiflc peer review, shows minimal
arceptable environmental impacts.”
The abov, noted produced water
effluent limits for daily maximum
undiluted effluent conomiirethms, In
mg/I. allowed arei Benzene, .0125;
ethylbenzene. 4.380: toluane, .475; oil
end ease . 15: total organic carbon. 50;
total suspended solids. 45; dissolved
oxygen 4.0 (minimum). In addition, the
Regulation requires the effluent to have
no wsible sheen, a pH of 6-9 standard
units, chloride dilution ratios of 1:10
with ambient waters, and soluble
radium at no more than 80 plcocuries
per liter. The Regulation also requires
that discharges meet acute and dironic
toxicity limits of one toxicity unit (TU).
Produced water Is not expected to
meet the limitations required for
discharges to intermediate, brackish and
saline water areas inland of the
territorial sees. Louisiana State permit
DMR data for produced water shows
that the Regulation’s limits fur benzene,
toluene, Radium 228 and 228, as well as
the acute and chronic toxicity limits of
1.0 TU will be violated (see Table 6).
The Region Is, therefore, requiring no
discharge of produced water Into these
areas on the basis that these discharges
will be prohibited by. orunable to meet
the requirements of, the Louisiana
Regulation 33.D17.708. In addition, the
Region is requiring no discharge of
produced water into fresh water upland
areas, since the Louisiana Produced
Water Regulation prohibits the
discharge of produced w ter Into fresh
water upland areas after July 1. 1992.
The Region is not using this Louisiana
Regulation as a basis for “no discharge”
to the above discussed w tST5 of major
deltaic passes of the Mississippi River
or Atchafalaya River, and to the areas of
open bays subject to the case-by-case
exemption from this Regulation.
c. Texas ivies for produced solar
discharges. Statewide Rule 77(dM3) (18
TAC § 3.75) states that no permit may be
Issued when the discharge will cause
violation of water quality standards.
Statewide Rule 8(b) states that no
person subject to regulation by the
Railroad Commission of Texas may
cause or allow pollution of classified
surface waters of the state, while Rule
8(e)(1.2. and 4) charges that (1)
operators shall not pollute waters of the
Texas offshore and adjacent estuarine
waters as well as Inland and fresh
waters or damage the aquatic life therein
and (2) operations are to be conducted
in such a mnnner to preclude the
pollution of the waters of the offshore
and adjacent estuarine zenes as well as
inland and fresh waters. This Rule Is
Interpreted by the State as prohibiting
the discharge of produced water to
inland and fresh waters of the State of
Texas. The Region Is using this Rule as
en additional basis for requiring no
discharge of produced water to inland
and fresh waters of the State of Texas.
d. Lo mneiia soter quality standords.
The Louisiana Water *uallty Standards
(LAC 33UC.11) contain narrative and
specific numerical aitm’i a fur listed
water bodies according to their
deelgeated uses. Unlisted water body
designated uses are determined by the
uses listed for the water body to which
the unlisted water body is a tributary or
distributary.
(1) Narrative standards. LAC
331X,1113(B)(5) states that no
substances shall be present In the waters
of the state or the sediments underlying
said waters In quantities that alone or in
combination will be tonc to human,
plant, or animal life or significantly
Increase health risks due to exposure to
the substances or consumption of
contiiminated fish or other aquatic life.
Region 6 has Interpreted (EPA letter to
LDEQ dated 1216/90) this narrative to
require no chronic toxicity at the edge
of the mixing zone, and no acute
toxicity at the edge of the Zone of Initial
Dilution (ZID).
(2) Numericul criteria. LAC 33:DC.
1113(C) states the Numerical Criteria
Identified In the Numerical Ctiteria
Table! apply to the specified water
bodies, and to their tributaries,
distributaries, and Interconnected
utruums and water bodies if they me not
specifically named therein. The
Implementing procedures are spelled
out In the EPA letter to LDEQ dated 12/
6/90.
(3) Miring zcnes The mixing zones
established in the Louisiana Water
Quality Standards arm 200 foot radius
for coastal bays and lakes. These mixing
zones are used for both aquatic life and
human health protection.
(41 Modeling of produced waler
discharges. Dispersion modeling wee
done to determine whether produced
water discharges will violate Louisiana
Water Quality Standards Numeric
Criteria for Toxic Substances
(LAC33:IX.1113(C)(8)). or General
Criteria for Toxic Substances
(LAC33:1X1113(B)(5)). The dispersion
model used was the COR? WC 1 modeL
The model was nun using a water depth
of 3 meters . This is a reasonable
estimate of the greatest depth of bays in
Louisiana. This modeling will
approximate the dispersion for
produced water discharges Into open
bays In the Coastal Subcategory areas of
Louisiana waters. It represents a
reasonable case of the most dilution to
be found In Louisiana Coastal
Subcategory waters. It will, therefore, be
assumed that if the discharge of
produced water in this scenario will
-------
Fedei!J Register / Vol. 57, No. :46 1 Tuesday, Dec be: 22, 1992 / NcUce
cause a violation of a numeric or general
Water Quality Standard, then a
produced water discharge will cause a
violation of that Standard in any of the
Louisiana Coastal Subostegory waters.
The modeling was done using two
produced water discharge rates: the
average discharge rate (3363 bbl/day)
from Louisiana state permit compliance
data for coastal facilities, and the
median discharge rate (813 bbl/day)
from the same data set. The average
produced water effluent concentrations
for the various pollutants wee also from
this Louisiana data base. The
comparison of the produced water
pollutants at this appropriate mixing
zone with the Water Quality Standards’
Numeric Criteria Is shown In Tables 7-
A.and 7—B, and summarized below.
Using the average discharge rate and
the average effluent concentrations,
Table 7-a shows that the Numeric
Marine Acute Criteria for Copper. Lead.
Mercury, Nickel and Zinc will be
violated at the edge of the D. The
Marine Chronic Criteria for the same
pollutants, plus Arsenic, were also,
violated at the edge of the nthdng zone.
In addition, the Human Health Criteria
for Benzene was violated at the edge of
the mlxing zons.
Using the median discharge rate and
the average effluent concentration,
Table 7.-a shows that the Numeric-
Marine Acute Criteria for Copper, Load
Mercury and Nickel were violated at the
edge of the . The Marine Chronic
Criteria for these same pollutants were
violated at the edge of the mixing zone.
In addition, the Human Health
Standards for Banzene was violated at
the edge of the mixing zone. Table 7—
a shows that the violations were very
significant for Load, Mercury, Nickel
and, for human health, Benzene, even
when using the median discharge rate,
Using the median discharge rate and
the median effluent concentrations,
Table 7-b shows that there were still
significant violations of the Numeric
Standards. The Marine Acute and
Chronic Criteria for Copper were
violated, as were the Marine Chronic
Criteria for Load, Mercury and NickeL
In addition, the Human Health Criteria
for Benzene was violated.
Tables 7-A and 7-B show that the
Narrative Water Quality Standards will
also be violated. The same scenarios
were used as for the comparison with
the Numeric Criteria. Produced water
chronic toxicity data was taken from the
Louisiana State Permit Discharge
Monitoring Report data base, In order
for the Narrative Criteria to be met, the
effluent, when diluted to 13.3% (the
concentration at the edge of the mixing
zone using the mean discharge rate)
must not exhibit chronic toxicity. U the
produced water shows chronic toxicity
at a lower percent effluent, this would
be a violation of the Criteria. The
chronic toxicity data, using lethality
only, show that 95.6% of the 226 mysid
tests and 85% of the 221 Sheepshead
minnow tests violate the Criteria at the
edge of the mixing zone when the mean
discharge rate was used. Even when
using the median discharge rate, where
8.6% effluent must not be toxic, the
chronic lethality data show that 85% of
the mysid tests and 63% of the
Sheepshead minnow tests violate the
cn4terla at the edge of the mixing zone.
In summary, the large body of
produced water effluent data shows that
allowing the discharge of produced
water, even in the case providing the
most dilution in Loulslanii coastal
waters, would cause substantial
violations of the Louisiana Water
Quality Standards Numeric and
Narrative Criteria. This finding forms
yet another basis for the permit
requirement of No Discharge for
produced water.
e. Texas water quality standards
Texas Water Quality Standards (31 TAC
§ 307,2—307.10) include specific
numerical criterion values for specific
pollutants and narrative standards far
the purpose of enhancing or
maintatn In g water quality and to
provide for and fully protect waters of
the state. The standards assign
numerical limits to classified water
bodies on the basis of their State
designated use.
The implementing procedures are
spelled out In a letter entitled
“Implementation Document for the
Revised Water Quality Standards”,
addressed to A from the Texas Water
Commission, dated 11/20/1991 and
“Implementation of the Texas Water
Commission Standards via Permltlng”,
dated February, 1992.
(i) Narrvtive standards: 31 TAC
§ 307.6(b) states that waters of the state
shall not be acutely toxic to aquatic lila
except In small zones of initial dilution
at discharge points. Waters in the state
with designated or existing uses shall
not be chronically toxic to aquatic life,
except In mixing zones and below
critical low flow conditions.
(2) Numerical cnteria: Numerical
criteria for waters of the state are
established (31 TAC § 307.2—307.10)
for specific toxic substances and are
Identified in Tables I and 3 at § 307.6.
(3) L O acute toxicity effluent
standard. Section 307.6(e)(2)(B) of the
Texas Water Quality Standards requires
that effluent discharges shall not be
acutely lethal to representative species
of aquatic life as demonstrated by tests
on 100% effluent. Criterion for lethality
shall be mortality of 50% or more of the
test organisms after 24 hours of
exposure. This means that a 24-hr LC5O
of less than 100% effluent will be In
violation of this Water Quality Standard
Requirement.
The Region has obtained toxicity data
on produced water at coastal facilities
from the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQJ. This
data was generated as a permit
compliance requirement for a number of
LDEQ4ssued produced water discharge
permits. The data being used are for
discharges Into Louisiana State waters
(including the territorial seas). The data
set Includes 241 acute 96-hr LC5O tests
for mysids, and 239 acute 96-hr LC5O
tests for sheepahead mlnnpws. In
addition, the data set Includes 226
chronic survival tests for xnysids and
221 chronic survival tests for
sheepahead minnows. The Agency
assumes that the toxicity of produced
water from the Coastal Subcategary
areas of Texas will be the same or very
similar to the toxicity of produced water
from the Coastal Subcategory areas of
Loulafana.
From the 96—hr LC5O acute tests,
Information on the lethality after 24
hours was obtained to generate a 24-hr
LC5O data set (Avantl, June, 1992). An
analysis of the 223 24-hr LC5O generated
data points for mysids and 226 24-hr
LCSO generated data points for
sheepahead minnows shows that at least
88%, and as high as 94%, of the mysid
tests, and at least 30%, and as high as
91%, of the sheepahead minnow tests
failed to achieve the Texas Water
Quality Standards requirement of a 24-
hr LC50. These data were from diluted
samples, not 100% effluent, which
means that If thIs 24-hr LC5O generated
data was for 100% effluent, the
exceedance of this water quality
standard (24-hr LC5O In 100% effluent)
would have been even more significant.
A further breakdown of the 24-hr
LC5O generated data shows that, of the
total of 223 24-hr LC5O mysid tests, 199
(88%) and 50% or greater mortality at
24 hours, even with the average effluent
concentration for these tests being only
22%. This indicates that if these tests
had been rtm using 100% effluent, the
per cent mortality would have been
even greater than the data currently
shows.
Of the total of 226 sheepahead
minnow 24-hr LC5O generated tests, 87
(30%) had 50% or greater mortality at
24 hours, even though the average
effluent concentration for these tests
was only 34% effluent. Of the remaining
159 tests, 138 probably would have had
greater than 50% niortallty If they had
-------
Federal Register / VoL. 57. No . 246 1 Tuesday. December 22. 1992 / Notices
80941
been zunat 100% effluent. 99 of these
138 tests were run at lees than 23%
effluent and the rmITn 4 niT g 39 were run
at between 25% and 50% effluent.
This data demonstrates that produced
water discharges in Texas will probably
violate the Texas 307.6(e)(2)(B) Water
Quality Standard. The Ragf on Is
therefore tauig probable violation of the
Standards as a basis for requiring no
discharge of produced water in Coastal
Subcategory areas of Texas.
(4) Mixing zanes The miring zones
established for unplamenting the Texas
Water Quality Standards axe: aquatic lJ.fe
protection—tOO foot radius for lakes
and reservoirs, 200 foot radius for bays.
estuaries and tidal rivers; human health
protectIon—ZOO foot radius for lakes
and reservoIrs, 400 foot radius for bays.
estuaries and tidal rivers.
(5) Modeling of produced water
discharges: Dispersion modeling was
done to determine whether produced
water discharges will violate Texas
Water Quality Standards Numeric
Criteria for Toxic Materials (Section
307.6). or General Criteria for Toxic
Parameters (307.4). The dispersion
model used was the CORMIX 1 model.
The model was run using a water depth
of 3 meters. This modeling
approximates the dispersion for
produced water dIQchargeI into open
bays In the Coastal Subcategory areas of
Texas waters. It represents a reasonable
case of the moat dilution to be found in
Texas Coastal Subostegary waters. It Is,
therefore, assumed that lithe discharge
of produced water in this scenario
causes a violation of numeric or general
Water Quality Standard, than such a
discharge would cause a violation of
that Standard In any of the Texas
Coastal Subcategoiy waters.
The producedwater discharge rates
used were the average discharge rate
from Louisiana State Permit Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) data base r
coastal facilities (3362 bbl/day) and the
median dlsitharge rate (813 bbl/day).
The Taxes Implementati on Plan requires
that Daily Average (Monthly Average)
and Daily Maximum effluent limits be
calculated bum t!a Nmnnrlc water
quality standards using a specified
procedure. The effluent data are than
compared with these water quality-
based limits. This comparison Is ven
in Table & For the comparison, the
mean of all the values from the
LOmgiAnR State Permit DMR data base
(using 0 for those data below detection)
was used to compare with the Daily
Average fln it, , and the 93 percentIle
values (of the DMR detected values) was
used to compare with the Daily Max
1jrn It Is assumed that the Louisiana
‘roduced water flow and effluent
concentredna data Is representative of
produced waler (or Texas coastal
operations.
A comparison of the effluent data
with the water quality-based limits
1rii1nted using th. median effluent
flow (which results in higher limits)
shows substantial violations of Daily
Max limit for 8 metals and beazen..
There are also substantial violations of
the Daily Average limit for 8 metals.
‘Table 8 shows that the Narrative
Water Quality Standards will also be
violated. The same dispersion scenario
was used as for the Numeric Standards.
Produced water chronic toxicity data
were taken from he Louisiana permit
Discharge Monitoring Report data base.
It is assumed that these data are
representative of produced water from
coastal Texas facilities. In order for the
Narrative Standards to be met, the
effluent, when diluted to 13.7% (the
concentration of effluent at the edge of
the mixing zone when using the mean
discharge rate) must not exhibit chronic
toxicity. If the produced water shows
chronic toxicity at a lower percent
effluent, It violates the Narrative
Standards.
The chronic toxicity data, using
lethality only, show that 95.8% of the
228 niysld tests and 85% of the 221
Sheepshead minnow tests violate the
Standards at the edge of the mixing zone
when the mean discharge rate was used.
Even when using the median discharge
rate, where 6.8% effluent roust not be
toxic, the chronic lethality data show
that 83% of the mysid tests and 63% of
the Sheepahead minnow tests violate
the Standards at the edge of the mixing
zone.
In summary, produced water effluent
data show that allowlngthe discharge of
produced water, even in the case of the
most dilution In Texas coastal waters.
would cause substantial violations of
the Texas Water Quality Standards
Numeric and Narrative Criteria. This
finding forms yet another basis for the
permit requirement of No Discharge for -
produced water.
f. Texas hazardous metals regulation.
The Texas Hazardous Metals
RegulatIon. 31 TAC 319, lists the
allowable concentrations of hazerdous
metals for discharge Into State waters.
Table 9 compares the mean produced
water concentrations with the Texas
Hazardous Metals Hm tR listed in .31
TAC 319.22 and 319.23. This
comparison shows violations of the
Regulation for Arsenic, Barium. Load
and Mercury. This finding forms yet
another basis for the permit requirement
of No Discharge far produced water.
g. Summaiyof produced water
requirements based on state regulations
and w ’qaalfty arth. (1)
L uzsiana. Section VLC.Lb of this Fact
Sheet lI.r”was the Louisiana State
Regulations which prohibit the
discharge of produced water into
Louisiana upland freth Watm . That
Section also demonstrated that the
discharge to 1fltnrmed1 ta, lrer±ish or
saline watea (except for discharges to
some large bays) which requires no
discharge as meet certain limits, would
violate the limits Imposed by those
Regulations. These State Ragulatinnt.
therefore, fu,n4 h a the
proposed p en1t’s requirement of No
Discharge of produced water to those
State waters. S wi1nn VLC.1.d
demonstrated that the discharge of
produced water to any Louisiana coastal
waters addressed by this proposed
permit will violate both the Narrative
Criteria and a number of the Numeric
Criteria of the Louisiana Water Quality
Standards. The potential violation of
these Standards furnishes a basis for the
proposed permit’s requirement of No
Discharge of produced water.
(2) Texas. Section VLC.1.c discussed
that Texas Rules prohibit the discharge
of produced water to Inland and fresh
waters of the State. This prohilñtlon
funiishes a basis for the proposed
permit’s No Discharge requirement to
those waters. Section VLC.Le
deznoustr5ted that the discharge of
produced water to any Texas coastal
waters addressed by this proposed.
permit will violate both the Narrative
Standards and a number of the Numeric
Standards of the Texas Water Quality
Standards. The potential violation of
these Standards furnishes a basis for the
proposed permit’s requirement of No
Discharge of produced water. Section
VLC.1.L showed that the discharge of
produced water to Texas waters will
violate the Hazardous Metals
Regulation, 31 TAC 319.
2. Produced Sand
a. State regulations for produced
sand. There are no Louisiana
regulations comparable to the
previously rllcrnssed Louisiana
Regulation LAC 33ilX,7 for produced
water which specificelly addiuss
produced sand. Also, Tuxas does not
have rules or regulations which
dficeUy address produced sand.
b. Louisiana water quality standards.
The Lolilfuana Water Quality Standards
establish general end numeric aritada
for discharges to state waters. General
iteria apply at all times to the swface
waters of the state (I.e., Isckudlng watsrs
within a ralideg none), and apply to,
among other parameters, asifiashle
solids. The General Criteria for
Settleable Solids requires that “there
-------
60942
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 I Tuesday, December 22. 19g2 / Notices
shall be no substances present In
concentrations sufficient to produce
distinctly visible solids or scum, nor
shall there be any formation of long
term bottom deposits of alimes or sludge
banks attributable to waste discharges
from municipal, Industrial, or other
sources including agricultural practices,
mining , dredging and the exploration
for and the production of oil and natural
gas”. The General Criteria are dearly
appropriate for regulating produced
sand discharges.
It Is the Region’s opinion that the
dlsch rge of produced sand into the
shallü .v Coastal Subcategory waters in
Lotii ,iiena would result in the
cumulative formation of long term
bottom deposits because of Inadequate
water depth for dispersion. The
geographic area covered by the
Louisiana Coastal permit is
predominately one of very shallow
water. Numerous studies have been
conducted and papers written on the
dispersion of drilling fluids and cuttings
from rigs that show that the bulk of the
discharge (even In deep water -
environments) remains relatively near
the discharge point. Thus It Is obvious
that the discharge of solids such as
proposed sand in very shallow water
areas will have much less of a
dispersion pattern and will be
concentrated near the discharge polnt.
The region Is. therefore, prohibiting
the discharge of produced sand on the
basis that the discharge of produced
sand to Louisiana Coastal Subcategory
waters would be In violation of the
above-cited General Criteria.
The Region is not basing the
prohibition of produced sand on the
Louisiana Standards numoric criteria or
the General Criteria for Toxic
Substances, because of the lack of data
on pollutants associated with the
discharge of produced sand. Produced
sand will be a potential source of
pollutants addressed by the Louisiana
Standards numeric criteria, as well as
the general toxic criteria because of
entrained and adsorbed hydrocarbons.
The Region, therefore, solicits the
submission of any data on produced
sand relevant to Louisiana Standards
numeric criteria or the General Criteria
for Toxic Substances.
c. Texas water quality standards. The
Texas Water Quality Standards contain
both general criteria and numeric
criteria. The general criteria remain in
effect Inside mixing zones. The
Standards contain general criteria
addressing both to dc -parameters and
solids which affect beuthic blots. The
latter general thterl a states: “Surface
water shall be essentially free of floating
debris and suspended solids that are
conducive to producing adverse
responses In aquatic organisms or
putrescible sludge deposits or sediment
iayers which adversely affect bonthic
blots or any lawful uses.” As stated in
Section VLC.2.b, above, the discharge of
produced sand Into shallow waters will
result In a concentration near the
discharge point. It Is the Region’s
opinion that the discharge of produced
sand into Coastal Subcategory watera of
Texas will result In the production of
sediment layers which adversely affect
benthic blots and, therefore, will violate
the above cited Texas Standards General
Criteria.
As stated In Section VLC.2.b. above,
The Region does not have sufficient data
on the pollutants associated with the
d!llRcharge of produced sand to use the
violation of the Standards (for Texas, In
this case) far numeric criteria or the
general criteria for toxic parameters as a
basis for prohibiting the discharge of
produced sand. The Region, therefore,
solicits data on pollutants associated
with produced sand relevant to these
criteria.
d. Summazy of produced sand
requirements based on state water
quality standards. As stated In Sections
VLC.2.b, and c. the Region Is using the
probable violation of the States’ Water
Quality Standards General Criteria on
settleable solids or production of
sediment layers as a basis for the
prohibition of the discharge of produced
sand.
D. Swnmar of Produced Water
Requirements
This Fact Sheet has demonstrated
why these proposed permits’
requirement of No Discharge of
produced water and produced sand Is
Best Available Treatment Economically
Achievable. In addition the Fact Sheet
has shown that the No Discharge of
produced water requirement Is
necessary to comply with State Rides
and Regulations, and State Water
Quality Narrative and Numeric
Standards, and that the No Discharge of
produced sand requirement is necessary
to comply with State Water Quality
Narrative Standards.
V I I. Other Legal Requirements
4. State C.ert ifi cation
Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act,
EPA 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. Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the
Act requires that NPDES permits
contain conditions that ensure
compliance with applicable state water
quality standards or limitations. The
Region has solicited certification from
the Railroad Commission of Texas and
the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality.
B. Oil Spill Requirements
Section 311 of the Act prohibits the
discharge of oil and hazardous materials
in harmful quantities. In the 1978
amendments to section 311, Congress
clarified the relationship between this
section and discharges permitted under
sectIon 402 of the Act. EPA Interprets
the CWA to mean that routine
discharges permitted under section 402
be excluded from sectIon 311.
Discharges permitted under sect1on 402
are not subject to sectIon 311 If they are:
(1) In compliance with a permit under
section 402 of the Act;
(2) Resulting from circumstances
identified, reviewed and made part of
the public record with respect to a
permit Issued or modified under section
402 of the Act, and subject to a
condition In such permit; or,
(3) Continuous or anticipated
intermittent discharges from a point
source, Identified In a permit or permit
application under section 402 of the Act
that are caused by events occurring
within the scope of the relevant
operating or treatment system.
To help clarify the relationship
between a spill, regulated under section
311, and a discharge regulated under
section 402 permIt. EPA developed the
following list of spills and has included
this list in all previous Gulf of Mexico
oil and gas discharge permits as
guidance (Note this list is not all-
inclusive):
(1) Discharges from burst or ruptured
pipelines, manifolds, pressure vessels or
atmospheric tanks:
(2) Discharges from uncontrolled
wells;
(3) Discharges from pumps or engines;
(4) Discharges from oil gauging or
measuring equipment
(5) Discharges from pipeline scrapers,
launching, and receiving equipment;
(6) Spills of diesel fuel during transfer
operations;
(7) Discharges from faulty drip pans;
(8) Discharges from well heads and
associated valves;
(9) Discharges from gas-liquid
separators; and
(10) Discharges from flare lines.
C. Endangered Species Act
SectIon 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536, requIres that
federal agencies determines, in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and National
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday , December 22, 1992 I Notices
60943
Marine Fisheries Service (N1 *’SL that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize
the continued e dstance of listed
threatened or endangered specie, or
result In the deetnictjon or adverse
modification of their critical habitats.
Because It will ellm4nist . the discharge
of to,dc produced water end produced
sand to sensitive aquatic environments.
Issuance of these general permits as
proposed is unUkaly to adversely affect
any listed species or their critical
habitat The Region has forwarded a
copy of this notice to FWS and NMFS.
requesting their written concurrence In
that conclusion.
P. The Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act
( (A) and Its Implementing
regulations (15 Cl ’R part 930, subpart D)
require that any Federally licensed or
permitted activity affecting the coastal
zone of a State with an approved Coastal
Zone Management Program ( fA) be
consistent with the CThW (Section
307(c)(3)(A)). The State of Louisiana has
a C VfP that has been approved by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The Region
has reviewed Louisiana’s Coastal Use
Guidelines (Including guidelines 10.1-
10.14 for oil and gas and other mineral
activities) and has determined that this
proposed permit action Is consistent
with the intent of those guidelines. A
copy of the draft permit, along witha
consistency certification, will be
submitted to Lon4is4’ nm for a consistency
determination.
£ 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 ? tWRSA
establishes the Marine Sanctuaries
Program, Implemented by NOAA,
which requires NOAA to design . ite
ncesn waters as marine sanctuaries for
the purpose of preserving or restoring
their conservation, recreational,
ecological or aesthetic 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
also 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 cerriectout
within Iti promulgated regulations.
There are presently no wdsting marine
sanctuaries in the coastal waters of
Louisiana and Texas.
F. Economic Impact (Exacutlt’. Order
22292)
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Executive Order
12291 pursuant of section 8(b) of that
order
C. The Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated by this general
permit under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, at. seq. The
Information collection requirements of
this permit have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
prior submissions. Facilities affected by
this permit will not need to submit a
request for coverage under the Louisiana
Coastal Waters general permit for
produced water and produced sand. The
information collection requirements of
this permit have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program under provisions of the Clean
Water Act.
The public Is Invited to send
comments regarding this burden
estimate for any other aspect of this
collection of Information, Including
suggestions far reducing this burden, to
Chief, Information Policy Branch. PM—
223, U.S. EPA. 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; and the Office
of Water Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Project (2040—
0088 and 2040-0004), WashIngton. DC
20503, marked “Attention: Deik Officer
for EPA”.
Ii Reg is tor,’ Flexibility Act
Section 603 of the Regulatory
Fle,dbIllty Act (RFA) generally requires
that federal agendas prepare an Initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for
any proposed rule which may have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. EPA’s current
policy on EFA implementation requires
preparation of an IFRA whenever a
proposed rule may have any adverse
economic effect on any small business,
even when RFA would not require It.
WRAs need not be encyclopedic:
however, their scope must be tailored to
the level of resources available for the
analyms, the quality and quantity of
available data, and the severity of the
nile’s anticipated Impacts on small
entitles. In the instant case, EPA Region
6 ha., few resources available for the
analysis, Its data base is far from
complete, and the severity of
anticipated Impacts Is subject to
considerable question.
The facilities to be regulated under
the permits Region 6 propose . today are
classified as Major Group 13—Oil and
Ga. Extraction, SIC 1311 Crude
Petroleum and Natural Gas. In
accordance with Small Business
Administration regulations promulgated
at 49 FR 5024 (February 9, 1984),
businesses In that classification are
“small” I! they employ no more than
500 employees and have a yearly gross
Income of no more than 3.5 million
dollars. Because it has never Issued a
general permit to the Coastal end
Stripper Subcategory facilities which
will be affected by todhy’s proposal and
thus has not been receiving reports from
them, Region 6 has no Information with
which It might base a reasonable
estimate of the number of small
businesses which may be affected to
some degree. Nevertheless, the number
maj be significant.
Even If it had an extensive historical
data base. EPA could not accurately
predict the consequences of the
proposed permits on small businesses in
the oil and gas Industry because the
industry as a whole appears to be In a
major structural transition. There are
now more favorable economic
opportunities for overseas oil and gas
Investments, and major oil and gas
operators appear to be abandoning
domestic exploration and development
In favo of overseas operations. This
suggests major operators will drill fewer
new wells In the States of Louisiana and
Texas, prgvldlng additional business
opportunities for m*Ikir operators who
can obtain the necessary financing.
Whether or not development and
production of reserves In Louisiana and
Texas will continue at a pace
approaching historical rates (regardless
of the relatively minor effects the
proposed permits may have) r vn ing to
be seen.
There are, moreover, idgulficent
differences between the operations of
small and large operators In the oil and
gas Industry. Because large operators
have greater access to capital, they have
historically tended to acquire and
operate the larger producing properties
until they become uneconomic. The
present economic rltynnte has shortened
the date by which properties have
become uneconomic for large operators.
Smaller operators frequently operates
oil and gas properties at a profit when
larger operators cannot The reason Is
that larger operators have higher home
office overhead costs than smaller
operators. In the Life of most oil fields,
there thus comes a time at which leases
-------
£0944
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 246 I Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Notices
are transferred from large to imitihis
operators who are capable of operating
them at a profit despite declining
production. This transfer of looses born
large to smeller operatom Is tIy
occurring with Increasing frequency In
the United States. It is thus feirto
conclude that email buiin ea uluefly
tend to operate older wells end fields In
which oil production has declined,
including most Stripper Subcetegory
wells.
Paradoxically, the less oil (end
corresponding income) en oil well
produces, the mere brine It produces.
Wells generating the least profit are thus
generally responsible hw $
dispro tianstely large share of the
environmental problems essodated with
discharges of produced water. Prom en
overall perspective, th. costs of ceasing
existing discharges of produced water
will not, es shown earlier In this n’4lce ,
be significant, but It seems likely that
smaller operators, v s a ws larger
operators, will sustain relatively greeter
economic Impacts If the permits are
Issued as proposed.
Most of the small businesse, to be
regulated under the proposed permits
would Incur the cost of complying with
the no discharge requirement whether
or not these permits were Issued. The
proposed permits’ prohibition o n
discharging produced water and
produced sand Is largely based on
existing state water quality standard,
and. for produced wa , em state
regulatory requirements, which must be
complied with under State law. In some
cases, pa]tlcularIy In Louisiana, the
proposed permit requires the
elimin tkm of produced water
discharges to Intermediate and saline
waters more quickly and universally
than required by the state regulations.
The permit will prohibit the discharge
of produced water up to 1½ to2 years
sooner than would be required of some
disthargers by the Louisiana produced
water regulations, potentially affecting
some small businesses adversely. As a
practical matter, some small businesses
will be unable to continue oil and gas
production from some existing wells
after the permits’ prohibitions em the
discharg. of produced water to isatI4n
surface waters becomes effective. As
pointed out earlier In this notice, the
exact point at which this lose of reserves
will occur depends on numerous
variables, not the least of which lathe
fluctuating price of erude oIL
On en industry-wide basis, tb.
economic losses small businesses may
sufferfrom ceasing production stem
earlier date will probably be mitigated
by the fact that the moderately Increased
operating costs 1ncu d for all existing
wells subfect to the permits will result
In earlier conveyances of leases from
large to small operators. Although some
small businesses may have to shut In
older wells nearing the end of their
production 111., they will siso hay.
Increased opportunity to obtain leases
on less mature fields at en earlier stage
of thefr production, when they are more
profitable to operate. it would not be
f , however, to claim that every small
operator who has to shut In an existing
well will seek and obtain offsetting
As stated previously In this fact sheet,
the no discharge limits for produced
water end produced sand are largely
based an state waler quality standards
end regulatory requirements. In
addition, the prohibition on discharging
produced water and sand from Coastal
Subcat u 1 y wells covered by these
permits Is based on RAT. The CWA
provides ‘A with little flexibility to
address the Impacts that BAT limits
may have on small businesses. Pursuant
to CWA §5301 and 402 and A’s
Implementing regulations, the Agency
mustadopt and Impose uniform BAT
effluent Hmftifflo 3 on an Industry-wide
basis after sfderlng (1) the age of
equIpment end facilities involved (2)
the process employed (3) the
engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques, and
non-water quality related environmental
Impacts (Inc luding energy
requirements). 40 R 125.31dX3). None
of these fsctur 5 provides a rationale for
adopting loss s1rin u t or alternate BAT
effluent limitations an small entitles.
Similarly, A must require compliance
with state water quality standards and
regulatory requirements In Issuing
permits, regardless of whether the
discharger Is a large or small entity. See
generally Arkansor v. Oklahoma,____
U.S. . 112 S. CL 1046(1992). The
Region has not, therefore, Considered
Imposing different effluent limitations
on small and large entities.
As described elsewhere In this notice,
Region 6 consIdered a number of
alternativ, technologies, hoping one
might form the basis for effluent
limitations that might accomplish the
stated objective, of the CWA while
n4m1 4i g the economic Impacts of the
permits on both small and large
businesses. The proposed No Discharge
requirements are based on rein jectian of
produced water and onshore disposal of
produced sand. These are the least
expensIve of th. alternative
technologies which rn,d effi ctlv In
at mpIWth g the objectives of BAT
and allowing compliance of state water
quality standard, and applicable state
regulations.
In proposing these permits, Region B
baa moThgyer considered the Increased
costs that record keeping and reporting
requirements may Impose on the tlzv
regulated community, Including small
businesses. In en effort to reduc, such
Costs, It has pared such requirements to
the absolute m4 ,th,tum necessary to
enforce these permits. For Instance,
Region Ole not proposing to rsq xlzv that
operators file notices of Intent to be
covered; although, receipt of such
notices would provide PA with a
meens•of tracking those entities subject
to the permit and avoid jurisdictional
disputes In potential enforcement
actions. Likewise, It Is not proposing to
establish amilfeit system to ensure
that produced water and sand
‘ally disposed of to a m*nner
compliant with the peralts . Region B is
only proposing to requir, that operators
report any discharge of a pollutant
subject to this permit within 24-hours.
Compliance with this reporting
requirement houId not require
tedinical skills beyond those possessed
by most small operators.
If the produced water dischaig.
prohibitions of these permits became
federally enforceable 30 days after final
publication, Impacts to small businesses
would probably be exacert ated. The
Region regards ft unlikely that small
businesses could successfully compete
with the major oil companies In
obtj 4n Ing c’mently Inadequate injection
well capacity, particularly Inasmuch as
more acute demands for that capacity
could raise the price of injection.
Generally, It appears that the severity of
such economic impacts is probably
directly related to the length of the
transition period, with longer periods
producing reduced Impacts. Under the
administrative comptiaInt n order Region
6 intends to Issue, the permifit ’
produced water discharge prohibition
will therefore become }PA.enfarceab le
30 days after final publication only for
those produced waler discharges
already prohibited by state regulations
and far new wells. The three year
transition period reflected by the draft
administrative order is the longest
RegIon 8 now regards reasonable and
consistent with Congressional policies
expressed In CWA.
There Is, of course, an alternative to
Issuing any permit, La., EPA could fail
to p or Issue It.. It does not appear
that this “no action alternative Is
practical In the Instant matter. CWA
prohibits the d1i chexgo of produced
water and sand, or any other pollutant.
to surface waters of the United States In
the absence of an NPDES permit end the
oil and gas Industry has been
discharging those pollutants In violation
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 240 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Notices
80945
of the Act for a considerable period. As
a matrer of policy. RegIon 8 has not
taken enforcement aw t1nn an those
violations because th. operator.’ failure
to obtain the necessary permits ha. been
largely due to the Agency’. Inability to
Issue them, given its limited resources
and competing priorities. EPA Is not.
however, the only entity entitled to
bring an action to enforce CWA. CWA
section 505 authorizes affected t1zens
tobringa dvi i action any
unpermitted discharger. seeking
injunctive relief and penalties, after
providing 60 day notice to the
discharger, the State In which the
discharge occurs, and EPA.
Historically, there have been few
thizen enforcement actions agalnet oil
and gas operators discharging to coastal
waters in Louisiana and Texas. In recent
months, however, a public interest
environmental orgnni ntlon in New
Orleans has provided notice to EPA
Region 6 that it will file suit rigain.qt
identified oil and gas operators for
discharging produced water without an
NPDES permit. Region 6 understands
that one of the announced targets of the
proposed citizen suits ceased its
dicrbarges and another agreed to a
schedule for ceasing Its coastal
produced water discharges. Spurred by
the possibility of such suits (and
Increasingly stringent state regulatory
requirements), other oil and gas
operators have begun eliminating their
discharges of produced water. even
where such actions are not required
under current state regulations.
Unless these permits are issued. EPA
expects the same organization to begin
challenging more and more operators.
and other public interest groups may
also mmence thizen suits as public
conc vn over the advers, environmental
consequences of produced water
discharges Increases. Neither EPA nor
any other entity can reliably predict
which of the many thousands of
Louisiana and Texas prpductlon
operations would become targets for
such citizen suits, a factor which might
well have a rhIllIng effect on future
Investment In the domestic oil and gas
industry. By accomplishing the goals of
seth citizen suits on an industry-wide
basis in Louisiana and Texas, EPA’s
pernuts and adminislraUve order will
probably eliminate the incentive for
such actions and the uncertainties they
pose for Individual oil and gas
opernto
In summary, these permits will have
some impact on a number of small
entitles in the oil and gas production
1 ndustry. The permit requirements are,
however, necessary to comply with the
Clean Water Act, Louisiana and Texas
Water Quality Standards and other
applicable State regulations. In only a
limited number of Instances will
compliance with thesepermlts require
costs beyond those necessary to comply
with stats law th, state water quality
andards and other state regulations).
There is no eltornative to the
prohibition on discharging produced
water and produced sand while
complying with applicable federal and
state statutes. The permits do. however,
keep reporting and record keeping
requirements to the absolute n”nlmum
necessary for their enforcement.
API. 1987.011 and Gas lndus y Exploration
and Production Wastes. Eastern Research’
Group (ERT) Inc.. July 1987.
Avantl Corp. June. 1992. EconomIc Analysis
forNPDES General Permits brOil and Gas
Production In Coastal Texas end
Louisiana—Produced Sand.
Aventi Corp. July. 1992. EconomIc Analysis
for the NPDES General Permits for 011 and
Gas Production Operations in Coastal
Texas and Louluans—Produced Water.
Avanti Corp. June, 1992. S..mmnry of
Survival Observations from Toxicity Tests
Submitted tJnder LADEQ Permit File ..
Avanti Corp. July. 1992. azacterIzattoa of
Data Collected from the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
Permit Files for Development of Texas and
Louisiana Coastal SubcatDgUsy NPDES
General permits.
Boesch, D.P.. and Rabalals, N.N., 1989.
Produced Water In Sensitive Coastal
Habitat,: an Analysis of Impact. Central
Coastal Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study, MMS—
89—0031, 157 pp.
Boesch, D.F. and Rabalais, N.N.. 1989.
Environmental Impact of Produced Water
Discharges In Coastal Louisiana. Final
Report to The Louisiana Division of the
Mid Continent 011 and Gas Association.
Louisiana Marine Consortium. ( iauvln ,
LouisIana. 287 pp.
Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corp.,
1982. “Data Report for EPA Priority
Pollutant Sampling Program. Offshore CU
and Gas Industry” for EPA. 84 pp.. tables,
charts.
Continental Shelf Auoclates. 1991. Produced
- Sand Discharge Monitoring Study, West
Delta Area Block 103 Platform “B”.
Prepared by Shell O hore Inc.
Daniels, C.B. and Mean ,, J.C, 1989.
Assessment of the genotorticity of
produced water discharger, associated
with oil and gas production using fish
embryo and larval test. Mar. Environ. Rae.,
voL 28. pp. 303-3e7.
Daneker, RL and Jirka. G a. 1090. Expert
System for Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone
Analysis for Conventional and Toxic
Single Port Discharges (CX)RMDCI).
Prepared by CorusU University for EPA.
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, CA. EPA/600/3-901012.
Eastern Research Group. 1991. Cost
Effectiveness Analyses of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards of
Performance for the Offshore Oil and Gas
Industry, Produced Water. Prepared
EPA, Office of Science and Technology.
Energy Information Administrnde ‘ -
on indice , (or D’versdc 011 and Gas Field
Equipment and Production Operations.
1987, 1988. 1989”.
EPA. 1985. Oil and Gas Point Source
Category. Offshore Subcategory, Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Souzc
Performance Standards: Proposed
regulation and request for cnm” .nnts. 50
FR 34592. August 26, 1985.
EPA. 1988. Wastes from the Exploration.
Development and Production of Crude Oil.
Natural Gas and Geothermal Energy.
Interim Technical Report. EPA/gao—SW—
86—051. October 1988.
EPA. 1988. Quality Criteria far Water. 1988.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
EPA 44-5-66-001.
EPA to Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, 1990. Letter
“Implementing Louisiana Water Quality
Standard,” toM. Fannaly, December 0,
1990.
EPA. 1991.011 and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category, Offshore Subcategory-,
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards: Proposed
rule. 56 FR 10664, March 13. 1991.
EPA. 1990. Proposed NPDES General Permit
for the Oil and Gas Coastal Subcategory In
Louisiana, 55 FR 23348.
EPA. 1990. Proposed NPDES General Permit
for the Oil and Gas Coastal Subcatsgory In
Texas, 55 FR 23348.
Fischer, H.B., et. aL, 1979. MIxing In Inland
and Coastal Waters. Academic Press,
Harcouzt Brace, Jovanovlch PublIshers. 483
pp.. lllu*.
Moore, LP. 1974. Drilling PracHr es ManuaL
The Petroleum Publishing Company.
Tulsa. Okia. 448 pp.
Rabalals. N.N.. at al.. 1989. Impacts of OCS-
Related Activities on Coastal Habitats:
Produced Waters. Proc. 9th Ann. Gulf of
Mexico Info. Trans. Mtg.. p. 27-30.
Rabalais. N.N., McKee. 8.A.. Reed. D.J.,
Means J.C., 1991. Fate and Effects of
Nearsheze Discharges of OCS Produced
Waters. 3 vols., 609 pp.. OCS Study, MMS
91—0004—0008.
Rittenhouse, G.. Fulton III. LB.. Rj.,
Grsbowski and Bernard. J.L 1969. MInor
elements In oil field waters. Ciem. CooL.
voL 4. pp.189-200.
Shapiro. J. 1981. RadiatIon Protection. A
Guide far Scientists and Phys”-
Second Edition. Harvard University Press.
Cambridge, MA.
Shell Offshore Inc. 1991. Produced Sand
Discharge Study, Interim Data SubmittaL
Letter to D.J. Bourgeois. MMS Regional
Supervisor Field Operations, iS pp.
SL Pe, KM., Ed., 1991. The Assessment of
Produced Water Impacts to Low-Energy,
Brackish Water Systems In Southeast
Louisiana. Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality. Water Pollution
Control Division In cooperation with
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality Technical Services Divisions,
Nuclear Energy Division. Louisiana State
UnIversity, 198 pp.
. 51 Pe, KM., at aL, 1991. An Assessment of
Produced Water impacts In Louisiana.
-------
60946
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22, 1992 / Notices
Proc. 11th Ann. Gulf oIM v4r,ri
Mt&. O Study. P OdS 91-00*0, pp. 17 -.
IBO.
Stepbena . M.T. 1991. Component. of
Produced Water A Compilation of Results
from Several Industry StudIes. Soc. Pe ol.
Eng.. SP 23313. pp. 25—39.
Vo, Inc.. 1991. Ta,dc Weig)th g Pec aa far
Produced Water Pollutants. Draft Report,
Prepered for EPA. Region 8 . Water
Management Division.
Walk. Haydel & oe 4 ntes. 1989. Water-
based Drilling fluids and Cuttings Disposal
Study Update. Offthn,e Effluent
Guidelines ( ‘ ins . Research Fund
Athnlnt .tered by Liskow and LewIs.
TABLE 1.—P rr RE J 1REMENTS *1 10
STATUTORY BASIS
v —
Ju
-.
Tfra.E 1.—PE rr REQuIREdENrs AND
STATUTORY BASIS—Continued
w9. w —

Basi
red
No $*y.
BCT.
BAT.
LLWQ L
Ta. WO Sida.
TABLE 2.—AVERAGE PROOUCED WATER
EFFLUB4T CONGENTPA11ONS•
C ,U,aU.j
TABLE 2.— .AVERAGE PRooucED WATER
EFFUJENT CONCENTRATIONS ‘—ContInued
Ca
(UGI)
Re um 5
Selu.*an
Sb
To u en s
2 c
160 pO&
34
41
1,560
090
TABLE 3.—REJNJECT1ON COSTS FOR
MOOR UECTION WULS
IRIIW.U3o41 WaS C49 °y (b y l
3,000
e.xd
a.ooo
$0.35 $0.20 $021
Msia?i ________ 0.41 0.27 0 .fl
Bay - ___ 0.30 024
(In tell dollom. From p
AvaS, —. 11133
TABLE 4.—CosTs FOR MooR On. PRoouc -nON FAcU.mEs
TABLE 5.—BAT COST EFFECTIV8 IESS
SU4IW.RY FOR VARIOUS IP10USTRES
m say
tat
—
u m
8aes M M
Can M ç
Co MWatg
Cal Cos ç
EI&1,v.ãcs I _______________
Faundose___
M I fl iatU..
n a MW Fcm*ç
O rdc c (U sn uct
Paper ( PCS ener i cr
0flc ”iyoid j
La ss Ta C ’ ’ CU d Gas
Mom
b2 .69
b0. 14
bt5 5
$0
I A
17
120
159
0.0125
4.3.
0.475
15
*0
69
Pro joed Water
No 5 WQS
A SQ 5 — . .. ei ma
r .su saa
fl.bEQ) S v m a sis y 33e 9s usd laM
120 W ted bun
unali bu .u as
omm .sd S m On by A C
BAT.
L&RU9L
Ta. Rs u.
L& WO S .
Ta. WO SS .
E6 t.nzsn
Lasd_
Ms y
Ra n 6
Un
M .410
Z560
77
77
148
I2 0O
I x
1,100
L ar
Ec 4im. &
.._. ..
G øi2 ’
Lags buyb
Smdbs
g
flulW.
S l
su
$1 .786.700
114,000
824,300
1182.011
37.620
200.019
18 ,810
t .010
0.ø.12 (12 N 0 . 1 frs ’ b mgun *3n 110., . stu d tI . b c C I w.d 0 .. F. E u .iwI nO Pic n 1161.
laM, iaer. T Is 0-4.
b .12 b 011 .33 • 0.33 “s). 0.33 i les nO 033 i o .ir
• S inai bu ta n — a c* L . 8s
• Sinai — ‘4 Sinai $.a s in.
‘ l iz
148.150
9.4 0 5
51.505
12.307.000

L 230
1488.561
1218.125
$‘ ‘2
*109.063
*116,842
TABLE 5.—BAT
SUMMARY FOR
C ued
CosT EFFECTWENESS
VARIOUS INOUSTR1ES—
TI.&E 5.—BAT
SUMMARY FOR
Continued
—
CnO aSe -
=
COST EFFEC VENESS
VARIOUS tNDUSTRIES—
$121
2
‘a
•0
49
494
.4
12
11
Co
=
5
15
Is
(In LOuMans).
14 l T s).
P,odoced Said 71
(Al caste In tIlt 1, Avead, Juiy, 1013)
T ta.E 6.—COMPARiSON OF PROCUCED WATER POU.UTANT CONCENTRATiONS WITh LOUISiANA PRCOUCED WATER REGULATIONS
12 • SF7. ms.uat i 5 .nstXa
E3 t 4
Taluns m c ’ ) —
w siNs mc’
-
-
1 ’
‘69
-------
FedersI Re ’mter/ VoL 57, No, 246 / Tueeday, December 22, 1992 F Notices
60947
TABLE 8.- COMP e 4 o Pnoouc WATER POLUITmT C ICaITPATUS1 TI4 L a * Pnoouc WATER LATUsS —
1
EI _9
UI
Ma
I y (To.ddty sIts)
I i AQII 0.3 t3
3 .7 6. 0 1
fl.1 403
S Ir0sfle.d CIvNIe — 12.2 40 1
M - . LCEO O . ftao ? S 2. P- Porn L#C 33.1*.?.
d v as. bs .ai.... I, . sIj aasrlsI si arn.
-— ,d o L ,, ss
TABLE 7-& CONPARIS0N cc MEAN PRODUCED WATER EFR.UENT CONCENTRATONS AT EDGE cc N C
Zo i Wms LoUIs ...M WATER QuAurv STANDARDS’
Po lj t*
E aui conc.
C ZlD ’
C & ’
NIVIS SGI
i9 s ,JU I
t4.....A fli.iIti’
Amule
Bon n.
Ca nIum.
Cocpper
Lasd
Meicu,y’
NC s
—
To d y
— oolc (% .
e 1 1
NI
(%69i.i
4
2500
77
145
*2600
131
tees
*0 90
57
35 1 9t)
11 (0)
21(11)
1 1 5 0 (9 2 7)
1 0(10)
*53(91)
153(91)
64 ( 2 7 )
3Q (U3)
1 0 (
2r .$’W
1 53
1 6 (5
1C 73 )
147(73)
•4.6
‘ 0 .0
69
2700
• & 6
4.4
2.1
75
96
13.3
13.3
39
1370
10
4.4
0.0
0. 1
0.3
96
(6.5)
(6. 6)
52.5
• C, ....1.. — , _ g __ l NI d i aIre.S NI L Nt Al jss • n’?,
t0t 1t a - s .50 NI m ( D5 .72 osIIq rnss , _ _ 134 , rn
‘u NI . (I - 7 .5 , _____
- __I — tç m is, NI N4 NI ‘
NI -
miNI — N fl l uI; 5* s, NI
Tt i mis Ga.. 2N, 13.3% uN mmi i is , NI 14% ri m i kJia, no,) , __ Po i
T sa.E 7-a—coJI.PI,4sON OF MED ui PROOU WATER EFR.UBST TONS AT EDGE OF Z)D AND MOONU
ZONE wrni Louisi. WATER Qi .R .wv STANDARDS’
P iNI
nc
COno. ZID’
Canc . ’
I rnd.4—
1Ikiur
M.NI isis
Asiei*
t O
0.9
0.7
69
31
2700
1 0
Ca69 iNI
.
* 5 9
12
11
4.4
4.4
Lhsd
500
M C*
13
5.1
to
2.1
310
21
75
5.3
Pheriol T)
Dic
T
739
109
54
11
40
10
580
95
290
60
50
( lMW
—

-
‘22
U
a (%
is)____
.
‘22
14
Si SI S liM i WNI — ‘— - — Porn LCE0 0t % #1 s. *i s ,m iqi.
— - N NI Si ( V I3.4 mq rns i
•04.NIs 330 NI ( 1&I s m is.
miNI Si is, a..i — NI is .
•Th. S ad s,a NI NI 14% isis . .....k.... . . I .øi NI WNI G UIy NIi . ,sq ,ài no
IS
TABLE 8.—CO*I PAR15ON cc PRODUCED WATER EFFUJENT CON 41BAT1ON3 WITH TEXAS WATER QUAUTY-OASEO EFFLU9IT
P 594
y 60 a
9 p , 3
LMI ’
L ’
Os Simm
Ds is s 0 io
MwIc
Benz3ne
Ca Pori
clifolyIw,,.
407
2450
77
77
4
52.000
510
779
1 2.017
4J00 I eo .isi
131 I 287
697 1 1 .432
2.133
1
4.512
69
rr
539
-------
60948
Federal_Register/Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22, 1992 / Notices
TABLE 8.—CoMPARISON OF PRoDucED WATER EwwEwr CoNcEwmMloNs Wmi TExAS WATER OUAUT BASED EFFLUENT
LiurrS 1 —Cont lnued
P 0 8 4 .1
Mim i
95 p.s .me’
Linib’
Um
s s
Os un
-, .
n
Cog er
Lead
Meioay
-.
S eiIum
Sawer
rc
141
12,600
130
1.100
34
41
1,090
470
34 . 000
2.100
2.100
500
200
4.830
67
100
‘0.58
179
1,841
29
1.001
142
421
‘1.2
378
3.800
01
2.244
33
90
0.20
00
890
14
554
00
203
‘0.54
183
1 .883
30
1.172
‘AS *as b d
1 Ms LOGO OI a.. Zao bi ibiss bibs
‘ ‘ 1V ’ sljss.
iç ms pi08d
‘LInb ms. V Jd esi.
Lh bsssd ss u is h i WU
TAa.E 9.—COMPARISON OF PROOUCED
WATER EFFWENT CONCBITRATIONS
Wm4 TExAs HAzA1 oous METALS REGu-
LATION, 31 TAC 319
P084.1
Mum’
R. Mfl 8n ,, ,
m
A

Assii c_
Bwtian__
Le.d_
—
0407
54.4
12.8
0.13
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.006
0.2
2.0
1.0
0.006
0.3
4.0
1.5
0.01
‘Pvib d Wib ibes T U 2.
Appendix A United Ststss Eavben al
on Agascy Region -Adminl rstlrs
(Docket No. Vl-(DNO}I
In the matter of NPD General Permits far
Produced Water and Produced Send
Discharges from the Oil end Ga, Extraction
Point Source Category to Coastal Waters of
Louisiana and Texas: Proceedings Under
Section 309(a)(3). Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1319(a)(3)J, In re: NPDES Permit Nos. -
LAG290000 and TXG290000
The following findings are made and order
Issued pursuant to the authority vested In the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by section 309(a)(3)
of the Clean Water Act thereinafter “the
Act”), 33 U.S.C 1319(aU3). and duly
delegated to the Regional Administrator.
RegionS, and duly redelegated to the
undersigned Director. Water M*neg.m .nt
Division, Region 6. Failure to comply with
the Interim requirements established In this
order constitutes a violation of this order and
the NPDES permits.
Fhidlngs
I
Pursuant to the authority of section
402(a)(1) of the Act. 33 U.S.C 1342, Region
6 Issued National Pollutant Discharge
1tmInhItion System (NPDES) Permits Nos.
LAG290000 and TXG290000 with an
effective date of IEFPECTIVHDA71 ). These
permits prohibit the discharge of produced
wa sad produced sand derived horn Oil
and Gas Point Source Category lit1es to
‘coastal” waters of Louisiana and Texas he
rdance with effluent limitations end
,ther conditions set forth In Part. I and U of
these permits. Facilities uvvi,,d by these
permits Ini Iudjs in the Coastal
Sübc.tegory (40 C R pert 435, subpart D), the
St 4ppsr Su tegory (40 Cl’R pert 435,
subpart F) that discharge to “coastal” waters
of Louisiana and Texas, and the Offshore
Subcategory (40 R 435, subpart A) which
discharge to “coastal” waters of Louisiana
and Texas.
IT
Respondents herein are permittees subject
to General NPD Permit No ,. LAG290000
and/or TXC290000 and who:
A. Currently discharge produced water
derived from en misting Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategozy well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Texas, other than “ t Iei I
and flesh waters”, or
B. Currently discharge produced water
derived from an existing Coastal. Stripper or
O hore Subcotegory well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Louisiana. other than
“upland area waters”,
C Currently discharge produced water
derived from a Coastal Subcategoiy well or
wells located In Louisiana or Texas to waters
of the United States outside Louisiana or
Texas “coastal” waters.
The term “waters of the United States” is
defined at 40 R 122.2. The term “coastal”
waters Is defined In NPDES Permits
LACZ90000 end TXG290000. The term
“Inland and fresh waters” Is defined In
NPD Permit TXG290000. The term
“upland area waters” Ii defined In NPDES
Permit LAG290000. The term “existing”
means spudded prior to the effective date of
NPDES Permits LAG290000 and TXG290000.
Dr
To maintain oil and gas production and
comply with the permits’ prohibition on the
discharge of produced water, S significant
number of Respondents will have to rein jed
their produced water. A lack of access to the
finite number of existing Class I I disposal
wells, state UIC permit writers, and drilling
contractors may cause non-compliance a
iIg Ifirant number of Respondents. In
add lt loa.t lmewil lberequlredf nrsome -
Respondents to reroute produced water
collection line, to transport the produced
water to injection well,.
Iv
Respondents may reasonably perform all
actions necessary to cease their dlsc arge, of
produced water within three years.
Based on the foregoing FINDINGS, it Is
Ordered that Respondents:
A. Fully comply with all conditions of
?4PDES Permits No.. LAG290000 and
TXC290000 eimept for their prohibitions on
the discharge of produced water and
requirements that all discharges of produced
water be reported within twenty-four hour..
B. Complete all activities necessary to
attain full and continuance compliance with
NPDES Permits No. LAG290000 and
‘l’XG290000 as sean as possible, but In no
case longer than three (3) years from the
effective dates of said permits.
C Operate and maintain all existing
pollution control equipment, Including
existing oWwater separation equipment, In
such a manner as to mInIml,p , the discharge
of pollutants contained in produced water at
all times until such time as respondents
cease their discharges of produced water.
It is further Ordered that respondents
subject to NPDES Permit LAG290000 comply
at all times with Part L Section B.1.d of said
permit. requiring that Respondents meet any
more stringent requirements contained In -
Louisiana Water Quality Regulation, LAC
33JX .7.7 08.
The effective date of this ORDER shall be
( EFFECrIVE DATE).
DATED:
Director, WaterManagemest Division (6W ).
NPD General Permits for Produced Water
and Produced Sand Plscbargo. From the Oil
and Ges Extraction Point Source Category to
Coastal Water. of Louisiana and Taxes
Permit No. LAG290000, Permit N
TXG29 0000.
In compliance with the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution COntrOl Act, as
amended (33 US.C. 1251 et seq: the “Act”),
these permits prohibit the discharge of
produced water and produced sand derIved
from Oil and Gas Point Sousa Category
facilities to “coastal” waters of Louisiana and
Texas, as desoribed below, In accordance
with effluent limitations and other
conditions set forth in Parts I and B.
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 57, No. 248 / Theeday, De mber 22, 1992 / Nodcea
t u 0 4 by the,. p.. 1 fl Include
thos. lath. Coastal Subcae 1 ,. 7 (4o R pis?
433. subpmt D l. the Sblpper Subcat , y (40
R pert 435. subpart F) that discharge to
“toaster waters of Loidsiajia and Teme and
the offshore Subcet y (4Oa R part 435.
subpart A) which dg .to ”coastaj
waters of Louisiana arid Texas.
These permits do not authorize discharge.
from new sotaces” as defined In 40 O R
U2.2 .
These permits. except for certain portions
listed In Part LB., shall beco me
effective . and expire at ml’ nIghi on
(Five Jews from effective date).
Si d this ____day of 1992
Ditector. Water Management Division. ‘A .
Region 6.
Fart I
Section A. General Permit Coverage and
Notification Requuewents
1. Permittees covered
Penmttees Include:
(1) Operators o(facillUes In the Coastal
Subantegary (40 R pert 435. subpart Dl
lbcated in Louinana and Texas. Location of
aiCoastal Sobcategosy facility is detnsnmzed
by the location of the weilbead associated
with that facility.
(2) Operators of facilities in the Offshore
Subcatego .ry (40 ( R part 435 subpart A) and
the Stripper suixategory (40 QR part 435
subpart F) which discharge to “coastal”
waters of Lowilana or Texas.
(3) Persons who dispose of produced water
or produced sand for ope r at ors of Coestal
Subcategory facilitie, located in Louisiana or
Texas.
(4) Pers. i s who dispose of pollutants to
• ‘ c star watem at or Texas fir
operators of Stripper or Offshore Subcalegory
facilities.
2’. NotIfication Requirements
Perxmttee, covered by these permits em
su iin4ritIIy covered a wnttan ifieithmi
of uitant to be covered by these permits Is not
requirecL Sizam these permits cover only
produced water end produced sand.
discharger of other waste waters from Coestal
Subcategoey wells In these Slates moel apply
by NPt S Permits LAG330000
or TXC!30000.
Section B. Generei Permit Iim .f
L Permit Conditions Appikabi. to
ILAC2900 00
a. Prohibitions. Permlttees shall act
discharge nor shall they cause or contribute
t the discharge of produced water and
produced sand.
hi Other requuaments. All dlscbargers
.nusa comply with any mare stringent
raqjdrements contained In Louisiana Waler
(i uality Regulations, LAC. 33JX.7 706.
Permit Co 4lHn.. Applicable to
a. Prohibition,. P attees shall act
dl arge nor shall they cause or contribut.
to the dIscharge of produced weser or
—
Part U (ApplLr-.i ’J— to [ AG’Qooue
1 f-3acooo)
Section A. General Condition,
1. lntrodn
in accouthnc. with th. provIsions o(40
R 122.41 at. seq.. this permit Incorporates
by reference ALl. conditions end
requframeats applicable to NPD permits
set forth In the Clean Water Act, as amended
(hereinafter known as the ActI as well as
all applicable A regulations.
2. Duty to ply
The permittee must comply with all
conditions of thi, permit. Any permit non-
compliance constitute, a violation of the
Clean Water Act and Is groond. for
enforcement on and/or far reiuising a
perniitte. to apply far and cthtain an
Individual NPDES permit
3. PermIt Flexibility
This permit may be modified, revoked arid
reismed. or terminated forcausa. in
accordance with 40 (7R 122.62-64. The
filing far a permit Tnr1fU tfon. r u . tiO
arid roissuance. or termination, ois
notifl on of p1Ann. d changes or
anticipated noncompliance, does cot stay
any permit condition.
4. Property Rights
This permit does not convey any p pefty
rights of any sort or any exclusiv, privileges
nor does It airthorira any Injury to privet.
property or any Invasion of personal xights
nor any infringement of Federal. Stat. or
local laws or regulations.
5. Duty To Provide Information
The perinittee shall furnish to the Regional
Administrator, within a reasonable time, any
Information which the Regional
Adromi ’trater may request to detennin.
whether cai exists for’ modifying. revoking
and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or
to determine compliance with this permit.
The permittee shall also finnish the Regional
Adinmistratoi ’. upon fequ sL, copies of
records required to be kept by this permit
9, C,4mInjiI and Cvii LL.hilliy
Emept as provided In permit rni .ditlom on
“Bypaasmg” and “Upsets”, nothing In this
par shill ho construed to inhere the
permltts. from civil or orm ui .i penalties
noncompliance. Any false or materially
misleedlng repromn±ation or conr bn l at
Information required to be reported by the
provisions of the permit, the Ad or
applicable ft regulations which avoids or
effectively defeats the regulatory pos. of
the Permit may mibtoct the permittee to
ormminal enforcement pursuant to 18 U.S.C
1001.
7.011 and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing In this permit shall be conetroed
to preclude the Institution of any legal action
or relieve the permnittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to
which the perrnmttee may be subject under
sectIon 311 of the Clean Water Act.
8. State Law.
Nothing In this permit shall b,cansfru.d
to preclude th. Institution ofany legal amice
or relieve t hu piirmilsse b arn any
respocalbfflI4 , lah&ul4. . ______
e.tabIt hed pursuant teeny appIIr .hL . Stat.
law or regulation under authority preserved
by INSIfJfl 510 of the Clean Water Act.
9.S.vemluhty
The provisions of this permit are severable,
end if coy 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.
Section B. Proper Operation and
Maintenance
1. Need to Halt or Rednr Not ____
It shall be a thifseia for a perminee in
an enfor iwetrm that It would have
been n4w r ary to halt or’ reduce the
permitted actIvity In order to m Intain
compliance with the ltEns of this
permit.
2. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable
steps to minimi , or prevent any discharge
In violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting
human health or the exvumiment.
3. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly
operate and mni,it In all fecOlties end
systems of treatment and ainUul (and related
appurtenance,) which are irtit fl d and used
by the permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit This provision
requires the operation of hw-hip or auxiliary
facilities of similar systems which am
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” mains the
Lntentlonal diversion of waste streams from
any portion of a facility.
(2) “Seyn property dnnemgii ” means
substantial physical . 4 smeg to piuperty,
dnnij , 80 to the treatment f24 illtIai that causes
them to be Inoperable, or sul nti I and
permanent loss at natural resources than can
reasonably be expected to oommr In the
absence of bypass. Severe property demimgui
doe. not mean economic loss caused by
delay, In production.
b.&4ice.(1)Antitipatedbyp..a . lithe
permirtee know. in erivenco ii the need hr
a bypau, It shall t . t& ponrnotice,lf
possible at least days befrme the data at
the bypass.
(21 Unantldpated bypass. The pezmlttee
shall, within 24 houn, submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass requitad In Part
ILD.2.
c. Prohibition of bypass. (1) Bypass is
prohibited, and the Regional Administrator
may take enforcement action against a
pernutte. for bypass. unlesr
(a) Bypass wu unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal Injury or severe property
damag .
-------
60950
Federal Register / Vol.57 , No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Notices
fbI There were no feasible alternative, 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 Jw4g!m 1it
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 ILB.4.b. (2) The Regional Administrator
may approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering Its adverse effects, lithe Regional
Administrator determines that It will meet
three conditions listed at Part ILB.4.c,(l),
5. Upset Conditions
a. Definition. “Upset” means an
exceptional Incident In which there Is
unintentional and tempo noncompliance
with technology.based effluent limitations
because of factors beyond the reasonable
control of the permittee. An upset doe. not
include noncompliance to the extent caused
by operational error, Improperly designed
facilities, Inadequate facilities, lack of
preventive maintenance, or careles, or
improper operation,
b. Effects of an upset. An upset constitutes
an affirmative defense of an action brought
for nonpllance with such technology.
based permit effluent limitations If the
requirements of Part ll.B.5.c, are met No
determination made during administrative
review of r1 bni that noncximp llance was
caused by upset, and before an action for
noncompliance, is final administrative action
subject to judicial review.
c Conditions neceuazyfor a
iemonsoutjon of upset. The permittee who
wishes to establish the affirmative defense of
upset shall demonstrate, through properly
signed, contemporaneous logs, or other
relevant evidence that
(1) An upset occurred and that the
permittee can Identify the cause(s) of the
upset:
(2) The permitted facility was at the time
being properly operated;
(3) The permlttee submitted notice of the
upset as required by Fart ll.D.2; and
(4) The permlttee complied with Part
11.8.2.
d. Burden of Proof. In any enforcement
proceeding the permittee seeking to establish
the occurrence of an upset has the burden of
prooL
6. Removed Substances -
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other
pollutants removed In the course of trea ent
or control of waste waters shall be disposed
of En a manner such as to prevent any
pollution from such materials from entering
waters of the United State,.
Section C Monitoring and Records
The permittee shall allow the Regional
Administrator, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of
a’edentials and other documents as may be
required by law tet
1. Enter upon the permittee premises
“here a regulated facility or activity Is
ated or conducted, or where records must
kept under the conditions of this permit;
2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable
times, those records that are kept to assure
compliance with the permit (I.e.. zero
discharge). These recoi-ds shall be kept for a
period of at least three years hum the date
of sampling measurement or reporting and at
a specified shore-based site.
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. Reporting Requirements
1. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to
the Regional Administrator of any planned
changes In the permitted facility or sctlvfty
which may result In noncompliance with
permit requirements,
2. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
The permittee shall report any
noncompliance with this permit, bypass or
upset Any Information shall be provided
orally w1thl 24 hour, from the time the
permittee becomes aware of the
circumstance,. A written submission shall
also be provided within 5 days of the time
the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstance,. 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 plans to reduce, eliminate,
and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance.
3. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware that It
failed to submit any relevant facts In any
report to the Regional Administrator, It shall
promptly submit such facts or information.
4. Qanges In Discharges of Toxic Substance,
The permittee 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•routlne 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 (PR 122.4 2(a)(2).
5. SIgnatory Requirements
All reports, or Information submitted to the
Regional Administrator shall be signed and
certified as follows:
a. For, corporation. By a responsible
corporate officer. For th. purpose of this
section, a responsible corporate officer
means:
(1) A president, seaetary, treasurer, or
vIce-president of the corporation In charge of
a pnnclple business function, 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 expenditure.
exceeding $25 million (In second-quarter
1980 dollars), If authority to sign documents
ha. been assigned or delegated to the
manager In accordance with corporate
procedures.
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. Either a principle
executive office or ranlditg 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
pnnciple geographic unit of Lb. agency.
d. 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 It
(1) The authorization is made In writing by
8 person described above;
(2) The authorization specIfies either an
Individual or a positive having responsibility
for the overall operation of the regulated
facility or activity, such ae.the position of
plant msneger, 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,
e. Certification. Any person signing a
document under thi, section shall make the
following certification:
“I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachment, were prepared
under my 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 the gathering of 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 .”
6. AvailabilIty of Reports
Except for applications, effluent data, and
other data specified In 40 (PR 122.7, any
Information submitted pursuant to this
permit maybe claimed confidential by the
submlttet If no claim Is made at the time of
submissIon, information may be made
available to the public without further notice.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 I Tuesday , December 22, 1992 1 Notices
60951
Ssetfon L Penaltie, for Violations of Permit
Conditions
1. minal
a. Negligent violations. The Act provides
that any person who negligently violates
permit conditions Implementing sections
301. 302. 306. 307 at 308 of the Act Ii subject
to a fine of not less than $2500 nor more than
$23000 per day of violation, or by
Imprisonment for not more than 1 year. or
both.
b. Knowing violationa The Act provides
that any person who knowingly violates
permit conditions Implementing sections
301,302.306,307 or308 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 endangerment. The Act
provides that any person who knowingly
violates permit conditions Implementing
sections 301. 302. 306,307 and 308 of the
Act and who know, at the time that he is
placing another person In Im nInent danger
of death or serious bodily Iniwy Is subject to
a fine of not more than $230,000. or by
Imprisonment for not more than 25 years. or
bo
d. False statements. The Act provides that
any person who knowingly makes any false
material statement, representation, or
certification In any application. record.
report, plan, or other document flied or
required to be maintained underthe Act or
who knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or
renders Inaccurate, any monitoring device or
method required to be maintained under the
Act, shall upon conviction, be punished by
a fine of not more tha t $10,000 per day, or
by Imprisonment for not mare than 2 years,
or by both. U a conviction of. person Is for
a violation crm mltted after a first conviction
of macha person under this para aph,
punhithrnent shall be by a fine or 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 provides 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
325.300 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, 318, or 405
of the Act lssubfectto idyll pen ihynotto
exceed $25,000 per day far each violation.
a. anm I peachy. Not to exceed $10,000
par violation nor shall the maximum amount
exceed $25000.
b. CIauUpenall Not to exceed 310.000
per day for each day during which the
violations continues nor shall the m frnunz
amount exceed 3125,000.
Section F. Definitions
All definitions In sectIon 502 of the Act
shall apply to this permit and aie
Incorporated harem by reference. Unless
otherwise specified In this permit. additional
definitions words or phrases used In this
permit are as follows:
1. “Act” means the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C 1251 at seq.) as amended.
2. “Applicable effluent standards and
limitations” mnens all state and Federal
effluent standards and limitations to which.
discharge Is subject under the Act. Including,
but not limited to, effluent limitations,
standards of performance, toxic effluent
standards and prohibitions, and Ir5atment
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 Ad.
4. “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any portion
of a treatment facility.
5. “Coastal waters” are defined as waters
of the United States as defined at 40 C R
122.2, located landward of the territorial
seas.
6. “EnvIronmental Protection Agency”
means the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
7. “Inland and fresh waters” are defined In
Texas Statewide Rule 8(e) and Include those
Texas waters that are not offshore or in
adjacent estuarine waters.
8. “National Pollutant Discharge
Rllmtnntion System” means the national
proçam far Issuing. revoking and reluulng.
terminating. monitoring and enforcing
permits , and Imposing and enforcing
pi’e1z atment requirements, under sections
307,318, 402 and 405 of the Act.
9. “Produced sand” means sand and other
particulate matter from the producing
formation and production piping (Including
corrosion products), as well as source sand
and hydrofrac sand, Produced sand also
Includes sludges generated by any chemice.’
polymer used In a produced watertreatmei
10. “Produced water” means water end
particulate matter “.vodated with oil and gas
prududng formations. Produced water
Includes small volumes of source water end
treatment chemi ”I ’ that return to the surface
with the produced formation fluids and pass
through the produced water treating systems
currently ueed by many oil and gas operators.
11.”Reglonal Administrator” means the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6.
12. “Severe property d irnige ” means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to treatment facilities which causes
them to be e Inoperable, or substantial
and permanent loss of natural resources
which can reasonably be expected to occur
In the absence of bypass. Severe property
damage does not mean economic toes caused
by delay, in production.
13. TerrItorial sees refers to “the belt of the
seas measured from the line of ordinary law
water along that portion of the coast which
Is In direct contact with the open sea and the
line marking the seaward limit of Inland
waters, and extending seaward a distance of
three miles.”
14. “Upland area waters” are defined In
Louisiana Water quality Regulation
LAC33,DC,7.708 and Includes “any land not
normally Inundated with water and that
would not, under normal circumstances, be
characterlned as swamp or fresh.
intermediate, brackish or saline marsh”.
“The land and water bottoms of all parishes
north of the nine perishes contiguous with
the Gulf of Mexico will be considered in toto
as upland areas.” Major deltaic passes of the
MississippI River and the Atrha4 Iyaya River,
Induding Wax Lake Outlet, below Morgan
City are not upland area waters for purposes
of this permit.
15. “Upset” means an excepllbnal Incident
In which them Is unintentional and
temporazy 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 tmatment
facilities, lack of p v5utive maintenance, or
careless or improper operation.
(FR Doc. 92—30779 FIled 12—21—02; 8:45 eml
uui .s coos
-------
60444 Federal Regiiter / Vol. 57, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
‘0 CFR Part 122
1 FRL-4S46-
National Pollutant Discharge
Efiminatlon System; Stone Water
Discharges; Permit iuuanc and
Permit Compliance Deadlines for
Phase I Stone Water Discharges
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC71ON: Final rule.
SUMMARY; EPA is Issuing a final rule
which specifies deadlines for the
Issuance of NPDES permits for storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity and discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
serving a population of 100.000 or more,
and deadlines by which diachargers
shall comply with the terms of their
permits. EPA Is taking this action in
compliance with the mandate of the
court In Notumi Resouwes Defense
Council v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292(9th CIr.
1992). ThIs action also clarifies that
application recpiirements and deadlines
for certain discharges which EPA had
previously exempted from the scope of
the NPDES storm water regulations are
reserved pending further nilemaking.
“hese include discharges from
onsthictIon sites disturbing less than 5
ea’es of land and discharges exempt
under 40 CFR 122.28(b)(14)(xl) because
of a lack of exposure of industrial
activity to storm water. This action is
also taken In response to the Ninth
Circuit decision.
EFFECTiVE DATE This rule is effective on
December 18, 1992. Pursuant to 40 CFR
23.2. EPA Is also declaring this rule to
be final for purposes of Judicial review
on the same date.
ADDRESSES: The public record for
today’s rule may be found at EPA
Headquarters, NPDES Permits Division,
NE 220, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington,
DC 20480. Appointments to review the
record may be made by cai t ing Nancy
Cunningham at (202) 260—0535. A
reasoneMe fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
EPA Storm Water Hothne at (703) 821—
4823.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAtiON:
1. Authorfty
I L Background
A. Water Quality Act of 1987
B. November16, 1990Rules
C. Later Deadline Extensions
D. Ninth Circuit Decision In NRDCv. EPA
ifi. Si .mniiivy of Todays Rule
A. Deadlines for Phase I Permit I ssuance
end Compliance
B. Requirements for “Light Industries” and
• 5ni fl COnstruCtiOn Sites”
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12291
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
V. Administrative Procedure Act
Requirements
I. Authority
Today’s rule is promulgated under the
authority of sections 301, 308,402, and
501 of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C.
1311, 1318, 1342, 1361.
fl .Background
A. Water Quality Act of 2987
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987
added section 402(p) to the Clean Water
Act (CWA) to establish a comprehensive
two phased approach for EPA to address
storm water discharges. Section
4 O 2 (p)(l) provides that EPA or States
cannot require a permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Pliminatlon System (NPDES) for certain
storm water discharges until October 1,
1994,’ except for storm water discharges
listed under section 4 O 2 (p)(2). Section
402(p)(2) lists five types of storm water
discharges which are covered under
“Phase I ” of the program and are
required to apply for a permit prior to
October 1, 1994:
(A) A discharge with respect to which
a permit has been Issued prior to
February 4, 1987;
(B) A discharge associated with
Industrial activlty
(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 sawer system serving a
population of 100,000 or more, but less
than 250,000; 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 significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States.
The WQA clarified and amended the
requirements for permits for storm water
discharges In the new CWA section
402(p)(3). The Act clarified that permits
for discharges associated with Industrial
activity must meet all of the applicable
‘A. originally adopted, section 402(pXI)
ip4fi l thai the “znozitortu ” on permitting of
this. storm water sonsces. which A refer, to as
“Phase U” s . would erpir. on October 1.
1992. S” wi 312 of lbs Water Rssoi ce
DevsIo eat Act of 1992. whIch wsi sIgned by lb.
President on October 31. 1992. axt ded the
mo,st 4um to October 1, 1094.
provisions of section 402 and section
301 IncludIng all applicable technology-
based requirements such as the Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) (see section 304(b)(2))
or the Best Conventional Technology
(BC ! ’) (see section 304(b)(4)). Permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems must meet a new
statutory standard requiring controls to
reduce the discharge of pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable (MEP). As
with all point source discharges under
the CWA, storm water discharges are
suctto cable water quality.
Section 402 (p)(4) established
deadlines to Implement the permit
program for Storm water dlscharge
associated with Industrial activity;
discharges from large municipal
separate storm sewer systems (systems
serving a population of 250,000 or
more): and discharges from medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
(systems serving a population of
100,000 or more but less than 250,000).
Congress instructed EPA to issue
regulations specifying NPDES permit
application requirements by February 4.
1989. Congress also required that permit
applications far such discharges were to
be submitted no later than February 4,
1990 for Industrial and large municipal
systems, and no later than February 4,
1992 for medium urunldpal systems.
EPA or the State is to Issue or deny all
permits one year after each of these
respective deadlines, and facilities must
comply with all permit conditions
within three years of permit Issuance.
All other storm water discharges fall
under Phase U of the program (see
section 4O2(p)(1)), and neither EPA nor
a State may require an NPDES permit
for such sources untIl October 1, 1994,
unless a permit for the discharge was
Issued prior to the date of enactment of
the WQA (I.e., February 4, 1987), or the
discharge is determined to be a
significant contributor of pollutants.to
waters of the United States or Is
contributing to a violation of water
quality standards.
B.Novemberi6, 1990 Rules
EPA promulgated permit application
regulations for the storm water
discharges Identified under section
402(p)(2) (B), (C). and (D) of the CWA.
Including storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, on
November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47990). The
regulations defined which discharges
are “associated with Industrial activity”
and thus are subject to permitting under
Phase I. EPA included facilities In ten
different major Industrial categories (40
CFR 122.26(b)(14)(I)—(x)). One of the
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 244 / FrIday, December 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60445
categories included discharges from
construction sites larger than 3 a es (40
R 122.28(b)( l4)(x)). Under the
regulations, facilities In these categories
were presumed to discharge storm water
associated with Industrial activity and
were required to submit permit
applications. EPA also established an
eleventh category of Industrial facilities
in “light” IndustrIes (40 Q R
122.26(b)(14)(xi)). For these discharges,
by contrast, EPA presumed that there
would be no storm water discharge
assodated with Industrial activity, and
did not require permit applications
unless there was actual exposure of
industrial pollutants to storm water at
the facility.
The November 18. 1990 regulatIons
also addressed requirements, including
deadlines, for two sets of application
procedures for those storm water
discharges which EPA classified as
associated with industrial activity
Individual permit applications and
group applications. In addition, the -
notice recognized a third set of
application procedures for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity: those associated with general
permits. (EPA has since Issued a series
of general permits which cover most
discharges associated with industrial
activities, Including construction, In
States, at Federal facilities, and on
Indian lands, where EPA Is the NPDES
permitting authorIty. 57 FR 41178,57
FR 41236 (Sept, 9, 1992); 57 FR 44412,
57 FR 44438 (Sept 25, 1992).
The requirements for individual
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
set forth at 40 R 122.28(c)(1).
Generally, the applicant must provide
comprehensive facility specific
narrative information and quantitative
analytical data basedon samples
collected on site during storm events.
Under S 122.26(e)(1) of the November
16,1990 rule, individual applications
were t6 have been submitted by
November 18, 1991.
The group application process allows
for facilities with 5 1mil*r operations and
storm water discharges to Join together
arid file a single two part permit
application. Part I of a group
application Identifies the facilities
within the group and Includes
qualitative information desclbing the
facilities. Part 1 of the group application
was to be submitted to EPA no later
than March 18. 1991. The regulation
provides that EPA has a60 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. Part 2 of the group
application contains detailed
information, including sampling data.
on roughly ten percent of the facilities
In the group. Under the November 18,
1990 regulations, Part 2 applications
were to be submitted no later than 12
months after the date of approval of the
Part 1 application.
The November 18, 1990 regulations
also established a two part application
process for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more. The
regulations list 220 cities and counties
that are defined as having municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more and
allow for case-by-case designations of
.other municipal separate storm sewers
to be part of these systems (55 FR 48073,
46074). 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) were due November
18, 1991. Part 2 applications for
discharges from large systems were due
on November 16, 19g2. Part I
applications for discharges from
medium municipaL separate storm
sewer systems (systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more, but less
than 230.000) were due on May 18,
1992. Part 2 applications for discharges
from medium systems are due on May
17. 1993.
a Later D dJTh Extensions
In light of substantial concerns raised
by the regulated community regarding
the complexity of the new storm water
regulations, the difficulty In
detern 4n1ng whether facilities
were subject to the new rules, and
aihnini trative problems In developing
group applications. EPA granted a series
of extensions to the permit application
deadlines for discharges associated with
industrial activity. Initially, the
deadline for submitting Part I of the
group application was extended from
March 18. 1991 to September 30, 1991
(58 FR 12098 (March 21, 1991)). Later,
EPA also extended the deadline for
submitting an individual permit
application for storm water dlschaiges
associated with Industrial activity from
November 18, 1991 to October 1, 1992
(56 FR 58548. (November 5. 1991)). EPA
also extended the deadline for a facility
that Is rejected as a member of a group
application to submit an individual
permit application no later than 12
months after the date of receipt of the
notice of rejection or October 1. 1992,
whichever comes first. (58 FR 56549,
(November 5, 1991)). Finally, EPA
extended the deadline for Part 2 of
group applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to October 1. 1992 (37 FR
11524. (April 2, 1992)). WIth these
extensions, October 1. 1992 was
established as the single outside date for
any discharge associated with industrial
activity to submit either an individual
or group application, or to be covered by
a promulgated general permit.
Congress has also acted to grant
certain extensions to the application
deadlines for discharges associated with
Industrial activity. In March, 1991,
Congress adopted section 307 of the
Dire Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations * * Act of 1991,
which effectively ratified the extension
of the Part 1 group application deadline.
In December 1991, the President signed
the lntermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (or Transportation Act) of
1991 into law. Section 1068 of the
Transportation Act addresses NPDES
permit application deadlines for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities that are
owned or operated by municipalities.
EPA has since codified portions of
sectIon 1068 Into Its rules (57 FR 11524
(Apr. 2, 1992)).
D. Ninth Circuit Decision in ?JRX v.
EPA
On June 4, 1992, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Issued an opinion granting In part a
petition for review of EPA ’s 1990 storm
water regulation Implementing Section
402 (p) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”).
Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA, 966 P.2d 1292 (9th CIt. 1992). The
Court upheld several provisions of the
regulations, Including the definition of
“municipal separate storm sewer
system,” the standards for municipal
storm water controls, the scope of the
permit exemption for oil and gas
operations, and EPA’s decision not to
provide public comment on Part 1 group
Industrial permit applications.
The Court did, however, strike down
the exemptions from the definition of
storm water discharges “associated with
industrial activity” for construction
sites smaller than 5 ames and for “light”
industries and remanded both for -
further proceedings. With respect to the
light industry category, the Court noted
that the statutory term “associated with
industrial activity” was very broad and
concluded that Congress intended only
to exempt discharges from non-
industrial parts of facilities such as
parking lots. The Court rejected EPA’s
argument that Industrial pollutant levels
in storm water would be minimal at
light Industrial facilities, finding
nothing in the record to support that
-------
C0446 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 244 / Friday, December 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
conclusion. The Court thus found the
exemption to be arbitrary and
capricious. 966 F.2d at 1304-05. As for
construction sites, the Court noted that
EPA bad propceedte exempt only sites
smaller then i eas. In the final rule, the
exemption was mcnuased to 5 sass,.
based on the Agency’s determination
that smaller sites would not have Levels
of activity that were like other industrial
activities. The Court ruled, however,
that there was nothing In the record
“that construction sites on less than five
acres are non -industrial in nature.” 968
F.2d at 1306, The Court rejected EPA’s
argument that the 5 ame cutoff
constituted a de niinimis exemption,
finding the record Lacked information to
suggest whether smaller discharges
‘ s ould be de minzmis. Id.
The Court also declared EPA’s
e ’ tension of the statutory deadlines for
s:orm water permit applications to be
unlawful, but declined to strike down
t ie deadlines as NRDC had requested.
The Court did, however, order EPA to
promulgate additional rules specifying
dates for permit approval or denial and
for permit compliance. as contemplated
by the statute. The Cowl also stated its
expectation that EPA would abide by
the Court’s holding that EPA has no
authority to grant further extensions to
the statutory deadlines for permit
‘pplications. 968 F2d at 1300.
JL Summary of Todari Rule
A. Deadlines for Phase I Permit Issuance
and Compliance
In response to the mandate of the
Ninth Circuit. EPA Is today issuing rules
to spenify dates by which Phase I storm
water permits are to be issued or denied
by EPA or authorized States end to
specify the datas by which the
discharger shall comply with the
permit. Section 40 2 (p)(d) provided that
EPA/States were to issue or deny
permits by February 4, 1991 for
discharges associated with Industrial
activity or discharges from large
municipal separate storm sewer
systems, and by February 4. 1993 for
discharges from medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems. These
dates represent one year after the
statutory permit application deadline
and two years after the deadline for
promulgation of permit application
regulations. However, as discussed
above, EPA was unable to promulgate
its regulations by the statutory deadline,
and therefore established permit
application deadlines which are
somewhat later than those specified in
statute. EPA believes that the Court
not expect EPA or authorized States
to Issue or deny permits prior to receipt
of complete permit applications.
Therefore, today’s rule speclaas that
permits are to be issued or denied by
one year after the regulatory deadline
for submitting complete permit
applications. 1.... October 1. 1993 for
most discharges associated with
Industrial activity, May 17, 1994 for
discharges associated with industrial
activity from municipalities with a
population less than 250,000 who
participated In a group application.
November 18. 1993 for discharges from
large municipal systems. and May 17.
1994 for discharges from medium
municipal systems. Far applications for
new discharges, existing discharges at
facilities which fail to submit a
complete permit application by the
deadline, EPA or the State shall Issue or
deny the permit within one year after
the actual receipt of the permit
epplicatlon. 3 This one year time frame
Is consistent with the intent of Congress
reflected in section 402(p)t4) that
permits be issued or denied one year
after the permit application deadline.
Section 402(p) [ 4) also specifies that
permits for Phase I sources shall provide
for compliance as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than
three years after the date of Issuance of
the permit. Pursuant to the Court’s
mandate, today’s rule codifies this
provision In the regulations at 40 R
122.42(d) for subsequent Inclusion In all
initial storm water permits for Phase I
sources.
EPA recognizes that the decision of
the Ninth Circuit In Ncturvi Resources
Defense Council V. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292,
1299—1300 (9th CIr. 1992) holds the
following with respect to EPA’s
authority to give any further extensions
to the permit application deadlines for
these storm water discharges: “EPA
does not have the authority to Ignore
unambiguous deadlines set by Congress
• * * EPA does not have the authority
to predicate future rules or deadlines in
disagreement with this opinion. We
presume that the EPA will duly perform
Its statutory duties. (citations omitted)”.
EPA will fully comply with the mandate
of the Court with respect to permit
application deadlines for Phase I storm
water discharges. as currently defined.
B. Requirements for “Light Industries”
and “Small” Constnic&ton Sites
In Its opinion, the Ninth Circuit
invalidated EPA’s exemptions for
construction sites lou than five aaes
and for light Industry categories where
there Is no exposure of Industrial
3 A11 a(th rstvint ilw w*L p d
lppILcElon sad pemft ‘ ‘uan desdlin .r. Ibied
üz AppesdizAst U s sad atth s sact .
activity to storm water, and remanded
them to the Agency for further
proceedings. Members of the regulated
community have raised questions
regarding whether the Court’s action
effectively rewrites the regulations,
making small consthicxion sites and
light industries with no exposure of
industriel activity to storm water subj
to the current application requirements
for discharges associated with industrial
activity.
EPA does not believe that the Court’s
opinion had the affect of automatically
subjecting small construction sites and
light industries to the existing
application requirements and deadlines
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. The Couxt%
opinion is quite clear that the two
exemptions were remanded to EPA for
further ruleTflZlkiTlg proceedings. 966
F.2d at 1304. 1305, 1310. Thus. EPA
believes that the agency must undergo
further notice and comment rulemaking
to clarify the status of these facilities
under the storm water program.
Therefore, EPA believes that a specific
change to the current definition of
“storm water discharge associated with
Industrial activity” in response to the
Court’s opinion Is unnecessary, and
could in fact be confusing to the
regulated community. Instead,
requirements for discharges from arnall
construction eites and light industries
with no exposure are reserved pending
the further rulemaking. Such facilities
need not submit permit applications
until the EPA conducts further
rulemaking. If EPA decides to propose
that some or all of these discharges are
“associated with industrial activity,”
EPA will propose new application
deadlines consistent with the intent of
Section 402(p)(4) and the opinion of the
Ninth Circuit
EPA notes that the Court’s key
concern was that EPA lacked any
adequate factual basis In the rulemaking
record to distinguish small construction
sites from larger construction sites, and
to distinguish the dischar es from
“Light” industry facilities without
exposure from discharges from facilities
in heavy industries or light Industries
with exposure. EPA solicits comments
and any specific factual Information to
assist It in developing a new proposal to
address the light industry and small
construction site categories.
1V. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12292
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must determine whether this regulation
constitutes a “major rule”, requiring a
regulatory impact analysis. This n ile
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 244 I FrIday, December 18. 1992 / Rules and RegulatIons 60447
Imposes no new regulatory
equirements the requirement to submit
an NPDES permit application was
contained In the November 16, 1990
rule. This rule merely codifies existing
statutory deadline, for NPDES storm
water permit isau nce and compliance.
Thus, the rule meets none of the c i teria
of a “major rule” under E.O. 12291. This
rule has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The requirements of this rule impose
no new Information collection
requirements, the information collection
requirements associated with the
NPDES storm water permit program
already have been assigned 0MB
control number 2040-0086. Thus, an
Information Collection Request for this
rule Is unnecessary and was not
prepared.
C. Reguiatoiy Flaxibilhiy Act
This rule Imposes no new regulatory
requirements, but rather codifies
existing statutory deadlines for NPDES
storm water permit issuance and
compliance. Thus, I certify that this rule
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
V. Administrative Procedure Act
Requirements
Today’s rule is being Issued without
prior notice and comment The
deadlines for storm water permit
Issuance and compliance constitute
interpretive rules for which notice and
comment are not required. 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). Alternatively, there Is good
cause for Issuing today’s rule without
notice and comment, because prior
notice Is unnecessary. 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B). Today’s rule make. no
substantive change to the statutory
requirements and deadlines for storm
water permit Issuance and compliance,
but merely codifies the deadline scheme
specified in the statute. For these same
reasons, there is good cause to make
today’s rule immediately effective.
List of Subjects in 40 GR Part 122
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
Information, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control.
Dateth December 11, 1992.
William K. Reilly,
Adm nzstmtor.
APPENDIX A TO NE PREAMBLE—NPDES STORM WATER PERMrT APPUCATION AND ISSUANCE DEAOUNES
Tyee OS a99UcatloM p. OS souig.
Peelt apØcaXn deadine
Penn 5 I ssuance dea tn
. ,
E dng facmes..
Facilisea re ectad 1mm a gmi a Øcadon ,. . .
New tacssbes.______________________
New conotnjcdon feotides
.G
October 1,1992.. *
October 1. 1992
180 days prior to eammencemem OS k1 is 5t ace iry Scti
may Gauss a storni ter discharge.
90 days pnor to coninencemeis OS con.euc on —
October 1.1991
October 1, 1993.
One year after r ot corn-
plots penn. app4icaxn.
On. year after rece OS corn
— Penn. ctt
.
AS Indusulaf acbvldes eaoe those owned or operated
Patti
September30, 1991
Past2
O bar 1,1992
October 1, 1993.
by a mumctst y em a populaeon OS loss man
2 50.000.
Iriduotnal acdvts.s owned or operated by a rnunIc iaUty
with a populason of loss than 250,000.
May 18, 1992
May 17, 1993 ._....
May 17, 1994.
—
• Large 5jnlc Systems.
• Medium MutlcZtal Systems
Patti
November 18,1991..
Nay 18. 1992
P ai l2
NovenlIar 18,1992
May 17, 1993 . . ._........
November 18,1993.
May 11, 1994.
hSIi ni O peni s mijw mØy em as ewes niiotloni no ts Swi 3 5 14w Sw 4ws pwel be ,e
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I. of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follow,:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NAT1ONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
EUMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
AuthoriIy The Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C
1251 etseq.
2. Section 122.28 is amended by
adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as
follows:
• 122.26 Storm water discharges
(applicable to Stats NPOES programs, ass
• 122.25).
• I * * *
(a)
(7) The Director shall Issue or deny
permits for discharges composed
entirely of storm water under this
section In accordance with the
following schedule:
(l)(A) Except as provided In paragraph
(e)(7)(i)(8) of this section, the Director
shall Issue or deny permits for storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity no later than October
1, 1993, or, for new sources or existing
sources which fail to submit a complete
permit application by October 1, 1992.
one year after receipt of a complete
permit application;
(B) For any municipality with a
population of less than 250,000 which
submits a timely Part I group
application under paragraph (e)(2)(i)(B)
of this section. the Director shall Issue
or deny permits for storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity no later than May 17, 1994, or.
for any such municipality which fails to
submit a complete Part 11 group permit
applIcation by May 17, 1993, one year
after receipt of a complete permit
application;
(ii) The Director shall issue or deny
permits for large municipal separate
storm sewer systems no later than
November 16. 1993. or, for new sources
or existing sources which fail to submit
a complete permit application by
November 16, 1992, one year after
-------
60448 Feaeral R.e isLer / Vol. 57. No Z44 i Friday. Decemoer 18, 19 2 I Ruies and Reguiauons
receipt of a complete permit
application;
(ill) The Director shall Issue or deny
permits for medium municipal separate
lorm sewer systems no later than May
. 1994, or. for new sources or existing
sources which fail to submit a complete
permit application by May 17, 1993, one
year after receipt of a complete permit
application.
3. Section 122.42 Is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
• I .42 MdI onal cond%t ons sppUc ie
so sp.clIl.d ast.goños of NPDES permits
(uppIlcebis so Ssaso NPVES pro sms,
• I .25).
. .
. . .
(d) Storm water disch ’ges. The initial
permits for discharges composed
entirely of storm water Issued pursuant
to § 122.28(e)(7) of this part shall require
compliance with the conditions of the
permit as expeditiously as practicable,
but In no event later than three years
after the date of issuance of the permit.
I FR Doc. 92—30778 PIled 12—17-02; 8:45 cm ]
- . cees
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 220 I Friday . November 13. 1992 / Notices
thatography/medjum high
resolutloir mass spectrometry In allyl
ether of tetrabromobisphenol These
chemical analyses are required by this
test rule.
Test data for 4-VQ-l were submitted
by the Chemical Manufacturers
Association flutadjene Panel on behalf
of the test sponsors and pursuant to a
testing Consent order at 40 (YR 799.5000.
They were received by EPA on
September 15. 1992. The submission
describes testing 4-VCH In the mouse
and rat bone marrow micronucleus
assay by Inhalation. Health effects
testing is required by this testing
consent order. This chemical is used as
an intermediate i n the manufacture of 4-
vinylcyclohexene mono- and
diepoxides, which are used to make
epoxy resins, polyesters, coatings, and
plastics: and may also be used In the
manufacture of flame retardants,
insecticides, plasticizers, and
antio,udants.
Test data for MO was submitted by
the Chemicaj Manufacturers
Association on behal.f of the test
sponsors and pursuant to a testing
consent order at 40 CFR 799.5000. They
were received by EPA on September 15.
1992. The submission describes the
combined repeated doäe and
reproductIve/developmental toxicity
screening test In the rat. Health effects
testing Is required by this testing
consent order. This chemical Is used
primarily as an intermediate In the
manufacture of methyl isobutyl ketone.
Its maIn end-product use is as a solvent
In lacquer and lacquer thinners.
EPA has initiated Its review and
evaluation process for these data
submissions. At this time, the Agency Is
unable to provide any determination as
to the completeness of the submissions,
ILPublicR ec o rd
EPA has established a public record
for th 5 TSCA section 4(d) receIpt of
data rtoftce (docket number OPPI’S-.
44592). This record indudee copies of all
studies reported in this notice. The
record is available for Inspection from 8
a.m. to 12 noon, and 1 p.m. to 4p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except legal
holidays, In the TSCA Public Docket
Office, Rm. NE-G004. 401 M SL SW.,
Washington, DC 20480.
Authmlty 15 U.S.C zeco.
Dated: October V. 1952.
Claus. M. Au.,.
Director. Cbem,col Control Dlv , ion. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Tox,c,,
IFR Doe. 92-27595 Filed 11-12-02 8:45 amj
tUNG cOs. 4
(FRL-4533 -3 1
Revision of the Delaware National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program To issue
General Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
acitorc Notice of Approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program of the State of Delaware .
u aay On October 23, 1992. the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region ifi approved the State of
Delaware’s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program. This action authorizes the
State of Delaware to issue general
permits in lieu of Individual NPDES
permits. EPA has determined this
program modification to be non-
substantial for the1ollowing reasons:
The State regulations have already been
subject to public notice by the State and
this modification involves the adoption
of an administrative mechanism to
facilitate coverage of numerous
discharges by a general permit rather
than new program authority.
POR PJRTHER INFORMATION CONTACTI
Kenneth J. Cox. Chief, Program
Development Section, U.S. EPA. Region
111, 841 Chestnut Street. Philadelphia.
PennsylvanIa. 19107,215/587-8211.
SUPPLEMENTARy INFORUAflOtc
L Backgrouiid
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122-2R
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 appropriately controlled.
under a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Delaware was authorized to
administer the NPDES program in April
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 Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control 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: Storm water
discharges from Industrial sites: storm
water discharges from selected
subcategories of industrial activi tics:
construction and vehicle maintenance
sites, recycling facilities (junkyardsl and
marinas; co 9 ntrated aquatic animal
production facilities: non-contact
cooling water discharges; underground
storage tank remedlation sites; borrow
pits: well testing concentrated animal
feeding operations (manure
management); filter backwash wattr
from potable water treatment plants:
erosion control and dewatering from
construction sites: domestic waste
treatment facilities with design flows
less than 50,000 gallons per day. E. Gh
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 under Delaware law for euch
• general permit.
IL Discussion
On September 16, 1992 the State of
Delaware submitted in support of it3
request copies of the relevant statutes
and regulations and an amendment to
the Memorandum of Agreement dated
May 4, 1983. The State has also
submitted a statement by the Attorney
General dated September 18, 1992
certihjing. with appropriate citation of
the statutes and regulations, that thu
State will have adequate legal authuritY
to administer the general permits
program as required by 40 R 123.3(c)
upon adoption of it’s proposed
regulations. Jn 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 (YR 123.44. Based upon
Delaware’s program description and
upon its experience In administering an
approved NPDES program, EPA ham,
concluded that the State will have the
necessary procedures and resources to
administer the general permits progrum.
ilL Federal Register Notice of Approval
of Slate NPDES Programs or
Modifications
EPA must provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDFS
program. The following table provides
the public with an up-to-date list o( the
status of NPOFS permitting authority
throughout the country. Today’s Federal
Register notice Is to announce the
approval of Delaware’s authority to
issue general permits.
-------
. ueru. ‘ eg ier , c.. . ‘ .u. tj , r:; a . ioe- 1 . / ‘ .ouces
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
Number of Fully Authorized Programs
(Federal Facilities. Pretreatment.
General Permlts)=24
IV. Review Under Executive Order
22291 and the Regulatory 1exibility 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 an a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U. C. 001
et seg.). I certify that this State General
Permit Program will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. -
Approval of the Delaware NPDES
State General Permits Program
establishes no new substantive
requirements, nor does it alter tha
regulatory control over any Industria]
category. Approval of the Delaware
NPDES State General Permits Program
merely provides a simplified
acbninisfrativa process.
Date& November 2.1992.
Edwin B. Ertckao .
RegionaiAdm&nistrator.
[ FR Doc. 92-27547 FL1e4 11-12-02 &45 am)
uJ ce
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
R.qulr.ment Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
November 4. 1992.
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
USC. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be
purchased from the Conunlssign’s copy
contractor. Downtown Copy Center,
1990 M Street NW.. suite 640.
Washington. DC 20038. (202) 452—1422.
For further information on this
submission contact Judy Boley. Federal
Coinnumications CommissIon, (202) 632-
7513. Persons wishing to comment on
this information collection should
contact Jonas Nethardt. Office of
Management and Budget room 3235
NEOft Washington. DC 20503. (202) 395-
4814.
0MB Nismbex 3060-0208.
Tide: Part 21—Domestic Facilities
Fixed Radio Services.
Action: Revision of a currently
approved collection.
Responden Businesses or other for.
profit (including small businesses),
Frequency of Responsa
Recordkeeputg requirement, semi-
annual and annual reporting
requirements.
Estimated Annual Burdem 100
recordkeepers, 2 hours average burden
per recordkeeper. 200 hours total; and
28.616 responses. 1.9 hours average
.
Ai gtow,d
Slats NPOES
permit
q n
AWU
reg i
Federal
laulmes
‘wv.ud
Slat.
pro alment
progrem
Apgruved
general
permits
program
10/19179
i iioiies
05105/78
10/19/79
11/01/86
09/22/89
Caldomi
Conned
H8w .
II-
Indians
Kansas
Kemud
Mmn
NewJe
Now Vu
N iTh C
North 0
Oh io -—
I.
Rhode I
South C
Tennosi
01/09 /89
06/03/81
06/26/91
11/01/88
09/22/89
03/04/83
03110/92
10/23/92
01/28/91
09/30/91
01/04/84
04/02/91
08/12/92
03/12181
08/12/83
08/03/81
10119179
11/01/88
05/14/73
03/27/75
09/26/73
04/01/74
06/26/74
11/28/74
10/23/77
01 /01/75
08110178
06/28/74
09/30/03
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
10/28/75
10/19 /75
06/13/75
03/11174
09/28173
08/30/78
09/17/84
06/10/75
12/28177
07/07/87
03/11174
06/30/76
03/31 1 75
11/14/73
05/10/02
02/04174
01/30175
39
12/08/80
06/01/79
O9 2O/79
12/09/78
08/10178
08/28/85
09 1 30/83
11/10/87
12/09 /78
12/09178
01/28/03
06/26 /79
06/23/ 01
11/02/79
08/31(78
04/13/82
06/13/80
09128/04
01/22/90
01 /28/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/26/80
09/30/88
07107/31
09/30/83
09/30/85
06/07/03
07/16/79
05/13/82
06/03/81
09/07/04
04/13/82
06/14/82
07/27/83
03/12/81
09/17/04
04/09/82
08110/83
07/07/01
03/18/82
West
Wisce
09/30/83
09/30/91
12/15187
. -09/27 191
12/12/85
04/29/83
07/20/89
07/27/92
04/13/82
10/15/92
09/06/91
01/22/90
08/17/92
02/23/82
08/02/91
09/17/04
09/03/ 92
04/18/91
07/07/87
02/09/82
05/10/82
11/28/79
05/18/81
34
04/14/89
09/30/ 88
05/10/82
12/24/80
vJ
05/20/91
09/26/89
05/10/82
12119/80
09/24/91
35
-------
45112
ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION
AGENCY
(FRL—451 1-21
Final NPDES General Permits for
Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Sites
Correction
In notice document 92—23325
beginning on page 44412. in the issue of
Friday. September 25, 1992, make the
following correction:
On page 44412. in the first column, in
the OATES section, the effective date is
corrected to read September 25. 1992.
BIUJNQ cODE 503—01-0
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[ SW-FRL-4197-e)
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Usting of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
Correction
In proposed rule document 92—20030
beginning on page 37921 in the issue of
Friday. August 21. 1992, make the
following corrections:
1. On page 37923, in the second
column, under A. Petition for Exclusion,
in the second paragraph, in the sixth line
from the bottom, after “additional”
insert “factors required by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments”.
2. On page 37925. in the third column,
in the second full paragraph, in the ninth
line, after “evaluation” insert “of the
these constituent levels is necessary or
appropriate”.
3. On page 37928, in the first column,
in the sixth line, “become” should read
“becomes”; and in the last paragraph, in
the fourth line. insett”)” after
“annually”..
4 On the same page. in the second
column, in the fourth line, “create”
should read “treat”.
BiLLiNG CODE 1505-01-0
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFR Part 261
ESW-FRL-4197 -7J
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Usting of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
Correction
In proposed rule document 92—20031
beginning on page 37927 in the issue of
Friday, August 21. 1992, make the
following corrections:
1. On page 37928. in the first column.
in the first full paragraph, in the eighth
line. “OF” should read “or’.
2. On the same page. in the third
column. in the second full paragraph, in
the second line (torn the bottom.
“hearing” should read “hearings”.
3. On page 37929, in the 2d column, in
the 13th line, “consultants” should read
“constituents”,
4. On page 37930, in the second
column, in the sixth line, “existed”
should read “exited”.
5. On the same page, in the same
column, in the first full paragraph, in the
tenth line. “semivolatjle” was
misspelled.
6. On page 37932, in the second
column, in the seventh line. “Apex’s”
should read “Ampex’s”.
7. On page 37933, in footnote 1 of
Table 6. “260.222” should read “260,22”,
8. On the same page. in the first
column, in the second full paragraph, in
the eighth line from the bottom, ‘SWE.”
should read “SW...,
9. On page 37934. in the first column,
in the third line, insert a comma after
“nickel”.
10. On the same page. in the second
and third columns, in the heeding for
Table 10. in the second line, ‘(SSR)”
should read “(SRR)” each time it
appears.
Appendix IX—{Correctedl
11. On page 37936. the heading
“Appendix X l ‘“ should read
“Appendix IX ’ •
12. On the same page. in Appendix IX.
in Table 1, in the third column, in the
first line, “F004” should read “Foos”.
BIWNO CODE 1505-01-0
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
42 CFR Past 433
(MB-35-FJ
RIM 0938-AE38
Medicaid Program; Medicaid
Management Information System
(MMIS) Performance Review;
Notification Procedures for Changes in
Requirements, Performance
Standards, and Reapproval Conditions
Correction
In rule document 92—20523 beginning
on page 38778 in the issue of Thursday.
August 27, 1992, make the following
correctioru
On page 38781. in the third column, in
amendatory instruction 1., in the
authority citation, in the fifth line.
“1396(a)(25)” should read “1396a(a)(25)”.
BIUJNG CODE iSOs-ei-0
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTh AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
42 CFR Parts 405,411, and 413
(BPD-725-FC I
RIN 0938-AF27
MedIcare Program; Self-implementing
Coverage and Payments Provisions:
1990 LegislatIon
Correcizon
In rule document 92—16447 beginning
on page 36006 in the issue of
Wednesday, August 12, 1992, make the
following corrections:
405.502 [ Correctedj
1. On page 36013. in the third column.
in § 405.502(aJ. in the fifth line,
“services” should be deleted the second
time it appears.
Corrections Fedezal
Register
Vol. 57.
No.
190
Wednesday.
September 30. 1992
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
COntains editonal corrections of previousty
published Presidential, Rule, Proposed
Rule, and Notice documents These
corrections are prepared by the Office of
the Federal Register. Agency prepared
Corrections are issued as signed
documents and appear in the appropnate
document categories elsewhere in the
issue.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 190 I Wednesday, September 30, 1992 / Corrections 45113
411.82 (Corractedi
2. On page 36015, in the second
column, under § 411.62(b3(1), in the
second line, after ‘receive” insert “a”.
3. On page 36016, in the first column.
under § 411.82(cJ(3)(jj), in the first line.
“other an” should read “other than”.
413,118 (CorT.ctedj
4. On page 36017, in the second
column, in § 413.fla(d)(4), in the fourth
line, “payments” should read
“payment’.
wNQ GOOC I6O6.* -O
-------
Friday
September 25, 1992
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
industrial Activity; Notice
-------
.84438
Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
IFRL-451 1-11
Final NPOES General Permits for
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACT1OVC Notice of Final NPDES General
Permits.
SUMMARY The Regional Administrator
of Regions I. IL Ill, and DC (the Regions”
or the “Directors”) are today issuing
final National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(except discharges from construction
activity) in Massachusetts. Puerto Rico,
District of Columbia, Guam and
American Samoa: on Indian lands in
New York: and from Federal facilities in
Delaware.
These general permits establish
Notice of Intent (NO!) requirements.
prohibitions. requirements to develop
and implement storm water pollution
prevention plans, and requirements to
conduct site inspections for facilities
with discharges authorized by the
permit In addition, these general
permits establish monitoring
requirements for certain classes of
facilities and a numeric effluent
limitation for discharges of coal pile
runoff subject to the general permits.
DATES: These general permits shall be
effective on September 25. 1992. This
effective date IS necessary to provide
appropnate diachargers with the
opportunity to comply with the October
1. 1992 deadline for submitting an
NPDES application for storm water
discharges associated with industrial by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NOIJ to be
covered by the permits.
Deadlines for submittal of Notices of
Intent (NOls) are provided In part hA of
the general permits. Today’s general
permits also provide additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the permit
and for submitting monitoring data
where required.
ADDRESSES: Notices of Intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permits should be sent to: Storm Water
Notices of Intent. PC Box 1215.
Newington, VA 22122.
Other submittala of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. The addresses of the Regional
Offices and the name and phone number
of the Storm Water Regional
Coordinator is provided in section U of
the Fact Sheet
The Index to the administrative
records for these permits is available at
the appropriate Regional Office. The
complete administrative record is
located at EPA Headquarters. EPA
Public Information Reference Unit, room
2402. 401 M Street SW. Washington. DC
20480. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying. Specific record information
will be made available at the
appropriate Regional Office as
requested.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONYACT
For further information on the final
NPDES general permits. contact the
NPDES Storm Water Hotline at (703)
821-4823 or the appropriate EPA
Regional Office. The name, address and
phone number of the Regional Storm
Water Coordinators are provided In
Section II of the Fact Sheet
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOtC
L Introduction
II. Regional Contact&
Il. Section 401 Certifications
IV Economic Impact (Executive Order 12251)
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VL Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Introduction
The Regional Administrators of the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) are issuing final general
permits for the ma)onty of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity as follows:
Region f—For the State of
Massachusetts.
Region 11—For the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and for Indian lands located
in New York.
Region 1 11—For the District of
Columbia and for Federal Facilities in
Delaware.
Region LK—For Guam and American
Samoa.
On August 16. 1991. (50 FR 40948) EPA
requested public comment on draft
general permits forming the basis for
today’s final general permits. In addition
to addressing those storm water
discharges from industrial activity
addressed in today’s permits, the August
16, 1991. draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges from
construction activities. The permits in
this notice only address storm water
associated with industrial activity other
than construction activities.
EPA received more than 330
comments on the August 16. 1991. draft
general permits. In addition. public
hearings to discuss the draft general
permits were held in Dallas. TX:
Oklahoma City. OK; Baton Rouge. LA
Albuquerque. NM: Seattle. WA: Boise,
ID; Juneau. AK; Pierre, SD; Phoenix. AZ
Orlando. FL; Tallahassee. FL; Augusta.
ME; Boston. MA; and Manchester. NFL
On September 9. 1992. (57 FR 41236),
EPA published final National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from construction sites in 11
States (Alaska, Arizona. Florida. Idaho.
Louisiana, Maine. New Hampshire. New
Mexico. Oklahoma. South Dakota. and
Texas): the Territories of Johnston Atoll.
and Midway and Wake Islands; on
Indian lands in Alaska, Arizona.
California, Colorado. Florida, Idaho,
Maine. Massachusetts. Mississippi.
Montana. New Hampshire, Nevada,
North Carolina. North Dakota. Nevada,
Utah. Washington. and Wyoming; from
Federal facilities in Colorado. and
Washington: and from Federal facilities
and Indian lands in Louisiana, New
Mexico. Oklahoma. and Texas.
EPA is incorporating portions of the
detailed fact sheet for the general permit
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity (other than
construction activity) published on
September 9. 1992. as part of the final
fact sheet and statement of basis for
today’s final permit. The sections of the
fact sheet published on September 9.
1992 being incorporated are section L
Introduction: Section IL Coverage of
General Permits; Section III. Summary c.
Options for Controlling Pollutants:
Section IV. Summary of Permit
Conditions; and Section V. Cost
Estimates: and Appendix A—Summary
of Responses to Public Comments on the
August 18, 1991. Draft General Permits.
Today’s notice addresses final general
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(except discharges from construction
activity) in Massachusetts. Puerto Rico.
District of Columbia. Guam and
American Samoa; on Indian lands in
New York: and from Federal facilities in
Delaware. These permits may authorize
the majority of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States, including
discharges through large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
and through other municipal separate
storm sewer systems. As discussed
below, these permits do not authorize
I The September 9. i992. fact sheets incorporate
portions of the draft general permits published on
August 16. 1991 58 FR 40948). These portion. of the
August 16. 1991. fact sheets are also incorporuied
into today • permits. Sections of the August 18 1991.
fact sheet being incorporated are section 1.
8ackgro section 4. Summary of Options for
Coneoillng Pollutanin and section The Federal,
Mun*dpal Pertneruhip The Role of Municipal
Operator, of Large and Medium Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer,.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 1992 I Notices
44439
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
ictivitles and several additional classes
of storm water discharges.
Today’s notice contains four
appendices. Appendix A incorporates
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the August 16, 1991.
Draft General Permits, of the September
9. 1992 permits. Appendix H provides the
language of the final general permits.
Except as provided in Part XI of the
permits. Parts I through X apply to all
permits. Part Xl of the permit contains
conditions which only apply to
dischargers in the State indicated.
Appendix C Is a copy of the Notice of
Intent (NO!) form (and associated
instructions) for dischargers to obtain
coverage under the general permits.
Appendix D is a copy of the Notice of
Termination (NOT) form (and
associated instructions) that can be used
by dischargers wanting to notify EPA
that their storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity have
been terminated or that the permittee
has transferred operation of the facility.
II. Regional Contacts
Notices of Intent to be authorized to
discharge under these permits must be
‘eni to: Storm Water Notices of Intent,
3 Box 1215, Newington, VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications or other
written correspondence concerning
discharges in any State, Indian land, or
from any Federal facility covered.
should be sent to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office listed below:
Mossochusettr
United States EPA, Region i—Water
Management Division. (W —2109), Storm
Water Staff. John F. Kennedy Federal
Building. Room 2209, Boston, MA 02103.
Contact: Veronica Hamngton, (817) 565-.
3525.
New lot/c (Indian lands), Puerto Rico
United States EPA, Region 11—Water
Management Division, (2WM—WPc), Storm
Water Staff, 26 Federal Plaza, New York.
NY lava. Contact: Jose RIvera, (212) 264-.
2911.
District of Columbia, DeIOWQrO (Federal
facilities)
United States EPA. Region 111—Water
Management Division. (3W 155), 841
Chestnut Building. Philadelphia. PA 19107.
Contact: Kevin Magerr. (215) 597—1851.
uom and American Samoa
,ited States EPA. Region tX—Water
Management Division. (W—5—1). Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105, Contact: Eugene
Bromley, (415) 744—1906.
111.401 CertIfication
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or permit. including
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge Into
navigable waters shall be granted until
the State in which the discharge
originates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306,
and 307 of the CWA. The sectIon 401
certification process has been completed
for all States, Indian lands and Federal
facilities covered by today’s general
permits. The following summary
Indicates where additional permit
requirements have been added as a
result of the certification process and
also provides a more detailed discussion
of additional requirements for
Massachusetts, Florida, and Puerto Rico.
Massachusetts
See the following and part X.A of the
general permit for 401 condItions. As a
condition for certification under section
401 of the CWA. the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts required Inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to ensure
compliance with State water quality
concerns,
Storm water discharges not eligible
for coverage under this permit include
new or increased storm water
discharges to coastal water segments
within Massachusetts designated as
“Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC)” (for information on
ACEC, please contact the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, Coastal
Zone Management at (617) 727—9350). In
addition, new or increased discharges,
as defined at 314 CMR 4.02(19). which
meet the definition of “storm water
discharge.” as defined at 314 CMR
3.04(2)(a)(1) or (2)(b). to Outstanding
Resource Waters which have not met
the provisions of 314 CMR 4.04(3) and
part 111 C i of this permit (as amended
by the special requirements for
discharges in Massachusetts), are not
eligible for coverage under this permit.
Perinittees in Massachusetts are to
submit NOIs to the following address:
Storm Water Staff, Storm Water Notice
of Intent, US EPA Region 1. MA. P0 Box
1215, Newington, VA 22122. A copy of
the NO! for all discharges to
Outstanding Resource Waters shall be
submitted to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at the following address:
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Storm Water
Notice of Intent, BRP—WP 43, P0 Box
4062. Boston, Massachusetts, 02211.
For details on filing for permits with
MA DEP see 310 CMR 4.00, Timely
Action Schedule and Fee Provisions. For
other information call the MA DEP
Information Services at (617) 338—2255 or
the Technical Services Section of the
DEP Division of Water Pollution Control
at (508) 792—7470.
Massachusetts 401 certification
requires the following best management
practices. Storm water discharge outfall
pipes to Outstanding Resource Waters
shall be removed and the discharge set
back from the receiving water when
dlschargers are seeking to increase the
discharge or change the site drainage
system all new discharge outfalls must
be set back from the receiving water.
Receiving swales for outfall pipes shall
be prepared to minimize erosion and
maximize infiltration prior to discharge.
The goal is to infiltrate as much as
feasible infiltration trenches and
basins, filter media dikes and/or other
BMPa shall be used to meet the goal.
Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Areas by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. Division of Water
Quality is a reference for BMPs.
Storm water discharges to waters that
are not classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters shall be subject to the
requirements of this permit. New
discharge outfall pipes shall be designed
to be set back from the receiving water
when site conditions allow. For existing
discharge outfall pipes, when the storm
water drainage system is undergoing
changes, outfall pipes shall be set back
from the receiving water. A receiving
swain, Infiltration trench or basin, filter
media dike or other BMP should be
prepared with the goal to minimize
erosion yet maximize infiltration or
otherwise improve water quality prior to
discharge.
All discharges to Outstanding
Resource Waters authorized under this
permit must be provided the best
practical method of treatment to protect
and maintain the designated use of the
outstanding resource.
Delaware
See the following discussion and part
X.C of the general permit for additional
401 conditIons. As a condition for
certification ur’der section 401 of the
dNA. the State of Delaware required
inclusion of the following conditions
necessary to insure compliance with
State water quality concerns.
In addition to submitting all NOls to
the central NO! receiving office in
Newington. VA, permittees in Delaware
also must submit a copy of all NOte to
the State of Delaware at the following
address: Water Pollution Control
Branch. NPDES Storm Water Program.
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control,
-------
44440
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
89 Kings Highway. P.O. Box 140. Dover.
DE 19903. All Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRa). pollution prevention
plans. as well as subsequent revisions.
must be submitted to the State of
Delaware at this same address. DMRs
also must be submitted to the NPDES
Programs Director. U.S. EPA Region Ill.
Water Management Division (3WM55).
Storm Water Staft 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia. PA 19107.
Common wealth of Puerto Rico
See the following discussion and part
LB of the general permit for additional
401 conditions.
The Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) of Puerto Rico issued on
September 14. 1992 the General Water
Quality Certificate (GWQC) In
accordance with section 401 of the
Clean Water Act for storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity. This action was taken in
response to the Region U Environmental
Protection Agency’s certification request
of November 1. 1991.
The EQB’s draft GWQC Incorporated
special conditions that must be met by
all storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. A public notice
was prepared including a notification to
interested parties about the intention to
issue a GWQC. The public notice
provided a thirty (30) day public
comment period. In addition, a public
hearing was held on July 21. 1992.
The special conditions included in the
CWQC are intended to assure that the
general permit applicant will comply
with the applicable requirements of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law and
sections 301(b)(1)(c) and 401(d) of the
Clean Water Act. The GWQC contains.
among others, the following special
conditions:
• Quarterly Monitoring shall be
performed. Parameters to be sampled
are the followingi a) For the industries
identified in the final general permit
applicable to Puerto Rico. the
parameters established for each specific
industry and b) For all other industries.
the parameters are: oil and grease. pH.
biochemical oxygen demand, chemical
oxygen demand. total suspended solids.
total phosphorus. total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen.
and any pollutant limited in an effluent
guideline to which the process
wastewater stream at the facility is
sub ject.
• Monitoring results must be
submitted quarterly.
• If the construction of any treatment
system for waters composed entirely of
storm water is necessary, the permittee
shall obtain the approval of the
engineering report, plans and
specifications from the EQS.
The persmttee shall operate all air
pollution control equipment in
compliance with the applicable
pro visiani of the Regulation for the
Control of Atmospheric Pollution. as
amended. to avoid water pollution as a
result of air pollution fallout
• The permittee should install a rain
gauge and keep daily records of the rain.
• Within 180 days of submitting the
Notice of Intent (NO!). existing
dischargers shall submit a Certification
stating that the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan was developed.
• One year after submitting the NOL.
existing dischargers shall submit a
certification pertaining to the
implementation of the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
• Within thIrty (30) days of
submission of the NO!. new dlschargers
shall submit a certification stating that
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan has been developed and
implemented.
• The Storm Water PoUution
Prevention Plan should be reviewed at
least once every three (3) years to
determine the need to update the Plan.
• Within forty-five (45) days after the
effective date of the permit the
permittee shall submit to EQB with a
copy to the EPA. the number of storm
water discharges covered by this permit
and a drawing indicating the drainage
area of each storm water discharge and
its respective sampling point.
• The discharges shall not cause the
presence of an oil sheen in the receiving
body of water.
• The storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity will
not cause a violation of the applicable
water quality standards.
EPA has incorporated the terms of the
EQS GWQC into the final general
permit for Puerto Rico (PR) as described
in Part X I of the general permit A
number of the EQB Conditions have
simply been added to EPA’s general
permit (e.g.. the condition that the
discharge not cause presence of an oil
sheen: the requirement for rain gauge:
the requirement for EQS approval of
plans and specifications. etc.)
A number of changes and additions
are specified for part IV. Storm Water
pollution Prevention Plans, in order to
incorporate the EQB requirements
regarding certification of the
development and implementation of the
Plans, and to ensure that the specific
time periods specified by EQS were
included.
In certain instances, conditions in
EPA s general permit were expanded
slightly in order to incorporate more
detailed and specific EQS requirements
(e.g. Part VU.O.. Proper Operation and
Maintenance, expansion of EPA’s
condition to Include adequate funding.
effective management qualified
operator staffing. etc.)
Review and appeals of special
conditions attributable to the GWQC
shall be made through the applicable
procedures of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and may not be through
EPA procedures. Copies of the GWQC
may be obtained by writing to the EQS.
P.O. Box 11488. Santurce, Puerto Rico.
00910. or by calling at (809) 767-8181.
Delaware (Fedemlfacthttes)
See the following arid part XI.C of the
general permit for 401 conditions. As a
condition for certification under section
401 of the CWA. the State of Delaware
required inclusion of the following
conditions necessary to ensure
compliance with State water quality
concerns.
In addition to submitting all NOls to
the central NO! receiving office in
Newington. VA. permittees in Delaware
also must submit a copy of all NOls to
the State of Delaware at the following
address: Water Pollution Control
Branch. NPDES Storm Water Program.
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control.
89 Kings Highway. P.O. Box 140. Dover.
DE 19903. All Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs). pollution prevention
plans. as well as subsequent revisions.
also must be submitted to the State of
Delaware at this same address.
In addition to the site inspection
requirements discussed at part
IV(D)(31(d) of this permit. Delaware
federal facilities shall conduct monthly
inspections in areas where significant
materials are stored to determine the
exposure of such materials to storm
water runoff. Where the perinittee
determines that. exposure of significant
materials to storm water has occurred.
the storm water pollution prevention
plan shall be amended appropriately to
eliminate or reduce the exposure. Also.
permittees must Inspect all structural
controls after every rainfall event to
confirm that these controls are operating
properly, if any structural control is not
operating properly, the perm.ittee must
correct this situation or develop a time
frame for its correction. Records of all
inspections, amendments to the storm
water pollution prevention plan and
corrective actions must be maintained.
In addition to meeting the annual
monitoring requirements for airports
presented in EPA s baseline general
permit, the special conditions for federal
facilities in Delaware require that all
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 187 I Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
44441
Federal airport facilities in the State of
Delaware. not just airports with over
50.000 flight operations per year. sample
for Totel Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg /
U.
Applicants are required to obtain a
certification of consistency with the
Delaware Coastal Management Program
(CZMA 1972.15 U.S.C. 1451).
District of Columbia
See the following and part XLD of the
general permit for 401 conditions. As a
condition for certification under section
401 of the CWA. the District of
Columbia required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to ensure
compliance with water quality concerns.
All Federal facility perruittees covered
under this permit must meet all
applicable District of Columbia laws.
The Director may notify any perniittee
that additional control measures are
required m order to achieve the 40
percent reduction in nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the main stem of
the Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000. as
mandated by the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement..
Any discharge composed of coal pile
runoff shall not exceed a maximum
concentration for any time of 50 mg/I
total suspended solids. Coal pile runoff
‘isil not be diluted with storm water
.rom other portions of the site or other
flows in order to meet this limitation,
The pH of such discharges shall be
within the range of 8.0—8.5. Any
untreated overflow from facilities
designed. constructed and operated to
treat the volume of coal pile runoff
which is associated with a 10 year, 24
hour rainfall event shall not be subject
to the 50 mg/I limitation for total
suspended solids. Failure to
demonstrate compliance with these
limitations as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no case later than
October 1.1995, will constitute a
violation of this permit.
In addition to submitting the following
to United States EPA Region LII Office
(as provided in part, I through X).
signed copies of discharge monitoring
reports required nader Parts VI.D.ta,
VI.D.1.b. and VLDj..c. individual pennit
applications and all other reports
required herein, shall be submitted to
the District of Columbia at the following
addres& Government of the Diathct of
Columbia. Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs. Environmental
Regulation AdministratIon, 2100 Martin
uther King. Jr.. Avenue SE_
ashington. DC 20020.
.imermcon Samoa
See the following and part CLE of the
general permit for 401 conditions. As a
conditi on for certification under section
401 of the CWA. the territory of
American Samoa required inclusion of
the following special conditions.
Permittees must submit a copy of all
NOls and pollution prevention plans to
the American Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency.
Guam
See the following and part ICUP of the
general permit for 401 conditIons. As a
condition for certification under section
401 of the CWA. the territory of Guam
required inclusion of the following
special conditions.
Permittees must submit a copy of all
NOIs to the Guam Environmental
Protection Agency at the following
addreu D-1o7 Harmon Plaza, 130 Rojes
SL Harmon. Guam 95911. and to other
appropriate Government of Guam
agencies. All pollution prevention plans
and discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs) also must be submitted to Guam
EPA.
IV. Economic Impact (Executive Order
12291)
EPA has submitted this notice to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review under Executive Order 1229t
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in these
final general permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. EPA did not prepare
an Information Collection Request (Ia)
document for today’s permits because
the information collection requirements
in these permits have already been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) in submissions made
for the NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
VL Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory flexibility Act,
U.S.C. 801 et. seq., EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of rules on
small entitles. No Regulatory flexibility
Analysis is required, however, where
the head of the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a rignificant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Today’s permits provide small entities
with an application option that is less
burdensome than individual
applications or participating In a group
application. The other requirements
have been designed to minimize
significant economic Impacts of the rule
on small entities and does not have a
significant impact on Industry. In
addition, the permits reduce significant
administrative burdens on regulated
sources. Accordingly. I hereby certify
pursuant to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, that these
permits will not have a significant
Impact on a substantial number of small
entitles.
AuthoritT Ciean Water Act. 33 USC 1251 el
seq.
Dated: September 17. 1992.
Paul Keough,
Acting Regional Admrn:strt3Wr, Region 1.
Dated: September 16 1992.
Cons attn. Sidu uo o.ErfstofL
Reglona lAdmmjgtrator. Region IL
Dated: September 11. 1992.
A.R, Mania,
Act lug Regicrel Administrator, Region III.
Dated: September 18, 1992.
John Wisa,
RegionalAdm,nt,a’ator, Region
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Cnmmsmts on the August 18,
1991. Draft Generai Permits
The summary of responses to Public
Comment on the August 16, 1991. draft
general permits presented in appendix A
of the September 9, 1992 final general
permits at 57 FR 41257. is hereby
incorporated in appendix A of today’s
notice.
Appendix B—NPDES General PennJts
for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Industrial Activity
(Permit No. MARO0o oo]
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Eliminiition
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C 1251 et. seq: the Act), except as
provided in Part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located in the State of Massachusetts,
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 25. 1997.
Signed and issued this 17th day of
September 1992.
Larsy Brill.
Acting Director, Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permit
conditions in parts I through X and for
any additional conditions in part Xl
which apply to facilities located in the
State of Massachusetts.
(NPDES Permit No. NYR00000FI
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Ii,nin tion
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided In Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
“associated with industrial activity”,
located on Indian Lands in New York
State are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent i.a
accordance with Part II of this permit
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part 11 of this permit
are not authorized under this general
peiinit.
.his permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25, 1997.
Signed and Issued thIs 3rd day of
September 1992.
Richard L Caspe. P.S..
Director. Water Management Division. U..S
En virenmental Protection Agency. Region II.
INPUES Permit No. PRROOOO ) I
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge 11min tion.
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.: the Act), except as
provided in part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
“associated with industrial activity’.
located in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25, 1997.
Signed and issued this 16th day of
September 1992.
Richard L Caspe. P . S..
Director. Water Management Division. U .S
£nvzronm entol Protection Agency. Region II.
This signature is for the permit
conditions in Parts I through X and for
any additional conditions in Part XI
which apply to facilities located in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(Permit No. DC R000000l
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Vliminntion
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C.. . 1251 et. seq.: the Act), except
as provided in Part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located In the District of Columbia. are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25. 1997.
Signed and Issued this 16th day of
September. 1992.
A. R. Morris.
Water Management Director or RegiOfla)
Administrator.
[ Permit No. DE R000000F (for permits that are
only for Indian lands and/or Fed. fact)
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C.. . 1251 et. seq.. the Act), except
as provided In Part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in Federal Facilities in the state
of Delaware, are authorized to discharge
in accordance with the conditions and
requirements set fourth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent In
accordance with Part Ii of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25, 1997.
Signed and Issued this ieth day of
September, 1992
A.R.Morne.
Water Manogement Director orRegional
Administrator.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
[ Permit No. GUR000000J
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Viimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C.. . 1251 et seq.: the Act), except
as provided in Part 1.8.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located on the Island of Guam are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part U of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part Ii of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25. 1997.
-------
Federal Regiater / VoL 57. M c. 187 I Friday, September Z5, 1992 1 Notices
44443
Signed end issned this 18th day of
September. 1992.,
Catherine Kuhiman.
Acting Director, Water Management Thv,s .ron.
This signature is for the permit
condiuions in Parts I through X and for
any additional conditions in Part X l
which apply to facilities located on the
Island of Guam.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Acthiitieg)
(Permit N ASRQt D)O I
Authorization to Distharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elitnination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act),
except as provided In Part 12.3 of this
permit, operators of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity (excluding construction
activity), located on A.merican Samoa
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
iuist submit a Notice of Intent in
cordance with Part II of this permit.
Uperators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of letent in
accordance with Part LI of this permit
are not authorized wider this general
permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September Z7, 1992.
Signed and isa tied this 18th day of
September. 1992.
Catherine Kuhhnsn,
Acting Thrector Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permit
conditions in Parts I through IX and for
any additional conditions in Part X I
which apply to facilities located on
American Samoa.
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity
Table of Coi enta
Preface
Part L Cos ag. Under This Permit
Permit Area.
Thgibillty.
‘.u ihor iza uan.
.i II. Notice of Intent Requiremanis
A. Deadluiee for Notification.
B. Contents of Notice of IntenL
C. Wher, to Submit.
D. Additional Noniucetion.
S. Reont ificatlon. -
Part lB. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on non-storm water
discharges.
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
Part IV, Storm Water PoUntica Prevention
Maui
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance.
B. Signature end Plan Review.
C. Keeping Plans Current.
D. Contents of Plans..
Pail V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Coal Pile Runoff.
Part VL Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Faflwe to Certify.
B. Monitoring Reqmrernents.
C. Toxicity testing.
D. Reportthg Where to Submit.
B. Retenuina of Records.
Part VU. Standard Permit Condition.
A. Duty to Comply.
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit.
C. Need to halt or reduce activity not a
defense.
0. Duty to Mitigate.
B. Duty to Provide Information.
F. Other Information.
C. Signatory Requirements.
H. Penalties for FalsifIcation of Reports.
I. Penalties for Falsification of Morutoring
Systems.
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability.
K. Property Rights.
L. Severability.
M. Requiring en individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
N. State/Environmental Laws.
0. Proper Operation and Maintenance.
P Momtormg and records.
Q. Inspection end Entry.
B. P rnit Actions.
S. Bypass of Treatment Facility.
T. Upont Conditions.
Part VIII. Reopener Clause
Part IX. Netice of Termination
A. Notice of Terrnurntion.
B. Addressss.
Part X Definition.
Part X l. S )e Speciflc Conditions
A. Massachusetts
B. Puerto Rico
C. Delaware (Federal facilities)
D. District of Columbia
S. Arnencan Samoa
F. Guam
Add ’ A—Pollutants Listed in Table, 11
and W of Appendix 0 of 40 R 122
Addendum B—SectIon 313 Water Priority
Chemicel.
Addendum C—Large and Medium Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems
Preface
The CWA provides that storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from a point source (including
discharges through a municipal separate
storm sewer system) to waters of the
United States are unlawfuL unless
authorized by a National Pollutant
Discharge Piimiriatlon System [ NPDES)
permit The terms “storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity”. ‘point source” and “waters of
the United States” are critical to
determining whether a facility is subiect
to this requirement Complete
definitions of these terms are found in
the definition section (Part X) of this
permit. In order to determine the
applicability of the requirement to a
particular facility, the facility operator
must examine its activities in
relationship to the eleven categories of
Industrial facilities described in the
definition of “storm water discharge
associated with Industrial activity”.
Category (xi ) of the definition, which
addresses facilities with activities
classified under Standard Industrial
Classifications (SIC) codes 20. 21, 22. 23.
2434. 25. 265. 267. 27. 283. 31 (except 311).
34 (except 3441). 35, 38. 37 (except 373).
38,39.4221-25. (and which are not
otherwise mr.luded within categories (i)—
(xfl. differs from other categories listed
in that it only addresses storm water
discharges where material handling
equipment or activities, raw materials.
intermediate products. final products,
waste materials, by.products. or
industrial machinery are exposed to
storm wot5z ’
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency ( EPA ) has
established the Storm Water Hotline at
(703) 621.-4823 to assist the Regional
Offices in distributing notice of intent
forms and storm water pollution
prevention plan guidance, and to
provide infonnat.zon pertaining to the
NPD storm water regulations.
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Perm:t Area. The permit covers all
areas ofi
‘( Jon. 4, l%2. the LInited Stete. Court of
Appeeli (or the Ninth Circort remanded the
exclusion of menufeetmtng thcltttiei In c .ie5o? (xi i
which do eat have malarial, or ecnvities exposed to
510110 waler 10 the EPA for fwther rutemeking.
(NotureUlasowue, Oefent. Council v.£PA. t4c
9 5—m are).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 5Z No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992! NOtiCe9
Region 1—the State of Massachusetts.
Region fl—Puerto Rico arid Indian lands
in New York.
Region ifi—the District of Columbia and
Federal facilities In the State of
Delaware.
Region IX—American Samoa and Guam.
a Eligibility.
T. This permit may cover all new and
milating point source discharges of
stormn water associated with industrial
actIvity to waters of the United States.
except for storm water discharges
id ntifled under paragraph l.B.3.
2. This permit may authorize storm
water discharges associated with
lndusthal activity that are mixed with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities provided that the storm water
discharge from the construction activity
is in compliance with the terms.
including applicable notice of intent
(NO!) or application requirements. of a
different NPDES general permit or
individual permit authorizing such
discharges.
31 Limitations on Covemge. The
fbllôwing storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
mit authorized by this permit
a. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are mixed
with sources of non-storm water other
than non-storm water discharges that
arm
(i) In compliance with a different
NPDES permit: or
(ii) Identified by and in compliance
with Part ffl.A.2 (authorized non-storm
water discharges) of this permit.
b Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity which are
subject to an existing effluent limitation
guideline addressing storm water (or a
combination of storm water and process
water)’:
c. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are subject
to an existing NPDES individual or
general permit: are located at a facility
where an NPDES permit has been
terminated or denied: or which are
issued in a permit in accordance with
paragraph VILM (requirements for
‘For the purpose of this permit, the following
e(ftuent limitation guideline. addrass storm water
(are combination of storm water and pro’.es.
watvr( cement manufacturing (3.0 CFR 4121. feediota
(40 CIR 4121: fertilizer manufacturing (40 CFR 416 ).
petroleum reiiriing (40 GR 4191: phospt’ate
manufacturing (40 CFR 422): steam electric (40 CFR
id; coal innung (40 CFR 434). mineral mining and
gracassing (40 CFR 438): ore nurong and dressing (40
CVR 440): and asphalt emulsion (40 CFR 44.3 Subpart
A )iV?ua permit may authorize storm water
di itarge. auoaaied with industrial activity which
are not aubiect toen effluent limitation guideline
.win where a different storm water discharge at the
tacility a subject loan effluent laruta non guideline
individual or alteniative general
permits) of this permit. Such discharges
may be authorized under this permit
after an existing permit expires provided
the existing permit did not establish
numeric limitations for such discharges:
d. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from
construction sites, except storm water
discharges from portions of a
construction site that can be classified
as an industrial activity under 40 CFR
122.28(b)(14) (I) through (ix) or (xi)
(including storm water discharges from
mobile asphalt plant, and mobile
conciete plants):
e. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that the Director
(EPA) has determined to be or may
reasonably be expected to be
contributing to a violation of a water
quality atandardi
f. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity .that may
adversely affect a listed or proposed to
be listed endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat: and
g. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from inactive
mining, inactive landfills, or inactive oil
and gas operations occurring on Federal
lands where an operator cannot be
identified.
4. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity which are
authorized by this permit may be
combined with other sources of storm
water which are not classified as
associated with industrial activity
pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). so long
as the discharger is in compliance with
this permit.
C. Authorization. -
1. Dischargers of storm water
associated with industrial activity must
submit a Notice of Intent (NOl) in
accordance with the requirements of
Part II of this permit, using a NO! form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereof), to be authorized to discharge
under this general permit. 4
2. 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 2 days
after the date that the NO! is
postmarked.
3. The Director may deny coverage
under this permit and require submittal
of an application for an individual
NPDES permit based on a review of the
NO! or other information.
‘A copy of the appro ed Ol form is provided in
Appendl,i C of this notice
Part IL Notice of intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification.
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
ll.A.4 (rejected or denied municipal
group applicants). ILA.5 (new operator)
and II.A.8 (late NOIs), 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
(NO!) in accordance with the
requirements of this part on or before
October 1, 1992
2. Except as provided in paragraphs
ILA.3 (oil and gas operations). ILA.4
(rejected or denied municipal group
applicants). ILA.5 (new operator) and
ILA.6 (late NO!) operators of facilities
which begin industrial activity after
October 1. 1992 shall submit a NOl in
accordance with the requirements of
this part at least 2 days prior to the
commencement of the industrial activity
at the facility
3. Operators of oil and gas
exploration, production. processing. or
treatment operations or transmission
facilities, that are not required to submit
a permit application as of October 1.
1992 in accordance wIth 40 CFR
122.26(c)(1)(iii), but that after October 1.
1992 have a discharge of a reportable
quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
for which notification is required
pursuant to either 40 CFR 110.6. 40 CFR
117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6. must submit a
NO! in accordance with the
requirements of Part fl.C of this permit
within 14 calendar days of the first
knowledge of such release.
4. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from a facility
that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated in a
timely Part I group application and
where either the group application is
rejected or the facility is denied
participation in the group application by
EPA. and that are seeking coverage
under this general permit shall submit a
NO! in accordance with the
requirements of this part on or before
the 180th day following the date on
which the group is rejected or the denial
is made, or October 1, 1992, whichever is
later.
5. Where the operator of a facility
with a storm water discharge associated
with industrial activity which is covered
by this permit changes. the new operator
of the facility must submit an NOl in
accordance with the requirements of
this part at least 2 days prior to the
change.
8. An operator of a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity is not precluded from submitting
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday , September-25. 1992 / Notices
44445
an NO! in accordance with the
requirements of this part after the dates
provided In Parts ILA.1, 2, 3, or 4 (above)
of this permit In such instances, EPA
may brmg appropriate enforcement
actions.
B. Contents of Notice of Intent. The
Notice of Intent shall be signed in
accordance with Part VU.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit and shall
include the following information:
1. The street address of the facility for
which the notificacion is submitted.
Where a street address for the site is not
available, the location of the
approximate center of the facility must
be described in terms of the latitude and
longitude to the nearest 15 seconds, or
the section, township and range to the
nearest quarter sectlon
2. Up to four 4-digit Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that
best represent the principal products or
for hazardous waste treatment, storage
or disposal facilities, land disposal
facilities that receive or have received
any industrial waste, steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage, a
narrative identification of those
activities;
3. The operator’s name, address.
telephone number, and status as
Federal. State, private, public or other
ntitij
4. The permit nurnber(8) of additional
NPDES permit(s) for any discharge(s)
(including non.storm water discharges)
from the site that are currently
authorized by an NPDES permit;
5. The name of the receiving water(s),
or if the discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
munic pa1 operator of the storm sewer
and the ultimate receiving water(s) for
the discharge through the municipal
separate storm sewen
6. An indication of whether the owner
or operator has existing quantitative
data describing the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges
(existing data should not be included as
part of the NO I):
7. Where a facility has participated in
Part 1 of an approved storm water group
application, the number EPA assigned to
the group application shall be supplied:
and
8. For any facility that begins to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity after October 1. 1992,
a certification that a storm water
pollution prevention plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
vith Part IV of this permit. (A copy of
plan should not be included with the
)l submission).
C. Where to Submit. Facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity must use a NOl form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereof). The form in the Federal
Register notice in which this permit was
published may be photocopied and used.
Forms are also available by calling (703)
821-4823. NOls must be signed in
accordance with Part VILG (signatory
requirements) of this permit NOb are to
be submitted to the Director of the
NPDES program in care of the following
address: Storm Water Notice of Intent,
P0 Box 1215. Newington, VA 22122.
D. Additional Notification Facilities
which discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity through large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems (systems located in an
incorporated city with a population of
100.000 or more, or in a county identified
as having a large or medium system (see
definition in Part X of this permit and
Appendix E of this notice)) shall, in
addition to filing copies of the Notice of
Intent in accordance with paragraph
ILD. also submit signed copies of the
Notice of Intent to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer through
which they discharge in accordance
with the deadlines in Part ILA
(deadlines for notification) of this
permit
E. Renotification, Upon issuance of a
new general permit, the permittee is
required to notify the Director of their
intent to be covered by the new general
permit
Part III. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on non-storm water
discharges.
1. Except as provided in paragraph
lI1.Ai (below), all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water.
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
IILA.2.b (below), discharges of material
other than storm water must be in
compliance with a NPDES permit (other
than this permit) Issued for the
discharge.
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit provided the non.storin water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.3.g.(2)
(measures and controls for non-storm
water discharges): discharges from fire
fighting activities: fire hydrant flushings:
potable water sources including
waterline flushings: Irrigation drainage:
lawn wateruigi routine external building
washdown which does not use
detergents or other compounds:
pavement washwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
have not occurred (unless all spilled
material baa been removed) and where
detergents are not used: air conditioning
condensate; springs; uncontarnmated
ground water and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents.
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
1. The discharge of hazardous
substances or oil in the storm water
discharge(s) from a facility shall be
prevented or minimized in accordance
with the applicable storm water
pollution prevention plan for the facility.
This permit does not relieve the
peimittee of the reporting requirements
of 40 CFR part 117 and 40 CFR part 302.
Except as provided In paragraph IILB.2
(multiple anticipated discharges) of this
permit, where a release containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reporting
quantity established under either 40 CFR
117 or 40 CFR 302. occurs during a 24
hour period:
a. The discharger is required to notify
the National Response Center (NRC)
(800-424-8802 in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area 202—428-2675) In
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 as soon as he
or she has knowledge of the discharge;
b. The storm water pollution
prevention plan required under part IV
(storm water pollution prevention plans)
of this permit must be modifled within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release to: provide a description of the
release, the circumstances leading to the
release, and the date of the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed by
the permittee to identify measures to
prevent the reoccurrence of such
releases and to respond to such
releases, and the plan must be modified
where appropriate: and
c. The permittee shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circwnstances leading to the release.
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph IILB.1.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in part
VI.D.1.d (reportmg where to submit) of
this permit
2. Multiple Anticipated Discharges-
Facilities which have more than one
anticipated discharge per year
containing the same hazardous
substance in art amount equal to or in
excess of a reportable quantity
established under either 40 CFR 117 or
40 CFR 302. which occurs during a 24
hour period, where the discharge is
caused by events occurring within the
-------
4rn8 .
Fed i mL Register I Vol. No. I& F Friday. Septeinbor 25.. I N’atfcea
scope of the relevant operating system
shalT:
a. Submit notifications In accordance
with part ffl.aLb (abovej of this permit
for the first such release that occurs
during a calendar year (or for the ffrst
year of this permit, after submittal of an
NO!): and
b. Shall provide In the storm water
pollution prevention plan required under
part IV (storm waterpollirtion
prevention plan) a written description of
the dates on which aff sech releases
occurred, the type and estimate of the
ameuntof materiel released, and the
cucemsiances leedii to the release In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
Identify measures to pr ’v nf or
minimize such releases and the plan
must be modified where e ipropriate.
3. Spills. This permit does not
authorize the discharge of hazardous
substances or oil resulting from an on.
site spill.
Part I V. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
A storm waterpothition 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 practice. and in accordance
with the factors outlined In 4G CFR
125.3(d) (2) ar(3) as appropriate. The
plan shall identify potential soorces 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 descnbe 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 sad conditions of this permit.
Facilities must implement the prov einn
of the storm waler pellutien prevention
plan required under this part as a
condition of this permit.
A. Deudlines far Pfan Preparation and
Compliance.
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
IVA3 (oil and gas operalicn4 4
(facilities denied or rejected from
participation in a group application). $
(special requirementsJ and 6 (later
datesl the plan for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity that is existing on or before
October 1. 1992
a. Shall be prepared on or before April
1. 1993 (and updated as appropnate)
b. ShaLl provide for implementation
and compliance with the terms of the
plan on or before October 1. 19 ;
2. a. The plan. for any f’acillty where
Industrial activity commences after
October 1, rggz, but on or before
I7ecexnber 31, 1992 shall be prepared.
and except as provided elsewhere in
this permit. shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit on or before the date 60 calendar
days after the commencement of
Industrial activity (and updated as
appropriate!;
b. The plan for any facility where
Industrial activity commences on or
after ranuary I, 1993 shall be prepared.
and except as provided elsewhere in.
this permit, shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit. on or before the date of
submission of a NOT to be covered
under this permit (and updated as
appropriate);
3. The plan for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity *om
an oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operation or
transmission facility that is not required
to submit a perinil application on or
before October 1.1992 in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.Z8tcJ(1J(iii}, but after
October 1, 1992 has a discharge of a
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
substance for which notification is
required pursuant to either 40 CFR 110.6.
40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.8. shall be
prepared and except as provided
elsewhere in. this permit, shall provide
for compliance with the terms of the
plan and this permit on or before the
date 60 calendar days after the first
knowledge of such release (and updated
as appropriate)
4. The plan for storm water discharges
assoeiatpd with industrial activity from
a facility that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated in a
timely group application where either
the group application. La rejected or the
facility is denied participation in the
group application by FPA.
a. ShalL be prepared as or before the
365th day follawuigtha data on which
the group is relected or the denial La
made. (and updated as appmpr1ate
b. Except as provided elsewhere in
this permit. shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan.and this
permit on or before the 545th day
following the date on which the group Is
rejected or the denial is madei and
5. PortIons o(the plan addressing
additional requirements for storm water
discharges from facilities subject to
Parts (V.0.7 (EPCR.A Section 313 and
IV.D.6 (salt storage) shall provide for
compliance with the terms of the
requirements identified in Parts (V.0.7
and lV.D.8 as expeditiously as
practicable. but except as provided
below, not later than either October 1,
1995. FacilitIes which are not required to
report under m’CBA Section 313 prior to
luly 1. shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the requirements
identified In Parts !V.D.7 and LV.D.8 as
expeditiously as practicable, but not
later than three years after the date on
which the facility is first required to
report under EPCRA Section 3.13.
However, plans foe facilities subject to
the additional requirements of Part
IV.D.7 and IVfl.8. shall provide for
compliance with the other terms and
conditions of this permit in accordance
with the appropriate dates provided in
Part IV.1. 2.3. or 501 this permit.
6. Upon a showing of good cause, the
Director may establish, a later date in
writing for preparing and compLiance
with a plan for a storm water discharge
associated with iadns&nal activity that
Bubmits a NOl in accordance with Part
[ LA.Z (deadlines for notification—new
diachargers) of this permit (and updated
as appropriate).
B. Signature ndPlen Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance w1th Past ‘JU.G (signatory
requirements). and be eta icd on-site at
the facility which nerates the storm
water discharge in accordance with Part
VLE (retention of records) of this permit
2. The permittee 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, to the operator of
the municipal system.
3. The Director, or authorized
representative. may notify the perrrnttee
at any time that the plan does not meet
one or more ’ of the inftthimwn
requirements of this parr . Seth
notification shall ident ify those
provisions of the permit which are not
being met by the plarL and Identify
which provisions of the plan. req m ’es
modifications In order to meet the
minimum requirements of this part
Within 30 days of such notification from
the Director. (ores otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized
representative, other permittee shall
make the required changes to the plan
and shall subunit to the Director a
written certification that the requested
changes have been made.
C. Keeping Plans Current The
perrmttee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change In design,
construction. operation. or maintenance.
which has a significant effect on the
potential roe the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States or if
the storm water pollution prevention
plan proves to be ineffective in
eliminating or si üffcantIy minimizing
pollutants from sources identified under
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 187 I Friday September 25. 1992 1 Notices
44447
Part IV.D.2 (description of potential
pollutant sources) of this permit. or In
otherwise achieving the general
bjectives 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 IV.B (above).
0. Contents of Plan. The plan shall
include, at a minimum, the foUowlng
items:
1. Pollution Prevention Team—Each
plan shall identify a specific individual
or individuals within the facility
organization as members of a storm
water Pollution Prevention Team that
are responsible for developing the storm
water pollution prevention plan and
assisting the facility or plant manager in
its Implementation, maintenance, and
revision. The plan shall clearly identify
the responsibilities of each team
member. The activities and
responsibIlitIes of the team shall
address all aspects of the facility’s
storm water pollution prevention plan.
2. Description of Potez’itioJ Pollutant
Sources. Each plan shall provide a
description of potential sources which
may reasonably be expected to add
significant amounts of pollutants to
storm water discharges or which may
result in the discharge of pollutants
iurtng dry weather from separate storm
were draining the facility. Each plan
.iall identify all activities and
significant materials which may
potentially be significant pollutant
sources. Each plan shall include, at a
minimum.
a. Drainage.
(1) A site map indicating an outiine of
the portions of the drainage area of each
storm water outfall that are within the
facility boundaries, each existing
structural control measure to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff, surface
water bodies. locations where
significant materials are exposed to
precipitation, locations where major
spills or leaks identified under Part
IV 0.2.c (spills and leaks] of this permit
have occurred, and the locations of the
following activities where such
activities are exposed to precipitation:
fueling stations. vehicle and equipment
maintenance and or cleaning areas,
loading/unloading areas. locations used
for the treatment, storage or disposal of
wastes, liquid storage tanks, processing
areas and storage areas.
(2] For each area of the facility that
generates storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity with’
“easonable potential for containing
iflcant amounts of pollutants, a
liction of the direction of flow, and
dfl identification of the types of
pollutants which are likely to be present
in storm water discharges associated
with industhal activity. Factors to
consider include the toxicity of
chemical: quantity of chemicals used.
produced or discharged: the likelihood
of contact with storm watec and history
of significant leaks or spills of toxic or
hazardous pollutants. Flows with a
significant potential for causing erosion
shall be identified.
b. Inventory of Exposed Materials. An
Inventory of the types of materials
handled at the site that potentially may
be exposed to precipitation. Such
Inventory shall include a narrative
description of significant materials that
have been handled, 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 and
location of on-site storage or dispoaali
materials management practices
employed to minimize contact of
materials with storm water runoff
between the time of three years prior to
the date of the issuance of this permit
and the present: 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
storm water receives.
c. Spills and Leaks. A list of
significant spills and significant teaks of
toxic or hazardous pollutants that
occurred at areas that are exposed to
precipitation or that otherwise drain to a
storm water conveyance at the facility
after the date of three years prior to the
effective date of this permit. Such list
shall be updated as appropriate during
the term of the permit.
d. Sampling Data. A summary of
existing discharge sampling data
describing pollutants in storm water
discharges from the facility, including a
summary of sampling data collected
during the term of this permit
e. Risk identification and Summary of
Potential Pollutant Sources. A narrative
description of the potential pollutant
sources from the following activities:
loading and unloading operations;
outdoor storage activities: outdoor
manufacturing or processing activities:
significant dust or particulate generating
processes: and on-site waste disposal
practices. The description shall
specifically list any significant potential
source of pollutants at the site and for
each potential source. any pollutant or
pollutant parameter (e.g. biochemical
oxygen demand. etc.) of concern shall be
identified.
3. Measures and 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:
a. Good Housekeeping—Good
housekeeping requires the maintenance
of areas which may contribute
pollutants to storm waters discharges in
a clean. orderly manner.
b. Preventive Maintenance—A
preventive maintenance program shall
involve timely inspection and
maintenance of storm water
management devices (e.g. cleaning oil/
water separators, catch basins) as well
as inspecting and testing facility
equipment and systems to uncover
conditions that could cause breakdowns
or failures resulting in discharges of
poilutants to surface waters. and
ensuring appropriate maintenance of
such equipment and systems.
c. Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures—Areas where potential
spills which can contribute pollutants to
storm water discharges can occur. and
their accompanying drainage points
shall be identified clearly In the storm
water pollution prevention plan. Where
appropriate, specifying material
handling procedures. storage
requirements and use of equipment
such as diversion valves in the plan
should be considered. Procedures for
cleaning up spiiis shall be identified in
the plan and made available to the
appropriate personnel. The necessary
eqwprnent to implement a clean up
should be available to personnel.
d. Inspections—In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation reqwred under Part IV.4 of
this permit qualified facility personnel
shall be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan. A set of tracking or folkowup
procedures shall be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in
response to the inspections. Records of
Inspections shall be maintained.
e. Employee Training—Employee
training programs shall inform personnel
responsible for implementing activities
identified in the storm water pollution
prevention plan or otherwise
responsible for sterna water
management 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
-------
Fed aL Register I VoL 57, No. 1&7 I Friday , September 25, 1992 / Nottce
management practices. A pollution
prevention plan. shalt identify periodic.
dates for such trainirtg
L Recardkeepthg and Laternal
Reporting Pmcedur —Adescripthrn of
Incidents (such as spills, or other
discharges), along withother
information descrihing the quality and
quantity of storm water discharges shall
be cluded in the plan re reâ . under
this part. Inspections and maintenance
activities shall be documented. and
records of such a.cthntjea shalt be
incorporated into the plan.
s . Non-Siorm Water Discharges—.
(1) The plan shall indudea.
certification that the discharg has been.
tested or evaluated for the presence of
non-storm water discharges. The
certification shall include the
identification ofpot ’niiaJ significant
sources. of non-storm water at the site, a
description of the results ofany test
and/or evaluation for the presence of
lon-storm water discharges,, the
evaluation criteria or testing method
used, the date of any testing and/or
evaluation, and the on-site drainage
points that were directly observed
during the test. Certifications shall be
signed in accordance with Part VILG of
this perm1t 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, along with tha
identification of potential si uflcant
sources of non-storm water at the site. A
discharger that Is unable to provide the
certification required by this paragraph
must notify the Director in accordance
with Part VIA (failure to certifyj of this
permit
(2) Except for flow, from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed In Fart IILA.2 (authorized non-
storm water discharges) of this pP-rmit
that are combined with storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity must be identified in the plan.
The plan shall identify and ensure the
implementation of appropriate pollution
prevention measures for the non-storm
water cornponent(s of the discharge.
h. Sediment anaTrvsion Control—
The plan shall identify areas which. due
to topography, activities, or other
factors, have a hig u . potential for
significant soil erosion,. and identify
structural, vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures tabe used to
limit erosion.
I. Maaagemas it of Rwwff— .The plan.
shall contain a narrative consideration
of the appropriateness of traditional
storm water management practices
(practices othar than thos. which
control the generation or source(s) of
pollutants) used to divert, infiltrate.
reuse . or otherwise 1nn1 ge storm water
runoff in a manner that reduces
pollutants in storm water discharges
from the site. The plan shall provide that
measures that the permittee determines
to be reasonable and appropriate shall
be implemented and maintained. The
potential of various sources at the
facility to contribute pollutants to storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity (see Parts [ V 0.2.
(description of potential pollutant
sources) of this permit) shall be
considered when determming
reasonable and appropriate measures.
Appropriate measures may include
vegetative swales and. practices, reuse
of collected storm water (such as for a
process or as irrigation source), inlet
controls (such as oil/water separatms)
snow management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices,
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation. Qualified personnel. shall
conduct site compliance evaluations at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan, but, except as provided in
paragraph IV.D ..4.d (below), In no case
lesa than oaca a year. Such evaluations
shall provide:
a. Areas contributing to a storm water
discharge associa ted, with industrial
activity shall be visually Inspected for
evidence of, or the potential for.
pollutants entering the drainage system.
Measures to reduce pollut,aixt loadings
shall be evaluated to determine whether
they are adequate and properfy
implemented in accordance with the
terms of the permit or whether
additional control measmes are needed..
Structural storm water management
measures, sedimenL and erosion control
measures, and other structuraL pollution
prevention measures identified in the’
plan shall be observed to ensure that
they are operating correctly. A visual
Inspection of eqwpmens needed to
Implement the plan, such as spill
response equipment, shall be made.
b. Based on. the results of the
Inspection, the description of potential
pollutant sources identified. in the plan
in accordance with Part [ V.0.2
(description of potential pollutans
sources) of this permit and pollution
prevention measures and controls
Identified in the plan in accordance with
paragraph LV.D.3 (measures and
controls) of this peraut shall be revised
as appropriate within two weeks of such
inspection and shalt provide for
Implementat ion of any changes to the
plan in a timely manner. 1 it in. no case
more’ than twelveweeks after the
Inspection..
c. A report swrimarlzing the scope of
the inspection, personnel making the’
Inspection, the’ date(s) of the inspection,
major observations relating to the
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan, and actions
taken in accordance with paragraph
lV.D.4.b (above) of the permit shall be
made arid retained as part of the storm
water pollution prevention plan for at
(east one year after coverage under this
permit terminates. The report shall
Identify any inc idents of non-
compliance. Where a report does not
Identify any incidents of non
compliance, the report shall contain a
certification that the facility is in
compliance with the storm water
pollution prevention plan and this
permit. The report shall be signed in
accordance with Part VILG (signatory
requirements.) of this permit.
d. Where annual site inspections are
shown in the plait to be impractical faT
Inactive mining sites due to the remote
location and inaccessibil i ty of the site.
site inspections required under thia part
shall be conducted at appropriate
intervals specified In the plan, but in no
case less than once in. three years.
5. Addition a! requirements for storm-
water discharges associated with
industrial activity through municipo-)
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of I 7.CW or more.
a. In addition. to the applicable
requirements of this permit, facilities
covered by this permit must comply with
applicable requirements in municipal
storm water management programs
developed under NPDES permits issued
for the discharge of the municipal
separate storm sewer system that
receives the facility’s discharge,
provided the discharger has been
notified of such conditions,
b. Permitters which discharge storm
water associated with Industrial activity
through . a mwucipaL separate storm
sawer sysiem serving a population of
100.000 or more shall make plans
available to the municipal operator of
the system upon request
0. Consistency with other plans.. Storm
water pollution prevention plans may
reflect requirements for Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasnre (SPCC)
plans developed for the facility under
section 311 of the CWA or Best
Management Practices (BMP) Programs.
otherwise required by an NPDES permit
for the facility as long as such
-------
FederaiRegister I VoL 57. No. 187 I Friday. Septeniber 25, 1992 / Notices
44449
requirement is incorporated into the
storm water pollution prevention plan.
7. Additional require rnents for storm
.s ater discharges associated with
industrial activity froze facilities subject
to EPCRA Section 313 requirements. in
addition to the requirements of Parts
IV.D. 1 through 4 of this permit and other
applicable conditions of this permit.
storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA Section 313
for chemicals which are classified as
‘section 313 water priority chemicals in
accordance with the dellnition in Part X
of this permit. shall describe and ensare
the implementation of practices which
are necessary to provide for
conformance with the following
g deluies
a.. in areas where Section 313 water
priority cheencats are stored, processed
or otherwise handled. approprsate
containment. drainage control and/cr
diversionary stnacteres shall be
provided. At a minimum, one of the
following preveetive systems er
equivalent shall be used:
(1) Curbing. culverting. gutters. sewers
or other forms of drainage control to
prevent or minimize the potential for
storm water ran-on to coma into contact
vith signi cant sources of pollutants; or
‘!)Rocfs, covers orotherfornisof
ropriate protection to prevent
storage piles froni exposure to storm
water, and wind. -
b. In addition to the minimum
standards listed under Part IV.D.7 a
(above) of this penmt. the storm water
pollutioci prevention plan shall include a
complete discussion of measures taken
to conform with the following applicable
guide]me.s, other effective storm water
pollution prevectioc procedures and
applicable State rules, regulations and
gu idelrnes
(1) Liqu.idstorv,ge areas where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment. kink container, or other
vessel used for Section 313 water
priority che.rnzcals.
(a) No tank or container shall be used
for the storage of a Section 313 water
priority chemical unless its material and
construction axe compatible with the
material stored and conditions of
storage such as pressure and
temperature. etc.
(b3 Liquid storage areas for Section
313 water priority chenncal.s shall be
operated to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals. Appropriate
— ‘oasin ’ea to minimize dIscharges of
‘ion 313 chemicals may Include
dary containment provided for at
- the entire contents of the largest
single tank plus sufficient freeboard to
allow for precipitatIon, a strong s’pi 11
contingency and integrity testing plan.
and/or other equivalent measures.
(2) Material storage areas for Section
313 water priority chemicals other than
liquids. Material storage areas for
Section 313 water priority chemicals
other then liquids which are subject to
runoff, leaching. or wind shell
incorporate drainage or other control
features which will minimize the
discharge of Section 313 water priority
chemicals by reducing torrn water
contact with Section 313 water priority
chemicals.
[ 3) Truck and roil car loading and
unloading weas for liquid Section 313
water priority chemicals. Truck and rail
car loading and unloading areas for
liquid Section 313 water priority
chemicals shall be operated to minimize
discharges of Section 313 water priority
chemicals. Protection such as overhangs
or door skirts to enclose trailer ends at
truck loading/unloading docks shall be
provided as appropriate. Appropriate
measures to TflirI1tnl Tp discharges of
Section 313 ch unls may include: The
placement and maintenance of drip pans
(including the proper disposal of
materials collected in the drip pans)
where spillage may oomr (such as hose
connections. hose reels and filler
nozzles) for use when making and
breaking hose ccnnections a strong spill
contrng y and integrity testing plan;
and for other equivalent measures.
(4) Areas where Section 313 water
priority cheinicuis are transferred.
processed or otherwise handled.
Processing eqwpineat and materials
handling equipment shall be operated so
as to minimize discharges of Section 313
water priority chemicals. Materials used
in piping and equipment shall be
compatible with the substances
handled. Drainage from process and
materials handling areas shall minimize
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals. Additional
protection such as covers or guards to
prevent exposure to wind, spraying or
releases from pleasure relief vents from
causing a discharge of Section 313 water
priority themir ls to the drainage
system shall be provided as appropriate.
Visual inspections or leak tests sb.aU be
provided for overhead piping conveying
SectIon 313 water priority chpmicals
without secondary containment
(5) Discharges froze areas covered by
porttgrqphs (1). (2). (3) or(4).
(a) Drainage from areas covered by
paragraphs (1). (2). (3) or (4) of this part
should be restrained by valves or other
positive means to prevent the discharge
of a spill or aiher excessive leakage of
Section 313 water priority chemicaLs.
Where containment units are employed.
such units may be emptied by pumps or
ejectors: however, these shall be
manually activated.
(b) Flapper-type drain valves shall not
be used to drain containment areas.
Valves used for the drainage of
containment areas should, as far as is
practical. be of manual, open-and-closed
design.
(c) If facility drainage is not
engineered as above, the final discharge
of all in.facility storm sewers shall 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.
(d) Records shall be kept of the
frequency and estimated volume (In
gallons) of discharges from containment
areas.
(6) Fac.ihty site runoff other than from
areas covered by (11. (2). (3) or (4). Other
areas of the facility (those not addressed
in paragraphs [ 1), [ 2). [ 3) or (4)). front
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.
(7) Preventive maintenance and
housekeeping. Al] areas of the facility
shall be inspected at specific intervals
identified in the plan far 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.
waste materials or products. In
particular, facility piping, pumps.
storage tanks and bins, pressure vessels.
process and material handling’
equipment. and material bulk storage
areas 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
noncontainmetit. 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 waters of the United States. action to
stop the leak or otherwise prevent the
sigmficaitt release of Section 313 water
priority chemicals to waters of the
United States shall be umnediately
taken or the unit or process shut down
until such action can be taken. When a
-------
44450
Federal Register I Vol. 57 , No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 1992 I Notices
leak or noncontainment of a Section 313
water pnority 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.
(8) Facility security. Facilities shall
have the necessary security systems 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.
(9) Training. Facility employees and
contractor personnel that work in areas
where Section 313 water priority
chemicals are used or stored shall be
framed in and informed of preventive
measures at the facility. Employee
training shall be conducted at intervals
specified In the plan, but not less 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
minimize 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 spill
emergency procedures and reporting
requirements so that spills and
emergency releases of Section 313 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 facility
operation and design features In order to
prevent discharges or spills from
occurring.
(10) Engineering Certiflcation.—The
storm water pollution prevention plan
for a faculty subject to EPRCA Section
313 requirements for chemicals which
are classified as “Section 313 water
priority chemicals” shall be reviewed by
a Registered Professional Engineer and
certified to by such Professional
Engineer. A Registered Professional
Engineer shall recertify the plan every
three years thereafter or as soon as
practicable after significant modification
are made to the facility. 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 engineenng
practices. Such certifications shall 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.
8. Adth ’tianoi Requirements for Salt
Storage.
Storage piles of salt used for deicing
or other commercial or Industrial
purposes and which generate a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity which is discharged to
waters of the United States shall be
enclosed or covered to prevent exposure
to precipitation, except for exposure
resulting from adding or removing
materials from the pile. Diachargers
shall demonstrate compliance with this
provision as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than
October 1, 1995. PIles do not need to be
enclosed or covered where storm water
from the pile is not discharged to waters
of the United States.
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Coal Pile Runoff Any discharge
composed of coal pile runoff shall not
exceed a maximum concentration for
any time of 50 mg/i total suspended
solids. Coal pile runoff shall not be
diluted with storm water or other flows
in order to meet this limitation. The pH
of such discharges shall be within the
range of 6.0—9.0. Any untreated overflow
from facilities designed, constructed and
operated to treat the volume of coal pile
runoff which is associated with a 10
year, 24 hour rainfall event shall not be
subject to the 50 mg/i limitation for
total suspended solids. Failure to
demonstrate compliance with these
limitations as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no case later than
October 1, 1995, will constitute a
violation of this permit.
Part VL Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Failure to Certzfy.—Any facility
that is unable to provide the
certification required under paragraph
IV.D.3.g.(1J (testing for non-storm water
discharges), must notify the Director by
October 1, 1993 or, for facilities which
begin to discharge storm water
associated with Industrial activity after
October 1, 1992. 180 days after
submitting a NOI to be covered by this
permit. 11 the failure to certify is caused
by the inability to perform adequate
tests or evaluations, such notification
shall deucribe: the procedure of any test
conducted for the presence pf non-storm
water discharges: the results of such test
or other relevant observations; potential
sources of non-storm water discharges
to the storm sewer and why adequate
tests for such storm sewers were not
feasible. Non-storm water discharges to
waters of the United States which are
not authorized by an NPDES permit are
unlawful, and must be terminated or
dischargers must submit appropriate
NPDES permit application forms.
B. Monitoring Requiremenc.s.
1. Limitations on Monitoring
Requirements
a. Except as required by paragraph b..
only those facilities with activities
specifically identified in Parts VI.B.2
(semi-annual monitoring requirements)
and VLB.3 (annual monitoring
requirements) of this permit are required
to conduct sampling of their storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity,
b. The Director can provide written
notice to any facility otherwise exempt
from the sampling requirements of Parts
VI.B.2 (semi-annual monitoring
requirements) or VLB.3 (annual
monitoring requirements), that it shall
conduct the annual discharge sampling
required by Part VLB3.d (additional
facilities), or specify an alternative
monitoring frequency or specify
additional parameters to be analyzed.
2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements. During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit. perinittees with facilities
identified in Parts V1.B.2.a through f
must monitor those storm water
discharges identified below at least
semi-annually (2 times per year) exce
as provided In VLB.5 (sampling waive ,
VLB.6 (representative discharge), and
VI.Ci (toxicity testing). Permittees with
facilities identified in Parts VLB.2.a
through f (below) must report in
accordance with Part V1.D (reporting:
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the perruittee
shall provide 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:
a. Section 313 of EPCRA Facilities. In
addition to any monitoring required by
Parts VLB.2.b through for Parts VI.B.3.a
through d. facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are subject to Section 313 of
CRA for chemicals which are
classified as ‘Section 313 water priority
chemicals’ are required to monitor storm
water that is discharged from the facility
that comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
Section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a truck or rail car loading or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday , September 25. 1992 / Notices
44451
unloading area where a Section 313
water priority chemical is handled for
Oil and Crease (mgJL) Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (8005)
(mg/L); Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended Solids
(mg/L); total K eldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
(rng/L). Total Phosphorus (mgJL); pH
acute whole effluent to ucity 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.
b. P hnwy Metal !nthistries. Facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity classified as
Standard lnthistrraj Classification (SIC)
33 (Primary Metal industry) are required
to monzti r such storm water that Is
discharged from the facility for oil and
grease (mg/Lb chemical oxygen demand
(COD) (mg/L) total suspended solids
(rng/L) p1± acute whole effluent
toxicily total recoverable lead (mg/L )
total recoverable cadmium (mg/L), ’ total
recoverable copper (mg/L) total
recoverable arsenic (mg/L); total
recoverable chromium (mg/L); and any
pollutant limited in an effhient guideline
to which the facility is subject. Facthties
that are dassifled as SIC 33 only
because they manufacture pure silicon
‘nd/or semiconductor grade silicon are
at required to monitor for total
recoverable cadmiuin, total recoverable
copper, total recoverable arsenic, total
recoverable chromium or acute whole
effluent toxicity, but must monitor for
other parameters listed above.
c. Land D:sposoi lJrnt .s/Incjnemto /
BIFs. Facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from any active or inactive
landfill, land application sites or open
dump without a stabilized final cover
that has received any industrial wastes
(other than wastes from a construction
site); and incinerators (including Boilers
and industrial Furnaces (BITs)) that burn
harardous waste and operate under
interim status or a permit under Subtitle
C of RCRA. are required to monitor such
storm water that is discharged from the
facility for Magnesium (total
recoverable) (mg/L). Magnesium
-. (dissolved) (rng/L), Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) (in JL). Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mgfL), Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/li), Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/14. oil and
grease (mg/U, pH. total recoverable
arsenic (mg/L , Total recoverable
aniun {mg/L), Total recoverable
idmium {mg/L). Total recoverable
.romium (mg/U). Total Cyanide (mg/
,j. Total recoverable Lead (mg/li). Total
Mercury (mg/L), Total recoverable
Selenium (mg/U. Total recoverable
Silver (rng/L), and acute whole effluent
toxicity.
d. Wood Treatment, Facilities with
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 are
required to monitor such storm water
that is discharged from the facility fon
oil and grease (mg/U), pH. COD (mg/U),
and TSS (mg/L). In addition, facilities
that use chiorophenolic formulations
shall measure pentachiorophenol (mg/L)
and acute whole effluent toxicity
facilities which use creosote
formulations shall measure acute whole
effluent toxicity and facilities that use
chromium-arsenic formulations shall
measure total recoverable arsenic (mgi
L). total recoverable chromium (mg/U),
and total recoverable copper (mg/li).
e. Coo/Pile Runoff Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from coal pile runoff
are required to monitor such storm
water that is discharged from the facili
for oil and grease (mg/L), pH. TSS (mg
U, total recoverable copper (mg/i), total
recoverable nickel (mg/I) and total
recoverable mnc (mg/I).
f. Battery Reclaimers. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity from areas used for
storage of lead acid batteries,
reclamation products, or waste
products, and areas used for lead acid
battery reclamation (tnchidmg materiel
handling activities) at facilities that
reclaim lead acid batteries are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for Oil and
Grease (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/U; Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (rug/U); pH. total
recoverable copper (mg/I); and total
recoverable lead (mg/I).
3. Amiual Monitoring Requirements.
During the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through the
expiration date of this permit.
permittees with facilities Identified in
Parts VLB.3. a through d. (below) must
monitor those storm water discharges
ident ified below at least annually (1
time per year) except as provided in
VLB.5 (sampling waiver), and VLB.6
(representative discharge). Permittees
with facilities identified in Parts VLB.3.
a through d. (below) are not required to
submit ruorutoring results, unless
required in writing by the Director,
However, such permittees must retain
monitoring results in accordance with
Part VI.E (retention of records). In
addition to the parameters listed below.
the permittee shall provide the date and
duration (in hours) of the storm event(s)
sampled; rainfall meaguremente or
estimates (in inches) of the storm event
which generated the sampled rnnoff 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
a. Airports. At airports with over
50,000 flIght operations per year,
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
areas where aircraft or airport demomg
operations occur (including runways.
taxiways, ramps, and dedicated aircraft
deicing stations) are required to monitor
such storm water that Is discharged
from the facility when deicuig activities
are occurring for Oil and Grease (mg/L);
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BODS) (mg/U); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/U); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L) pH: and the
primary ingredient used in the deicing
materials used at the site (e.g. ethylene
glycol. urea. etc.).
b. Coal-fired Steam Electric Facilities.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity from
coal handling sites at coal fired steam
electric power generating facilities
(other than discharges In whole or In
part from coal piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
423—which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit) are required to
monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for Oil and
grease {mgfL), pH. TSS (mg/U), total
recoverable copper (mg/I), total
recoverable nickel (mg/I) and total
recom- ble zinc (mg/I).
c. Animal Hon&ing/Meat Packing.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
animal handling areas, manure
management (or storage) areas, and
production waste management (or
storage) areas that are exposed to
precipitation at meat packing plants.
poultry packing plants, and facilities
that manufacture animal and marine
fats and oils, are required to monitor
such storm water that Is discharged
from the facility for Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/Li; oil and grease (mg/L); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L) Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mnJL) Total
Phosphorus (mg/L) ph and fecal
coliform (counts per 100 aiL).
d. Additional Foci/it lea. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity that:
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 f Friday, September 25, 1992 I Notices
(1) Come in contact with storage piles
for solid chemicals used as raw
materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified as
SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products);
( Ii) Are from those areas at automobile
junlcyards with any of the foliowingi (A)
over 250 auto/truck bodies with
drivelines (engine. transmission, axles.
and wheels), 250 drivelines, or any
combination thereof (in whole or in
pans) are exposed to storm wateri (B)
over 500 auto/truck wuts (bodies with or
without drivelines In whole or In parts)
are stored exposed to storm water: or
(C) over 100 units per year are
dismantled and drainage or storage of
automotive fluids occurs in areas
exposed to storm water:
(iuj Come into contact with lime
storage piles that are exposed to storm
water at lime manufacturing facilities;
(iv) Are from oil handling sites at oil
fired steam electric power generating
facilities;
(v) Are from cement manufacturing
facilities and cement kilns (other than
discharges in whole or in part (mm
material storage piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
411—which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit);
(vi) Are from readyrnixed concrete
facthties; or
(vii) Are from ship building and
repairing facilities;
are required to momtor such storm
water discharged from the facility for
Oil and Grease (mg/L); Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/U; Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/I): pH and
any pollutant limited in en effluent
guideline to which the facility is subject.
4. Sample Type. For discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours. (estimated by dividing 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) a minimum 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 samples 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
rainfall) 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 thirty 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
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
riunimwn of three sample aliquots taken
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
the discharge, with each aliquot being
separated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes. Grab samples only must
be collected and analyzed for the
determination of pH. cyanide, whole
effluent toxicity. fecal coliforin. and oil
and grease.
5. 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 weather 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.). Dischargers are precluded from
exercising this waiver more than once
during a two year period.
6. Representative Discharge. When a
facility has two or more outfalls that,
based on a consideration of industrial
activity, significant materials, and
management practices and activities
within the area drained by the outfall.
the perrnittee reasonable believes
discharge substantially identical
effluents, the permittee may test the
effluent of one of such outfalls and
report that the quantitative data also
applies to the substantially identical
outfalls provided that the permittee
Includes In the storm water pollution
prevention plan a description of the
location of the outfalls and explaining in
detail why the outfalla are expected to
discharge substantially identical
effluents. In addition, for each outfall
that the permittee believes is
representative, 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
percent), medium (40 to 65 percent) or
high (above 65 percent)) shall be
provided In the plan. Permittees
required to submit monitoring
information under Parts VI.D.i.a. b or c
of this permit shall include the
description of the location of the
outfalls, explanation of why outfalls are
expected to discharge substantially
identical effluents, and estimate of the
size of the drainage area and runoff
coefficient with the Discharge
Monitoring Report.
7. Alternative Certification. A
discharger is not subject to the
monitoring requirements of parts VIB. 2
or 3 of this permit provided the
discharger makes a certification for a
given outfall, on an annual basis, under
penalty of law, signed in accordance
with part VII.G (signatory requirements),
that material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials. intermediate
products, final products. waste
materials. by.products. industrial
machinery or operations, significant
materials from past industrial activity.
or, in the case of airports. deicing
activities, that are located in areas of
the facility that are within the drainage
area of the outfall are not presently
exposed to storm water and will not be
exposed to storm water for the
certification period. Such certification
must be retained in the storm water
pollution prevention plan, and submitted
to EPA in accordance with part VLD of
this permit
8. Alternative to WET Parameter. A
discharger that is subject to the
monitoring requirements of parts VIB.’
a through d may. in lieu of momto ring
for acute whole effluent toxicity,
monitor for pollutants identified in
Tables U and UI of Appendix U of 40
CYR 122 (see Addendum A of this
permit) that the discharger knows or has
reason to believe are present at the
facility site. Such determinations are to
be based on reasonable best efforts to
identify significant quantifies of
materials or chemicals present at the
facility. Dischargers must also monitor
for any additional parameter identified
in parts VLB.2. a through d.
C. To .u ity Testing. Perinittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series
of tests described below within 180 days
after the issuance of this permit or
within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
1. Test Prvcedures.
a. The permaittee shall conduct acute
24 )io’ir static toxicity tests on both an
appropriate invertebrate and an•
appropriate fish (vertebrate) test species
(EPA/600f4—90-0V Rev. 9/91. Section
6.1.) . Freshwater species must be used
for discharges to freshwater water
bodies. Due to the non-saline nature of
rainwater, freshwater teat species
should also be used for discharges to
estuarme. marine or other naturally
saline waterbodles.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September25 . 1992 I ‘Notices —
44453
b. All teat organisms. procedure. and
quality assurance criteria used shall be
in accordance with Methods for
Weosuring the Acute Toxkity of
:ffl jits and Receivrng Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
EPA/600/4—90--027 (Rev. September
1991). EPA has proposed to establish
regulations regarding these test methods
(December 4, 1989, 53 FR 50216).
c. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge. Tests shall be
conducted using 100 effluent (no
dilution) and a confrol consisting of
synthetic dilution water. Results of all
tests conducted with any species shall
be reported according to EPA/800/4—90—
022 [ Rev. September1991), Section 12.
Report Preparation, and the report
submitted to EPA with the Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMR’s). On the
D.MR. the perinittee shall report “0 ” if
there is no statistical difference between
the control mortality and the effluent
mortality for each d.ilution. If there is
statistical difference (exhibits toxicity).
the ermittee shall report i” on the
DMR.
2. U acute whole effluent toxicity
(statistically significant difference
between the 100% dilution and the
control) is detected on or after October
1995, in storm water discharges. the
‘mittee shall review the storm water
lutlon prevention plan and make
.ppropriate modifications to assist In
identifying the source(s) of toxIdty and
to reduce the toxicity of their storm
water discharges. A summary of the
review and the resulting modifications
shall be provided in the plan.
0. Reporting: Where to SubrniL
1. a. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VLa2.(a) (EPCRA SectIon 313), and (d)
(Wood Treatment facilities), shall
monitor samples collected during the
sampling periods running from January
to June and during the sampling period
from fuly to December. Such permittees
shall submit monitoring results obtained
during the reporting period running from
January to December on Discharge
Monitoring Report Form(s) postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the
following January. A separate Discharge
Morutonng Report Form is required for
each sampling period. The first report
may include less than twelve months of
information.
b. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VLB2.(b) (Primary Metal facilities). I e)
- Pile Runoff), and (f) (Battery
imers) shall monitor samples
:ted during the sampling period
. ng from March to August and
during the sampling period running from
September to February. Such pernuttees
shall submit monitoring results obtained
during the reporting period running from
April to March on Discharge Monitoring
Report Form(s) postmarked no later than
the 28th day of the following ApriL A
separate Discharge Monitoring Report
Form is required for each event
sampling period. The first report may
include less than twelve months of
information.
c. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VI.B.2.(c) (Land Disposal facilities), shall
monitor samples collected during the
sampling period running from October to
March and during the sampling period
running from April to September. Such
permittees shall submit monitoring
results obtained during the reporting
period running from October to
September on Discharge Monitoring
Report Form(s) postmarked no later than
the 28th day of October. A separate
Discharge Monitoring Report Form is
required for each sampling period. The
first report may include less than twelve
months of information.
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VLD.La, VLD.i.b, and VLD.l.c,
IndMdual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office:
1. Massachusetts
United States EPA. Region I—Waler
Management Division (WCP-2109J. Storm
Water Staff, John F. Kennedy Federal
Budding. Room 2209. Boston, MA 02203
2. Indian lands in New York. Puerto Rico
United State, EPA. Region fl—Water
Managethent Division (2WM—WPC). Storm
Water Staff, 20 Federal Plaza, New York.
NY 10278
3. District of Columbia. Feder& facilities in
Delaware
United Slates EPA. Region lfl—Water
Management Division (3 WM5S 1. Storm
Water Staff. 841 Chestnut Building.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
4. Florida
United States EPA. Region [ V—Water
Management Division (FPB—3). Storm
Water Staff. 345 Couriland Street NE.
Atlanta. GA 30385
5. Guam. Amencon Samoa
United States EPA. Region DC—Water
Management Division (W—5—1l. Storm
Water Staff, 73 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105
e. Permittee. with facilltie identified
in Parts VLB.3 [ annual monitoring) are
not required to submit monitoring
results, unless required in writing by the
Director.
2. Additional Notificotion. In addition
to filing copies of discharge monitonrig
reports in accordance with Part V i 0.1
(reporting: where to submit), facilities
with at least one storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity
through a large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer (systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more] must
submit signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer system
in accordance with the dates provided
In paragraph VLD1 (reporting: where to
submit), Facilities not required to report
monitoring data under Part VLB.3
(annual monitoring requirements), and
facilities that are not otherwise required
to monitor their discharge., need not
comply with this provision.
F. Retention ofRecords. 1. The
permittee shall retain the pollution
prevention plan developed in
accordance with Part IV (storm water
pollution prevention plans) of this
permit until at least one year after
coverage under this permit terminates.
The perizuttee shall retain all 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 this
permit until at least one year after
coverage under this permit terminates.
This period may be explicitly modified
by alternative provisions of this permit
(see paragraph VLE.2 (below) of this
permit) or extended by request of the
Director at any time.
2. For discharges subject to sampling
requirements pursuant to Part VLB
(monitoring requirements), in addition to
the requirements of paragraph VLE.i
(above). permittees are required to
retain for a six 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.
Perinittees must submit such monitoring
results to the Director upon the requests
of the Director, and submit a summary
of such results as part of renotification
requirements in accordance with Part
ILF (renotification).
Part Vffl.—Standai d Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply.
1. The permittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of
CWA and is grounds for enforcement
action; for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance. or
modification: or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions.
-------
44454 Federal Register / VoL 57 , No: 187 / Friday; September 25. 1992 I Notices
a. Criminal. (1). Negligent Violations.
‘The CWA provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 30’!, 302. 308. 307.
308.318. or 405 of the Act is subject to a
fine of not less than 52.500 nor more
than 525.000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than I year.
or both.
(2). Knowing Violations. The CWA
provides that any person who
knowmgly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306, 307,
308. 318. or 405 of the Act Is subject to a
fine of not less than 55.000 nor more
than $50000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 3 years.
or both.
(3). Knowing EndongermenL The
CWA provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302. 306. 307,
308. 318. or 405 of the Act nd who
knows at that 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 5250.000. or by
imprisonment for not more than 15
years. or both.
(4). False Statement. The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false matenal
statement representation, or
certification in any application. record,
report. plan. or other document flied or
required to be maintained under the Act
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders maccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to
be maintained under the 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. If
a conviction is for a violation committed
after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment shail
be by a fine of not more than 520.000 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).
b. Civil Penalties .—The CWA
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing Sections
301,302. 308. 307, 308, 318. or 405 of the
Act Is subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation.
c. Administrative Penalties—The
CWA 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
an administrative penalty, as follows:
(1). Class I penalty. Not to exceed
$10,000 per violation nor shall the
maximum amount exceed 525.000.
(2). Class II penalty. Not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues nor shall
the maximum amount exceed $125.000.
B. Continuation of the Expired
CenemiPernut. This permit expires on
October 1. 1997. However, an expired
general permit continues in force and
effect until a new general permit Is
issued. Permittees must submit a new
NO! in accordance with the
requirements of Part II of this permit,
using a NO! form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof) between
August 1, 1997 and September . 1997 to
remain covered under the continued
permit after October 1, 1997. Facilities
that had not obtained coverage under
the permit by October 1. 1997 cannot
become authorized to discharge under
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 Mitigote. 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
E. Duty to Provide Information. The
permittee shall furnish to the Director,
within a time specified by the Director,
any information which the Director may
request to determine compliance with
this permit The permittee shall also
furrush 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 Reqwrements. All
Notices of Intent. Notices of
Termination, storm water pollution
prevention plans. reports. certifications
or information either submitted to the
Director (and/or the operator of a large
or medium municipal separate storm
sewer system), or that this permit
requires be maintained by the perniittee.
shall be signed.
1. Alt Notices of Intent shall be signed
as follows: a. For a corporatiorn 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 safe
expenditures exceeding $25,000,000 (in
second-quarter 1980 dollars) If authority
to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures:
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 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 authonzed
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 eith
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 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)
c. Changes to authorization. If an
authorization under paragraph VILC.2.
Is no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility, a
new notice of intent satisfying the
requirements of paragraph ILC must be
submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports. information,
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative.
d. Certification. Any person signing
documents under this section shall make
the following certification: ‘! 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 prope
gathered and evaluated the informat
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons who manage the
-------
Federal Register /VoL57 No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 1992 / Notices
44455
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 known
violations.”
H. Penalties 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
maLntalned 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
imp risoriment for not more than 2 years.
or by both.
I. 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 tines and imprisonment
described in sectIon 309 of the CWA.
J. oil and Hazardous Subs lance
Liability. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
my legal action or relieve the permittee
.rom any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee Is or
may be subject under section 311 of the
CWA.or section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
K. Property Rights. The issuance of
this permit does not convey any
property rights of any sort, 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.
I. 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.
M. Requiring an Individual Permit or
an’ Alternative General Permit. 1. The
Elu ector may require any person
authorized by this permit to apply for
andf or obtain either an Individual
“ ‘PDES permit or an alternative NPDES
nasal permit. Any Interested person
iy petition the Director to take action
. 4 nder this paragraph. The Director may
require any owner or operator
authorized to discharge under this
permit to apply for an individual NPDES
permit only if the owner or operator has
been notified in writing that a permit
application is 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 issuance or denial 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, individual
permit applications shall be submitted
to the address of the appropriate
Regional Office shown in part VLD.i.d
(reporting: where to eubmit) of this
permit. The Director may grant
additional tune to submit the application
upon request of the applicant. If an
owner or operator fads to submit in a
timely mannet an Individual NPDES
permit application as required by the
Director. 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. The owner or operator shall
submit an individual application (Form I
and Form 2F) with reasons supporting
the request to the Director. individual
permit applications shall be submitted
to the address of the appropriate
Regional Office shown in Part VLD.l.c,
of tins permit. The request may be
granted by the issuance 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 authorized for
coverage under an alternative NPDES
general permit. the applicability of this
permit to the individual NPDES
permittee is automatically terminated on
the effective date of the individual
permit or the date of authorization of
coverage under the alternative general
permit. whichever the case may be.
When an individual NPDES permit is
denied 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 NPDES permittee is
automatically terminated on the date of
such denial, unless otherwise specified
by the Director.
N. State/Environinentol Lows. 1.
Nothing in thiB permit shall be construed
to preclude the institution of any legal
action or relieve the permittee from any
resporisibuhties. liabilities. or penalties
established pursuant to any applicable
State law or regulation under authority
preserved by section 510 of the Act.
2. No condition of this permit shall
release the permittee from any
responsibility or requirements under
other environmental statutes or
regulations.
0. Proper Operation and
Maintenance. The permittee shall at all
times properly operate and maintain all
facilities arid systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
permlttee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and 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 compliance
with the conditions of the permit.
P. Monitoring and records. 1. Samples
and 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 records
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
copies of the reports required by this
permit, and records of all data used to
complete the application for tius permit.
for a period of at least 8 years from the
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:
I. References and written procedures.
when available, for the analytical
techniques or methods used: and
-------
44456
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 1992. / Notices
g. The results of such anaLyses,
Including the bench sheets, instrument
readouts, computer disks or tapes, etc..
used to determine these results.
4. Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR Part 138, unless other test
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
Q. Inspection and Entry. The
permittee shall allow the Director or an
authorized representative of EPA, the
State. 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
permit: and
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities or equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment).
R. 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.
S. Bypass of Tteatment Facility. 1.
Notice:
a. Anticipated bypass. If a permittee
subject to the numeric effluent limitation
of Part V.A of this permit knows In
advance of the need for a bypass, he or
she shall submit prior notice. If possible,
at least ten days before the data of the
bypass; including an evaluation of the
anticipated quality and effect of the
pass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
permittee subject to the numeric effluent
limitation of Part V.A of tha permit shall
submit notice of an unanticipated
bypass. Any information regarding the
unanticipated bypass shall be provided
orally within 24 hours from the time the
pemiittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission
shall also be provided within 5 days of
the time the permittee became 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 not been
corrected, the anticipated time it is
expected to contlnue and steps taken or
planned to reduce. eliminate. and
prevent reoccurrence of the bypass.
2. Prohibition of bypass: a. Bypass is
prohibited and the Director 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 facilities, retention of
untreated wastes. or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not satisfied
if the permittee should, in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment, have
installed adequate backup equipment to
prevent a bypass which occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance: and
(3) The perinittee submitted notices of
the bypass.
b. The Director may approve an
anticipated bypass after considering Its
adverse effects, if the Director
determines that It will meet the three
conditions listed In Part Vi i S.2.a,
T. Upset Conditions. 1. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with
technology.based numeric effluent
limitations in Part V.A of this permit 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 perrnittee 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
permittee can identify the specific
cause(s) of the upset:
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated, and
c. The pernuttee provided oral notice
of the upset to EPA 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 permittee became aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description
of the upset and its cause: the period of
the upset; including exact dates and
times, and if the 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 upset.
3. In any enforcement proceeding the
perrnittee seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
Part VIII. Reopener Clause
A. It 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 VILM (requiring
an individual permit or alternative
general permit) of this permit or the
permit may be modified to include
different limitations and/or
requirements.
B. Permit modification or revocation
will be conducted according to 40 CFR
122.62. 122.63. 122.64 and 124.5.
Part IX. Termination of Coverage
A. Notice of Termination. Where all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are authorized by
this permit are eliminated, or where the
operator of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity at a
facility changes. the operator of the
facility may submit a Notice of
Termination that Is signed in
accordance with Part VU.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit. The Not:
of Termination shall include the
following informatioru
1. Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. Where a street
address for the site is not available, the
location of the approximate center of the
site must be described in terms of the
latitude and longitude to the nearest 15
seconds, or the section. township arid
range to the nearest quarter section:
2. The name, address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Termination:
3. The NPDES permit number for the
storm water discharge associated with
Industrial activity identified by the
Notice of Termination:
4. An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity has been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges has
change and
5. The following certification signed in
accordance with Part VU.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit: ‘i certify
under penalty of law that all storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified
facility that are authorized by a NPDES
general permit have been elinunated o
that I am no longer the operator of the
Industrial activity. I understand that by
submitting this notice of termination,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / NOtices
that I am no longei’ authorized to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity under this general
permit, and that discharging pollutants
in storm water assoc ated with
industrial activity to waters of the
United States is unlawful under the
Clean Water Act where the discharge is
not authorized by a NPD permit. I
also understand that the submittal of
this notice of termination does not
release an operator from liability for any
viola tions of this permit or the Clean
Water Act.”
B. Addr sg. All Notices of
Termination are to be sent, using the
form provided by the Director (or a
photocopy thereof) . to the Director of
the NPDES program in care of the
following address: Storm Water Notice
of Termination, P0 Box 1185,
Newington, VA 22122,
Part X. Definitions
Rest Management Proctices (“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.
BMP also Indude treatment
requirements. operating procedures, and
practices to control facility 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 ninoffmean the rainfall
runoff from or throtigh any coal storage
pile.
CWJI means Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendme its of 1072).
Director means the Regional
Administrator or an authorized
representative. -
Flow-weight efj composite sample
means a composite sample consisting of
a mixture of aliquots collected ata
constant time interval, where the
volume of each aliquot Is proportlon j to
the flow rate of the discharge,
Landfill means an area of land or an
excavation in which waste, are placed
for permanent disposal, and which Is not
a land application unit, surface
impoundment, injection well, or waste
pile.
Land application unit means an area
where wastes are applied onto or
ncorporated into the sot! surface
‘A copy of the approved NOT (ann ii provided to
Appendix Dot this OOflcS.
(excluding manure spreading
Operations) for treatment or disposal.
Large and Medium municipal
separate slam, sewer system means all
municipal separate storm sewers that
are either: (I) located In an incorporated
place (city) with a population of 100.000
or more as determined by the latest
Decennial Census by the Bureau of
Census (these cities are listed In
Appendices F and C of 40 R Part 122);
or (ii) located in the counties with
unincorporated urbanized populations
of 100,000 or more, except municipal
separate storm sewers that are located
in the incorporated places, townships or
towns within such counties (these
counties are listed in Appendices H and
lot 40 CFR 122); or (ii i) 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 U of this
permit.)
NOT means notice of termination (see
Part U of this permit.)
Point Source means 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 discharges.
This term does not include return flows
from irrigated agriculture or agricultural
storm water runoff.
Section 313 waLer priority chemical
means a chemical or chemical
categories which are: (1) are listed at 40
CFR 372.85 pursuant to Section 313 of
the Emergencypjans and Coinniunity
Right-to-Know Act ( A) (also
known as Title 11! of the Superfunci
Amendments and Reauthonzation Act
(SARA) of 1986): (2) are present at or
above threshold levels at a facility
subject to EPCRA Section 313 reporting
requirements, and (3) that meet at least
one of the following criteria: (i) 858
listed in Appendix D of 40 Cl R 122 on
either Table U (organic priority
pollutants), Table Ill (certain metals,
cyanides, and phenols) or Table V
(certain toxic pollutant, and hazardous
substances); (11) are listed as a
hazardous substance pursuant to section
311(b)(2](AJ of the CWA at 40 R 118,4;
or (ill) are pollutants for which A has
published acute or chronic water quality
lteria. See Addendum B of this permit
Significant materials Includes, but is
not limited to: raw materials: fuels;
materials such as solvents, detergents.
and plastic pellets; finished materials
44457
such as metallic products: raw materials
used in food processing or production:
hazardous substances designated under
sectIon 101(14) of CERCLA; any
chemical the facility Is required to report
pursuant to EPCRA Section 313;
fertilizers; pesticides; and waste
products such as ashes, slag and sludge
that have the potential to be released
with storm water discharges.
Significant spills Includes, but is not
limited to: releases of oil or hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantifies under section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (see 40 CFR 110.10 and CFR
117.21) or section 102 of CERCLA (see 40
CFR 302.4).
Storm Water means storm water
runoft snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
Storm Water Associated with
!ndusLriaJActJv,tym the discharge
from any conveyance which is used for
collecting and conveying storm water
and which is directly related to
manufacturijig, 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 us
paragraphs (I) through (x) of this
deflnilion_, the term Includes, but is not
limited to, storm water discharges from
industrial plant yards; 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 401):
sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling
equipment 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 pest and significant
materials remain and are exposed to
storm water. For the categories of
industries Identified in paragraph (xi) of
the definition, the term includes only
storm water discharges from all areas
(except access roads and rail lines)
listed In the previous sentence where
material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials, intermediate
products. final products, waste
material,, by-products, or Industrial
machinery are exposed to slam, water.
For the purposes of this paragraph,
material handling activities include the:
storage, loading and unloading,
transportation, or conveyance of any
-------
44458
Federal Register I Vol . 57,No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
raw material, intermediate product.
finished product, by-product or waste
product. The term excludes areas
làcated on plant lands separate from the
plants 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 (I)—(xi)
of this definition) include those facilities
designated under 122.28(a)(1)(v). The
llowing categories of facilities are
considered to be engaging In “Industrial
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 (xl) of this
definition);
(ii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 24 (except
2434). 28 (except 265 and 287). 28 (except
283 and 285), 29, 311, 32 (except 323). 33,
3.441. 373;
(iii) Facilities classified as Standard
rndestrlal Classifications 10 through 14
(mineral industry) including active or
inactive mining operations (except for
areas of coal mining operations no
Innger 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
fa r areas of non-coal mining operations
which have been released from
applicable State or Federal reclamation
requirements after December 17. 1990)
and oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operations, or
truzi mission facilities that discharge
strum water conthminn ted by contact
with or that has come into contact with,
any overburden. raw material.
intermediate products, finished
products. byproducts or waste products
rocated on the site of such operations;
inactive mining operations are mining
sites that are not being actively mined.
but which have an identifiable owner/
cp ator.
(IV) Hazardous waste treatment.
storage. or disposal facilities, including
those that are operating under interim
status or a permit under Subtitle C of
(v) Landfills, land application sites.
and open dumps that have received any
industrial wastes (waste that to 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, and
automobile junkyarda, including but
limited to those classified as Standard
Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093;
(vii) Steam electric power generating
facilities, including coal handling sites:
(viii) Transportation facilities
classified as Standard Industrial
Classifications 40. 41. 42 (except 4221—
25). 43, 44, 45 and 5171 whIch have
vehicle maintenance shops, equipment
cleaning operations, or airport detcing
operations. Only those portions of the
facility that are either involved in
vehicle maintenance (Including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs,
painting, fueling, and lubrication),
equipment cleaning operations, airport
deicing operations, or which are
otherwise identified under paragraphs
(i)—(vii) or (ix)—(xi) of this subsection are
associated with industrial actlvity
(ix) 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. Including land
dedicated to the disposal of sewage
sludge that are located within the
confines of the facility, with a design
flow of 1.0 mgd or more, or required to
have an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CFR 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 503;
(x) Construction activity induding
clearing, 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
larger common plan or development of
sale
(xi) Facilities under Standard
Industrial Classifications 20,21,22.23,
2434,25,285,287,27,283,235, 30,31
(except 311), 323, 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
mixture of equal volume aliquots
collected at a constant time Interval.
On June 4, 1992, the United State. Court of
Appeal. (or the Ninth Circuit remanded the
exclusion (or manufacturing facilities in categoly
(x l) which do not have material, or acttvitlei
exposed to storm water to the CPA lot further
rulemaking (No. 90-70671 and 91-70200J.
Upset means an exceptional Incident
in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with the
numeric effluent limitations of Part V of
this permit 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,
Waste pile means any
noncontainerized accumulation of soLi
nonflowrng waste that is used for
treatment or storage.
Waters of the United States means:
(a) All waters which are currently
used, were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, induding all waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide:
(b) All Interstate waters, including
interstate “wetlands”;
(c) All other waters such as interstate
lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats,
sand.flats, wetlands, slougho. 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:
(d) AU impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this defin tlon
(e) Tributaries of waters identified In
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
definition:
(1) The territorial sea and
(gJ Wetlands adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified In paragraphs (a)
through (f) of this definition,
Waste treatment systems. Including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirements of CWA are not
waters of the United States.
Part XL State Specific Conditions
The provisions of this part provide
modifications or additions to the
applicable conditions of Parts I through
IX of this permit, The additional
revisions and requirements listed below
are set forth in connection with
particular State, Indian lands and
-------
Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992/ Notices
44459
Federal facilities and only apply to the
States and Federal facilities specifically
referenced.
A. Massachusetts. Massachusetts 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part I of the permit Is revised to
read as follows:
Part I Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. This permit covers all
areas of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
B. Eligibility.
3. Limitations on Coverage.
S S • S S
h. new or Increased storm water
discharges to coastal water segments
within Massachusetts designated as
“Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC) (for information on
A C. please contact the Executive
Office of Environmental Main. Coastal
Zone Management at (617) 7V—9630);
L new or increased discharges. as
defined at 314 CMR 4.02(19). whIch meet
the definition of “storm water
discharge. as defined at 314 O4R
3.04(2)(a)(l) or (2)(b). to Outstanding
Resource Waters which have not met
the provisions of 314 QvtR 4.04(3) and
Part Ut C.1 of this permit.
• S S S S
2. Part U of the permit is revised to
ead as follows:
Port 11. Notice of Intent Requirements
* S S S S
C. Where to Siibmil
1. Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NO! form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof). The
form in the Federal Register notice In
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling the Storm Water
Hotline at (703) 821—4823, or the NPDES
Programs Operations Section at US EPA
Region 1 at (617) 565—3525. NOIs must be
signed in accordance with Part V1LG
(signatory requirements) of this permit.
NOla are to be submitted tothe Director
of the NPDES progmm In care of the
following address: Storm Water Notice
of Intent. US EPA Region 1, MA. P0 Box
1215. Newington, VA 22122.
2. A copy of the NO! for all discharges
to Outstanding Resource Waters shall
be submitted to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at the following address:
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. Storm Water
Notice of Intent. BRP-WP 43. P0 Box
‘62. Boston, Massachusetts 02211.
for details on filing for permits with
.vlA PEP see 310 (R 4.00. Timely
Action Schedule and Fee Provisions. For
other information call the MA DEP
Information Services Section at (617)
338-2255 or the Technical Services
Section of the DEP Division of Water
Pollution Control at (508} 792—7470.
* * S S S
3. Part 1ff of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part 111. Special Conditions
. S S S I
C. Set Backs and Best Management
Pro ctices
1. Storm water discharge outfall pipes
to public water supplies and other
Outstanding Resource Waters shall be
removed and set back when diechargers
are seeking to Increase the discharge or
change the site storm water drainage
system all new discharge outfalls must
be set back from the receiving water.
Receiving swales for outfall pipes shall
be prepared to minimize erosion and
maximize Infiltration prior to discharge.
The goal is to infiltrate as much as
feasible: Infiltration trenches and
basins, filter media dikes and jot other
Bl .fl’s shall be used to meet the goal.
Discharges shall employ Best
Management Practices (BMPsI for
controlling storm water. See Protecting
Water Quality in Urban Areas by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Division of Water Quality as a reference
for BMPs.
2. Storm water discharges to waters
that are not classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters shall be subject to the
requirements of this permit. New
discharge outfall pipes shall be designed
to be set back from the receiving water
when site conditions allow. For exiatirig
discharge outfall pipes, when the storm
water drainage system is undergoing
changes. outfall pipes should be set
back from the receiving water. A
receiving swale, Infiltration trench or
basin, filter media dikes or other UtvIPS
should be prepared with the goal to
minimise erosion yet maximize
Infiltration or otherwise improve water
quality prior to discharge.
3. All discharges to Outstanding
Resource Waters authorized under this
permit must be provided the best
practical method of treatment to protect
and maintain the designated use of the
outstanding resource.
8. Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A.. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region II in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
• S I • I
.Z Port I/I. Special Conditions
S S S • •
B. Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities.
1.
. S I S I
c. The permiltee shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a wntten description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released). the
date that such release occurred . the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph HLB.1.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
VI.D.1.c (reportlng where to submit) of
this permit
• • S I I
C. Commonwealth Special Conditions.
1. lithe construction of any treatment
system of waters composed entirety of
storm water is necessary. the permittee
shall obtain the approval from the
Environmen.tal Quality Board (EQB) of
the engineering report. plans and
specifications.
2. The perznittee shall operate all air
pollution control equipment in
compliance with the applicable
provisions of the Regulation for the
Control of Atmospheric Pollution, as
amended, to avoid water pollution as a
result of air pollution fallout
3. The permittee shall submit to EQS
with a copy to the Regional Office, the
following information regarding its
storm water discharge associated with
Industrial acnvity The number of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity covered by this
permit, and a drawing Indicating the
drainage area of each storm water
discharge associated with Industrial
activity outfall and its respective
sampling pointi
a. For industrial activities that have
begun on or before October 1, 1992. the
permittee Is required to submit the
information listed above no later than
November 16. 1992.
b. For Industrial activities that have
begun after October 1, 1992. the
permitlee is required to submit the
information lisfed above within forty
five (45) days of submission of the NOt.
4. The sampling point(s) for the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity shall be labeled with
a lB In. x 12 In. (minimum dimensions)
sign that reads as follows: Punto de
Muestreo do A,gua do Liuvia.
3. Port W Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
• • S S •
-------
44460
Federal Resister I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
A. Deadlines for P/an Preparation and
Compliance.
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
IV.A.3 (oil and gas operations). 4
(facilities denied or rejected from
participation in a group applicatIon), 5
(special requirements) and 6 (later
dates) the plan for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity that is existing on or before
Octo bet 1. 1992:
a. shall be prepared on or before April
1. 1993 (and updated as appropriate):
L No later than April 1, 1993. the
permittee shall submit to the EQB with a
copy to the Regional Office. a
certification stating that the Plan was
developed in accordance with the
requirements established in this permit.
All certification. except those prepared
by professional engineer licensed in
Puerto Rico. shall be submitted with a
sworn statement attesting to the
professional qualifications of the
individual who developed the Plan.
b. shall provide for implementation
and compliance with the terms of the
plan on or before October 1. 1993:
i. No later than October 1. 1993. the
permittee shall submit to EQB with a
copy to the Regional Office, a
certification stating that the Plan was
implemented in accordance with the
conditions and requirements established
in this permit. The certification should
be signed by the person who fulfills the
signatory requirements in accordance
with Part VILG of this permit.
2. a. The plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences after
October 1, 1992 shall be prepared. and
except as provided elsewhere in this
permit. shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit on or before the date 30 calendar
days after the commencement of
industnal activity (and updated as
appropriate);
i. Within thirty (30) days of the
commencement of industrial activity, the
permittee shall submit to EQS with a
copy to the Regional Office, a
certification stating that the Plan has
been developed and implemented in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements established In this permit.
The certification should be signed by the
person who fulfills the signatory
requirements in accordance with Part
VILG of this permit.
3. The plan for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
an oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operation or
transmission facility that is not required
to submit a permit application on or
before October 1. 1992. in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(ili), but after
October 1. 1992, has a discharge of a
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
substance for which notification is
required pursuant to either 40 CFR 110.6,
40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 3016, shall be
prepared and except as provided
elsewhere In this permit, shall provide
for compliance with the terms of the
plan and this permit on or before the
date 30 calendar days after the first
knowledge of such release (and updated
as appropriate):
a. Within thirty (30) days of the first
knowledge of such release. the permittee
shall submit to EQB with a copy to the
Regional Office, a certification stating
that the Plan has been developed and
implemented in accordance with the
conditions and requirements established
In this permit. The certification should
be signed by the person who fulfills the
signatory requirements in accordance
with Part VU.G of this permit.
C. Keeping Plans CurrenL
1. The permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design.
construction, operation. or maintenance.
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States or if
the storm water pollution prevention
plan proves to be ineffective in
eliminating or significantly minimizing
pollutants from sources identified under
Part IV.D.2 (description of potential
pollutant sources) of this permit. or in
otherwise 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 11/.8 (above).
2. In addition to Part IV.C.1 (above),
the Plan should be reviewed at least
once every three (3) years to determine
the need to update the Plan:
a. If no event occurs which requires
the modification of the Plan, the
engineer or qualified professional who
performs the corresponding review must
submit to EQB with a copy to the
Regional Office, a certification stating
the Plan has been reviewed and based
upon such review no modification of the
Plan has been necessary. on
b. If events have occurred which
require the modification of the Plan, the
engineer or quahfied professional who
performs the corresponding revision
must submit to EQB with a copy to the
Regional Office, a certification stating
the modifications performed to the Plan.
As soon as the modifications performed
to the Plan are implemented. the person
who fulfills the signatory requirements
in accordance with Part VII.G of this
permit, shall submit to EQB with a copy
to the Regional Office, a certification
stating that the modifications of the Plan
have been implemented.
c. All certification, except those
prepared by a professional engineer
licensed in Puerto Rico. shall be
submitted with a sworn statement
attesting to the professional
qualifications of the individual who
developed the Plan.
4. Part V. Numeric and Narrative
Eff!uent Limitations
. I I I I
B. All Perirnttees. The discharge(s)
composed entirely of storm water shall
not cause the presence of oil sheen in
the receiving body of water.
C. All Permittees. The storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity covered by this permit. will not
cause violation to the applicable water
quality standard in the receiving body of
water.
5. Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• I I
B. Monitoring Requirements.
1. Rain Gauge.
a. All permittees with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that have begun on or before
October 1. 1992. should install a rain
gauge by November 1. 1992.
b. For permittees where industrial
activity has begun after October 1. 1992.
the rain gauge must be installed on or
before the date of submission of the
NOL
c. The permittee must keep daily
records of the rain, indicating the date
and amount of rainfall (inches in 24
hours). A copy of these records shall be
submitted to EQB with a copy to the
Regional Office. in accordance with Part
VLD (reportIng where to submit) of this
permit. The reports are due the 28th day
of January. April. July and October. The
first report may cover less than three
months and shall be attached to the
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).
2. Monitoring Requirements. During
the period beginning on the effective
date and lasting through the expiration
date of this permit. permittees with
facilities identified in Parts VLB.2. a
through j. must monitor those storm
water discharges identified below at
least quarterly (4 tImes per year) except
as provided in VLB.5 (sampling waiver).
VI.B.8 (representative discharge), and
VI.C.1 (toxicity testing). Permittees with
facilities identified in Parts Vl.B.2. a
through j. (below) must report in
accordance with Part VI.D (reporting:
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permittee
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 1992 / Notices
44461
shall provide the date and duration (in
hours) of the storm event(s) sampled
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
.nches) 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 an estimate of the
size of the drainage area (in square feet);
an estimate of the runoff coefficient of
the drainage area (e.g. low (under 40%),
medium (40% to 65%) or high (above
65%)); and the total volume (in gallons)
of the discharge sampled.
a. Section 313 of EPCRA Facilities. In
addition to any monitoring required by
Parts VI.B2.b through p., facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are subject to
Section 313 of EPCRA for chemicals
which are classified as “Section 313
water priority chemicals” are required
to monitor storm water that is
discharged from the facility that comes
into contact with any equipment, tank.
container or other vessel or area used
for storage of a Section 313 water
priority chemical, or located at a truck
or rail car loading or unloading area
where a SectIon 313 water priority
chemical is handled for Oil and Grease
(mg/L); Five Day Biochemical Oxygen
lemand (BOD5) (mg/L): Chemical
ixygen Demand (COD) (mg/i.); Total
Suspended Solids (mg/L); Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/i.); Total
Phosphorus (nig/L): pH; acute whole
effluent toxicity and any Section 313
water priority chemical for which the
facility is subject to reporting
reqwrements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1986. These
facilities are not required to submit the
estimate of the size of the drainage area
and the estimate of the runoff coefficient
of the drainage area.
• • S S •
g. Airports. At airports with over
50.000 flight operations per year.
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
areas where aircraft or airport deicing
operations occur (including runways,
taxiways, ramps, and dedicated aircraft
deicing stations) are required to monitor
such storm water that Is discharged
from the facility when deicirig activities
are occurring for Oil and Grease (mg/i.):
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) (mg/i.): Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/U; Total Suspended
olids (TSS) (mg/i.); pH: and the
imary ingredient used in the deicing
naterials used at the site (e.g. ethylene
glycol. urea. etc.).
h. Coal-fired Steam Electric Facilities.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
coal handling sites at coal fired steam
electric power generating facilities
(other than discharges in whole or in
part from coal piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
423—which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit) are required to
monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for Oil and
grease (mg/i.), pH. TSS (mg/U), total
recoverable copper (mg/I). total
recoverable nickel (mg/I) and total
recoverable zinc (mg/I).
I. Animal Handling/Me at Packing.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
animal handling areas, manure
management (or storage) areas, and
production waste management (or
storage) areas that are exposed to
precipitation at meat packing plants,
poultry packing plants, and facilities
that manufacture animal and marine
fats and oils, are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility for Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/U); oil and grease (mg/L); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/U); Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L): Total
Phosphorus (mg/i.): ph; and fecal
coliform (counts per 100 Ml).
J. Additional Facilities. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity described below are
subject to storm water monitoring
requirements for the following
parameters: Oil and Grease (mg/U:
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg i
U; Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/U);
pH; and any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the facility is
subject. Facilities include those that:
(I) come in contact with storage piles
for solid chemicals used as raw
materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified as
SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products);
( ii) Are from those areas at automobile
junkyards with any of the following: (A)
over 250 auto/truck bodies with
drivelines (engine, transmission, axles,
and wheels), 250 drivelines, or any
combination thereof (in whole or in
parts) are exposed to storm water (B)
over 500 auto/truck units (bodies with or
without drivelines in whole or in parts)
are stored exposed to storm water or
(C) over 100 unIts per year are
dismantled and drainage or storage of
automotive fluids occurs in areas
exposed to storm water;
(iii) Come into contact with lime
storage piles that are exposed to storm
water at lime manufacturing facilities;
(iv) Are from oil handling sites at oil
fired steam electric power generating
facilities;
(v) Are from cement manufacturing
facilities and cement kilns (other than
discharges in whole or in part from
material storage piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
411—which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit):
(vi) Are from ready-mixed concrete
facilities: or
(vii) Are from ship building and
repairing facilities.
3. Monitoring Requirements for All
Other Industries. During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit, permittees with facilities
that are not identified in Parts VI.B.2. a
through j. (above) must monitor those
storm water discharges at least
quarterly (4 times per year) except as
provided in VLB.5 (sampling waiver),
and VLB.6 (representative discharge).
Permittees identified in this paragraph
are required to monitor such storm
water discharges from the facility for
Oil and Crease (mg/U); pH; Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Biological
Oxygen Demand (mg/I); Chemical
Oxygen Demand (mg/I) (mg/U); Total
Suspended Solids (mg/U): Total
Phosphorous (mg/I): Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (mg/I), Nitrate plus Nitrite as
Nitrogen (mg/I); and any pollutant
limited in an effluent limitation guideline
to which the process wastewater stream
at the facility is subject to. Permittees
identified in this paragraph must report
in accordance with Part VLD (reporting
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed in this paragraph, the
permittee shall provide 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 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 85%)}.
4. Sample Type. Facilities should
sample the discharge during normal
business hours. In the event that the
discharge commences during normal
business hours, the perrnlttee shall
attempt to meet the sampling
requirements specified in this permit
even if this requires sampling after
-------
4 i462
Federal_Register / VoL 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
normal business hours. For discharges
from holding ponds or other
impoundments with a retention period
greater than 24 hours, (estimated by
dividing 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)
a minimum 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
samples 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 rainfall) storm
event. The grab sample shall be taken
during the first thirty mmutes of the
discharge. If the collection of a grab
sample during the first thirty 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 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 In each hour of
discharge for the entire discharge or for
the first three hours of the discharge,
with each aliquot being separated by a
minimum period of fifteen minutes. Grab
samples only must be collected and
analyzed for the determination of pH.
cyanide. whole effluent toxicity. fecal
coliform. and oil and grease. The
permittee must document the conditions
under which the storm water samples
were taken, how many manual grab
samples were taken for the composite
sample, and the date of sampling, and
must attach this documentation to the
sampling results. The permittee should
attempt to meet the above protocol and
collect samples beginning on the first
day of the reporting period in order to
ensure compliance with th. specified
sampling protocol and requirements.
7. Aiteniative to WATPommeter. A
discharger that is subject to the
monitoring requirements of Parts VLB.2.
a through d. may. in lieu of monitoring
for acute whole effluent toxicity.
monitor for pollutants identified in
Table, U and Ill of Appendix D of 40
CFR 122 (see Addendum A of this
permit) that the discharger knows or has
reason to believe are present at the
facility site. Such determinations are to
be based on reasonable best efforts to
identify significant quantities of
materials or chemicals present at the
facility. Dlschargers must also monitor
for any additional parameter Identified
In Parts V1.B.2.a through d.
C.
.
2.
• . • •
• • • I
D. Reporting. Where to Submit.
1.
a. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VLB.2. a through j.. or Part VI.B.3. shall
monitor samples collected during the
sampling periods on a quarterly basis;
L The first sampling period runs from
October 1 through December 31:
ii. The second sampling period runs
from January 1 through March 31;
iii. The third sampling period runs
from April 1 through June 30 and
iv. The fourth sampling period runs
from July 1 through September 30.
b. Such permittees shall submit
monitoring results obtained during the
reporting period on Discharge
Monitoring Report Form(s) postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the month
following the sampling period. A
separate Discharge Monitoring Report
Form is required for each sampling
period. The first report may cover less
than three (3) months.
c. Signed copies of Discharge
Monitoring Reports required, individual
permit applications and all other reports
required herein, shall be submitted to
the Director of the NPDES program at
the following address: United States
EPA. Region 11. Water Management
Division. (2WM—WPC), Storm Water
Staff. 28 Federal Plaza, New York, NY
10278.
2. Additional Notification. Signed
copies of discharge monitoring reports
required, individual permit applications
and all other reports required herein.
shall be submitted to the following
Commonwealth Agency Water Quality
Area. P.R. Environmental Quality Board,
P.O. Box 11488, Santurce. Puerto Rico
tX 910.
• . • I •
& Part VU. Standard Permit Conditions
• I I I I
C. Sign atory Requirements. All
Notices of Intent. Notices of
Termination. storm water pollution
prevention plans, reports, certifications
or information either submitted to the
Director or EQB (and/or the operator of
a large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer system), or that this permit
requires be maintained by the permittee,
shall be signed.
• . . . I
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director or EQB 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
S S S • S
0. 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 and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and 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 compliance
with the conditions of the permit. Also.
proper operation and maintenance
includes, but Is not limited, to effective
performance based on designed facility
removals, adequate funding. effective
management qualified operator staffing.
adequate training, adequate laboratory
and process controls.
C. Delaware. Delaware 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
readi
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
Federal facilities administered by EPA
Region 3 In the State of Delaware.
2. Part 11 of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
S • S I S
C. Where to Submit.
1. FacilitIes which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NOl form provided by the
Director ( or photocopy thereof). The
form in the Federal Register notice in
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821—4823. NOIs
must be signed In accordance with Part
VILG (signatory requirements) of this
permit. NOIs are to be submitted to the
Director of the NPDES program in care
of the following address: Storm Water
Notice of Intent, P0 Box 1215,
Newington, VA 22122.
2. A copy of all Notices of Intent
(NOls) shall be submitted to the State of
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 57, No. 187 1 Friday, September 25, 1992 / Notices
44463
Delaware at the following address:
Water Pollution Control Branch. NPDES
Storm Water Program. Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings
Highway, P.O. Box 1401. Dover, DE
19903.
. . . . .
3. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Port/V Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
. . . . .
B. Signature and Plan Review.
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VLLG (signatory
requirements), and be retained on-site at
the facility which generates the storm
water discharge in accordance with Part
VLE (retention of records) of this permit.
A copy of the plan, as well as
subsequent revisions, shall also be
submitted to the State of Delaware at
the following address: Water Pollution
Control Branch. NPDES Storm Water
Program. Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box
1401. Dover. DE 19903.
• S S S
D. Contents of the Plan.
• • I S S
3. Measures and Controls.
• • S • S
d. Inspections. in addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation required under Part IV 4 of
this permit, qualified facility personnel
shall be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility. The
areas where significant materials are
stored shall be inspected once per
month to determine the availability of
significant materiaLs to be contributed to
storm water runoff, If it is determined
that storm water or storm water runoff
is coming in contact with significant
materials, the storm water pollution
prevention plan shall be amended
appropriately to eliminate or reduce the
exposure. Also. all structurai controls
shall be inspected after every rainfall
event that results in runoff to confirm
that these controls are operating
properly. If any structural control is not
operating properly, this situation shall
be corrected immediately or a lime
frame developed for this situation.
Records of all inspections, amendments
to the storm water pollution prevention
plan and corrective actions shall be
naintained.
4. Part VI of the permit Is revised to
reacli
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requ,rements
• . S • •
B. Monitoring Requirements.
3. Annual Momtoring Requirements.
a. Airports. At airports with over
50.000 flight operations per year and at
all Federal airport facilities in the State
of Delaware. storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
areas where aircraft or airport deicing
operations occur (including runways.
taxiways, ramps, and dedicated aircraft
deicing stations) are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility when delcmg activities
are occurring for Oil and Grease mg/L
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/I); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/i.); Ph; Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (mg/i.); and the primary
Ingredient used in the deicing materials
used at the site (e.g. ethylene glycol,
urea. etc.).
* S S S S
D. Reporting: Where to Submit
1.
S S • • •
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Paris
VLD.1.a, VLD.i.b, and VLD.1.c,
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office:
Region 3. DL DC, MD, PA, VA. WV,
United States EPA. Region UI. Water
Man.agement Division. (3WM55).
Storm Water Staff. 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia, PA 19107.
and to the State of Delaware at the
following address;
Water Pollution Control Branch, NPDES
Storm Water Program. Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings
Highway. P.O. Box 1401. Dover, DE
19903.
D. District of Columbia. District of
Colunibia 401 certification special
permit conditions revise the permit as
follows:
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
read:
Port!. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 3 in
the District of Columbia.
2. The following sections are added to
Part L i i of the permit:
Port III. Special Conditions
S S • • I
C. Applicabihty of District of
Columbia Laws. All Federal facility
permittees covered under this permit
must meet all applicable District of
Columbia laws.
D. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal.
The Director may notify any permittee
that additional control measures are
required in order to achieve the 40
percent reduction in nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the main stem of
the Chesapeake Bay by the year WOO, as
mandated by the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
3. Part V of the permit is revised to
read:
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limital ions
A. Coal Pile Runoff. Any discharge
composed of coal pile runoff shall not
exceed a maximum concentration for
any time of 50 mg/i total suspended
solids. Coal pile runoff shall not be
diluted with storm water or other flows
in order to meet this limitation. The Ph
of such discharges shall be within the
range of 6.0-8.5. Any untreated overflow
from facilities designed. constructed and
operated to treat the volume of coal pile
runoff which is associated with a 10
year. 24 hour rainfall event shall not be
subject to the 50mg/I limitation for total
suspended solids. Failure to
demonstrate compliance with these
limitations as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no case later than
October 1. 1995, will constitute a
violation of this permit.
4. Part VI of the permit is revised to
read:
Part Vi. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• * S S •
D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
1.
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VID.1.a, VLD.1.b. and VLD.1.c,
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office:
3. DE DC. MD. PA, VA. WV
United States EPA. Region ID. Water
Management Division. (3WM55),
Storm Water Staff, 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia, PA 19107.
and to the District of Columbia at the
address below
• S S S
-------
464
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday, September 25. 1992 I Notices
Government of the District of Columbia.
Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs. Environmental
Regulation Administration. 2100
Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue S.E..
Washington. DC 20020.
E. American Samoa. American Samoa
401 certification special permit
conditions revise the permit as follows:
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coveirz.ge Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas admmiatered by EPA Region IX in
American Samoa.
2. Part II of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part IL Notice of intent Requirements
. . . . .
C. Where to Submit.
1. FacilitIes which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use an NO! form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof). The
form in the Federal Register notice
in which this permit was published may
be photocopied and used. Forms are
also available by calling (703] 821—823.
NOIs must be signed in accordance with
Part VILG (signatory requirements] of
this permit. NOls are to be 8ub lflitted to
the Director of the NPDES program in
care of the following address: Storm
Water Notice of Intent. P0 Box 1215.
Newington, VA 22122.
2. A copy of the NO! shall be
submitted to American Samoa
Environmental Protection Agency at the
same time as submittal to the tJ.S. EPA.
3. Part IV of the permit Is revised to
read as follows:
PartlY Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
. . S S
B. Signature and Plan Review.
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VU.G (signatory
requirements). and be retained on-site at
the facility which generates the storm
water discharge in accordance with Part
VLE (retention of records] of this permit.
A copy of the plan shall also be
submitted to the American Samoa
Environmental Protection Agency for
review and approvaL
F. Guam. Guam 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Covemge Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region LX iii
Guam.
2. Part II of the permit Is revised to
read as follows:
Parr Ii. Notice of Intent Requirements
S S S S •
C. Where to Submit.
1. FacilitIes which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use an NO! form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof). The
form In the Federal Register notice in
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821—4823. NOEs
must be signed in accordance with Part
VU.G (signatory requirements) of this
permit. NOTs are to be submitted to the
Director of the NPDES program in care
of the following address: Storm Water
Notice of Intent. P0 Box 1215.
Newington, VA 22122.
2. A copy of the NOl also shall be
submitted to appropriate Government of
Guam agencies and the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency at the
following address: D—107 Harmon Plaza.
130 Rojas SL Harmon. Guam 95911
• S S S S
3. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part Th Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
* • I • I
a Signature and Plan Review.
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VU.G (signatory
requirements). and be retained on-site at
the facility which generates the storm
water discharge in accordance with Part
VLE (retention of records) of this permit
A copy of the plan shall also be
submitted to the Guam Environmental
Protection Agency at the following
address: D-.107 Harmon Plaza. 130 Rojas
St.. Harmon. Guam 95911.
• • S S S
4. Part VI of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VL Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• . S S S
D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
1.
• I S
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a. VLD.1.b. and VLD.1.c,
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office: United
States EPA. Region IX. Water
Management Division, (W —5 —1). Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105. and to the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency at the
following address: D—1O7 Harmon Plaza.
130 Rolas St.. Harmon. Guam 95911.
. . S S S
Mdendum A
Table Il—Organic Toxic Pollutants in Each of
Four Fractions in Analysis by Gas
Chromawgraphy/Mau Spectroacopy (GS/
MS)
Voloti/es
acrolein
acrylonitnle
benzene
bromoform
carbon tetrachlonde
chloroberizene
chlorodibro inomethane
chloroethane
2-chloroethyivinyl ether
chloroform
dichlorobromomethane
i.i-dichloroethane
LZ.d ichluroethane
i.i.dichloroethylene
i.2-dichloropropane
1.3 -d lchloropropylene
ethylbenzene
methyl bromide
methyl chloride
methylene chloride
i.i.z.i.tetrachloroethane
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
i2.trans .dlchloroethylefle
1.1.1-tnchloroethafl e
l.12.tnchloroethane
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
Acid Compounds
2-chlorophenol
2.4-dichiorophenol
2.4.dimethy lphenol
4.6uufr ae 5
2.4-dlrutrophenol
2- nitropheflOl
4 -nitrophenol
p-chloro- in-cre8ol
pentachlorophenoi
phenol
2.4.8-tr ichlor opheflol
Bose/Neutral
acenaphthena
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benridine
benzo(a)aanthrac ene
benzo((e)lpyrene
3.4-benxofluoraflthefl e
benzo(ghi)perylena
benzo(k)fluoraiithene
bia(Z.chloroethoxylmethane
bis(2 -chloroethyl)ether
bi (2.chIoroisopropyUether
bts{Z.ethylhexyl)Phth al ate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
butyibenzyi pbthalate
2 .ch loronaphthalefle
4-chiorophenyl phenyl ether
chrysene
dibezo(a.h)anthracene
1.2-thch ior oben zene
-------
Fedexaj Register I V L 57, No. 1V I Fraday, Sep1emb r 25. 1992 I NoLtcea
l.3-dIch ioveb e n eT
1.4-dichjorobenzene
3.3-dichlosvh We
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalete
di-n-butyl phthalate
2.4-dinitrotoluene
2.6-dinitrotoluene
di-n-octyl phthalate
1.2 .diphenylhydrazin,e (as azobeazene)
fluroranthene
fluorerie
hexach ioroben .zer te
hexach lorobuiedien e
hexachlorocyclopentadi n
hexachloroethane
indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene
isophorone
napthalene
nitrobenzene
N-ni trosodimeth
N-rosod l . .n.p s epyIarnn e
N -nltrosodiphenylan uj,e
phenanthrene
pyrene
1.2 .4 -tnchlorobenzene
Pesticides
aldnn
aipha-BI-IC
beta-SHC
gamma
BHC
thlarxiane
L4-DDT
4.(-DDE
4.4•DDD
dieldrin
elpha .endosulfan
‘eta -endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrxn
endrin aldehyde
heptach lor
heptachior epoxide
PCB-1242
PCB-12 ,s i
PCB-1221
Pcs-1232
PCB- 1248
PCB -i28 0
PCB-1o18
toxaphene
Table ill—Other To,dc Pollutants (Metal.
and Cyanide) and Total Phenol.
Antimony. Total
Arsenic. Total
Beryllium. Total
Cadmium. Total
Chromium. Total
Copper. Total
Lead, Total
Mercury. Total
Nickel. Total
Selenium. Total
Silver. Total
Thallium. Total
Zinc. Total
Cyanide. Total
Phenols, Total
Addendum C
Large and Medium Municipalitlesin the
. ,n-Delega ted State or Flonda: Broward.
..jade. Duval. Escambia. Hillsborough,
Orange. Palm Beach, Pinella.. Polk. and
Addendum B
75—01—0
75885
107-02-8
107—13—1
309-00-2
107-05-1
7429—90—5
7664.41—7
62-53-3
120- 12-7
7440—36—0
7647189
28300745
7789819
10025919
7763584
1309644
7440—38—2
1303328
1303282
7784341
1327533
1303339
1332-21—4
542821
71—43.2
92-87-5
100470
98-68-4
100-44—?
7440-41—7
7787475
7787497
7787555
111-44-4
75-25-2
74—83-9
85—68—7
74 .40—43—9
543908
7789428
10108642
7778441
52740166
13765190
592018
133-06-2
83—25-2
15—15-0
56—20—5
57-74—9
7782—50—S
59—60—7
106-90—7
75-00—3
67-66-3
74—87-3
95—57-8
106-48-9
1068304
11115745
Aan
-L
Atdnn (1.4 5â—0Imetharc .. rnh..
Ien . 1.2.3.4.10.10-h flto, .
1.4.4a. 5.8 .8a -hesehya ro.
(1. pfla..4 I t IlL.4a.Deta .. ,5 .sjphe .,
8.atphs,.54 la)-j
M l Q oade
Minimim t sne or . .sst)
M ecens,
—
Antimony 901 5U 5im t ate
—
— th .
M ny
Antimony
s da
mw a

Asbestos (fo 4e).
Beesene.
Berm
Be e
Be o clUonde
8e
B onde
Berylbum ‘*510.
Bis(2-ch toroetnyt) ether
Bromotorn
Bromomethane (Me de )
8u yl pflthaints,
Ced
Cednwm acetate
Cedmem b de
Cedraum de
Caimen enenate
C um weant
Catcajin chromate,
Cntcam mde
Captan (1H -l sctndote -1 .3(2M).
dione.3a.4.7.7a -tee shy o.2.
£(ntch i omethy ewofl.
C b (1 h8 eno& me
caibwTiatel
Ca 4hde
Caiton tettachionde
ih to rdan. (4.7-Methanoin -
dsn.1.2.4.5.6,7.8.acciacho .
2.3.3a.4,7.le4 iex aliyaro -J.
chior 4-
Norobenzens.
chioroethans (Ethyl ctik,,.de )
chioromethan. e Ø Chionde)
2 o r oç hen
Ctvomic acetate
c nac ao
c .
ctw TiM 0o).
a
CoCntto
Co to ta
Cobattot .ullwnate
Cog &.
Cleant ed cane
Ci nc aoetaxe,
Cupoc acetos
ne
Cup.c oivata
Cupnc
Cupflc ge, ammoihatet
C-
cyanoQen ch nde
2A-O (Acex acid. (Z4- otto.o.
12-Dib no e fEthyleiie 4óo-
sde).
D yl p
Duchio.utienzano 4I ed ‘ some.. )
1.2- cb rob.rosgi..

1.4- ct itor nzeq e ,
1..2-Doroe6is Ethytens c-
ads).
1.2 .D,cflIoroeti ,l.ne,
&40ec l .
1.2-Oschtoro ptpoans.
1.3-0 idiIoi o .
Duchiorvos fPho cnc and. 22-
Omethenyl denethyl l
LBenzenem*
4Ith s ha44.c*Uorcpheo y4 ).
h. - 2nth4oromaiflyl).3
0-(2 ’ethylh yl phthaja$e (OEIIP)
Diethyl phthalat
2.4- Oumettiytpneno l
Dimethyl pllthatete.
4.6- O in ,tio -o -a’eso l
2.4-O initrogr ieno t.
L4-Oratiototije n e
Z6-Ces&ototuene
ri-Osoctyl pllthaiate.
1.2.0çho ne (t4y azoben-
E
Ethytbenzene.
Ethylene chbro,mde
Fonnaldehyde
tleptacnio, (1 .4.5.8.7,8,8-Meptacli-
o-3a.4.7Ja-te1rshy o -4.7.
methano ndenej.
He ta ene
Hexach rü ethene
— acid.
hy u re onds
Leet
Lead acet a
Lead enenato
Do
d chiondo
Lead
Lead Suonda
Lead ds.
Lead I*ate
Land steante
Sarasota Counties, and all incorporated
municipalities, the Florida Depmiment of
Transportation, and Chapter 298 Special
Districts within these counties where such
entitles own or operate. in whole or in part, a
municipal separate storm sewer system.
GAS o
Section 313 Water Pnoraly Clieaucols
CAS No I Common name
10101538
74 .40—47—3
1308- Ia-I
10049055
778943?
544183
140174 15
7440 0 - 8
108-39-4
9548-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
142712
12002038
7447394
2251238
7558981
10380297
815827
57—12—5
506774
110—82-7
94—75-7
106-93-4
84—74—2
25321-22-6
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46—7
91—94-1
75—27—4
107-06 —2
540-28-0
120
78-87-5
542-75-8
82—73.7
115-33-2
177-81.7
84—66-2
105-67-9
131—11—3
534-52-1
51—28-5
121—14—2
606-20-2
117-84—0
122-66—7
106-89-8
100-41-4
106934
76—44—8
118—74—1
87-68—3
77—47—4
87-72—I
7647-01—0
74—00—8
7664—39—3
7439-92—1
301042
7784409
7645252
10102484
7758954
13814965
7783462
10101630
10099748
7428480
1072051
-------
44466
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday, September S. 1992 / Notices
52652592
7446142
1314870
592870
58-u-a
14307358
1 0 8-31-6
592041
10045940
7783359
592858
7782867
7439-974
72-43—5
80-62-6
91—20—3
7440-02 -0
15699180
3721 lOSS
7718549
1205448?
14 2 18752
7786814
7897—37-2
98-95-3
88—75—5
100-02-7
82—75—9
821—84—7
56—38-2
87-86-5
108-95-2
75—44—5
7664 4 8-2
7723-14-0
1338464
7784410
10124502
7778509
Da
Lead stA ble.
Lead a
Load thcqtna
Lindane (Cyctohexane. 1,2.3,45.6.
(1 a*W’a.3 beta..4 eipha.5 alo ha..
Obeta. ) .j.
UthMn tfla
MNec ah ida
Mercuric cysmde
Mensc Nn
Macuric sutfats
Mercuric tfbocyalata.
Maaaous IIUsS
Meinay
MeUioxyct*y (Oenwnt 1,1’42.22.
mtheneth ,a(4 . netnrv.
120-82- I
7 1-55 -6
79—00—5
7841-6
95-95-4
88464
7440—62—2
108454
75-01—4
75—35—4
10849$
95 - 41 -8
106—42-3
1330—20—7
7440—66—4
587348
Po m throma
ur
Proptiene ocda
Se len Ium oxide
S ever
SIWeV mwate
Sodium &senate
Sodium nn
Sodium 80 omn
Sodium ctiromata
Sodium cvande.
Sodium sa lam Is
Ca
Strontium clvonata
Sit itene.
SiAluric acid.
I,1.2,2.Tetrnctitoqoemane
Tairactitocoetnyiene (Percfltoroettiy.
l ene f
2.3,5.8-Tetractdoropt*no&
Teveedlyl lead.
Thaffiunt
Thallium suttate
To luene
Toxapflana
Thctiiorton (Ptioaphomc acid. (2.2.2
mcntoro 4iy&oxyethy3.
dime ltiylestevl
1 ,2,4-Tricftioroben2ena
1.1.1.Tnth loroethane (Methyl crib.
ro b in)
1.1 .2.Tnchloroethane
Thcnloroatr iy$ene.
Z4.5 .Tncftborop l’eno b
2.4.8.Tncflboropheno l.
Vanadium (fume or AiM).
V wiyl aeon
Vinyl cfliodde.
Veiybdene d’donde.
m .XØene
o4ylene.
p .X 1er ie,
Xylene (mued isomersi
Zinc (tune a dust)
Zinc acetate
GAS Na_1
Common name
14639975
Zinc arninonium ctiionde
1463998€
Do
52828258
Do
1332016
ZInc borate.
7639458
Zinc bromide.
3486359
Zinc castanets
1846857
Zinc ctilonde
557211
Zinc cyanioe
7753495
Z Inc f Lo rid a
557415
Zinc tonnata
7773884
Zinc hydrosulfrta
7779886
Zinc ntate,
1278 2 2
Zinc phenolsuttonate
13 14641
Zinc ptiosptude
16871719
ZInc silicoiluonos
7733020
Zinc sulfate.
Addendum C
Municipalities With Large and Mrdtun
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
Delaware
New Castle County
Dsstrrct of Columbia
District of Co lumbia
Rondo
Broward. Dade. Duvai, Escanbia.
Hittsborough. Orange. Palm Beach.
Pinellas. Polk. and Sarasota Counties, and
all incorporated municipalities, the Florida
Department of Transportation. and Chapter
298 Special Districts within these counties
where such entities own or operate. in
whole or in part. a municipal separate
storm sewer system.
New York
Buffalo, Bronx Borough. Brooklyn Borough
Manhattan Borough. Queens Borough.
Staten Island Borough
DIWNO CODE 6560.50-N
GAS Na Common rim
GAS Na Conrai name
7789006
151508
75—58-9
91—t-5
778249-2
7446084
744 8 -22 -4
7781888
7631892
7784485
10588019
7775113
143339
10102 188
778 2 823
7789062
100—42-5
7684—93-9
79—34—5
12 7-18-4
935-95.- s
18002
7440—28-0
10031591
108-884
8001-35-a
52-68-6
Methyl methaa ylate
Napt MMnt
Nic*al.
Nickel amsnontan sulfate
NOel ch bonda
Ca
Nickel hydroxide
Nickel meets.
Nicke l sulfate.
Nitric acid.
tent
244itoØ ienoL
4N 1 8’optienal.
N.Neosodm,eu l.$amine
N.NtsoeoS4 pcpØapvna
Pwatuon tPt 4 rou ac acid.
O.O4ethyl-44.aeogtieny l)
esWL
Pea ir i
P t
Piosqena
onc aot
Priospriorus (yellow or allitS
Potycntonmated bçtienyts (PGBsi
Potasaxjin arsenate.
Potasasuin arsenda
Potasaxan bichromata
-------
edeiaI Regi t r / VoL 57. No. 187 / Friday, SepteTnber 25. 1992 / Notices 44467
Appendix G-Nofice Is*eM a d tu o, s
S Ravaros foe thathictlens Fo,m Apç.ousd . .
— —
WusIW D1, DC 2O4
POES J t EPA U d St s une Prc on A e q
FORM P4o*Ice ol intwU (NOl) ear Sto W er Dl.chavges Assoc ded wIth Ind&j r1
Activmy U the NPDES Gerwral Peem 1
Sut r âQn P s Nc of nt nettu s n P1st me party Idarofiod Se on I of Pus u me..sia Jby . M OES p usdWI n
me S ims stwal d .i a i lid sus im
me Mimi arid 1sd*m 1eim I . CESSARY INFOnMAP ON às.iST BE PROVIDED ON This FORM
I Faodty Opereth, fr omiabovi
N ns: I . t..Ittl&SIIIJ liii, i t a , I P 1 1 0 1 1 5 1 I I I i I I I I I
SMius of
Address: I i 1 .4 1 i i I I I I i I I I I 4 1 & I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 0
CJ1 r Ii 111111 III 1411 II St 1..._L._i 11111111 iii
II Fa&liyiSUn Loim on info,wwdal I
______________________________________________ lldiaiLa1lis? wN) 0
I . i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
4 5’ngg— I , . p 1 1 i i I • L I I I I I & I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
city I I 4 1 4 4 i i , t t t i j , a i I Sima t__..L_..J VPCode 1 I I I i i i
Ladtjde. I I I I i I Laiqiv. I I I I I Otus a’ (.,_. .i ,_J Soclion ._ 1 _J T 1shi9 I I I
lU. Si MPtity Woimadim
PfS4OpaJaMiP t15 1 I 4 4 I t I I I 4 4 I I 1 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Roes.wingWeIov dy I . • I I I • a . I
If Ya e F’ flng us a Co .Venril390, *ie Thme JiSIfflo Ti is me FaoI W R0q 141 Sd M Subm 0
Es itorSmWaaiqGenoiaJ P q,nrtNumOe, I I Ow aae eDa& (VoiN) U MoaM? t.2.oi3
SiC a DesI emd
Acovil yCo oo Plenary I , . I d I i i I I i i I I 4th I ii
If Th FilW ofaG.w.
Ar a mDw. I
Ii PlaveOPior E iq NPDES
Pentu5, IMi t 0P jmlieIs. I I LI I 1 1 I 1 1 1 • I I I Ii I • . I I
IV Addrdonai foimaIfon Roqusad Ii ColisSucPon svuSes Oniy
Sian O a . . is the Storm Water PoIk t P ixnPtae
Ez*nated Oahb et ComØan met Sims aridMi
I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I i Sa neniar EzosIonPlans?fYuN) [ ]
V Cer fl doii I esraly undsi pees y of isar thai Pus doo mo arid d adtmen *eie epasmd der my dtro on a suparvelon fl rdwi tPla
system desigAed te ae mai ed parwuSd oce ily calies aid e a me w oemaOa 5u 14 11ed Bused a rriy u uuy of me person a peiscra *me
me .ysmm, or mes. pe ro esoonGIofe lot smennq the mtonn , io ir4wwia ei1ar_js. g, b I’ Sdstof frj e a•
. saIo. arid I em star atom a. signa ai pauses 4w suon ig faise inlamason, ricluding me posanbody of Ine a,d isomimu
—
Pdnt Name: Oats
1111111111(11 I 111111411111.1111 111111
EPA Fern 3510 -6 Ie-02
-------
Ff1. A Nodca O bairn ($051 Foim
F .dsi 1 .1 40 CFR Pail 1 pilsiOls pOI* asufc d lsI I of .Om sai ,
rol miaO*1 *1y B a 1r Xdy (BS ) of iii U S. 51 1510a4 a NaOoi*1
Pa aou ’$ 0I .dwçs 0b,i i Syalsm (NPO€S) psulit Th,opui 04 sit
lty 51*1 lBs aIa 5 a iBm tai U fw nulBt s& ITB a 511011. o0 n viI3wa
w s’ SI. 514P0E3 S*1m ai , G.nsi Psimvt. I you IBIS JN$0i1. about 041.01.,
515* IBId U p . 11 111 W 5115 In ES Si.i 1 l WUIB PJ0 IIW’ . si 4 51Oi1 I B Id m TT*Bi1
U 1. 0 4 1 . 5 1W a pwbc t4 pnçBn I. a&, iivaauid by EP A si a sBus 9v51y. ccn
51 SBim Wa Ho5vls at (‘03) 1 41 ,
WIBi, To F l ). $0 1 Foem
51101. ,mist b. slid B 511. BSowIig t .u.
Sabuil Ws Novs of II
P0 Bos 1213
N. n 1OiL VA 22122
ConupIUIBQ TbS Foim
You ns*1 typO 01 Pull. t I . 1 ’Q inP.osSl 150*51.11151’. WW w P ss..
— tl dw i1 b.Bm* ’ 51. n’*lt& Ab1.WBI. ii .os.aaIy B sBy lsSSfl 5115
mlnB . 1 otd1.1 t 5r$ a d far i ltai,t Uas on. aosos Br .sla brHssl *0 105.
bat not Br puncBadOil mit. tuuWU f’.y vs n.04sd B daily you rsi ns S rout
11.5 5 UI . Je 5aOr 5 01’ 5115 lomt 511. $bIw l Witul Hobi ’ . Ui (70351 821.4823.
SsosIos I Faclmy Opaisour tntonn.lfam
GlIS 5115— 0* 11.04 015 p 51101’. MW. pub(iC oQ*1BmOl% 0151151 COW SI v Slat
opsisBI 015 51s044y C I Il lS dasaibsd In O i ls sp5IosIa,l Ths non’. of 01. op O feB51
01 ITy flOt ba 51 115.1115*301511011.04 * 15011151 The raspoeBbl. psily Is 01. 15
OW COilOBI Sls BoWyi 0 uD01t 155110 OW 51 i5 P lt 015113 nwaigsi Co iv
u.s a ou0oai .uat rsg?*. Esi 5115 osmø.ts 0*U *15 lS(1. rssTlb . 1 S 51’.
a—
Entar 51 ’ . a51CIopI iIIa 1501 to Ildoati 115 IeçL saibtI ol 5111051.151.’ 01 015 6011151
51- FI05 ,U U - Ppjb1. (oOW Olin hoyt 01 stalsI
P. P ttv s 1 .
SacIto . I FacWtytSit s L sdon Iabiioailo.
51 ’s ry ’S UI ai ’$ oftical U I Is iWYB *04 . ....,01 IOst 04011... s .ido lg
d i !. IS *15 ‘ COO. S 115 tp 01 sO *0535.05 . 1 UIs.s. a04caI d i. stats.
5115 lObids silO Io IçWds of 511.601 151 1. 51 1s no.01 IS osi . oe 51 1. q.
Sa l. B..04l and 1*155(1.511.1 11.5151* swti , salon) of l ’s apsIoaulBB cantar
oS 0, s SO.
bdosts 04*01515115 letabty is to I d Oil 1 I01II 1 Iw .
S .c51on il Si. £Wdty 1615110101
ft 51 w in 0110010410955 B a iv*t do ..9121Oi ata r i ’ s v ryiBri (51434). 5,110
Si. .01 1.04 d l . opvslol of 511. MS4 (s. rasils. uity 110115* arId Ill
04 d i. 01idw • k m 0* US4 (A 51434(3 d.&sd U a
or qial 04 (104ud1 1 to sidi 0110159.5515*51111. — I51 5 5
UIBm tB. 010. 101L 0101B5. , BSi .41*dS or sosl,l 01*1*) OWis
0.115001 opvstid by. $135.. a lp. B bolo uql. CaIlI ly. 04t Jv
0 1051151 PISO51C body *1 fl I3w lIMO B’ COtecaig ...T ’W 5 01e1)
50* 4 aty ditat ’iwpas 51.1111 d .ac y B reca 4tç **1 (I). aiutw 0*1101*04015
i __ 11,c r.
I 511.1 Sin 511519 all c0 9SlTT50SS MO a 01111 9101. p au l 11111011 PBS basil
15*110. *010*1 r$ Iy01I In 5115
04*0100115* ii. opsSBr 040*1504115111.. MO13iQ qaniltadss
05130* 1 r. iIflIl* 0* vid wUsOon 04p0110’oll 51.511 ’ 51510
05-
b15O*S — 51* facI .tp a ,opá10 B aulSilO mu0Ing dsB by *I*uI anS of 11,
- Nat I50 jwld 5. a ujbmvt 11101115119 dam.
2 • flaq u*3d B 5*6111 lsOw15 data.
3 Not ,* tad B aufalid 03*1 iusbmuIiig c1I1f .COtBm B’ ‘1151 119
11’... O* 0*1 ,1*5* *055* eBIBIWIQ osm (se.. cloos 2) UTsi Se01on 313
EPCR. 601e.s. 9111*1 ! 11 504 1ab1 531 5t 1*04 d*po .s( UIIIWI11Ofl51UBIBW 51 S. *004
51M51104 600455.601855.1511 osal pfs u ft *10. bsO iy 134*51151%
L1* . In d.. ..r04Iç *0* of up B bt 40104 5*110*0 fr .mi
(SIC) COOlS l B S 05* . dl. pivvpal piO01JCB C I 5*51.55 pio34id
5*015 (s01Ip CI *1. Ids1*Sld I I SOCbOlI 00 1 tea appiiCabOIt
F r01aW aosviee. OsMud In 40 CFR 122.26(bXI4l(i)-(u) 0*1 do not 51ai’ SiC
04,551*1 toutally dssatbs 51 s5 piviopsi pia01 c 3 pi34acsd U I 5*5555 p ud04. 115
B05wsig 2dw W 0101 are B be us.d
HZ • Hazsidcus salts 51555111eflt 5*1595. UI disondo BOliDes. ltxtjdrç 1.5.51* 1
at. 091151319 IjidSi 501,1154*4501 1 paInt 51511*10535 C of RCP.* (40
CFR 122.26 lb)tl4XNjL
If — I .andfIa . (*0 aI . l aio.. . d opsn dim15s dial ,so*. 0l lBs. rscsivad
any 01404 saIls.. W5*alIng O’aa. Slat U ’S sub oCt B rsg is1300fl nidel
b51OS Oaf I RA (4OCFR I22.26 (b)(i4Xvfl ,
SE • S&salnda0* C I95nsiIong 5.515*61190161 ha .15 irç 543$ (40 CPA
122.251 (bXl4X iill.
1W • Trsslns13 ts 5S61Q domesto so.sQs UI any 0010 I 9• 5 60 Q5 01
sasta’atr tesinuld 05510. si syitlill. u.aod I i 11. S15SQS. 05151115111.
rucycu 1 9. *0 r,daiT4*on of nsgsopal a, domsaic s.sag (40 C m 122.28
(bt )l1)(I I)L or. —
CO - Cona uclonacovt0ss(40CFfl 122.251(bKI4)(IU.
S 51 i, ItcHy 504 In Sac01n II lBs 91 1009 5150 di Pvt 1 04 an a cntvsd s1515 *0151
910*9 590010*1 510. 91cI ,BmbCI PB S basil 3*3.91114. 1n10 Oil 910up sDO cibofl
IB111.II in flu o pi ideS.
51 die ,, are 0511., NPOES psnuiB prsa*1Oy siued B’ tis tac ly Or SIB 51501 di SecXn
IL 51*1511 1 p111111 151101% 51511 aOCIC iIOII for Oil 60Wy las 00511 5*61.1100 but no
90111141*1101 hal bOO auqlad. 5 1 . 1 5 15115 5oil 1*111.11
Saction IV Md11Bm1 I tnlOiTT10I0fl Ryoulred far ConaUvct loll Lothats. Only
Conjm eon aclv .caa nitit 11*6 S.cton IV in sd01Ccn B S.coona I 51wou 1 II I.
C ’i$y ounsaucOoli acLsi5.I maId B 01ITB’S15 $ecXn IV
Erutir 51 ’ .. piof.ct s131 dais and Os 51011*1,0 oi.of.oon daB B’ 51. anti,
pinum p10t
Pnovid. .sdm*t. at d i. 1.0415110110* act.. 04 Ols Vs *1 .*sdi sofaS Os
tssbgb.d (iouvId 1.51*0105* M1 5 .
bidiosI. 041.015101. sliril sa1,I dialodl pisimison p6n Br OS so is I I comphano
* 101 a91Ioved 11315 atG’21 5100* i.d iT ’ .’I arId 510511.11 platlI. 901110. Or 113510 5151.1
11111*9.001
Section V C. .lIScaloe
51.0151 14*4155 ØlovidI IS, $11.11. 9 51*1005 Br 1*13115119 Is IS. infomlaDon OIl 514$
app oan Icrit 51 .0 .04 rcg ’iaxians r515 5 15 5 0* epplicliOn B Os sigrId as
F a . ....do. . by a teeponoibt. COIUIVs 04601. 5115d1 1 ,01’.: (1) pru id*0.
$ s*1y. O 5a*sluV. c i vc,9 5sdIt. 04 511. 01190110511 I i ct ’St9. at a 90101951
busalasa 1111050W. OVally 0049511.11.1’. 101IOflflS stid pofcy Or daciton 111.10mg
luncOasla. a,(s)lls 11.11 .9.104 ais a, 115., .I .IBr5JtV ’IQ. 91005o5*t 0 1005151109
1501455 . ...,k,y. . 11*5* Oo. 250 9511UI1.01 IBv IIg 910$ aiviult 55 (55 0’ lSySIId45sISs
325 m01on (in s twe l 1S 0*611). 11 ai4515fly B 51911 daounlSrta
1.5 05.11 U*ltnOd 01 0.1.91150 ‘a 11.11.901 Ii 5 10155 u45 1 wpwai.
pioc01 l leat
P C I. ..iD1.I 105p .1504* pi0pi15004 191. by S gins i 51 pa10W C I 5115 p 1 0 9 0. i t . , UI
F a n51 01ly . 3130. Fe0*01 or 051109* 0 40 A Iy. by 3 4 w a pnrcMO .taas*5s
omcsi or ,v05 sfsctad o MO.
P.pamaoik R.ductIoa Arn Node.
Puafc . .iing 610311 Br 5155 $99 ” 1 . . 50111*150 1. avaraps 05 houi$ p
UDC4 ICUXS’. a ldJd1 19 D i ne Br IOW . 55’0 1110*0115. s—C1 9 55150119 data wuross.
o und 1 1 5 * 1 1 31 * 1911s0 513 n.ided, and 01119 .0 119*15 ,asi,atç 511. MIIsctOn
aS ,dirpisboit Sand colrmaris re an. ’ .Q 511565051’ 510111.1$. atly 00111 alpaCt 01511.
51.c00fl of In61 irsoon. ar *1990*301* to, 1119105519 OIs Brmt ustiómg any
ISIQQISDOI* 041011 ITS, 515.553501 T34JC5 515 b .itdIn V Cluif. I litOllTBt*1 Policy
8,a 5 1 5 * 2 2 3 . U S. Ern .i.unsnBS P,ot,com Aqr .cy. 401 U S0.a1. SW.
wasIBl 1.n. DC 20460.01 Cosc’sr. Of los 04 k0In 1 .tIOlI and Ai ds15y Allah. OfSos
0* Mvspam.nI and Budpat W.snvlçmn. DC 20503.
44468
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
b ismytams • SPA Poses 33104
Nodes 051 bassl (15051) For Stori, Wail Otoctmrg W InduMOal A05MIy
T• 0s Cosalsi If 4sr Tb. NPUC5 0111.104 PaM
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25, 1992 1 Notices
44469
Appendix D—Notice of Termination and Instructions
I OES
FORM
I

Pisu. see In
EF A
Farm Approvat
struction. Defore Completing This Form
UntIed Staioe ErvEoramerrall Protection AQenoy
W53M Q10I1. DC 20460
NotIce ol Termination (NOT) of Coverage Under the NP
tor Storm Water ischarges Associated with Indu
N&

DES General Permit
strial Activity
Submission at 01(5 Nob at Termtnason naar tea nodno 0101 the party idercfied In Sector II at 01$ torn a no ( 5nger tethoctZeO 10 d ( 5dwge atem water
asea a1od with stiIa ( xtvity urioat me NPDES proglam ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM
I. POITTUT tntcifliathon
NPOES Stomt Water Cltedt Here 0 You ote No Longer C2iecst Here II the Starm Water
I I 5teOrateiotOteFaC$y D Isthage ( 5BemgTernsnamd
II. F ty Opwa Intomiaedn
time: I . I • • , i s • I 1 I Iphis,e 1 I I I I I I I
I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
iii i 1111111’ cii I state L_.._i.....i ZlPCode 1 I II I
In Faccftty/stte L.ccasoti intomiatiai
Addleost
I I I I I
I I_
I I I I
Cil)r I i I I
I state L _J zi ctoe I
I I I Longitude I I I I ] Oteaiisr L... .....J SeOton. 1.._j.......j Towvistirp I I I_______________
V C torr I r0fy wdoe geraity at w that all storm water dtsd10rges asstx aTed with Industhal dwty tram the idenafied tacitly that ate ai1 uued by a
NPDES general permi hate twerl eljm01ated or 01at mu no 10nger me operator at me taciuty or rot01 22on ate I understand that by submcbng 01w Nobca ol
TemUTw aon. tell no knger 3a1tw128d 10 dlaf go stern watel otacciated with Indtis01al n1y waler PitS general perntt aId that dethargu g polutanal ft
stern — asscdated with mdusma 1y 10 waters at Pie Unfled Slates w untaw uraler 010 Clean Water Act w+tem Ste Cisth5T a not autorized by a
NPDES pemut I also undorsianc ai me submittal t Otis Nob 01 TerminatIon os not reteese mi operator tram Itabmty tar ony violatono at me pommtt or me
Clean Water Act.
I i j t t s . i I Date I I I _ i
In st ruOlianl for Completing Notic, at Termination INOT) Form
Who thy P1 1a NetIc oh Termnln .tiot I (NOT) Farm
Psmrutt.es alte or. pisiwiff sred j10 me EPA 21u04 Natorat Pitail
Otsdlorg. ifItatotit System (NPOES) Giriemal PermIt lor Swm Waler
Dh vg.. M100s?ec awl O *V Alaittl mey surne a Ne0 01 Temtma0on
(NOT) Sam alien thPr tSOIm.. to longer Per. y stern aW cllctevoe .
ioCgled with aduWltS 4ty SI 001 1 1100 ft 010 storm water ,eeuiauorla 5140
CFR ItLsO (01(141. c m wren mey a ,, no 01901 015 OQiralor 0101. taclilIlel.
For nora01iaton acircios. alVuftaton oh all storm water 0 Id10T90$ associated
wOl ft511301$1 ctV$lf OotWI alum $sit.rbed 001$ situ. $0 5 1110 IteVS
tools fishy statSllzo4 wal .it*O% S IlO leistYtelul teilOal rrieusuras
?tevs boon i,0 ed or will b IuIl Id SI tel soerocret. a, . or riot all $101111
waler iJIdtel9uS 0. a110d wiOt InOIaO%$1 swliuy rum 010 ml1$DsCtelt ate riot
—. teatlervue by I PQOES general pimie Pen 0 015 1w ’ .. 01511 sIrIslal*d
FInal Pl 11 1 1 51w Owi all sos a*awcIrIg actItSil at me at. ners oooiu
wii l*ol ld. te10 0101$ edSain porurnal osg ialaYs oer awl a usisily at 70% 01
me 0 ilmewId 1 1515 UtS wen risi enema by P.JIl1010flt 0146 v ,SS PshI
blur ’ istebilahid. or Speashiril psmisnSnt lafitlIucO ThS$$Ufi$ ($146100010
u0001 eraP. ga$1O’Iu, or geoluilleil levI 0051’ mrrOlOyed.
Whim to Fit. NOT Form
SeW me torn, 10010 015 Ietowmg eddtsu
Storm Waler NOtes 011017110100011
PC 801 1165
Neau igtt lt.VA 22122
I l ls Farm
Type or prnt. tialug uppem-eaM 10011$. In tue $CCIOOtatS Woo l Ørly P 1 1 50.
pIaes 5501 oliteaciam astwein me li iwa*. Abtjnvctel$ I I ra 10.ry to imy WOitri
tIle ,arrasr 01 dlwS I .5 a 0 lees t01n. U.. erny erie 0
blwe.n earca. aia rot 0 5la1051500n Twos (irileSI hey or. reSOSO te
ye.w msaoJ uIs U orj tans my 5 550’I$ about Oils term, Call 015 Storm W aler
ho0 ’S I I (7C3 -452
PtfASI SU REVU106 OP This FORM R FUR11ICR INS1Th 1IOI
Print Natne I . i 1 I _
Signature
PA F m 3510-71022)
-------
44470
Fedefal Register / VoL 57. No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
• a c. r
1 , , loa (NOT) Un r Ils NPOU Pwml
S a, Wi v 0b . A daNO iii , NO AdMI7
t t I PNO k NOa
Ecna’ di. , scs ’ NPOES ii Wv G.wW PcciI. , b f
ao ty cc O rD5id In SUcXn It I you not knou Oh nml rl Thcc.
IT ’ a d li Sotlifi. IVSflS * I?W .2l-48
In*L . yci, r . oti subTim ne Ova Noa ci T. ,vnaicti by is ln 0
S 1W. liii bun a dia ol o otI aid you aa no Ionot dii o sca ’ ac
ci d l . c i s ciaii dm S. oti III. dii i i Tot i flQ X i.
dci ciW • 1ci a. . i*iici i1ui S . ’ li .i
i ii diidt dl u on Xi.
S.otlci i I F UUy Opa. Inlomaitioft
GNS . r .noldi.ps i l. km. pub’act auIaott ccwyodlot andy OW
.ta.s di. tao Ip cc a. dvaaibud vi di i i Th. nay. ci d i .
may cc may not di dii Sa y . nan. di. babry. Tb. oiucaar c i d i i Xi . ‘a
di. I .o sAdly Iot dii bo lYI (IIci%. mOW O W’ dii pLan at mm
mal Il. ACt Uli I C0000i,ci nrui Enar d i . mp ts .ddt.u NO
rvavOW ol d is smW.
Fati M
EM. dii liabty’s cc am’s olfoci 0, Isgci nay. NO mpd.t. s us. vidiióng
alp, sa. NO ZIP d. If O f iy I a SOW & .aI. v ca. dii am a.
di. Xi s NO lsA aJdi of Ohs Xiay v di , ra.vsf IS ,i tim. at di.
SS %. aid tang. Cm S i . n.aaa* ç aiir .coon) c i dis gm na.
cm i ii ci di. a d a.
(FR Doc. 92-23320 Filed 9-24-92: &45 am)
e& otQ co i-iT S
SuI IV CsuthXiloti
F.dNO s UMs a. 5VO pNObes si .W’ d i .. vibmiaDati on
OW ØIcacon bm. FdNO vegtiacons v .qi4rs d v. aog6cbom abs aIgnid U
Fat a Oati by a rupoi1a xma o . pm .
siccamy. y.sasat. cc v gms.dsvht ci di i pata. th duags ci
biwssa fiticoon. 0, Wy 001cc cIor NO p.vlo.ms s Mw poucy at
mNO D.samna at (it) Ohs nmagsr ci ccii cc n v rniit tf aiig •
cc nocciatis Idis nplo aig t . Sm 250 psmatii cc hv1Q OSs aVNO
Iii at e.psnóbiss . zca g $25 ffi b0n (In s.cmd- .I wmr 1980 dabatal. d
ii . i ajlhsnd Py. Xi ii aD iid Cr .* araJ ii di. In
NO darpata. pc .ivss
Fat a p .ah. .iAv at NO p . n .Uidh by I gunitU Patow ci di. ICCtIiIci at
Fat a n i cirj’. * Fid . cc Xi. 1c I 5ty by .udiv a puv pci
.zacudii. chi t, cc rv%ks lQ .IsCiid olfiaci.
Pa ..it R.’an ACt Noilci
Pubic rspoiccç bwdan b diii upIciDor a .scmaiid h r s 0.5 Pull psr
gdcDan. Indi4n Sm. 10, rasciuig Inalu cOd i .. sa.dvng suang da.
sasma , — NO m ii Sm NO nisdid. aid w.,q ’.aiv aid
ranuuvIg dii alhs on oh i TfldDOfl. Sand IgNOig di. buNO
1 5dM.. dl cOW U eot ci dii NOccon oh uibiTisdin, cc uigguans c
dv . bin. riduciaig atip wQguvcim audi may u ssis cc rs ici Ova
ai.i. imacn a S 4225 LU. ..da.Iici
Pmi.cXu i Ag.v y. 401 N Soul. SW, Wavmigmn. DC 20480.0, Oue c. 01St
ci kdatmam aid Ragufadvy MWL 0 1St ci mistS aid Budgsl.
Walfaigun. DC 20503.
-------
Ftlday
September 25, 1992
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges from Construction
Sites; Notice
-------
44412
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Fnday. Septer iber 25. 1992 / orices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT2OPI
AGENCY
IFRL—4511—2 1
Final NPDES General Permits for
Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Sites
AGSNCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIO Notice of Final NPDES General
Permits
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrators
of Regions I. 11. UI. IV. and IX (:he
•‘Regions” or the Directors”) are today
issuing final National Pollutant
Discharge Ehmination System (NPDES)
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from construction sites in
Florida (except from Indian Lands).
Mnssathusetts. the District of Columbia,
Guam and American Samoa: on Indian
lands in New York: and from Federal
facilities in Delaware.
These general permits establish
Notice of Intent (NO!) requirements.
special conditions. requirements to
develop and implement storm water
pollution prevention plans. and
requirements to conduct site inspections
for facilities with discharges authorized
by the permit.
OATI These general permit! shaLl be
effective on November 25, 1992. This
effective date is necessary to provide
appropriate diachargers with the
opportunity to pIy with the October
1, 1992 deadline for submitting an
NPDES application for storm water
discharges associated with industrial by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NO!) to be
covered by the permits.
Deadlines for submittal of Notices of
Intent (NOls) are provided in Part U.A of
the general permits. Today’s generaL
permits also provide additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the permit.
aooeusa Notices of Intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permit.s should be sent to: Storm Water
Notices of Intent. P0 Box 1215,
Newmgton, VA 22122.
Other submittala of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. The addresses of the Regional
Offices and the name and phone number
of the Storm Waler Regional
Coordinator is provided in Section II of
the Fact Sheet.
The index to the administrative
records for these permits is available at
the appropriate Regional Office. The
complete administrative record is
located 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. Specific record information
will be made available at the
appropnate Regional Office as
requested.
FOR FUeT)4ER INFORMATiON CONTACT
For further information on the final
NPDES general permit.! and for copies of
the Notice of Intent form (the Notice of
Intent form in appendix C of this notice
can be copied and submitted) contact
the NPDES Storm Water Hothne at (703)
821—1823, or the appropriate EPA
Regional Office. The name, address and
phone number of the Regional Storm
Water Coordinators are provided in
Section II of the Fact Sheet.
SUPP!.ZMENTARY INFCRMAT1ON
I. Introduction
LI Regional Contacts
III. Section 401 Certification
IV Economic Impact (Executive Order 1z l)
V Paperwork Reduction Act
Vi. Regulatory flexibility Act
Other submittals of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should
be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. The addresses of the Regional
Offices and the name and phone number
of the Storm Water Regional
Coordinator Is provided in Section U of
the Fact Sheet.
The index to the administrative
records for these permits is available at
the appropriate Regional Office. The
complete administrative record is
located at EPA Headquarters, EPA
Public Information Reference Unit, room
2402. 401 M Street SW. Washington DC
W460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying. Specific record information
wLIl be made available at the
appropriate Regional Office as
requested.
L tatrodudfoa
The Regional Administrators of the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPAI are Isswng final general
permits for the maponty of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from construction activities as
follows:
Region 1—for the State of
Massachusetts.
Region /1—for Indian lands located in
New York.
Region 111—for the District of
Columbia and for Federal facilities in
Delaware.
Region IV—for the State of Florida.
Region /X—(or Guam and American
Samoa.
On August 18. 1991 (56 FR 40948). EPA
requested public comment on draft
Na:icnal PoL:a i Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) genera
permits that were the basis for tad.
final general pernuts. In addition 13
addressing storm water discharges iron
construction activities, the August 16
1991. draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges from ether
industrial activities. The perm: :s ‘r’ i s
notice only address storm w i:er
associated with construction act. :’v
EPA received over 125 ccci entS on
construction issues assocated w’ih he
draft general permits. In addition. p ’ibt
hearings to discuss the draft ?encral
permits were held in Dallas. TX.
Oklahoma City. OK. Baton Rouge LA
Albuquerque. NM: Seattle. WA Bo’se
1D Juneau. AK. Pierre. SD, Phoenix AZ
Orlando. FL Tallahassee. FL Augis!a
ME Boston. MA. and Manchester N 1 -I
On September 9. 1992 (57 FR 411’6)
EPA published final Nationai Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System NPDES)
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industri .iI
activity from construction sites ri 10
States (Alaska. Arizona. Idaho.
Lowsiaria. Maine. New Hampshire .N ew
Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota and
Texas): the Territories of Puerto Rico.
Johnston Atoll, and Midway arid Wak’
Islands; on Indian lands in Alaska.
Arizona, California, Colorado. Flonc
Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts.
Mississippi. Montana. New Hampsh::e.
Nevada, North Carolina. North Dakota.
Nevada. Utah, Washington. and
Wyoming: from Federal faclities in
Colorado. and Washzngtoni and fran
Federal facilities and Indian lands in
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahorra ard
Texas.
EPA is incorporating portions of the
detailed fact sheet for the general permit
for storm water discharges from
construction activity published on
September 9, 1992. as part of the flsal fact
sheet and statement of basis for today s
final permit. The sections of the fact
sheet published on September 9. 1992’
being incorporated are Section I.
Introduction; Section II. Coverage of
General Permits: Section ID. Sjjr.mar
Options for Controlling Pollutants
Section IV. Summary of Permit
Conditions; and Section V. Cost
Estimates: and Appendix A—Sur . -
i The Septenib.r 9, i999, fact sheets Incur ” -
peilioni of the draft gioersl per t, pubIs . ’
Ai t l6 199156 FR 4on41 1. The.. portion.
Auguui 15. 1991. fad sheets ate also thcor i. . - I
into today s peemits. Section. of the Auguiu
fact sheet being inonrporst.d au, secoon I
B.ckgruiind ,.cbon 4. Summary of Optuoi.i
Controlling PoIiuIadL end section 5. The F.
Mwilopal Partnership The Rot. of Mw ’u c.
Op.r.tori of IAI 5 end M. wn H,uucipa
Storto Sewer..
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday, September 2.5. 1992 / Notices
44413
of Responses to Public Comments on the
August 18, 1991, Draft General Permits.
Today’s notice addresses final NPDES
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from construction sites in
Florida (except from Indian lands).
Massachusetts. District of Columbia.
Guam and American Samoa: on Indian
lands in New York; and from Fede ul
facilities In Delaware. Today’s notice
contains four sets of appendices.
Appendix A Incorporates Appendix A—
Summary of Responses to Public
Comments on the August 16, 1991. Draft
General Permits, of the September 9.
1992 permIts. Appendix B provides the
language of the final general permits.
The permits in Appendix B are similar,
and are similar to the final permits
published on September 9, 1992. Except
as provided In Part X of the permits.
Parts I through I X apply to all permits.
Part X of the permit contains conditions
wtuch only apply to diachargers in the
State Indicated. Appendix C is a copy of
the Notice of Intent (NOl) form (and
associated instructions) to be used by
dischargers wanting to obtain coverage
under the general permits Appendix 0
is a copy of the Notice of Termination
(NOT) form (and associated
instructions) that can be used by
daschargers wanting to notify EPA that
their storm water dischargers have been
terminated or that the permittee has
transferred operation of the facility.
II. Regional Contacts
Notices of intent to be authorized to
discharge under these permits must be
sent to: Storm Water Notices of Intent,
P0 Box 1215, Newington, VA 22122.
Other submittal of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications or other
written correspondence concerning
discharges in any Slate. Indian land, or
from any Federal Facility covered,
should be sent to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office listed below:
Massachusetts
United Slates EPA. Region I. Water
Management Division (WCP —2109J,
Storm Water Staff. John F. Kennedy
Federal Building. Room 2209,
Boston, MA 02203. Contact:
Veronica Harrtngtoo. (617) 585—3525
New York (Indian Lands)
United States EPA. Region 1 1, Water
Management Division (2WM—WPC).
Storm Water Staff, 28 Federal Plaza,
New York, NY 10278. Contact: Jose
Rivera, (212) 264—2011
District of Columbia. Delaware (Federvi
Facilities)
United States EPA. Region III. Water
Management Division (3WM55). 841
Chestnut Building. Philadelphia, PA
19107, Contact: Kevin Magerr, (215)
597—1651
Florida
United States EPA, Region IV. Water
Management Division (FPB—3),
Storm Water Staff. 345 Courtland
Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30365,
Contact: Chris Thomas. (404) 347-
3012
Guam and American Samoa
United States EPA. Region IX, Water
Management Division (W—5-.i),
Storm Water Staff, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Contact: Eugene Bromley, (415) 744—
III. Section 401—CertificatIon
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or permit. including
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge into
navigable waters shall be granted until
the State In which the discharge
originates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of Sections 301,302.303.306,
and 307 of the CWA. The SectIon 401
certification process has been completed
for all States, Indian lands and Federal
facilities covered by today’s general
permits. The following summary
indicates where additional permit
requirements have been added as a
result of the certification process.
Massac/,uset i ’s
See the following and Part X.A of the
general permit for 401 conditions. As a
condition for certification under section
401 of the CWA, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to ensure
compliance with State water quality
concerns,
Storm water discharges not eligible
for coverage under this permit include
new or increased storm water
discharges to coastal water segments
within Massachusetts designated as
“Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC)’ (for information on -
ACEC. please contact the Executive
OffIce of Environmental Affairs, Coastal
Zone Management at (817) 727—9530). In
addition, new or increased discharges.
as defined at 314 CMR 4.02(19), which
meet the definition of “storm water
discharge,” as defined at 314 CMR
3.04(2)(a)(1) or (2)(b), to Outstanding
Resource Waters which have not met
the provisions of 314 CMR 4.04(3) and
Part III Cl of this permit (as amended
by the special requirements for
discharges in Massachusetts), are not
eligible for coverage under this permit
Perinittees in Massachusetts are to
submit NOIs to the following address:
Storm Water Staff. Storm Water Notice
of Intent. US EPA Region 1. MA. P0 Box
1215, Newington, VA 22122. A copy of
the NOl for all discharges to
Outstanding Resource Waters shall be
submitted to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at the following address
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Storm Vvater
Notice of Intent, BRP—WP 43. P0 Box
4062. Boston, Massachusetts, OZZII
For details on filing for permits with
MA DEP see 310 CMR 4.00, Tii ;e/y
Action Schedule and Fee Proi isions For
other information call the MA DEP
Information Services at (617) 338—2.55 or
the Technical Services Section of the
DEP Division of Water Pollution Control
at (508) 792—7470.
Massachusetts 401 certification
requires the following best management
practices. Storm water discharge outfall
pipes to Outstanding Resource Waters
shall be removed and the discharge set
back from the receiving water when
diachargers are seeking to increase the
discharge or change the site drainage
system: all new discharge outfalls must
be set back from the receiving water
Receiving ewales for outfall pipes shall
be prepared to minimize erosion and
maximize infiltration prior to discharge
The goal is to Infiltrate as much as
feasible; infiltration trenches and
basins, filter media dikes and/or other
BMPs shall be used to meet the goal
Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Areas by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Division of Water
Quality is a reference for BMPs
Storm water discharges to wate-s :hat
are not classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters shall be subject to the
requirements of this permit. New
d:scharge outfall pipes shall be designed
to be set back from the receiving water
when site conditions allow, For e\isting
discharge outfall pipes. when the stor
water drainage system is undergoi-io
changes. outfall pipes shall be se’ back
from the receiving water. A receiving
swale, infiltration trench or basin. f:ite’-
media dike or other BMP should be
prepared with the goal to minimize
erosion yet maximize infiltration or
otherwise improve water quality pr
discharge.
All discharges to Outstanding
Resource Waters authorized under”
permit must be provided the best
practical method of treatment to pr
-------
44411
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25, 1992 I Notices
and maintain the designatcd use of the
outstanding resource.
Delo ware
See the following discus 1on and Part
X.C of the general permit for additional
401 conditions, As a condition for
ccrtificatjo under section 401 of the
C ’v%A, the State of Delaware required
inclusion of the following conditions
necessary to insure compliance with
State water quality concerns.
In addition to submitting all NOIs to
the central NO! receiving office in
Newington, VA. permittees in Delaware
also must submit a copy of all NOLs to
the State of Delaware at the following
address: Water Pollution Control
Branch. NPDES Storm Water Program.
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control.
89 Kings Highway. P.O. Box 140, Dover.
DE 19903. All Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs), pollution prevention
plans, as well as subsequent revisions,
must be submitted to the State of
Delaware at this same address. DMRs
also must be submitted to the NPDES
Programs Director, U.& EPA Region LU.
Water Management Division (3WM55),
Storm Water Staff. 841 Chestnut
Bwlding, Philadelphia. PA 19107.
Delaware’s general permit stipulates
that all permittees comply with the
requirements of 7 Delaware Code
Chapter 40 and the Delaware Sediment
and Storm Water Regulations (January,
1991).
Applicants are required to obtain a
certification of consistency with the
Delaware Coastal Management Program
(CZMA 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451).
District of Columbia
See the following discussion and Part
XD of the general permit for additional
401 conditions, As a condition for
certification under section 401 of the
CWA. the District of Columbia required
inclusion of the following special
conditions.
Any unpermitted discharges that are
subject to the NPDES program,
excluding discharges associated with
construction activity, are not authorized
by this permit.
Flondo
See the following discussion and Part
X.E of the general permit for additional
401 conditions.
As a condition for certification under
section 401 of the CWA, the State of
Florida required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
concerns.
In addition to the NOl requirements
set forth in Part 11 of this permit, the
State of Florida requires the! prior to
submitting an NOl. the owner of a storm
sater management system must recet’, e
a State of Florida storm water permit
from either the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER) or a
Florida Wa!er Management District
(FWMD).
The permittee shall submit a narrative
statement certifying that the storm
water pollution prevention plan for the
facility provides compliance with
approved State of Florida issued
permits, erosion and sediment control
plans and storm water management
plans. In addition, the permittee also
shall submit a copy of the cover page of
the State permit issued by FDER or a
FWMD to the facility for the storm
water associated with construction
activities.
Please note that facilities that
discharge storm water associated with
construction activities to a municipal
separate storm sewer system within
Broward, Dade, Duval, Escambia,
Hilisborough. Orange. Palm Beach.
Pineallas. Polk or Sarosota Counties
shall submit a copy of the NO! to the
operator of the municipal separate storm
sewer system. Included within these
counties, the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT). incorporated
municipalities and Chapter 298 Special
Districts shall also be notified where
they own or operate a municipal
separate storm sewer system receiving
storm water discharges associated with
construction activity covered by this
permit.
Florida ‘a general permit stipulates that
any non-storm water component (as
defined at Part III (A)(2)(bfl of a
facility’s discharge must be in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.5 and
the storm water management system
must be designed to accept these
discharges and provide treatment of the
non-storm water component sufficient to
meet Florida water quality standards.
Discharges resulting from ground water
dewatering activities at construction
sites are not covered by this permit. The
applicant may seek coverage for these
discharges under NPDES General Permit
No. FLCB30000 , published on July 17,
1989 (54 FR 29986) and modified on
August 29, 1991 (56 FR 42736).
Permittee, must submit a copy of all
pollution prevention plans to the State
agency which issued the storm water
permit, and shall make plans available
upon request to the Director.
The permittee must amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design.
construction, operation, or maintenance,
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States,
including the addition of or change in
locat’.on of storm waler d schir
points Amendments to the pldn mu’i ‘
s iamitted to the State agency which
issued the State storm water permit.
In provrning an estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the 8lte before, during and
after construction. permittees must
utilize the “C” from the Rational
Method: also. permittees must pro’. ide
an estimate of the size of the drainage
area for each outfall.
All storm water management controls.
required pursuant to Part IV of this
permit, shall be consistent with the
requirements set forth in State Water
Policy of Florida (Chapter 17—40. Florida
Administrative Code), the applicabie
storm water permitting requirements of
the FD or appropriate FWMD. and
the guidelines contained in the Flonda
Development Manual: A Guide to Sound
Land and Water Management (FDER.
1988) and any subsequent amendments.
Florida’s general permit requires that
site stabilization measures be initiated
as soon as practicable in portions of the
site where construction activities have
temporarily or permanently ceased.
Please note that paragraphs (a). (b) and
(c). which provide exceptions to these
required stabilization practices, have
been deleted to meet Flonda water
quality concerns.
As part of the pollution pre vention
plan. permittees must provide a
description of structural practices to
divert flows from exposed soils, store
flows or otherwise limit runoff and the
discharge or pollutants from exposed
areas of the site in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Section 17-40.
420, F.A.C.. and the applicable storm
water regulations of the FDER or
appropriate FWK4D. Structural practices
shall be placed on upland soils unless a
State of Florida wetland resource
management permit issued pursuant to
Chapters 373 or 403, F.S., and the
applicable regulations of the FDER r
FWMD authorize otherwise, -
The description of controls In Part I
of the permit shall be consistent wi
requirements set forth in the State
Water Policy of Florida (Chapter i -
F.A.C). the applicable storm wat.
permitting regulations of the FDE?
appropriate FWMD, and the guid.
contained In the Florida Deveioç
Manuali A Cuide to Sound Land
Water Management (FDER. 198’
any subsequent amendments. S:
measures shall be placed on u ’.
soils unless a State of Florida
resource management permit is’
pursuant to Chapters 373 or 40
and the applicable regulatior.s
FDER or FWN authorize oth&’
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday . September 2.5. 1992 / Notices
4441
The installation of these devices may be
subject to section 404 of the CWA. This
NPDES permit only addresses the
installation of storm water management
measures, and not the ultimate
operation and maintenance of such
structures after the construction
activities have been completed and the
site has undergone final stabilization
Permittees are only responsible for the
installation and maintenance of storm
water management measures prior to
final stabilization of the site, and are not
responsible for maintenance after storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been elinunated
from the site. However, all storm water
management systems shall be operated
and maintained in perpetuity after final
site stabilization in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the State of
Florida storm water permit issued for
the site.
Pursuant to the requirements of
Section 17-40. 420. F.A.C.. the storm
water management system shall be
designed to remove at least 80 percent
of the average annual load of pollutants
which cause or contribute to violations
of water quality standards (95 percent if
the system discharges to an Outstanding
Florida Water).
Regarding velocity dissipation
devices equalization of the pre.
development and post-development
storm water peak discharge rate and
botulne shall be a goal in the design of
the post-development storm water
management system.
No solid materials, including building
materials, shall be discharged to waters
of the United States, except as
authorized by a Section 404 permit and
oy a State of Florida wetand resource
management permit issued pursuant to
Chapters 373 or 403. F S.. ana the
applicable regulations of the FDER or
F ’WMD.
The pian shall address the proper
2 I tiOn rates id methods for the
u e of fertiiz:rs and pesticides at the
c.nistruction site and set f irth how these
DiC’ edures will be implemented and
‘forced.
Fin das general permit reqL!-es that
r1Iu ified persounel (provided by tie
cisch!rgerj inspect all points of
discharge into w3ters of the United
States or to a municipal separate storm
sewer system. In addition to those items
required to be inspected under Part IV of
t iis permit. desigri ted personnel must
also inspect storm water management
systems.
Permittees must inspect disturbed
areas and areas used for storage of
materials that are exposed to
precipitation for evideni..e of, or the
potential for, pollutants entering the
storm water management system In
addition, the storm water management
system and erosion and sediment
control measures identified in the plan
must be observed to ensure that they are
operating correctly. Where discharge
locations or points are access ble, they
must be inspected to ascertain whether
erosion control and storm water
management measures are effective in
meeting the performance standards set
forth in State Water Policy (Chapter 17.
40. F.A.C.J and the applicable storm
water permitting regulations of the
FDER or aporopriate FWMD.
Perm ttees must allow the Director or
an authorized representative of EPA. the
State. or a municipal separate storm
sewer system. to sample or monitor at
reasonable times, for the purposes of
assuring permit compliance or as
otherwise authorized by the CWA. any
substances or parameter at any location
on the site.
A copy of the Notice of Termination
shall be sent to the State agency which
issued the State storm water permit for
the site and, if the storm water
management system discharges to a
municipal separate storm sewer system
within Broward. Dade. Duval, Escambia.
Hillsborough. Orange, Palm Beach.
Pinellas. Polk or Sarasota Counties, to
the owner of that system. Included
within these counties, the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT).
incorporated municipalities, arid
Chapter 298 Special Districts also shall
be notified where they own or operate a
munictpal separate storm sewer system
receiving storm water discharges
associa’ed with construct:on activity
cot’ered by this perm:t
America. Samoa
See the Iollowi- g d:scus.sion and Part
X F c’f the raer.al permit for a di: cnnl
401 :zi;:d .i” As a cor.i :t.jn fur
certificaticn tinder section 4r.1 ‘if
CWA. th ter itorv ‘if Ameri on Sar oa
requt ed il. s. ’ i of the follow n
StcCidl r,ond tions.
Pe m !; es m t sub .t a cnpy uf a’
Ois and p. !lution prevei tion par.s t.D
toe Asncrican Samoa Envi onmentej
Protection Agency
C r-
See lie ioltot .ng and Part X C for 401
con’litions. As a condition for
certification under sect or. 431 of the
CWA. the temtory of Guam required
incluston o the follow,ng special
conditions.
Permittees must submit a copy of all
NOls to the Guam Environmental
Protection Agency at the following
address. D— 107 Harmon Plaza. 130 Rutat
St. Harmon Guam 95911. and to c: t r
appropriate Government of Guam
agencies. All pollution prevention ‘irs
and discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs) also must be submitted to Gut .:
EPA
IV Economic Impact (E ecuti .e Order
12291)
EPA has submitted th, rot.ce t
Office of Management tnd Budeet ft r
re iew under Executi e Order 12291
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the reou’rt rt -:s
imposed on regulated fa ’Iiltles
final general permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 198J 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq EP’ did not prepare
an Information Collection Request (ICR)
document for todays permits because
the information collection requiremer.ts
in these permits have already been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) in submissions made
for the NPDES permit program under t -e
provisions of the Clean Water ct
VI. Regulatory flexibility Act
l t rider the Regulatory Flexibilit A:t.
U S C. 601 et seq.. EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of ru!e on
small er.iities. No Regula: ’rv b:iit’,
Analysis is reouired, howe er where
the head of the agency certif’ tha. “ie
rule will not have a sigriiuicart econo’r.ic
imp’icl on a st ii tar,tial n 5 imbpr of snail
ent t es
Tocay s permi’s provide sm.. lI r ’i ’es
v. ih an lpnlicatinn opti. n that ‘ ‘ss
burd ’.nsoine than indiviou t
appic.’:inns or ndr Lcipati: g : . :‘ ‘i
application. The other rcculre’t e::l
.ve been desig ’ irJ tC
sun.ficant econoniic io ;.c s üf ti
cn smail ent.’ ec and aues iw ‘
ni icar.t in-pact on ir.&usr !.
edditijn. toe ‘ermgts rcdt’c’ a r
adminis’rattve buruens 0;. re
sources. Accordingly. I herio’. -
pursuant to the çrovt::c::s !
Regulatory Flex b Iity Act. i ai
permtts will r.ot have a
impact on a suhstanti ! nuT. ’( ”
ent tles
Authonty Clean Water A .; 3:
ei seq
Dated September 17. 1992.
-------
44416
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
P l )Ceaugh.
Act ng Regional Adznmzstrntor. Region I.
Dated: September 3. 1992.
Constantine Sidamon-Erotoff.
Rug oncMdmm,sonwr, Region LL
Dated: Septemberii, 1992.
A.R. Morris,
AcLng Regiona/Admw,strator, Region Ill.
Dated. September 17. 1992.
Donald J. Guwyard,
Acting RegionalAdmirnsiro tar, Region IV.
Dated: September 16. 1992.
John Wise,
RegionolAdminist rotor, Region L X.
Appendix A—Summary o’ Rsponse to
Public Comments on the August 16,
1991, thaft General Permits
The Summary of responses to Public
Comment on the August 16, 1991, draft
general permits presented in Appendix
A of the September 9, 1992. final general
permits at 57 FR 41189. is hereby
incorporated in Appendix A of today’s
notice.
Appendix B—NPDES General Permits
for Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Activities That are
Classified as “Associated With
Industrial Activity”
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge S Ii i,inntion
System
IPernut No. /d.4RI00000J
In compliance with the previsions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
US.C. . . 1251 eL seq; the Act), except
as provided In Part LB.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from COnstruCtiOn activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located In the State of
Massachusetts, are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of intent In accordance with
Part U of this permit. Opera tore of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25. 1997.
Signed and issued this 17th day of
September i .
Larry 8n11.
Acting Di,ector WaterManogement Division.
This signature is for the permit
conditions In Parts I through IX and for
any additional conditions in part X
which apply to facilities located In the
State of Massachusetts.
(NPO Permit Number NYR IUE0FJ
Authorization To Discharge Under the
Natin,uil Pollutant Discharge £liminetioa
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq’ the Act), except
as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as associated with industrial
activity”, located on Indian Lands in
New York State are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
geneinl permit area who Intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Pert
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September25, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25. 1997.
Signed and Issued thIs 3rd day of
September1992.
Richard I . . Caepe, P.E,.
Director. Water Management Division. U.S.
EnvirorimentoJ Protection Agency, Region II.
(Permit No. — — R100000or DR RI00000F
(for only Indian lands and/or Fed. fec))
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge 5’1I thuifion
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C.. . 1251 et. seq; the Act), except
as provided In Part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
actIvity”, located in Federal Facilities In
the state of Delaware, are authorized to
discharge In accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
I ! of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 2.5, 1
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at nudiught.
September 25. 1997.
Signed and issued this 16th day of
September1992
A.P,. Mains.
(signature of Water Management Dn’ector or
Regional Adm:n,,crijior)
(Permit No D/C R1 OOO or — — RI00000F
(for only Indian lands and/or Fed tech
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Flimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq: the Act), except
as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “assonated with industrial
activity”, located in the District of
Columbia, are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction acthilties within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
Indastrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent In accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
dIscharge shall expire at midnight,
September 25. 1997.
Signed and Issued thIs 16th day of
September1992
A.R. Morris,
(s:gnatwvof WaterMonagement Duecioror
RegionalAdnun,simtor).
(Genera! Permit Number FLR100000J
Region IV: Authorization To Discharge
Under the National Pollutant Discharge
VHmInnfio System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.. the “Act”), except aq
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrii
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No . 187 / Friday, September 25, 1992 / Notices
44417
activity”. located in the State of florida
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
U of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 2,5. 1997,
Signed and Issued September 17, 1992.
Allan E. Antley,
acting Director. Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permit
conditions in Parts I through IX and for
any additional conditions in Part X
which apply to facilities located iii the
State of Florida.
ISiorm Water General Permit for
Construction Activitiesj
IPermit No. GURI0000QJ
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended
(U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq. the Act), except
as provided in Part 1.8.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located on the Island of Guam
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25, 1997.
Signed and issued this 16th day of
September. 1992.
Catherine Kuhlman,
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit
conditions in Parts I through LX and for
any additional conditions in Part X
which apply to facilities located onthe
Island of Guam.
IStorm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities)
(Permit No. ASRI00000I
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge FlIinini tion
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. as amended
(U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except
as provided in Part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located on America Samoa are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from consti,action activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent In accordance with Part
U of this permit Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
U of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 25. 1997.
Signed and issued thu 16th day of
September. 1992.
Catherine Kuhlman.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit
condition, In Parts I through IX and for
any additional conditions in Part K
which apply to facthties located on
American Samoa.
NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges From Construction
Activities That Are Classified as
“Associated With Industrial Activity”
Tabl, of Coateots
Part 1. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area.
B Eligibility.
C. Authorization.
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
A Deadlines for Notification.
B. Contents of Notice of Intent.
C. Where to Submit
D. Additional Notification
E Renotification
Part W. Speaal Conditions
A Prohibition on non-storm water
discharges.
B Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
Part IV. Storm Watet PoUutloe Prevention
Plans
A Deadiines jot Plan Preparation and
Complia ice
B Signature and Plan Review
C. l(eeptng Plans Current
D Contents of Puan
E. Contractors
Part V. Retention of Records
Part Vi. Standard Permit Conditions
A Duty to Comply
B Continuation of the E.’ipired Generai
Permit.
C Need to halt or reduce acti lt) not a
defense
D Duty to Mitigate.
E. Duty to Provide Information
F. Other Information
C Signatory Requu ements
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
I Oil and Hazardous Substance Luabilit)
Property Rights
K. Severability
L Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
M State Laws.
N. Proper Operation and Maintenance
0. Inspection and Entry.
P. Permit Actions.
Put VU. Reopener Clause
Part V I I I. Notice of Termination
A. Notice of Termination
B Addressee
Past IX. Definitions
Part X. State Specific Conditions
A. Massachusetts
B Delaware (Federal facilities)
C. District of Columbia
D. Florida
E. American Samoa
F Guam
Preface
The Clean Water Act (CWA) proviu
that storm water discharges associatr J
with industrial activity from a point
source (including discharges througc
niwucipal separate storm sewer s s
to waters of the United States are
unlawful, unless authorized by a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) perm’
terms “storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity
“point source” and “waters of the
United States” are critical to
determining whether a facility is
to this requirement. Complete
definitions of these terms are four
the definition section (Part IX) of
permit.
-------
44418
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25, 1992 / 4otices
The United Slates Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
established the Storm Water Hotline at
(703) 821—4823 to assist the Regional
Offices in distributing notice of intent
forms and storm water pollution
prevention plan gwdance. and to
provide information pertaining to the
storm water regulations.
Part I. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas of:
Region 1—the State of Massachusetts.
Region fl—Indian lands in New York.
Region 111—the Dlsthct of Columbia and
Federal facilities in the State of
Delaware.
Region N—the State of Flonda.
Region IX—American Samoa and Guam.
B. Eligibility
1. This permit may authorize all
discharges of storm water associated
with industrial activity from
construction sites, (those sites or
common plans of development or sale
that will result in the disturbance of fi e
or more acres total land areas). 2
(henceforth referred to as storm water
discharges from construction activities)
occurring after the effective date of this
permit (including discharges occurring
after the effective date of this permit
where the construction activity was
initiated before the effective date of this
permit), except for discharges identified
under paragraph IB.3.
2. Thus permit may only authorize a
storm water chscharge associated with
industrial activity from a construction
site that is mz ied with a storm water
discharge from an industrial source
other than construction, where:
a. the industrial source other than
construction is located on the same site
as the construction activity;
b. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from the areas of
the site where construction activities are
occurring are in compliance with the
terms of this permit and
c. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from the areas of
the site where industrial activity other
than construction are occurring
lincluding storm water discharges from
dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated
cmicrete plants) are covered by a
different NPDES general permit or
individual permit authorizing such
discharges.
On tune 4. 1992. the United State Court of
Appests for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
ezemption for conStruction sites of les. than five
SCifI 10 the EPA for funher ru)vnakin& INos. 90-
70571) and m-70200)
3. Limitations on Coveroge. The
following storm water discharges from
construction sites are not authorized by
this permit.
a. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that originate
from the site after construction activities
have been completed and the site has
undergone final stabilization.
b. discharges that are mixed with
sources of non-storm water other than
discharges which are Identified in Part
!fl.A of this permit and which are in
compliance with Part IV D 5 (non.storm
water discharges) of this permit.
c. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are subject
to an existing NPDES individual or
general permit or which are issued a
permit in accordance with paragraph
V1.L (requiring an individual permit or
an alternative general permit) of this
permit. Such discharges may be
authorized under this permit after an
existing permit expires provided the
existing permit did not establish
numeric limitations for such discharges;
d. storm water discharges from
construction sites that the Director
(EPA) has determined to be or may
reasonable be expected to be
contributing to a violation of a water
quality standard: and
e. storm water discharges from
construction Sites if the discharges may
adversely affect a listed or proposed to
be listed endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat.
C Authorization
1. A discharger must submit a Notice
of Intent (NOl) in accordance with the
requirements of Part U of this permit,
using a NOI form provided by the
Director (or a photocopy thereofl, in
order for storm water discharges from
construction sites to be authonzed to
discharge under this general permit. 3
2. Where a new operator is selected
after the submittal of an NO1 under Part
II, a new Notice of Intent (NO!) must be
submitted by the operator in accordance
with Part II. using a NOl form provided
by the Director (or a photocopy thereofl.
3. Unless notified by the Director to
the contrary, dischargers who submit an
NOl in accordance with the
requirements of this permit are
authorized to discharge storm water
from construction sites under the terms
and conditions of this permit 2 days
after the date that the NO! is
postmarked. The Director may deny
coverage under this permit and require
submittal of an application for an
individual NPDES permit based on a
‘A copy of th, approved NOt form is provided Ifl
Appendix C of this notice
re iew of the NO! or other information
(see Part V1.L of this permit).
Part 11. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notif,cor ton
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
ll.A.2. ll.A.3, and IJ.A.4, mdividuals who
intend to obtain coverage for storm
water discharges from a construction
site (where disturbances associated
with the construction project commence
before October z. 992). under this
general permit shall submit a Notice of
Intent (NOl) in accordance with the
requirements of this Part on or before
October 1. 1992:
2. Individuals who intend to obta;n
coverage under this general permit far
storm water discharges from a
construction site where disturbances
associated with the construction protect
commence after October 1, 1992. shall
submit a Notice of Intent (NOl) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part at least 2 days prior to the
commencement of construction
activities (e g. the initial disturbance of
soils associated with dearing, grading.
excavation activities, or other
construction activities);
3. For storm water discharges from
construction sites where the operator
changes (including projects where an
operator is selected after a NOl has
been submitted under Parts ll.Ai or
U.A.2) a NOl in accordance with the
requirements of this Part shall be
submitted at least 2 days pnor to when
the operator commences work at the
site: and
4. EPA will accept an NO! in
accordance with the requirements of
this part after the dates provided in
Parts U A.1, 2 or 3 of this permit. In sud
instances. EPA may bring appropriate
enforcement actions.
B. Contents of Notice of Intent This
Notice(s) of Intent shall be signed in
accordance with Part V!.G of this pi rnt
by all of the entities identified in Part
ILB2 and shall include the followint
information:
1. The mailing address of the
construction site for which the
notification is submitted. Where a
mailing address for the site is no?
available, the location of the
approximate center of the site rn
described in terms of the latitude
longitude to the nearest 15 secor.
the section, township and range
nearest quarter section;
2. The name, address ‘and tel’.
number of the operator(s) with
day operational control that hi .
identified at the time of the NOt
submittal, and operator status
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
44419
Federal, State. private, public or other
entity Wnere multiple operators have
been selected at the time of the tniual
NO! submittal. NOls must be attached
and submitted in the same envelope.
When an additional operator submits art
NOt for a site with a preexisting NPDES
permit, the NO! for the additional
operator must indicate the number for
the preexisting NPDES permit:
3. The name of the receiving water(s).
or if the discharge is through a municipal
sep3rate storm sewer. the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer
and the ultimate receiving water(s):
4. The permit number of any NPDES
permit(s) for any discharge(s) (including
any storm water discharges or any non-
storm water discharges) iroiu the site.
5. Au indication of whether the
operator has existing quantitative data
which describes the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges
(existing data should not be included as
part of the NO!); and
6. An estunate of project start date
and completion dates, estimates of the
number of acres of the site on which soil
will be disturbed, and a certif ’ication
that a storm water pollution prevention
plan has been prepared for the site in
accordance with Part IV of this permit.
and such plan provides compliance with
approved State and/or local sediment
ahd erosion plans or permits and/or
storm waier management plans or
permits in accordance with Part !V.D.2.d
of this permit. (A copy of the plans or
permits should not be included with the
NO! .submission).
C. Where to Submit
1. Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NO! form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof). The
form in the Federal Register notice in
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821-4823. NO!.
must be signed In accordance with Part
V!.G of this permit. NO!. are to be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program in care of the following
address: Storm Water Notice of Intent.
P.O. Box 1215. Newington, VA 22122.
2. A copy of the NO! or other
indication that storm water discharges
from the site are covered under a
NPDES permit, and a brief description of
the project shall be posted at the
construction site in a prominent place
for public viewing (such as alongside a
building permit).
D. Additional Notification. Facilities
which are operating under approved
State or local sediment and erosion
plans. grading plans, or storm water
mnnagement plans shall submit signed
copies of the Notice of Intent to the
State or local agency approving such
plans in accordance with the datelines
in Part !t.A of this permit (or sooner
where required by State or local rules).
in addition to submitting the Notice of
Intent to EPA in accordance with
paragraph ZIC.
E. Renotifzcat,on. Upon issuance 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 Ill. Special Conditions,
Management Practices, and Other Non.
Numeric Limitations
A Prohibition on non -storm water
discharges.
1 Except as provided in paragraph
I B.2 and !LLA.2. all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water.
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
IILA.2.(b), discharges of material other
than storm water must be in compliance
with a NPDES permit (other than this
permit) issued for the discharge.
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authori.zed by this
permit provided the non-storm water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.5:
discharges from fire fighting activities;
fire hydrant flushings: waters used to
wash vehicles or control dust In
accordance with Part IV.D.2.c42):
potable water sources induding
waterline flushings: iniga lion drainage:
routine externa! building washdown
which does not use detergents;
pavement washwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
have not occurred (unless all spilled
material has been removed) and where
detergents are not usedi air conditioning
condensate; springs; uncontaminated
ground waten and foundation or footing
draws where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents.
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
1. The discharge of hazardous
substances or oil in the storm water
discharge(s) from a facility shall be
prevented or minimized in accordance
with the applicable storm water
pollution prevention plan for the facility.
This permit does not relieve the
permittee of the reporting requirements
of 40 CFR part 117 and 40 CFR part 302.
Where a release containing a hazardous
substance in an amount equal to or in
excess of a reporting quantity
established under either 40 CFR 117 or
40 CFR 302. occurs during a 24 hour
period:
a. The permittee is required to notify
the National Response Center (NRC)
(800—124 -460z, in ice V ashingtun DC
metropolitan area 202-425-2675) in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 as soon as he
or she has knowledge of the discharge
b The perrnittee shall submit ithrn
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of the
release (including the type and estim re
of the amount of material released 1 thi-
date that such release occurred the
circumstances leading to tne release
and steps to be taken in accordance
ith Part 111.83 of this permit to the
appropriate EPA Regional Office at th
address provided in Part V C
(addresses) of this perm:t, and
c. The storm water pollution
prevention plan required wider Part F v
of this permit must be modified withir
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
releases to: provide a descriptwn of the
release, the circumstances iead:n to the
release, and the date of the release In
addition, the plan must be -re%Iewed to
identify measures to prevent the
reoccurrence of such releases and to
respond to such releases. and the plan
must be modified where appropriate
2. Spills. This permit does not
authorize the discharge of hazardous
substances or oil resulting from an on-
site spill.
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
A storm water pollution prevention
plan shall be developed for each
construction site 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 from the construction
site. In addition. the plan shall describe
and ensure the implementation of
practices which will be used to reduce
the pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity at the
construction site and to assure
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit Facilities must
implement the provisions of the storm
water pollution prevention plan required
under this part as a condition of this
permit.
A Deadlines for Plan Preporot:an ar’
Compliance
The plan shall:
1. Be completed (including
certifications required under Part IV K
prior to the submittal of an NO! to be
covered under this permit and update :
as appropriate:
-------
44420
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
2. For construction activities that have
begun on or before October 1. 1992.
except for sediment basins required
under Part IV.D.2.a.(2) (structural
practices) of this permit. the plan shall
provide for compliance with the terms
and schedule of the plan beginning on
October 1. 1992. The plan shall provide
for compliance with sediment basins
required under Part IV.D.2.a.(a) of this
permit by no later than December 1.
1992.
3. For construction activities that have
begun after October 1. 1992. the plan
shall provide for compliance with the
terms and schedule of the plan
beginning with the initiation of
construction activities.
B. S’gnature and Plo.n Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VLG, and be
retained on-site at the facility which
generates the storm water discharge in
accordance with Part V (retention of
records) of this permit.
2. The permittee shall make plans
available upon request to the Director: a
State or local agency approving
sediment and erosion plans, grading
plans, or storm water management
plans: 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.
3. 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. Such
notification shall identify those
provisions of the permit which are not
being met by the plan, and identify
which provisions of the plan requires
modifications in order to meet the
minimum requirements of this Part.
Within 7 days of such notification from
the Director. (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized
representative, the permittee shall make
the required changes to the plan and
shall submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made.
C. Keeping Plans Current. The
permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design.
construction, operation, or maintenance.
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United Slates and
which has not otherwise been addressed
in the plan or if the storm water
pollution prevention plan proves to be
ineffective In eliminating or significantly
minimizing pollutants from sources
identified under Part IV.D.2 of this
permit, or in otherwise achieving the
general objectives of controlling
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. In
addition, the plan shall be amended to
identify any new contractor and/or
subcontractor that will implement a
measure of the storm water pollution
prevention plan (see Part IV.E).
Amendments to the plan may be
reviewed by EPA in the same manner as
Part IV B above.
D. ContenLs of Pil j , The storm water
pollution prevention plan shall include
the following items:
1. Site Description. Each plan shall
provide a description of pollutant
sources and other information as
indicated:
a. A descrip (ion of the nature of the
construction actMty
b. A description of the intended
sequence of major activities which
di9turb soils for major portions of the
Site (e.g. grubbing, excavation, grading);
c. Estimates of the total area of the
site and the total area of the site that is
expected to be disturbed by excavation.
grading. or other activities:
d. An estimate of the runoff coefficient
of the site after construction activities
are completed and existing data
describing the soil or the quality of any
discharge from the site;
e. A site map Indicating drainage
patterns and approximate slopes
anticipated after major grading
activities, areas of soil disturbance, an
outline of areas which may not be
disturbed, the location of major
structural and nonstructw’al controls
identified in the plan, the location of
areas where stabilization practices are
expected to occur, surface waters
(including wetlands), and locations
where storm water is discharged to a
surface water: and
f. The name of the receiving water(s),
and areal extent of wetland acreage at
the site.
2. Controls. Each plan shall include a
description of appropriate controls and
measures that will be implemented at
the construction site. The plan will
clearly describe for each major activity
identified In Part IV.D.1.b appropriate
control measures and the timing during
the construction process that the
measures will be implemented. (For
example, perimeter controls for one
portion of the site will be installed after
the clearing and grubbing necessary for
installation of the measure, but before
the clearing and grubbing for the
remaining portions of the site. Perimeter
controls will be actively maintained
until final stabilization of those portions
of the site upward of the perimeter
control. Temporary perimeter controls
will be removed after final
stabilization) The description and
implementation of controls shall add
the following minimum components:
a. Erosion and Sediment Controls.
(1). Stob,i,z.otion Procdces. A
description of Interim and permar.ent
stabilization practices. induding site-
specific scheduling of the
implementation of the practices. Site
plans should ensure that existing
vegetation is preserved where attainable
and that disturbed portions of the site
are stabilized. Stabilization practices
may include: temporary seeding,
permanent seeding, mulching.
geotextiles. sod stabilization. vegetative
buffer strips, protection of trees.
preservation of mature vegetation, and
other appropriate measures. A record of
the dates when major grading activities
occur, when construction activities
temporarily or permanently cease on a
portion of the site, and when
stabilization measures are initiated shall
be Included in the plan. Except as
provided in paragraphs IV.D.2.(a) (1).
(a). (b), and (c) below, stabilization
measures shall be initiated as soon as
practicable in portions of the 8ite where
construction activities have temporarily
or permanently ceased, but in no case
more than 14 days after the construction
activity in that portion of the site has
temporarily or permanently ceased.
(a). Where the initiation of
stabilization.meaaures by the 14th day
after construction activity temporanly or
permanently cease is precluded by snow
cover, stabilization measures shall be
initiated as soon as practicable.
(b) Where construction activity will
resume on a portion of the site within 21
days from when activities ceased. (e g.
the total time period that construction
activity is temporarily ceased is less
than 21 days) then stabilization
measures do not have to be Initiated on
that portion of site by the 14th day after
construction activity temporarily
ceased.
(c). In arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches)
and semi-and areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches), where the initiation of
stabilization measures by the 14th day
after construction activity has
temporarily or permanently ceased is
precluded by seasonal and conditions
stabilization measures shall be irntis.t1
as soon as practicable.
(2). Structural Practices. A descri -i
of structural practices to divert flo.
from exposed soils, store flows or
otherwise limit runoff and the disi
of pollutants from exposed areas
site to the degree attainable. Such
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday, September 25 . 1992 I Notices
44421
practices may include silt fences, earth
dikes, drainage swales, sediment traps.
check dams. subsurface drains. pipe
slope drains, level spreaders, storm
drain inlet protection, rock outlet
protection, reinforced soil retaining
systems. gabions, and temporary or
permanent sediment basins. Structural
practices should be placed on upland
soils to the degree attainable. The
installation of these devices may be
subject to Section 404 of the CWA.
(a) For common drainage locations
that serve an area with 10 or more
disturbed acres at one time, a temporary
(or permanent) sediment basin providing
3.600 cubic feet of storage per acre
drained, or equivalent control measures.
shall be provided where attainable until
fmel stabilization of the site. The 3.600
cubic feet of storage area per acre
drained does not apply to flows from
offsite areas and flows from onsite areas
that are either undisturbed or have
undergone final stabilization where such
flowa are diverted around both the
disturbed area and the sediment basin.
For drainage locations which serve 10 or
more disturbed acres at one time and
where a temporary sediment basin
provIding 3.600 cubic feet of storage per
acre drained, or equivalent controls is
not attainable, smaller sediment basins
and/or sediment traps should be used.
At a minimum, silt fences, or equivalent
sediment controls are required for all
sideslope and dowuslope boundaries of
the construction area.
(b) For drainage locations serving less
than 10 acres, sediment basins and/or
sediment traps should be used. At a
minimum, silt fences or equivalent
sediment controls are required for all
sideslope and downslope boundaries of
the construction area unless a sediment
basin providing storage for 3.600 cubic
feet of storage per acre drained is
provided.
b. Storm Water Management. A
description of measures that will be
installed during the construction process
to control pollutants in storm water
discharges that will occur after
construction operations have been
completed. Structural measures should
be placed on upland soils to the degree
attainable: The installation of these
devices may be subject to Section 404 of
the CWA. This permit only addresses
the installation of storm water
management measures, and not the
ultimate operation and maintenance of
such structures after the construction
activities have been completed and the
site has undergone final stabilization.
Permittees are only responsible for the
installation and maintenance of storm
water management measures prior to
final stabilization of the site. and are not
responsible for maintenance after storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been elinunated
from the site.
(1). Such practices may Include: storm
water detention structures (Including
wet ponds): storm water retention
structures; flow attenuation by use of
open vegetated swales and natural
depressions: infiltration of runoff onsite:
and sequential systems (which combine
several practices). The pollution
prevention plan shall include an
explanation of the technical basis used
to select the practices to control
pollution where flows exceed
predevetopment levels.
(2). Velocity dissipation devices shall
be placed at discharge locations and
along the length of any outfall channel
for the purpose of providing a non.
erosive velocity flow from the structure
to a water course so that the natural
physical and biological characteristics
and functions are maintained and
protected (e.g. no significant changes in
the hydrological regime of the receiving
water).
c. Other Controls.
(1). Waste Disposal. No solid
materials, including building materials,
shall be discharged to waters of the
United States, except as authorized by a
section 404 permIt.
(2). Off-site vehicle tracking of
sediments and the generation of dust
shall be minimized.
(3). The plan shall ensure and
demonstrate compliance with applicable
State and/or local waste disposal.
sanitary sewer or septic system
regulations.
d. Approved State or Local Plans.
(1) Permittees which discharge storm
water associated with’industzial activity
from construction activities must include
In their storm water pollution prevention
plan procedures and requirements
specified in applicable sediment and
erosion site plans or site permits, or
storm water management site plans or
site permits approved by State or local
officials. Permittees shall provide a
certification in their storm water
pollution prevention plan that their
storm water pollution prevention plan
reflects requirements applicable to
protecting surface water resources in
sediment and erosion site plans or site
permits, or storm water management
site plans or site permits approved by
State or local officials. Permittees shall
comply with any such requirements
during the term of the permit. This
provision does not apply to provisions
of master plans. comprehensive plans.
non-enforceable guidelines or technical
guidance documents that are not
identified in a specific plan or permit
that is issued for the construction site
(2) Storm water pollution prevention
plans must be amended to reflect any
change applicable to protecting surface
water resources in sediment and erosion
site plans or site permits. or storm water
management site plans or site permits
approved by State or local officials for
which the permittee receives written
notice. Where the permittee receives
such written notice of a change the
pernuttee shall provide a recertificatiin
in the storm water pollution plan that
the storm water pollution prevention
plan has been modified to address such
changes.
(3) Dischargers seeking alternative
permit requirements shall submit an
individual permit application in
accordance with Part VI L of the perr iit
at the address indicated in Part V C of
this permit for the appropriate Regional
Office, along with a description of why
requirements in approved State or local
plans or permits, or changes to such
plans or permits, should not be
applicable as a condition of an NPDES
permit.
3. Maintenance A description of
procedures to ensure the timely
maintenance of vegetation, erosion and
sediment control measures and other
protective measures identified in the site
plan in good and effective operating
condition.
4. Inspections. Qualified personnel
(provided by the discharger) shall
inspect disturbed areas of the
construction site that have not been
finally stabilized, areas used for storage
of materials that are exposed to
precipitation, structural control
measures, and locations where vehicles
enter or exit the site at least once c ’ .e
seven calendar days and within 4
hours of the end of a storm that is 0 5
inches or greater. Where sites ha’. e
finally stabilized, or during season
arid periods in arid areas (areas ‘.sit i
average annual rainfall of Oto 10 irn
and semi-arid areas (areas with ar
average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches) such inspection shall be
conducted at least once every mu
a. Disturbed areas and areas us.
storage of materials that are expc .
precipitation shall be inspected k
evidence of, or the potential for.
pollutants entering the drainage
Erosion and sediment control me.
identified in the plan shall be ob .
to ensure that they are operating
correctly. Where discharge loca;
points are accessible, they shall
inspected to ascertain whether
control measures are effective i
-------
44422
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Fr day. September 25, 1992 / Notices
preventing sigmficant impacts to
receiving waters. Locations where
vehicles enter or exit the site shall be
inspected for evidence of offsite
sediment tracking.
b. Based on ‘he results of the
inspection, the site descriptx,n identified
in the plan in accordance with
paragraph !V.D.1 of this permit and
pollution prevention measures identified
in the plan in accordance with
paragraph IV.D.2 of this permit shall be
revised as appropnate. but in no case
later than 7 calendar days following the
inspection. Such modifications shall
provide for timely implementation of
any changes to the plan within 7
calendar days following the inspection.
C. A report summarizing the scope of
the inspection, name(s) and
qualifications of personnel making the
inspection, the date(s) of the Inspection,
major observations relating to the
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan, and actions
taken in accordance with paragraph
IV.D.4.b of the permit shall be made and
retained as part of the storm water
pollution prevention plan for at least
three years from the date that the site is
finally stabth.zed. Such reports shall
identify any incidents of non-
compliance. Where a report does not
identify any incidents of non-
compliance, the report shall contain a
certification that the facility Is in
compliance with the storm water
pollution prevention plan and this
permit. The report shall be signed in
accordance with Part VLC of this
permit.
5. Non-Storm Water Discharges—
Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed in Part IILA2 of this permit that
are combined with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must be identified in the plan.
The plan shall identify and ensure the
implementation of appropriate pollution
prevention measures for the non-storm
water component(s) of the discharge.
£ Contractors
1. The storm water pollution
prevention plan must clearly Identify for
each measure identified In the plan, the
contractor(s) and/or SUbCOnfr CtOF(S)
that will Implement the measure. All
contractors and subcontractors
identified in the plan must sign a copy of
the certification statement In Part IV.E.2
of this permit In accordance with Part
V1.G of this permit All certifications
must be included in the storm water
pollution prevention plan.
2. Ceruficoi,on State .menL All
contractors and subcontractors
identified in a storm water pollution
prevention plan in accorJance with Part
IV.E.1 of this peTrrut shall sign a copy of
the following certification statement
before conducting any professional
service identified in the storm water
pollution prevention plan:
“I certify under penalty of law that I
understand the terms and conditions of
the genera! National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit that
authorizes the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
the construction site identified as part of
this certification.”
The certification must include the
name and title of the person providing
the signature in accordance with Part
VLG of this permit: the name, address
and telephone number of the contracting
flrm the address (or other ldentIfying
deeciiption) of the site: and the date the
certification Is made.
Part V. Retantinn of Records
A. The persnittee shall retain copies of
storm water pollution prevention plans
and all reports required by this permit.
and records of all data used to complete
the Notice of Intent to be covered by
this permit, for a penod of at least three
years from the date that the site is
finally stabilized. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at
any time.
B. The permittee shall retain a copy of
the storm water pollution prevention
required by this permit at the
construction site from the date of project
initiation to the date of final
stabilization.
C. Addresses. Except for the submittal
of NOla (see Part ll.C of this permit), all
written correspondence concerning
discharges in any State, Indian land or
from any Federal Facility covered under
this permit and directed to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Including the submittal of individual
permit applications, shall be sent to the
address of the appropriate Regional
Office listed below:
.1. Massachusetts
United States EPA. Region L Water
Management Division, (WCP—2109),
Storm Water Staff. John F. Kennedy
Federal Building. room 2209, Boston,
MA 02203
Z Indian Lands in New York
United States EPA. Region IL Water
Management Division, (ZWM-WPCJ.
Storm Water Staff. 26 Federal Plaza,
New York. NY 10V8
3. District of Colwnb,a. and Federal
facilities n Delaware
United States EPA. Region Ill. Water
Management Division, (3WM55),
Storm Water Staff. 811 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia. PA 9 ’o
4 Floriao
United States EPA, Region IV, Wcter
Management Division. fFPB—3). Stor..
Water Staff, 345 Courtlarid Street, NE,
Atlanta. GA 30365
5 American Samoa and Guam
United States EPA. Region DC. Water
Management Division. (W-5—1). Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105
Part VL SIlnd2rd Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply
1. The permittee must comply with a”
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation o:
CWA and is grounds for enforcement
action, for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance, or
modification, or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions.
a. Criminal
(1). Negligent Violations. The CWA
provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing sections 301. 302. 306, 307.
308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to a
fine of not less than $2,500 nor more
than $25,000 per day of violation, or b
Imprisonment for not more than 1 year
or both.
(2). KJ7owing Violations. The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301. 302, 306. 307,
308, 318, or 405 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 3 years.
or both.
(3). Knowing Endangerment. The
CWA provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing SectIons 301.302.306,307,
308.318, or 405 of the Act and who
knows at that 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.
(4). False Statement. The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false materidl
statement, representation, or
certification in any application. ri’ .‘d
report, plan, orother document IilJ
required to be maintained under tb.
or who knowingly falsifies. tamp” .
with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method req
be maintain tinder the Act, shall
-------
Federal Register I Vol 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
44423
conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10000 or by imprisonment
for not more than 2 years. or by both If
a cor.viction is for a violation committed
after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph. punishment shall
be by a fine of not more than 520.000 per
day of violation, or by imprisorunent of
not more than 4 years. or by both. (See
Section 309.c.4 of the Clean Water Act).
b. Civil Panaizzes—The CWA
provides that any person who .iolates a
permit condition implementing Sections
301. 302. 308. 307. 308. 318. or 405 of the
Act is subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation,
C, Adrainisgintive Panalties—The
CWA 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
an administrative penalty, as follows:
(1). Class I penalty. Not to exceed
$10000 per violation nor shall the
maximum amount exceed $25,000.
(2). Class II penalty. Not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues nor shall
the maximum amount exceed $125,000.
B. Continuation of the Expired Cenemi
Permit
This permit expires on (insert date
five years after publication date].
However, an expired general permit
continues in force and effect until a new
general permit is issued. Perinittees must
submit a new NO! in accordance with
the requirements of Part II of this permit.
using a NO! form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereofl between
August 1. 1997 and [ insert date five
years after publication date) to remain
covered under the continued permit
after [ insert date five years after
publication date). Facilities that had not
obtained coverage under the permit by
(insert date five years after publication
date) cannot become authorized to
discharge under the continued permit.
C. Need to halt or reduce activity 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,
D. Duty to Mitigate. The permittee
shall take all rsasonable steps to
minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the
env i ronment.
E. Duty to Provide Information. The
permittee shall furnish to the Director:
an authorized representative of the
Director: a State or local agency
approving sediment and erosion plans.
grading plans. or storm water
management plans: 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.
any information which is requested to
determine compliance with this permit
or other information.
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
medium municipal separate storm sewer
system, or that this permit requires be
maintained by the permittee. shall be
signed as follows:
1. All 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 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 emplo ,ing more than 250
persons or hating gross annual sales or
expenditures exceed:ng $25000000 (in
second-quarter 1980 dolIars) if authority
to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manac,c r in accordance
with corporate procedures;
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship. b a 8eneral partner or
the proprietor. respe. :.vey; or
c. For a munici alit , btate, Federal.
or other public a er.cy y either a
principal exe .u i e offl.er or ranking
elected official F.,r purpc es of this
section. a pri:i .icId: t’e LgtIve officer of a
Federal a en tn.J ,iies (1) the chief
executive officer o lie agency. or (2) a
senior executive o t icer having
responsibility for the overall operations
of a principal gecgrapiiic unit of the
agency (e.g.. Regional Administrators of
EPA).
2, All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director or authorized representative of
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 oni
if
a The authorization is made in
snting by a person described above
and submitted to the Director.
b. The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position hating
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the pos:tion of manager. operator
superintendent, or position of equttaleFit
responsibility or an individual or
position having overall responsibil’rv for
environmental matters for the company
(A duly authorized representati e ma
thus be either a named individual or an
individual occupying a named pcsitian
c Changes to a ,ithor:zatwn If an
authorization under paragraph II B 3 is
no longer accurate because a different
operator has responsibility for the
overall operation of the construction
site, a new notice of intent satisfying the
requirements of paragraph II B must be
submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative
d. Certification. Any person signing
documents under paragraph VI C shall
make the following certification
‘1 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 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
ioIations.”
H. Penalties for Falsification o ’
Reports. Section 309(ci(4) of the Clean
Water Act provides that any person
who knowingly makes any false
matenal statement. repres ntnticn or
certification in any record or other
document subm.ned or required to 1w
maintained under this perm’t. includ re
reports of compliance or noncomplu .tnu
shall, upon conviction, be punished 1’..
fine or not more than $10,000 or b
imprisonment for not more than 2 -.
or by both.
I. Oil and Hazardous Substa ’c ’
Liability. Nothing in this permit ch
construed to preclude the institut”
any legal action or relieve the pt --
from any responsibilities. liabilit .
penalties to which the perrnittee - ‘
-------
4q24
Fedora] Register I Vol. 57. No. 18? / Friday, September 25, 1992 / Notices
may be sub ect under section 311 of the
C1NA or section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
J. Property Rtghts. The issuance of
this permit does not convey any
property rights of any sort. 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.
K. Severability. The provisions of this
permit are severable, and if any
provision of this permit. at the
application of any provision of this
permit to any ci.tumstaiice, is held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other circumstances. and the
remainder of this permit shall not be
affected thereby.
L. Requiring an individual perm it or
an aIteJ7?otive generaiperrniL
1. The Director may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and/or obtain either an
uidwidual NPDES permit or an
alternative NPDES general permit. Any
interested person may petition the
Director to take action under this
paragraph. Where the Director requires
a discharger authorized to discharge
under this permit to apply for an
individual NPDES permit, the Director
shall notify the discharger in writing
that a permit application Is required.
This notification shall include a brief
statement of the reasons for this
decision, an application form, a
statement setting a deadline for the
discharger to file the application, and a
statement that on the effective date of
issuance or denial 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.
Applications shall be submitted to the
appropriate Regional Office indicated In
Part V.C of this permit. The Director
may grant additional tune to submit the
application upon request of the
applicant If a discharger falls to submit
in a timely manner an individual NPD
permit application as required by the
Director under this paragraph, then the
applicability of this permit to the
individual NPDES perauttee is
automatically terminated at the end of
the day specified by the Director for
application submittal.
2. Any discharger authorized by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this permit by applying
for an individual permit. In such cases,
the permittee shall submit an individual
application in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CPR 1 . (c)(1)(fl),
with reasons supporting the request, to
the Director at the address for the
appropriate Regional Office indicated in
Part V.C of this permit The request may
be granted by issuance of any individual
permit or an alternative general permit If
the reasons cited by the permittee are
adequate to support the request
3. When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to a discharger otherwise
sub ject to this permit, or the discharger
is authorized to discharge under an
alternative NPDFS general permit, the
applicability of this permit to the
individual NPDES perniittee is
‘.utoxxiatically terminated on the
effective date of the individual permit or
the date of authorization of coverage
under the alternative general permit.
whichever the case may be. When an
individual NPDES permit is denied 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 NPDES
permitlee is automatically terminated on
the date of such denial, unless otherwise
specified by the Director.
M. State/EnvzrvrzmentcjJ Laws.
1. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the pennittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties e8tablished pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of the
2. No condition of this permit shall
release the permittee from any
responsibility or requirements under
other environmental statutes or
regulations.
N. Proper Operation and
Maintenance. The permittee shall at all
times property 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 and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. Proper operation and
mnint nance requires the operation of
- backup or auxiliary facilities or similar
systems, installed by a permittee only
when necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of the permit
0. Inspection and Entry. The
permittee shall allow the Director or an
authorized representative of EPA, the
State, or. in the case of a construction
site 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. iter upon the permine&s premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted or where records
must be kept under the conditions of Lhi
permit:
2. Have access to and copy at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit and
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities or equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment).
P. Permit Actions. This permit may be
modified, revoked and reissued, or
terminated for cause. The filing of a
request by the permitlee for a permit
modification, revocation and reissuance,
or termination, or a notification of
planned changes or anticipated
noncompliance does not stay any permit
condition.
Part V I I . 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
discharger 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 limitations
and/or requirements.
B. Permit modification or revocation
will be conducted according to 40 CFR
122.62, 122.83 , 122.64 and 124.5.
Pail VIII. Taiminatlan of Coverage
A.NoticeofTej ’mjnatjori. Where a
site has been finally stabilized and all
storm water discharges from
construction activities that are
authorized by this permit are eliminated
or where the operator of all storm water
discharges at a facility changes, the
operator of the facility may submit a
Notice of Termination that is signed in
accordance with Part VLG of this
permit. The Notice of Termination ‘ih.,
include the following information:
1. The mailing address of the
construction site for which the
notification is submitted. Where a
mailing address for the site is not
available, the location of the
approximate center of the site mu ’S
described In terms of the latitude a
longitude to the nearest 15 second’
the section, township and range to
nearest quarter section;
-------
Fe 1 raI Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 1992 I Notices
44423
2. The name, address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Terinmanon
3. The NPDES permit niunber for the
storm water discharge Identified by the
Notice of Termmatioft
4. An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges ha..
changed and
5. The following certification signed In
accordance with Part V!.C (signatoly
requirements) of this permit ;
I certify under penalty of law that all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified
facility that are authorized by an NPDES
general permit have been . im .ated or
that I am no longer the operator of the
facility orconatruction site lunderstand
that by submitting this notice of
termination, I am no longer authorized
to discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity under this
general permit, and that discharging
pollutants in storm water associated
with industrial activity to watern of the
United States is unlawful under the
Clean Water Act where the discharge Is
not authorized by a NPiWS permit. I
also understand that the submittal of
this notice of termination does not
release an operator from liability for any
violations of this permit or the Clean
Water Act.”
For the purposes of this certification,
elimination of storm water discharges
associated with indusb4al activity
means that all disturbed soils at the
identified Facility have been finally
stabilized and temporary er oe and
sediment control measures have been
removed or will be removed at on
appropriate time, or that all storm water
discharges associated with construction
activities from the dentlfled site that
are authon.zed by a NPOES general
permit have otherwise bean elbn nRted.
B. Adilrvsses, All Notices of
Termination are to be sent, using the
form provided by the Director (or a
photocopy thereof),’ to the following
address: Storm Water Notice of
Termination, P0 Box 1155, Newmgton.
VA 22121
Part I X . Definitions
Ben Management Pi’erfices (DM1 ’ .)
means schedule. of activities.
prohibition, of practices, maintenance
procedures, and other management
practices to prevent or reduce the
pollution of waters of the United States.
BMPs also include treatment
reqwrementa, operating procedure., and
A copy of the .ppvav.d NOT form a pruvld.d in
Appezmdiz 0 of thri non .
practices to control plant site runoff.
spillage or leaks. sludge or waste
disposaL or drainage from raw material
storage.
Commencement of Constr-ac -on—The
Initial disturbance of soils associated
with clearing. grading. or excavating
activities or other construction
activthes.
CWA means the Clean Water Act or
the Federal Water Poflation Control Act.
Dedicated portable orp/iaft p/ant—A
portable asphalt plant that is located on
or contiguous to a construction site and
that provides asphalt only to the
construction site that the plant is
located on or adjacent to. The term
dedicated portable asphalt plant does
not include facihties that are eubpect to
the asphalt emulsion effluent limits hon
guideline at 40 CFR 443.
Dedicated port able conciete plant—A
portable concrete plant that is located
on or contiguous to a construction site
and that provides concrete only to the
construction site that the plant is
located on or adjacent to.
Director means the Regional
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or an authorized
representative.
Final Slobiiizagion meeni that all soil
disturbing activities at the site have
been completed, and that a uniform
perennial vegetative cover with a
density of 70 of the cover for unpaved
areas and areas not covered by
permanent structures has been
established or equivalent permanent
stabthzatico measures (such as the use
of riprap. gabons. or geotextiles) have
been employed.
flow-weighted corn posite sample
means a composite sample consisting of
a muizture of eliquots collected at a
constant time interval, where the
volume of each aliquot is proportional to
the flow rate of the discharge.
Large and Medium murnczpol
separate storm sewer system means all
municipal separate storm sewers that
are eithen (1) located In an incorporated
place (city) th a population of i00 .OOO
or more as determined by the latest
Decennial Census by the Bureau of
Census (these cities are listed in
Appendices F and G of 40 Q’R Part 122):
or (II) located n the counties with
unincorporated urbaed populations
c i 100,000 or more, except municipal
separate storm sewers that are located
m the incorpora ted places, townships or
towns within such counbee (these
counties are listed in Appendices H and
I of 40 CFR Part 122k oc(i,i) owned or
operated by a municipahty 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! niearts notice of intent to be
covered by this permit (see Part II of this
permit)
NOT means notice of terinmatian (see
Part VIII of this permit).
Point Source means any discernible.
confined, and discrete conveyance.
includmg but not hmited to. any pipe.
ditch, channel, tunnel. conduit well.
discrete fissure. contamer. roiling stock.
concentrated animal feeding operation.
landfill leachate collection system.
vessel or other floating craft from which
pollutants are or may be discharges.
This term does not include return flows
from irrigated agriculture or agricultural
storm water runoff.
Runoff coefficient means the fraction
of total rainfall that will appear at the
conveyance as runoff.
Storm Water means storm water
runoff. snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
Storm Water Assoc,oted with
IndusüiolActiv:y means the discharge
from any conveyance winch 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 famhties or activities
excluded from the NPDES program. For
the categories of industries identified in
paragraphs (1) through (x) of this
definition, the term includes, but is not
limited to. storm water discharges from
industrial plant years: immediate access
roads and rail lines used or traveled by
carrien of raw materials, manufactured
products, waste matenal. or by.products
used or created by the facility; material
bsndli g sites; refuse sites; sites used for
the application or disposal of process
waste water, (as defined at 40 CFR 401).
sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling
equipnient 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 stgrtthcar.t
materials remain and are exposed to
storm water. For the categories of
Industries identified In paragraph ( ..f
this definition, the term includes or.!..
storm water discharges from all ar* ’a
(except access roads and rail lined
listed in the previous sentence whr-’
material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials. interned
products, final products, waste
materials, by-products. or industn
-------
11
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday . September 25. 1992 I Notices
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 ho d’saiption of the
facilities listed in this paragraph (i)—{,d)
of this definition) include those facilities
designated under 122.28(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 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) of this
definition): (ii) Facilities classified as
Standard Industrial Classifications 24
(except 2434), 28 (except 285 and 287). 28
(except 283), 29. 311, 32 (except 323), 33.
3441. 373; (iii) Facilities classified as
Standard Industrial ClassIfications 10
through 14 (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 operation, which have been
released from applicable State or
Federal reclamation 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/operator
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment
storage. or disposal facilities. Induding
those that are operating under Interim
status or a permit under Subtitle C of
RCR.A:
(v) LandflUs, land apolication sites,
and open dumps that have received any
industrial .vastes (waste that is received
from any of the facilities described
under this subsection) including those
that are subject to regulation under
SubtitleD of RCRA
(vi) Facilities involved in the recycling
of materials, including metal scrapyards,
battery reclaimers, salvage yards. and
automobile junkyards. Including but
limited to those classified as Standard
Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093;
(vii) Steam electric power generating
facilities, including coal handling sites;
(viii) Transportation facilities
classified as Standard Industrial
Classifications 40, 41, 42 (except 4221—
25). 43. 44, 45 and 5171 which have
vehicle maintenance shops, equipment
cleaning operations, or airport deicing
operations. Only those portions of the
facility that are either involved in
vehicle maintenance (including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs.
painting. fueling, and lubrication).
equipment cleaning operations, airport
deicrng operations, or which are
otherwise identified under paragraphs
(i)—(vu) or (ix)-.{xi) of this subsection are
associated with industrial activity;
(ix) Treatment works treating
domestic sewage or any other sewage
sludge or wastewater treatment device
or system, used in the storage treatment,
recyding. and reclamation of municipal
or domestic sewage, including land
dedicated to the disposal of sewage
sludge that are located within the
confines of the facility, with a design
flow of 1.0 mgd or more, or required to
have an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CFR 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 503;
(x) Construction activity including
clearing, 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
larger common plan of development or
sale;
(xi) Facilities under Standard
Industrial Classifications 20. 21. 22, 23,
2434, 25, 265, 287, 27, 283, 285, 30, 31
(except 311). 323. 34 (except 3441). 35, 38,
37 (except 373), 38, 39, 4221—25, (and
which are not otherwise included within
categories (l)—(x)).’
‘On june 4.1992, the United State. Court of
Appeal. for the Ninth ci it remanded the
•xclu .ion for manufactunna racihtie. in category
( x l ) which do not have meter .,.l. or activities
Waters of the United Slates means
(a) All waters which are currently
used, were used in the past. or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or fort
commerce. including all waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including
interstate “wetlands”;
(c) All other waters such as interstate
lakes. rivers, streams (including
Intermittent streams), niudflats.
sandflats. 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;
(d) All impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this definition:
(e) Tributaries of waters Identified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
definition:
(I) The territorial sea: and
(g) Wetlands adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)
through (1) of this def’inition.
Waste treatment ‘systems, including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirements of CWA are not
waters of the United States.
Part X. State Specific Conditions
The provisions of this Part provide
modifications or additions to the
applicable conditions of Parts I through
DC of this permit to reflect specific
additional conditions identified as part
of the State section 401 certification
process. The additional revisions and
requirements listed below are set forth
in connection with particular State.
Indian lands and Federal facilities and
only apply to the States and Federal
facilities specifically referenced.
A. Massachusetts. Massachusetts 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
exposed to storm water to the EPA for furth..’
ru1e. akin (No, 90-70671 and 9i-70 Oj
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25 1992 / otices
4447
Part 1. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Perm,t Areo. This perYrut covers all
areas of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
B. El:gibthsy.
3. L,m,tot,orzs on Covezege.
h. new or maeased storm water
discharges to coastal water segments
within Massachusetts designated as
“Areas of Cntical Environmental
Concern (ACEC) (for mforinatiori on
ACEC. please contact the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs. Coastal
Zone Management at (817) 727—9530);
i. new or increased discharges. as
defined at 314 CMR 4.02{19). which meet
the definition of “storm water
discharge.” as defined at 314 CMR
3 04(2)(a)(1) or (2)(b), to Outstanding
Resource Waters which have not met
the provisions of 314 CMR 4 04(3) and
Part ill C.1 of this permit.
2, Part II of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part if. Notice of Intent Requirements
• • . . .
C. Where to Submit.
1. Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NOl form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof). The
form in the Federal Register notice in
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forum are also
available by calling the Storm Water
Hothne at (703) 821—4823, or the NPDES
Programs Operations Section at US A
Region I at (817) 565—3525. NOls must be
signed in accordance with Part YILG
(signatory requn ’ementsj of this permit
NOIs are to be submitted to the Director
of the NPDES pro am in care of the
following address: Storm Water Notice
of Intent. US A RegIon 1, MA. PC Box
1215. Newtngtori. VA 122.
2. A copy of the NO! for all discharges
to Outstanding Resource Waters shall
be submitted to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at the foflowlng address:
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. Storm Water
Notice of Intent BRP—WP 43. PC Box
4082. Boston. Massachusetts i1.
For details on filing for permits with
MA D see 310 4R 4. . Thnely
Action Schedule and Pee Provisions. For
other infonnation call the MA D ’
Information Services Section at (OI l
338-2255 or the Technical Services
Section of the DEl’ Dlvl ron of Water
Pollution Cuutr ,J at (504) ? -74?o.
3. Part If of the permit is revised to
read as fof lowe:
Part rn. s, ci i c Iditi0
C. Set Backs and Best Management
Pract ices
1. Storm water discharge outfall pipes
to public water supplie, and other
Outstanding Resource Waters shall be
removed and set back when dischargers
are seeking to increase the discharge or
change the site storm water drainage
system; all new discharge ontfalls must
be set back from the receiving water.
Receiving swales for outfall pipes shall
be prepared to minimize ei’ooson and
maximize infiltrat Ion prior to discharge.
The goal is to infiltrate as much as
feasible; infIltration trenches and
basins, filter media dikes and/or other
UMPs shall be used to meet the goal.
Discharges shall employ Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for
controllmg storm water. See Prvtecting
Wotgr Quality in f/than Areas by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Division of Water Quality as a reference
for BMPs.
2. Storm water discharges to waters
that are not classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters shaft be sub ect to the
reqmreuieats of this permit. New
discharge outfall pipes shall be designed
to be set back from the receiving water
when site conditions allow. For existing
discharge outfall pipes, when the storm
water drainage system is undergoing
changes, outfall pipes shall be set back
from the receiving water. A receiving
swale, infiltration trench or basin. filter
media dikes or other BMPs should be
prepared with the goat to minimize
erosion yet maximize infiltration or
otherwise improve water quality prior to
discharge.
3. All discharges to Outstanding
Resource Waters authorized under this
permit must be provided the best
practical method of treatment to protect
and maintain the designated use of the
outstanding resource.
B. De/awcjre, Delaware 401 -
certification specia) permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Pan I of the permit is revised to
read
Part I , Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. This permit covers all
Federal facilities administered by
Re oa 3 In the State of Delaware.
2. Part II of the pennis is reused to
reed as followsi
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
• I I • •
C. Where to Submit.
1. FacilitIes which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NO! form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereofl The
form in the Federal Register nctice in
which this permit was published nay
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821—4823 NOls
must be signed in accordance with Part
VIl.G (signatory requirements) of th:s
permit. NOls are to be submitted t the
Director of the NPDES program in cate
of the following address Storm Water
Notice of Intent. PC Box 1Z15,
Newuigton, VA 22122.
2. A copy of all Notices of Intent
(NO!,) shall be submitted to the State of
Delaware at the following ad±es
Water Pollution Control Branch NPDES
Storm Water Program. Delaware
Department of Natural Resources ar’d
Environmental ControL 89 Kings
Highway. P0 Box 1401. Dover. DE
19903.
3. The following section is added to
Part UI of the perrnlti
Part 111. Special Conditions.
Management Practices and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
I I I I
C. Special Conditions The permitter
meat comply with the requirements of 7
Delaware Code Chapter 40 arid the
Delaware Sediment end Storm Water
Regulations (January, 1991)
4. Part IV of the permit Is re -ised to
read as follows:
Pail IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
• • I I •
B. Sigl7atrire and Plan Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VILC (signatory
reqwrementg), and be retained on-site at
the facility which generates the storm
water discharge in accordance wiih Part
VI.E (retention of records) of this p” --nu
A copy of the plan, as well as
subsequent revisions, shall also b.-
submitted to the State of Delawari ,‘
the following adthea Water POUL’
Control Branch, NPtTh Storm W
Program. Delaware Department
Natural Resources and Environ.-
Control. 89 Kings Highway, P.O ‘
1401. Dover, DE 19903.
C l)istrict olColuinbia. Dis:-.
Columbia 401 certification spe .
permit conditions revise the p.
fo llows:
1. Part I of the permit is rev’..
read as follows:
Part L Coverage Under This P’-
A. Permit Area. The perm
areas administered by Region
District of Columbia.
-------
44428
Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
B. Ehgibility.
3. Umitations on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges from
construction sites are not authorized by
this permit:
1. unpermitted discharges that are
subject to the NPDES program.
excluding discharges associated with
COnstruction activity.
D. Florida. Florida 401 certification
special permit condit.ions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part I of the permit Is revised to
read as follows:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by RegIon 4 in the
State of Florida.
2. Part II of the permit Is modified to
read as follows:
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification.
2. Individuals who intend to obtain
coverage under this general permit for
storm water discharges from a
construction site where disturbances
associated with the construction project
commence after October 1. 1992. shall
submit a Notice of Intent (NO!) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part at least 2 days prior to the
commencement of construction
activities (e.g. the initial disturbance of
soils associated with clearing, grading.
excavation activities, or other
construction activities). Prior to
submitting this NO!. the owner of a
storm water management system must
receive a State of Florida storm water
permit from either the Florida
Department of Environmental
Regulation (FD ) or a Florida Water
Management District (FW)vm).
B. Conients of Notice of Intent.
8. An estimate’ of project start date
and completion dates. estimates of the
number of acres of the site on which soil
will be disturbed, and a certification
that a storm water pollution prevention
plan has been prepared for the site In
accordance with Part IV of this permit
(A copy of the plans or permits should
not be included with the NO!
submission). The applicant shall submit
a narrative statement certifying that the
storm water pollution prevention plan
for the facility provides compliance with
approved State of Florida issued
permits, erosion and sediment control
plans and storm water management
plane. The applicant shall also submit a
copy of the cover page of the State
permit issued by FDER or a FWMD to
the facility far the storm water
associated with construction activities.
. S S S S
D. Additional Notification. Facilities
which are operating under approved
State or local sediment and erosion
plans, grading plans. or storm water
management plans shall submit signed
copies of the Notice of Intent to the
State or local agency approving such
plans in accordance with the deadlines
in Part ILA of this permit (or sooner
where required by State or local rules).
in addition to submitting the Notice of
Intent to EPA in accordance with
paragraph ILC. Facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
construction activities to a municipal
separate storm water system within
Broward, Dade, DuvaL Escambia.
Hillsborough , Orange. Palm Beach.
Pinellas. Pollc or Sarasota Counties shall
submit a copy of the NO! to the operator
of the municipal separate storm sewer
system. Included within these counties.
the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT). incorporated
municipalities and Chapter 298 Special
Districts shall also be notified where
they own or operate a municipal
separate storm sewer system receiving
storm water discharges associated with
construction activity covered by this
permit.
3. Part UI of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part DI. Special Conditions.
Management Practices and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
A. Prohibition on Non.Storm Waler
Dischor es
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit provided the non.storm water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.5 and
the storm water management system is
designed to accept these discharges and
provide treatment of the non-storm
water component sufficient to meet
Florida water quality standards:
discharges from fire fighting activities;
fire hydrant flushings; waters used to
wash vehides or control dust in
accordance with Part W.D.2.c.(2)
pots ble water sources including
waterline flushing imgation drainage;
routine external building washdown
which does not use detergents:
pavement weshwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
have not occurred (unless all spilled
material has been removed) and bshere
detergents are not used: air conditioninp
condensate. springs: uncontaminated
ground water and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents. Discharges resulting
from ground water dewatering activities
at construction sites are not covered by
this permit. The applicant may seek
coverage for these discharges under
NPDES General Permit No. FLC830000.
published on July 17, 1989 (54 FR 29986)
and modified on August 29, 1991 (58 FR
427363.
4. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part N. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
. I I S I
B Signature and Plan Review
2. The permittee shall submit plans to
the State agency which issued the storm
water permit and shall m&ke plans
available upon request to the Director: a
state or local agency approving
sediment and erosion plans. grading
plans. or storm water management
plans: 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.
C. Keeping Plans Current
The permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is change in design.
construction. operation. or maintenance.
which has a significant effect on the
2. potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States.
including the addition of or change in
location of storm water discharge
points, and which has not otherwise
been addressed in the plan or if the
storm water pollution prevention p!.i.
proves to be ineffective in elimina’i-..
significantly minimizing pollutants’
sources identified under Part IV D:
this permit, or in otherwise achie%”
the general objectives of controllinii
pollutants in storm water dischar2 ’
associated with industrial activii
addition, the plan shall be amend.
identify any new contractor and
subcontractor that will 1mplemer
measure of the storm water polk
prevention plan (see Part IV.E).
Amendments to the plan may be
reviewed by EPA in the same rr
Part IV.B above. Amendments t.
-------
Federal Register I Vol . 57, No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
44429
plan must be submitted to the State
agency which issued the State storm
water permit.
D. Contents of P/on
1. Site Description
. . . . .
d. An estimate of the runoff coefficient
of the site before, during and after
construction using “C” from the Rational
Method, existing data describing the soil
or the quality of any discharge from the
site and an estimate of the size of the
drainage area for each outfall;
Controls
Each plan shall include a description
of appropriate controls and measures
that will be Implemented at the
construction site. The plan wilJ clearly
describe for each major activity
identified in Part IV.D.1.b appropriate
control measures and the timing during
the construction process that the
measures will be implemented. (For
example, perimeter controls for one
portion of the site will be installed after
the clearing and grubbing necessary for
installation of the measure, but before
the clearing and grubbing for the
remaining portions of the site. Perimeter
controls will be actively maintained
until final stabilization of those portions
of the site upward of the perimeter
control. Temporary perimeter controls
will be removed after final
stabilization). All controls shall be
consistent with the requirements set
forth in the State Water Policy of Florida
(Chapter 17—40. Florida Administrative
Code), the applicable storm water
permitting requirements of the FDER or
appropriate FWMD, and the guidelines
contained in the Florida Development
Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and
Water Management (FDER. 1988) and
any subsequent amendments. The
description and implementation of
controls shall address the following
minimum components:
a. Erosion and sediment controls
(1) stabilization practices. A
description of interim and permanent
stabilization practices, including site-
specific scheduling of the
implementation of the practices. Site
plans should ensure that existing
vegetation is preserved where attainable
and that disturbed portions of the site
are stabilized. Stabilization practices
may include: temporary seeding,
permanent seeding, mulching,
geotextiles. sod stabilization, vegetative
buffer strips, protection of trees,
preservation of mature vegetation, and
other appropriate measures. A record of
the dates when major grading activities
occur, when oistruction activities
temporarily or permanently cease on a
portion of the site, and when
stabilization measures are Initiated shall
be induded in the plan. Stabilization
measures shall be initiated as soon as
practicable in portions of the site where
construction activities have temporarily
or permanently ceased.
(a) paragraph deleted
(b) paragraph deleted
(c) paragraph deleted
(2) Structural Practices. A description
of structural practices to divert flows
from exposed soils, store flows or
otherwise limit runoff and the discharge
of pollutants from exposed areas of the
site in accordance with the requirements
set forth In Section 17—40, 420, F.A.C..
and the applicable storm water
regulations of the FDER or appropriate
FWMD. Such practices may include silt
fences, earth dikes, drainage swales,
sediment traps, check dams, subsurface
drains, pipe slope drains, level
spreaders, storm drain inlet protection,
rock outlet protection, reinforced soil
retaining systems. gabiona, and
temporary or permanent sediment
basins, Structural practices shall be
placed on upland soils unless a State of
Florida wetland resource management
permit issued pursuant to Chapters 373
or 403. F.S., and the applicable
regulations of the FDER or FWMD
authorize otherwise. The installation of
these devices may be subject to Section
404 of the CWA.
• • • . •
b. Storm water management. A
description of measures that will be
installed during the construction process
to control pollutants in storm water
discharges that will occur after
construction operations have been
completed. The description of controls
shall be consistent with the
requirements set forth in the State
Water Policy of Florida (Chapter 17—40,
F.A.C.), the applicable storm water
permitting regulations of the FDER or
appropriate FWMD. and the guidelines
contained In the Florida Development
Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and
Water Management (FDER. 1988), and
any subsequent amendments. Structural
measures shall be placed on upland
soils unless a State of Florida wetland
resource management permit issued
pursuant to Chapters 373 or 403. F.S.,
and the applicable regulations of the
FDER or FW)ID authorize otherwise.
The installation of these devices may be
subject to Section 404 of the CWA. This
NPDES permit only addresses the
installation of storm wdler management
measures, and not the ultimate
operation and maintenance of such
str,.ictures after the construction
activities have been completed arid the
site has undergone final stabilization.
Permittees are only responsible for the
installation and maintenance of storm
water management measures prior to
final stabilization of the site, and are not
responsible for maintenance after storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
from the site. However, all storm v.ater
management systems shall be operated
and maintained in perpetuity after final
site stabilization in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the State of
Florida storm water permit issued for
the site.
(1) Such practices may include, storm
water detention structures (including
wet ponds); storm water retention
structures; flow attenuation by use of
open vegetated swales and natural
depressions; infiltration of runoff onsite:
and sequential systems (which combine
several practices). Pursuant to the
requirements of section 17—40. 420.
F.A.C., the storm water management
system shall be designed to remove at
least 80 percent of the average annual
load of pollutants which cause or
contribute to violations of water quality
standards (95 percent if the system
discharges to an Outstanding Flonda
Water). The pollution prevention plan
shall Include an explanation of the
technical basis used to select the
practices to control pollution where
flows exceed predevelopment levels
(2) Velocity dissipation devices shall
be placed at discharge locations and
along the length of any outfall channel
for the purpose of providing a non-
erosive velocity flow from the structure
to a water course so that the natural
physical and biologicat characteristics
and functions are maintained and
protected. Equalization of the
predevelopment and post-development
storm water peak di8charge rate and
volume shall be a goal in the design of
the post-development storm water
management system.
c. Other contra/s
(1) waste disposal. No solid materials,
including building materials, shall be
discharged to waters of the United
States, except as authorized by a section
404 permit and by a State of Florida
wetland resource management perrr..t
issued pursuant to chapters 373 or 403
F.S.. and the applicable regulations i1
the FDER or FWMD.
. S S S S
(4) The plan shall address the p-
application rates and methods for
use of fertilizers and pesticides at
-------
44430
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 1 Notices
construction site and set forth bow these
procedures will be implemented and
enforced.
• • • • •
4. Inspections. Qualified personnel
(provided by the discharger) shall
inspect all points of discharge into
waters of the United States or to a
municipal separate storm sewer system
and all disturbed areas of the
construction site that have not been
finally stabilized, areas used for storage
of materials that are exposed to
precipitation. structural control
measures, storm water management
systems. and locations where vehicles
enter or exit the site at least once every
seven calendar days and within 24
hours of the end of a storm that is 0.25
inches or greater. Where sites have been
finally stabilized, or during seasonal
arid periods in arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches)
and semi-arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches) such inspection shall be
conducted at least once every month.
a. Disturbed areas and areas used for
storage of materials that are exposed to
precipitation shall be inspected for
evidence of. or the potential for.
pollutants entering the storm water
management system. The storm water
management system and erosion and
sediment control measures Identified in
the plan shall be observed to ensure that
they are operating correctly. Where
dischar e locations or points are
accessible, they shall be inspected to
ascertain whether erosion control and
storm water management measures are
effective in meeting the performance
standards set forth an State Water Policy
(chapter 17-40, F.A.C.) and the
applicable storm water permitting
regulations of the FDER or appropriate
FWMD. Locations where vehicles enter
or exit the site shall be inspected for
evidence of offaite sediment tracking.
• • . . •
5. Part VI of the permit I. revised to
read as follows:
Part VL Standard Permit Conditions
• • • • I
o Inspection and Entry
• • • • •
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purposes of assuring
permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the CWA. any substances
or parameter at any location on the site.
• S S I S
8. Part V I I I of the permit Is revised to
read as follows:
Part VIIL Termination of Coverage
. S S • •
C. Additional Notification. A copy of
the Notice of Termination shall be sent
to the State agency which issued the
State storm water permit for the site
and. lithe storm water management
system discharges to a municipal
separate storm sewer system within
Broward, Dade. Duval. Eacambia.
Hilisborough. Orange. Palm Beach.
Pinellas. Polk or Sarasota Counties. to
the owner of that system. Included
within these counties, the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT).
incorporated municipalities. and chapter
298 Special Districts also shall be
notified where they own or operate a
municipal separate storm sewer system
receiving storm water discharges
associated with construction activity
covered by this permit.
E. American Samoa. American Somoa
401 certification special permit
conditions revise the permit as follows;
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
read.
Part L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas ailminiqtered by EPA Region IX in
American Samoa.
2. Part U of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
•
S S • I
C Where to Submit
• I • S I
1. A copy of the NO! shall be
submitted to American Samoa
Environmental Protection Agency at the
same time as submittal to the U.S. EPA.
3. The following paragraph is added to
Part IV of the permit
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
S I I U I
B. Signature and Plan Review
S I S • S
4. All pollution prevention plans for
storm water discharges in American
Samoa shall be submitted to the
ns an Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency for review and
approval.
F. Guam. Guam 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
read.
Pert L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region LX in
Guam.
2. Part U of the permit is revised to
read as follows.
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
• I • • I
C. Where to Submit
1. Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial acti zt
must use a NO! form provided by the
Director (or photocopy the reofl. The
form in the Federal Register notice in
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821-4823 NOls
must be signed in accordance with part
VIl.G (signatory requirements) of this
permit. NOls are to be submitted to the
Director of the NPDES program in care
of the following address: Storm Water
Notice of Intent. P0 Box 1215.
Newington. VA 22122.
2. A copy of the NOl also shall be
submitted to appropriate Government of
Guam agencies and the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency at the
following address: D—107 Harmon Plaza.
130 Rojas St.. Harmon. Guam 95911
• I S I I
3. Part IV of the permit Is revised to
read as follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
• I • • I
B. Signature and Plwi Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VILC (signatory
requirements), and be retained on siIe at
the facility which generates the storm
water discharge in accordance with Part
VI.E (retention of records) of this permit
A copy of the plan shall also be
submitted to the Guam Environmental
Protection Agency at the following
address: 0—107 Harmon Plaza. 130 Rojas
SL Harmon. Guam 95911.
• I S I I
4. Part VI of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VL Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• S • I I
D. Reportrng Where to Submit
1.
• I I • S
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitonng reports required under Parts
VLD.1.a. VLD.1.b. and V1.D.1.c.
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, shall b
submitted to the Director of the NVDF-
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office: United
States EPA. Region IX. Water
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices 44431
Management Division. (W—5—i), Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105. and to the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency at the
following address: D-.107 Harmon Plaza,
130 Rojas St.. Harmon. Guam 959911.
s it _ LIMe COOS INO.1o-
-------
Federal Resister / Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday, September 25. 1992 j Notices
Appendix C—NOI Form/Instructions
Fcn, A pr im
See R•v.rs. for Instruction s
WaIsungton, DC 20460
POES I t% — PA UtU d S Erivvorvnenst Pro on
FORM Notice of Intent (NOl) for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industijal
Activity Under the NPOES Genersl Permtt
SJbThaStOA of 1s Nono of tntei,t natMes noo nat no pony Idonofied in Secoon lot no form mton to aIv ’ nzed a NPDES co m m ued
r doawgea a ated win mausnal as m no State øonohed in Section 110 1 no mono Beconu a peimnoe oeigames sual d inor er to l ty with
no tomw ond notDors at no pomid. AU. N CESSARV INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON mPiIS FORM
I Foe ly O ato itomiation
P4 rio I I prionel I I , I
of
Addrou I i i I I I I I I I I Oorwp a r
Cfly I i I I I I I I I I I I I I State I_. .__. ____J Z1PC e I i i
ii. F iityiSr Lacoaon fonnaoon I
I is no Fa Iity Locotod on
PEsite I I I I I I I I I i I i I 1 W 0IanL.al1dS7(VorN) t......._...J
*. aasa I I I I I I I I I I I I i I
I I I I i I Ii._ ..J I I I I It I I
L tide I i I I I Langiftldo l i I I I IO uanerL ... ..i. .. ..JSeceon1 _ ..... _ . _ ..jTow , ist p ,aigo I i i I
Ill Site A ify tonnabon
MS4 Opr2trPd_jna I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
MonorvYig W dy I a a I a a a a I
If You , Fe n s Co-pecn,itie., , e There fl 9 Is the F .aIly Regi.wed to Submtt El
Ento Stone amer Gener Permit Number I ° ° mvmorstorng Oate (1. . 3) •1
SI ’Dosi amed 1.1.1 11111 3U 11111 liii I
M Code ___ ___ ___ ___
If This F aktomber of a Grou
L I a a a I
If You H Other Existing NPOES
PenYee.&WPeiynttkurnøoi.. i i a a a a a a I t 1111111 I I liii . . I
IV Mdsdon kitormadon Requred ftir Constiuclon Activmee Only
Stert OatL I . the Storm water Po on Preven PIai
Esisnatod Area to be ii ComcIa ice with Stete oidtor t.c
I I I I i I a I I ti d(tnAaes). I I I I I Sedk daetEceaonP%asma?(’YerN)
V CerOL u . , I cotily usfosr pen ?y of tow that no do anent id at a thmenme s sporod urfoer my des on or s* eivbeon l rdam wIth a
sysdee dteqned to antis no quedled pertionted grocerly gatiter aid evataan no edormation ubnelted B..ed on my Velury of the poison or peisano W
n Iwsysmem, or lmos persona dlreofy reeponoati. for ganemg no 000rmaoon, no anl TYiatiovi Submitted.. to Si. best of my lOiOwtod 9 e aid bobet. Sue,
a irame, conØeto I an ae no there as smgniS t penaAas tar .uboeemg taise .domiation. Indu Ig Si, posbmhny of 6ie aid epreoivnern for
P n Nar Dan
I _ I _ I I I a a a a a a a a i a i a a a a a I I I I I I a I I I
EPA Foim 35104 (O0
-------
SI 40 CFR Psi 1 — -v — of u m vs
5 ‘ 1s Iy SIS b ial) of 0 . U & 0.,T S Pal Of
°o s alwps £bT... , S vsm (I (S) yvsi Of
ScVrT?p Psi P . s sidis ISIMI cP.,gs lm .i SiOIs a P101 al OOSIn S1I( 5
0. I 0ES SSm, 1r Goruial Por,, I ,ori ori1 WSOW
you is S pvsit vnbe P. ICES ,,i all you riu l l,,Uban
SI sP a p.Ici4. .. P1 by €PA or S S y.
SSIPII Wa Hodsisai (p03) 82I-4 _i
aPsis To Pbe M CI Pomp
‘405 ns.SI be .vs al Pa s
Sb,,ie Ws Noi of boul
P0 i 1215
N vi iw , VA
COIVIDalIPIg The Pomp
You m i i i tV • or ,nt uvç ppar- 5ouii SI p. orwy PS 51I
.vfi cIar or h .P. . . . , Ii . i ’ & Abb.ovs I I ,a ssiy a saly .0w, Wi.
Of CSW UI* IOOsid raln Ua.oi , w be 5 . halu.. , si ,si,
it Psi be P.l iSb i 1 1 5* 5 l S Play us al i$y yosI roralla. I you
P.si Ii y O iISXlU oil Pea 5i,, I Pa 5Dm Pa Si (70
si I PaSI y = • be si5s
Pa P1 J lean. of Pa DSI.a,I. fr , yu O. doip or lily cOw orialy flat
ODSISbe Oh Salhlyol vs m Pus .mI ior The r.n. of p. O rusi ,n.y
0? ‘vay PD be Pi. SSIIS SI 0. PDTa of Pa Soaly Itla .uooiWe mpip. Pa 5
Ow WOOfs Ohs tsOflys OWSIi. . ?SPW P 0. or sits eaii. tat
i S .a ‘o jl ‘eata. E Pa —_ 5L.,J . of Pie
0psiSD.
Ents, Pie Ip v eaal 5 a mOf Pa stss. of Pie . ., of Pie .
U. (aOw Psi $udvs lor s ea)
S.Set. P.Psip s
I PsiSItyi ft tstshisii
Em., Pa 5 lP u or SIIVSOii al Is n. Of sus,
Off. D .ISI W mOL I p. If al 5*5 5 SIsi Pa
Pie UDtj li Of p. 5*ty a Pie sa* 15 . a .. . . . . , or Pa
SvsCII. Ow .f orOf uses (al P* iusu qww . .cIai) of Pa omea
of Pie sa.
W si i e SIaaw Pie I5*Py is Ic d on b i
vs lc .S ea Acowly W,$o . , ,J . . .
I pa 1Dm us* *5Ui ., . . as mi Spuam (MS4). mw
Pie e oP fie o vaa, of p. MS4 (..p., n,j p ,y reane. orui ‘eavis) m d Pie
tSc _ .Ii new of Pie w s 5* Va laSs. (A laSS. da 5* us a
Cr IySIuI I of Waey (.atualiq si SIll aS.% PfUSil ltai Delis,
usD 1 01105. øor fl - e th.. al sem ow .i Ow is
o..ad or n.usad by a y. eat beouOf I county. puoft - -
al cOw ibIc beOy WatI U US.,,..ii al 11usd be USa.is% or DelliwSIal)
IPie 5*% , . m d.scOp a is Ii us . vsi Pa ,sin. c i Pie
-is .
I psi us fiSip usa liSIs new ou p.m. O I lSS Isi bea
lneiis uiw 1st oum.w m lie
ln one Wisp., or m. P s usa, or o .iua . of P. SOftly Psi sastsip orsisep.
das Ow S.S,I Pa ctw SI of JsiI5 V P _ .
l o u pa hussy a daa by . rearip vie alp.
I • Sal moa.d al 5*40 inewgip
2 • Pmqor40 a su5* aa. ,e.wl .- alSI.
3 • Sal piist a 5*40 5*. lub seig us&ccOOn be flhsmL. Q
ma nail 5*40 5* (54. dD 2) vs S .c on 313
EPC A 5*p.s. piuiwy flaW 0.aDn. eaP neod
1 llw u.u. E Pa5* 5* e iim.0 uOf betW,
LW. Ii d..J, . , or of sgi5w . . ue a 4 . sw ’d ets ip.
dus iussor (SiC) oudsa Psi beat dewOe Pie p. i5* oroisice or -
SI Pa SOftly 0? Sal Uv*fP40 V P S i l U Of Pea
For loisOtsi acllrtti.s duS 540 CFR 1 2P b) 14fli).(z ) Pat da vat Isis SIC
Owls tsonissaiy ds.aibe Pie y ia40 Oroisicis cOiorC 0? susors plonidad. Pie
P1&a. . Zdsmcw SIdes ate al be ulid
• KSL JS sisal PSIPTiSIt. SSPIQS, or deposof Sof me.. nO.idi’p Pies. Pat
Ste OØSSWip 1I VDefl DeiS vs p.mi mbe Su000. C of M (40
Cffi 1ft25 (b )(14Xhv)J
LF • LwdSa luW usson als. aid coin *5 iips Psi rev ., or Psi ra.s...pi
my 5*sOw usseS. ,idt v .g Pass Ow Sm mi us a requvsn unbar
LiOtbe 0 of RA (40 CFR l (b)(14 v) (.
SE • Steam I.cy p gvsmor ,g 5*io.s. uidi4rg tate Parditrç sites (40 CFR
1fl21 (bKfl)(ss)L
1W • T..in.,i sneaiq demusic s g. or at cOw gs is ge or
PuSrieni dm 51 0? system. cud ii 0. siesl DISO?Snt.
uW t vsion Of vruitua40 or don.sacc usne (40 CFR 1 V. .25
(b) (14Xu) or.
CO • Corsiurian (10 CFR 122.25 M’4X’fl
I Pie SOfay P 5 1W 51 Sun I P .s pamap.ep ii Part 1 of sri usm sew
p.uo s51. psia iam’.bs lea Dl i ii a .sigad. mw f is p.up Spcilcstsi ’
mm. . ,i p. v
P Psi. vs sa, *CES psie pvs. .o ‘aaiW Pie SIy or vs Ii S.ction
0. be pis pius ,e.mteus. V sri SppvsIOP , tie P1o iy rss basil SuoliilfIO but Pie
Jflp. p 55 SS aP SmIr Pie S uon ounas,
Imsius IV A4 u1W 5f.. . R ufld be Consiuctlon ActtyIba Only
Cuseuclon asp.. . mm . .... , is Secoovi IV r a S.caoiis I Pwcs4 i UI.
ty taI55UCXn 55al . . ‘aid al SIIT SI 5 55505.1 IV
pa us s t a aid p. .sut vn $ . da Sr Pa m a,e
PlOws si Of Pa Ow oa t s ., of ms Of 0 1. ste vi Wudt sort 1W Dl
iilsgb (DaOf al Pu il u)
Pi5*1. WisOw Pa sum new oiLbtScn be PaW. is S
5* s vsd sits sOw Ow . .sLau.g site usatn p.,ea, or sea ne
ffar.Uw _ 0 -
SmWus V CiiulOwIo.
FOwl I*5ulss pOwi be seas pi ’sJbea be Libisdeip St.. rP1mseoi p on Pea
bin. FiduW r uISx,s ? jt5 lea cocj”’,.. , PS S i Situss
For. orvpirjwvby a aipim5* vipoma ofP5or. Wuda r , s. ( I) pne nt.
Isis . Plip.ir. or 5*- , . .. _ J..J Of p. vipcmxn S cPorg. of a pnt .p51
Sneissa ln orp or sip cow pusan us ports.. . aiWS pincy or dsssatn rTslimg
or (1)0. flW* of .me or nat. neaabeLrvip, p’V5*vi. or coer. n
Psi 250 pusom or Psirip prouaiveite sates or uspumdmj,,s
. ..J.w 125 * 55* (ii uts .oi ut 1120 dvsts . ii s i P i o rity a sqm doojm.ris
Psi bus uss 1W or ‘pi d 5 0. nsip . S evv 5*
For. , iI1 or 5* by S p 515 .1 p.1w alPs , .. ,,...P. . or
ss F of orWsi .b tsc pby . .Pw a pi. . ni,
ofbvr or wbeip hasp 0 51W.
Pst 5* Ada SaUce
Pa . w* , Dip., be PSI L 5 ssbes1W a ea. 0.5 il. p.
elpiussori. iWi mp si’s be bap’ is, u..,asng aisorig dee misc ..
pitorwip site . . .W 51.5* isiOw. al l omoorvip aid Pa 5*cOon
of sibenasi. SOw vn.os Pa SWan .coiiea. any cow aspect alp.
of 5*nea , or be pi
Suggussors WW ITay . i.. _ or v lea 51105.15. CiesI. PUcwss.n Polcy
Swat. PU-223 U.S. . Apu y. 401 U Sam.. SW
Wstew ’g lon. OC 20460. or Oimsu. COw Of Idsansea ste Pp. u...y 5*5 .1 Cl P5.
of Mavaganeas aid Sii 51. WSNU1 ( A.n DC 205
Federal Regieter I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
• IPA Pea W04
SaUce CI — (NOIp Par lssi Wasi DOw ,.p —‘- Walu Pauof
Too. Co,us IMPs The PoiCCI O.nul Push
44433
-------
44434
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
Appendix 0—NOT Fomi/instructjons
Form Aporovec O is. -raN
Please See Insinictions Before Completing This Form nis.as 14i41
PWDES I 1%
United States Envrorr entaJ Proaceon AQercy
Wte wngton. DC 20460
FQRU CrJ.ik Notice of Termination (NOT) of Coverage Under the NPDES General Permit
for Storm Water uischarges Associated with Industrial Activity
Submission of tht NoO of Tervyfnaeon nsm .jtes noo at rio oarty ‘de,shod .n Socom hot Sits t am a no n a authorized te daodargo stemi w r
asa aso wie uiousviaj evey w i de n rio NPDES erograrn ALL NECESSARY IPWO IIATl0N MUST BE PROVIDED ON ThiS FOAM
I Permit Informaiton
NPDES Stomi Water Chedi I he.e 1 You an No Longer E Cnieod Hero it rio Sb .. Water
Gat itN,imber I I rieOr sa t rof i eF nty Oagoa8gTecrnr iareo
It F iIty Operanr bifonmaeon
PEars. I _______ i _ i I I a a I Pt i e n i e I I
A4djnss I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I a I
City I I I I I I I I I I I I I L.......L......J ZIPCo6eI I I ii i I
— I I I I
1 111111
City I I • i I I
2lPCede L
I I I I I I I
I i I i I i I L 4 I I I i Oi.arar Li _ i Sdcen L ...J Tcarviip I I g I I
IV Certiflca_tion I rarefy w er s.nafty of w that stems w dlcdwgos assooaMd wi i mdusO i sity from eio Idensfied taottty Stat an a Siorzed b , a
NPDES general permit hate Olin ehunriated a riat I an rio ngen Ste ocorata OS the Iaalaty a ratn uceon site I smderstane Stat by i&óTuiOng this Nobra of
Termina on, I an rio nger isJbunzuO te disatarge stam wanr aooateo inSi Ifl0 teO1at t! ia er t he ner permit aid that dethasgvig eOlura ia i
storm water saaoaawd urSi bidtistiat an ityio waters of rio United States a unlawtul aidor Use Clean Water A01 atiere Ste dediargo a riot a thon d by a
NPOES permit I eso wloerstand that 510 SuOmittaj 01 Ste NoOra 01 Terrnit aoon does not rele eas opel tram hatehity br arty viola ro Of the pernut or Os.
Clean Water *a
PnntNane L
kss1tuo on. ton Comph.tlng Nodes of T.nntnitloni (NOT) form
Dan ( Illill
Mae May Pllei Node. of Tawdnodon (NO?) Fan.
Psmtm.ss s. as ømsurey e. iIod widsr 0a EPA susd N sori
Oisaerg. EI&imceaon Sye.ni (NPOES) Osnersi Pain ta Own- Waier
O.aaig.s Aa oe.d wth tear.. Maby S L.*TI 5 a HOle. 01 Truisiaeon
(NOT) tail au Sill? taoist.. no Otgsr isis is win waler Osewg.s
WOO&l10 ioOI uldusbid lu dilated WI Si sam regiiaDois alsO
CFR Ifl.26 (D)( 14 ). a run Tluy as no tegir S. ro— 01 Oil t ctliu.*
Fu nontnj s.i sowea.. i s. .win waw esowg.s assoosee
asi iie av,a iiy o s run Osi,,c sods al Os loucaen uls rwas
blur ateip sisosase aid wne y aosoi aid ranste m.sssaei
Pur, blur ? 5tTU. ê4 a ins os rar a a w — Sm.. a raw,
osinligis assoaslad stat WIousthU u5 fran I s . wnsou u as stat
as diewasd by a NPOES gineru peninci rau Ob s .n.Ii Olin aimuatse
Ffr . saoise.oan means Sier as soi .assavvsng uvm.s a si. sit. rae. Olin
we bar a rufoam pureruisi e.grwsvu r ast S 0in$fl 0170% 01
bts r ta I# asd er a. WurI I s ., lv10 by puiiiteinui inuOlirIs lies
blur .seaIlsnso er iquswan elmerusnI iiasez messurs. (asdi $ 5 il
us. 01 r . garners, a gscs.aa. .p rteW Ol in llT iopid
Wbns.,tatil.NOT For,.
Said bias tam te Ois Su aesing as u
Ston,, Wara NoSe. 01
P0 des tIeS
Ni-. 1gJt . VA Ifl
Cesigilsing tea For.
lygs en igag gsr s esas. n Si aooro s.t. alas a ndy Pleas.
atasasi bl tus iuwu aelut . N ne s ry s. say .win
Si. tiMTIO* at Otasicisra terase ta s a n sari Us. onSy on. Ieee. Ia
Dss.uln d$. tait tios Pa enaiceisbon mass urisu Say Ill s0ud te
yaW 1 5100r 1 5 5 I yra l wy QII 5ICens soar Oss bairn. ca_ I us. Swrn Water
at (703) S2 1
III Featlty/Sata Locaban lntomiaoai
P4ateo I I I i t i
II I I I
EPA Farm 35l07 (&9Z
PUAS6 SSZ R V!RS OF ThIS F M FOR FU ThLR INSTRbCTSOPG
-------
Federal RegIster / Vol. 57 No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
IPA Fie i0.1
NaIc. TenI*IOSID,, (NOT) 04 ,u, .qs U i T) NPOE$ G.iu.si Pw,M
oim W . DXi wg.s 1 Iatsd W i Wi t04 Ac*MIy
44435
$ I Ifl . u1U ,
Enw e sts ig NPO(S S ii W c O.wU PIn.it VU’Ib n.d
Ssa ty ins sri4Is m St I you 4 p —nit tim be,.
SDTII w I ns a (780)1-4823.
Idt y’oi, mie i b stbmasig $s Xini OS Teniw a n Dy dls ç e .
box
I e*. StII bs i thWI Of .id you a. ho Icng.r SI 00sva_rn,
OS 5 1 504 1I, 0 545 idslt Ssd m S a Ill, 5 i ye .po, n X i.
S 04 snsm * . tag.s a the XiHp o nsflOd r. S.cen P been
nn ia& is 45nuipo 1& 1 501.
8 504I0.i U FieiJSy Op it bd, 04i... ,
Ga. S . Ig& nan. O S 0 p-ion. Sm . p-saxn. eny OOI.*ISIp eim
oo .. . 5* orny ins duatb.d m 5* gXioon The nan. ol 5* oga.
map ov map no be S I. wns nan. S. S.a ty Th. op.rw 045*
SI. IsgU enily woSs 5* lOa Pys iS.r 0ns Cr 5*
a sgsr Do not a Ian. Era SI nØe sd5*sa 04
ls gtu.e rsm sr oS SI. opww
5.c*Jai, SI PcIfltyi5S. L , bt ne04Joa
(tins SI. f btys sI. , olS Iga nan. aW n4st. ad u. k04tOng
asp. iou. —— ZIP oud. I I SIs Sno tp I • s aOS 5*$I ‘ s SIs $ I..
SIs 50o. . a. onpo s OS S. np lie n.sat 15 SI r Cr 5* ou *r
.s=on. s vp, end rwig. (Co S. r*ssst mns ss on, OS 45CIosmwIs
OS 5* $41
(FR Doc. 92-23325 Filed 9-24-O2 &45 amj
S Xi I V Cs.dlc04ian
Fudsi,4 sIan.. ns’d. b ss,ere psnQ8ni i! ng 1 1515 1fl11t?fliXt I Cr1
Iws gSi on bin F.ds 5* 15gSi son I. 5. signed as
F a iocn by a rapaisCois oil. eScor, 04icn miens. (1 Cre$ sin.
Siainsy. 01w.t. o v svosns 045* poraøon tn thug 0*s Tcp15
Xa*.s Mic on. or . p oe* p-ion 04 p-Sons s’nida xii or 450.0, 1
m ng m ons. or (ii) SIs meniger 05 on. or mir, mn ter .s,vig pro an.
piW1 11a ssa sm pm ma. lien 250 persons or rnsv g ginas .
sue. or szp.n sm.s sias ig $25 nolbon (ft s d-orm .ia , 1080 a . S
I. 5 I doajesra In. D i i i , us ied or 45Wgaud Co 5* menegsr ii
* l pions jse .
F . p-SIer04 a’ m ienszhv Dy s ga.rU psrv* , Cr S ’s pmonesiv o
For a nsm sity. u. F or cm.’ hc faaisp- D y etTier a v 15
5XI oSXiv or n.*s 54U o4 at
Acm m Ad NotlO.
Ptd.c .n.ors.ç 11t i b a ss ” d * .e..g. 05 ho ,,s per
45* Sr lrna..g f ort 0i* , ..srawig .sw g nsa
sot,o.s. g ’ snng aid main.tmg S. due i*sds . winpisoig aid
r. .g Si. ra $4i , 04 PiSr,mao , , Send menu agwor ,g UI ,.
$4enaI.. any OS., e. p . a OS 4cXn 04 inb iTaoun. Cr LQQOS$4n. S ,
las bin. mdu ng anp iugg.soora uith may masax. 0, reduot osi
Co ClisS, blbsnn.on Poicy Bexti P 54223, US Ensmvrrrent .
Piv. i Agin 401 U Sses , SW, Wur ng ii DC 20 0 or Oinra. Othcs
aId P.g.’wy Mii OSlics 04 agernsrt aId Ouogss,
We.Iwigsin CC 2O60
-------
V Re fi VoL f o. !S ft Tues y . Sept nber 22 i fl r4ioticu
43733
lnc nsed at dia Fbst W yae R t1 ,u
S in’FostWeyes,h%dta .
OATES C ’onunentt e ’provi fed o
orbefore’Nowember 23 I Z
ADORESSt Co=en1B aftoUli be
ad dressed to the Dbcket CTeit DS
EnvtruninentaF P tectlan A eui ,.
R giun V. 77W’. Jacksert Av uuu.
Chicago. Illinois. 80604. and ehould refer
to: inRe Fort’WaeRedtierrSltet
1 ort Wayne. D diana US. EM Deeie
No. V-W- 2 -C-159
FO FURTHIR IRFURM 17OWcUPITACT
Karen I .. P BCE U!L US. Envimnmantar
Protectioir Agency. Office ofReglonni
Counsel. 5C5-TUR- , 77 W. Jackson
Avenue. Chicago, 1I1in &)004, ( 27
supPLEM 1rARv INFO MATIC)C Notice. of
Adrmnig Ira tive’ S ’ettrement fa
accordance with section 122(l)(1) ’of the’
Camprehnn vt Envlnmm 1i
Response. Compenualion and Liability
Act of 1984, as amended (CE Q.A .
notice Is. hereby given..of a proposed
admini atiVe setllrmerrt concerning
the Fart Wayne ReduciionS ta at 55
Old Manmee’ Rand. RJI e’Ccunty Street
l x x rort Wayne, diana. Subject w
review by the’ public pnenxant In dir
Notice the’ agre w ut baa be
approved by the Unlt d ’Stuter
Department of Justice. Below are listed
the parties who have executed binding
certifications. e their consent te
parficipefe lxx ’ the settlement A & J.
Enterprises; Allen Counl ’y Motors AN1
Fr ht Sy teiwi . Inc . DoxrAyrer
Pontiac. Inc.; Bor -Waener Corp.:
Cha nt.Perry- Chrysler
Carporation/Accnstar bc ., Cohn,
Oldsmobile; Connta}CruxxrCo;
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Custom Thbe
Co.; Defun Brothers. Roo g Co.: Dana
Corp Weatherhsed.Dayton Hu ue.
Corp./Target Diane Corp LakeErid)
SaIes ’Wltham A. D Pr1LIUM Ca.
Essex Group. Inc.; Fort Wayne C1Hk b
Fort Wayne Founde ’ Corp.; Fox & Emi
Frame Señlce; FrceCorporatl
Cenera E1ecti cCb:; Gradleux Rafines3
Glidden Paint Co.; EralTis-Kayot. lire.;.
Hoosier Solvents (Chamcentral
Corporation); InAbtni M4rh4g in Pow
Co.; I’F Aerospace: asy1n Stainless
SteeIf Sister Steel JinnfTom Keiley
Buick: Kelly Cbevrolet Xnepper
Carta 8 e; Lycfaff Midwest. bc.(Coreap ’
Midweat/Corcap. Inn . ;. Ma avoz
Maremont Corp.; McKesson Cor x ( r
Inland Chemical); Ma-ani Auto Co.;
Meyer Stamping C. M er and Sons.
‘4ahile Aerial Towers. Inc.: Mungavam&
s: Navajo Fref ht tines (AEF Fielghr
Jtems); NavistarNlPSCO: Norfolk 8
.estern airroad; f (orth American Van
LInes/Triangle Fleet Superior
Compaes/On n .Soue’c Corp.; Phelps.
Dodge Corp.; Potlatck: Pr a lth
Inc.; Prentice Prodxmts: Pnxtaclive’
Coating . Co.;. Re -Ste khesk PalntCo .
Rea Magnet Wire Co.;. R dar 1rnck
Saunders Truck. Scott Paper Co.; .
SheUer-Giohe Csvpnsatien ToI’hoini .
Corp . ;.Iri-Stete AntomaL Inc.jBob
JacheonlDelagranga Ford . :. UniroyaL
GoodrichlBiF. Coodtich alap Cor
Van Wart.. OhioTranafar Station;
Whltky Producte: and the United Stales-
Air Fenra ’and. tin component aomn da
a units (Including the National GuazE
Bezeeir and alL ape n ambactivittea
of the insitanp Air National Ca rd In the
pedormanc .eo8 Its. federal misMnn
A Consent Decreewaa ente ainJthp
18, i whereby SCA Servfcea-
Indlan* 1nr...ç’SCA’
the rm rlhiE actIon attheFort Wayne
_____ 5ft tu y 3Up . .r mt
(biet ta enee .V1V1 ).eftim
response I!fI t h!r1nrffn ce,f US .
EPA and Sta ‘ - i.-
after the antr af the Cans D e. nt
overi ø lmpIn ’ . . ’. . .La4 1 iiita the
remed l amiInn.Th..r,, .fL riPA and
t S te Ind an* , liw4pi{
ngtW fb,,,. wIth. the’
patentlaIl ’r Ipf n1IthlR paøi ’c
at th.Si reco
Administrative Order, which Is also
s1gnrd h ’ths.Stateo Dxdf la-the
resi to! those efforta.. -
The 04 parties. named above have paid
$L599.145.96 1u a- settlement payment
under the agreement. subject tGthe
contingency that EPA may elect not to
complete the settlement based on
matters bamight to its at ’ .ntinn 4 m m 5
the publie’ ecrenient period eeteblieheó
by this NutL . This amountwuuld
reimburse EPA.for lOOper cent outs
past reapm a costs. nclnillng .interest.
accumulated thereon. which ware
Incurred and paid with respect tethe’
Fort Wa xxa Reduction Site up to and
including October 31. 1989. The settling
parties have ai m agreed øiinhursa.
the StaIe ofIndiana $20.OOO1or Its.
response c o sta- incurred air&pa±d prlur
to October 31, 1969. The Adinmmstralive
‘Order does not-settle any rInim EPA. or
the Stateof Indiana may have fos
resnonse coats incurred after-Octurber-
31, 1989.
EPA Is. entering into tins agreement
under the authority of section 1224b and.
107 of CIA . Under this. authortty
the agreement proposes tu settle wttfr
these parties for unreimbursed costa for
response a- i na taken at the’ Fort Wayne’
Reduction Sftn.
The EnvironmentaL Protection Agency’
wilT receive written comments relating
to this agresmast for 30 days. froin.ths
date o publication of this. notice
A c y of the’ proposed aima*rative
a mint agreement may be obtained
in perawrorbrmail fr .th ’a
Region V øfP. ’ . .m .d aiL1Z
W. Jadcson.hsenue. Cbicagm lihinm
Autber ltyr ’The.Comprehemlve ’
Envuanmantah *spouse C epensation.
.U.8 .C. aethanu
lodI3muh
Ae Dftec . Wat W ’Mave .grnient
Division.
(FR Dse. 4 4 .% Filed -21- &43 ant
(FR 4
RVf.lqn U 1 NIIfl
NaUtamI P Uu flt Dlact arge _____
ELi n Sp!tint NPDES Proujam
To Imie’Gen .afPe dta
AQENCY Environmental Protemian
acno o oLapprzival of the
N tl & P lutant Diedijn
Blimiimdee Sy item. P, .mi1 Program of
the State of South CarolinL
s*iwu*nr On September 3. 1992, the
Regional Ailministrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Region IV. approved the State of South
Caroffna NitionalPoffutant Discharge
Piimination System General Permits
Program. This action authorizes the
State of South Carolina to issue general
perrnite in lieu of individual NPD€S
perxnltL ’
FO OfiUAt*0M C0KT*C!
Jire Ps.trldc. Chief. Permits. Section
Water Permits & Etiforcement BrancE.
U.S EPA. Region LV. 345 Courtland
$‘ t. C nrgi msr. 404t
SUPPLfMENTARY INFORMAT ION:
tBackground
EPA regulations. at4O CFR 122.2e
provide far-the Issuance of general.
permits to regulate the discharge of
waalawAtPP which. renultfrom.
substantially similar operations 1 are of
the- same ’ type waster. require’ the same
effl uenf Irmitatrons or operating
conditions, require similar monitoring..
and. asgappropriately controZle l under a
generet perm t rather than by individual
perw lt&
South Carolina was suthorimd to
DA .nivii tar tha WDEShprogra tzv1uns.
19 5 TheStete 2 p pro am as. previously
approved. did not include provisions for
the issuance of general perm.its. .. There
am eavaraL catagories.ot dhargas.xm
the’ State- who could appropriately be
-------
43,34
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. IM I Tuesday, September 22. 1992 1 Notices
regulated by general permits. For those
reasons. the.South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control
requested are vision of Its NPDES
program to provide for Issuance of
general permits. The categories which
have been proposed for coverage under
the general permits program Lnclude
storm water discharges, non-contact
cooling water discharges of one million
gallons or less, backwash from potablv
water treatment plants, small domestic
waste discharges. ground w ter
remediadon discharges, concentrated
aquatic gnim,iI production facilities,
mines, car washes, laundry mats, and
other appropriate discharges. At the -
present time, the State does not have
authority to Issue federal sludge permits
under section 405 of the Clean Water -
Act. At such time as the sludge program
Is authorized In South Carolina. that
category may-also be Included In the
general permit program.
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review as provided by 40 CFR-
12344. Public notice and the opportunity
to request a hearing also is provided for
each general permit. - -
U. DLw’ s on
The State of South Carolina
submitted. in support of Its request.
copies of the relevant statues and
regulations. The State also ha.
submitted a statement by the Attorney
General certifying, with appropriate
citations to the statues and regulations,
that the State has adequate legal
authority to administer the general
permits program consistent wIth 40 CFR
123.23. In addition, the State submitted a
Program Deem iption and Memorandum
of Agreement detailing how the program
will be administered. Based on South
Carolina’s Program Submission and its
experience in administering an
approved NPDES program. EPA has
concluded that the State will have
necessary procedures and resources to
adminIster 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
South Carolina of general permit
authority Is a non-substantial revision of
its NPDES program. EPA has generally
- STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATU8 -.
08/sips
11114/73
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. As well as the fact that
South Carolina provided public notice of
it’s regulatory revisions.
Moreover, under the approved state
program. the State retains authority to
issue individual permits where
appropriate, and any person may
request the state to issue an individual
permit to a discharger eligible for
general permit covei ge. While not
required under 123.82, EPA is
publishing notice of this approval action
to keep the public lnformed óf the status
of its general permits program
approvals.
ilL Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Program or
Modification.
The following table provides the
public with an up-to-date list of the
status of NPOFS permitting authority
throughout the country. Today’s Federal
Register notice is to announce the
approval of South Carolina’s authority
to Issue general permits.
Ao d is
NPOES
Ku Ifl
A rs’ ud ,s


A çr sd Skis

j ujp Th
Appioved Seat.
IA WTh
I L
10119 179
‘1 ,0 1/se
0610617 5
‘ 0,1 2 /re
- 1vo1/se
09/22/89
06/28/91
I 1/01/86
09/22/89
03/04/83
03/10/92
12/ 0 9/ 8 9
so/Din’
03/12/Si
09112192
08110/75
1
0 6,03/SI
01/28/91
09/30/91W
01/04/84
04/02/91
08/12/92
10/19/79
li/of/ s o
05/14 173
03/27/78
09/26/73
04/ 01F74
06/28/74
11/28 71
10/22/77
01/01/75
08110/7 5
06/26/74
09/30/92
09108/74
• 10/17/73
00/30/74
- . 08101/74
10/30/74
08/10/74
08/12/74.
09/19176
04/13/ 52
10/28/73
10/19/75
• 06/13175
03111174
09/26(73
08/30/75
09/17(84
08/10/75
12/28/71
07/oval
03/11/74
09(30/92
09/30/08
08101103
07/16/79
05/13/92
06/08/Si
09/30191
09/30/91
12/15/87
09127 91.
12/12/85
04/28/92
- 07/20/89
0 7 1 21 (92
04/13 /82
09/30/92
11,10/er
l210917
12/08178
01/26/92
0 9/28/79
00/22/Si
t 1 102f79
0 9/31 / 7 9
04/13 /U
0 5/13/ 00
09/25/ 54
01/22/90
01/25/92
.03/92/79
09/17/34
09/28/80
09/30 /05
07/07/ 57
09/07 184
- 04/13/ 52
06/14/92
01121192
03/12/81
01/22/90-
ol/n/go
08/11/92
02/22/82
0 5/02/92
09/08 /92
04/18/91
07/07107
09111/84
04/09192
06(10/92
07 107/ 57
03/16(92
04/14/89.
09/30/86
05/2 0.
- — 04/28/89
92/06/82
-------
Fbsf a1 Ragisler ,t Ve 57,. N T , Tt day eptem 2Z 1992 N ffces
N.. R.vlaw U e, t v. der
1 an f the or bilfl
The O of Managem nt and E idgef
has eXemPted thEa ru le m tharevrew
req nrementn of cemith e Order
pursuant to section 8tbrofthat Otder.
Under th egnratoryFrexthjfl y a ct
EPA Is rq r -n a Regnfatoiy
linal raff which
eray-havea 8ficenr pacto . a
substantial number of enialt t1U
Pursuant to evtierr 6 fd) of thern
Regilato PyAet 51E5 C. !
et seq. Pcevtify thect ,5,f ne J
Permit, P o uza .wi1Pn e have.
8iW cafi* pect ow a gabet 1
number umal) entfffeg. Approve of the.
South Carol ina NP SSt m .G J
Pernuts Pru y m es$abl he&no’nej,
substantiv,requl nordbe, I!
alter the’ iegtht.o . c al’ va y
industriaL calegevy Apprwej of the.
South
Per &P meretrpw g
simplified a izüa athi. precise.
Dateth S ptembey5.
l nald Ciñnyaxd,
Aufatani
and Managem erit.
(FR Doc. 4 amt
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MAN GEMEwr AGENCY
(FEMA Q5s.caL
Portd en nenttQ Ua or Olu*ti
Declarn o
AGOICY: Federal Emergency
M um ntA ancy 1A
acytoic Notice.
EPP!CTTVI DATE September T9 Z
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster for the State of
Florida (FEMA 55-Dfi), dstocf August
, 199 and. det tj
FOR
Pauline C.
Asaistanna Pig aine ,EedaraL
Emergency Management Agency,
Wahii gtpri DC 2O4fl , . 2Oz
StWPU IhIVIIWC MATIOS Notice I.
hereby gL vam that the innidint period ir
this disaster Is croset eff c ve Auguef
25,199:
Catalog uf pñpr I flnetlg, g
No. 83.S1L Disaster Asaistanea.
Grant C. P texson ,
Assoc Lg flireciar.Siate aadL a1Preejazn
and Sbp poit
[ FR Doe. 92-228 Filed.
co
(FEMA—OSS-ORt
t ntJkana.AmendmenttA I4aIfiI
Dlaaater Deefnrafinn .
AOENCY Federof Emergency
Man geniez Agensy (P J
ACflO* ftm
EFFECTIVe OAT Se ,izh c S 1992.
SUMMARY: Thin not da imtice
of amajer dIsass foe. the State ol
Louisiana - s datec
August 2 199 , . an related,
determination ,,.
FOR FURThER INFORMAT iON C flA
Paulina C.. Campbell, Dlsenter
Assistance PrOWanmjederaj
Emergency Management A tncy
Washington. DC2O4 2, (2G2)64 -36O&
SUPPLEMENTARY INAytO Notj
hereby gliien thai In a Lattet dated’
September 5,1992, the President
amended. the coat-sharing alrangemenjs.
concerning Fadaml fuudapaouided,
under the Riithnrity of the. RobertL
Stafford Disaster RaIlaL and. Enierg n y
Assistance Act (42 tLSC 5121 et se
In a fetter to Wallace E Stickney,
Director of the Federa Emergency
Management Agency, as liowr
I have determined that the damage in
certain areat of the State of Louisiana,
ieeulthig ftuorE rnmn ewoe.August
25. 1992.. Ii. of sufflcrent severity-and
magnitude tharspedal canditiannare
warranted regarding the cehartug
arrangements cncernlng ,Fed.arajfimdn
provldedunder t5eRobertt Stailbrd
Dls R IJafa Emergency AssIstance
Act rthe’Stafford Acr forth,PuMfc - -
Assistanna program..
Thsrefami. aman my pre.ioua
dedaration. which limitthth&Feder
rmmisirsemenLabare for cat o
expenditures. andrhereby ai&thnnx. - -
Increase In Federal reimbursement to 100
percent ol eli bIe pubIfiiamisiance cesr,
exceeding $10 per capita, where allowed.
u law ’ forextreow disaster .. This. 100
percent rs1mbursemen for coats abcve$io
per capila applies taailauthnnzed puhi.. .
assistance coats. lncludrng cfebns.reixinval to.
eliminate Immediate threats to public health
and safety, emergency work to save lives and
protect public heaftir and mfety amf repair
or reconsfr c ,aafw]znswed pithflc.eral
private nonprofit facilities. Temporary
housing assetaana, mortgaga/rentaJ.
aseasta ase&enm I U*i thni 2 . end
disaster unemployment assistance will
continue, to he percent federally funderh
whe,aj1dundm.ther Funds far
public assistance’ up t opescapn will be’
reimbursedipin .usnr to. tire conditions see
forth In m p mmd ccl rat±oe. Howaeen if
the H hla casts -cf r” spnndmg to. Hurricane
Andrew in Louisiana do not reach the leveL of
$10 per capita, then the cost sharing fnrtri..ki
which! set forth In my onglnal declaration.
letter of August 25, 1992 mU applles
This w of Statean focal cert.sharmg
requirement, above .$Wper capita appllee to
all public assistance costs-eligible for such a
waiver under’ths. Iaw.Tha law specifically
prohibits a similar waiver for funda pwvulcd
to Statea Ear the bidlviduaj red Fanu1y Grant
program. These hinds wilicnntlniie to be
reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible
costs.
This amended declaration Is canaistenL
with, the request mad, to yon by the.
Governor of the State ofEcuisiana.
R ’eese netf ’theCevernorof the Slate of
Louisiana aiutthe ’redernl Caordinath ,g
Offlearaf this- jimanrlm , .nt my ma ou
disaster deejaratfom
Catalog of Federal Daesdc.Asaistanca
No.83.518, DIsaster Assistance.
Wallace K Stiduiay,
Director.
(FR Doc. 92-22892 Flied 9-Z1-92 &45 aznJ
mLu sace szi
STATE PIPOES GAM’SFUS— Fro ,d . -
.
Øsun&
sIte
FedereS
ruveir SteM’
.
S

West Vbg ln la
o NI I
.
mii -me
m70 a 7e
tasede
os,ia,
1 ff2 517W
-

05/1QL SZ
17 )74/80
I
0511QL83
1ZFT f88
W1 .r . .n . ,.
Wyonvnp
Totals
01/38175.
3 5
05/18/81
09/24/9’?
FEDERAL MARITiME COMMISSION
The Port of New Orleans et aL
Agreement(s) FEed
ThaPederak Medtlma Coamuss ion
hereby gives noticed the filizzgoftha.
following agreement(sJ pursuant to
oectfom 5-ef the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested purtfes may inspect and:
obtain a copyof each agreement at the
Washington. DC ’ Office of the- Federut
-------
42572
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 179 / Tuesday. September15 . 1992 I Notices
apprwdmately $125,900-On to the
Hazardous Subsh ’nr-e, Superfund.
For thIrty (30) days following the date
f the publication of this Notice, the
Agency will accept written cominants.
relating to the settlement The Agency’s
response to any comnlanta received will
be available for public Inspection at the
EPA Region VII Office, located at 726
Minnesota Avenue In Kansas City.
Kansas 68101. 913 551-7000, and at the
local repository for site lthrmalion
located In the Poplar Bluff Public
Library, 318 Main Street Poplar B1U
MIssouri 63901.314688-8639.
DA7I Comments must be submitted on
or before October 15, 1992.
AOORU8S The proposed settlement
and additional background Information
relating to the settlement are available
for public Inspection during weekday
busineu hours at the EPA Region VII
office at 726 Minnesota Avenue in
lCanaas City Kansas 68101. A copy of the
proposed settlement may be obtained
from Vanessa Cobb.. Regional Docket
Clerk. EPA Region V II, 728 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 661014
telephone number 913 551—7477.
Comments on the proposed settlement
should reference the Bluff Electric
Works Superfund Site, Poplar Bluff.
Missouri and EPA Docket No. Vfl-02-F-
1015, and should be addressed to Ma,
, obb . at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACfl
Ms. Anne Rowland. Assistant Regional
Counsel. EPA Region VII. Office of
Regional Coansel. 728 Minnesota
Avenue. Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
telephone: 913 551—7279.
Dated: August 3.1992. -
David A. Wsgea ,
Director, Waste Mano ement Division. U.S
EPA R ras Vil
[ FR Doc. 92-50 Piled 9-i4- &43 am]
once -
IFRL-4205-5J
Proposed A ninlstratlvs Settisnient
Pursuant to the Coinprehenaks
Envtronmental Response , -
Compensation, mid LlabWty Act,
Amended by the Superfwid
Amendments and Reauthortsallon Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA .
ACT1OIC Notice end request for public
comment
SUMMARY: In accordance with sactios
1 l) of the Cimp i’hanaive
Envfrann imi Response.
ompenaaiioe. and Liability Act of 1060
(CERCLA). as amended by the
Superfend AmfinLfr ,’.pnti and.
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
notice Is hereby given that a proposed
administrative coat recovery settlement
concerning the Resource Services, Inc.
Superfund site (the Site) in Springfield.
Missouri was Issued by the EPA on July
7.1992. The settlement resolves an EPA
claim , rn,lar Section 107 of CERCLA
against Colonial Commercial. Inc. of
Pompano Beach, Florida for the liability
of Its wholly owned subsidiary, Big
Smith. Inc.. of Springfield. Missouri. (The
Settling Party). The settlement requires
the Settling Party topsy response costs
In the amount of approximately $150.00
to the Hazardous Substances Superfund.
For thIrty (30) days following the date
of the pnhHr alion of this Notice, the
Agency will accept written comvnpnta
relating to the settlement ‘l’he Agency’s
response to any comments received will
be available for public inspection at the
EPA Region V II Office, located at 726
Minnesota Avenue In Kansas City.
Kansas 08101. and at the local
repository far site Information. The City
Clerk. City of SprIngfield. 830
Booneville. Springfield, Missouri. 65802.
DA1t Comments must be submitted on
or before October Ii
AOORER8 The proposed settlement
and additional background Information
relating to the settlement are available
for public Inspection during weekday
business hours at the EPA Region V II
office at 728 Minnesota Avenue In
KanQas City. ks ,n .uaa 88101. A copy of
the proposed settlarn nt may be
obtained from Venessa Cobb., Regional
Docket Cleric. EPA Region VII. 728
Mlnnpaota Avenue. Kansas City, Kansas
68101. telephone number 913—551—7030.
Comments on the proposed settlement
should reference the Resource Services
Superfluid Site, Springfield Missouri and
EPA Docket No. Vll-gz F-oo18, and
should be addressed to Ms. Cobb. at the
above address.
R PIMThER FORMATI0N CONTACT:
Ms. Anne Rowland. Assistant Regional
Counsel. EPA Region VIL Office of
Regional CounseL 726 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 68101.
telephone: 913-551—7279.
Date& AugustI . 1992.
David A. Wag er.
Dfrect Waits ManagEment Division. U.&
EPA Regioe VU.
[ FR Doe. 92-22251 FIled 9-14-02: 845 am]
(FRI.-4204-4J
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Draft
General Permits for Non.Contact
CooHng Water In the States of Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIO5C Notice of draft general NP1)
permits.
SUMMARY: The Regional Adiministrator
of Region I is providing Notice of a Draft
General N ui S Permit for non-contact
cooling water In certain waters of the’
States of Maine, Massachusetts, id
New Hampshire. These draft general
NPJJES Permits propose effluent
limitations, standards, prohibitions and
management practices for these types of
discharges (appendix A contains the
Draft General NPDES Permits and
appendix B Is the Draft General
Conditions applicable to all three
general permits), The permit Is to be
effective 30 days after the date of
publication In the Federal Register of the
final general permit or upon notification
by EPA that the operator is covered by
this permit whichever Is later, and will
expire In 5 years from the date of
signature. Owners and/or operators of
facilities discharging non-contact
cooling water will be required to submit
to EPA. Region I. a notice of intent to be
covered by the appr qiriate genera] -
permit and will receive a written
notification from EPA of permit
coverage and authorization to discharge
under one of the general permits.
DATE& Interested person. may submit
comments on the draft general permits
until no later than November 18, 1992.
ADDRESSES! Comments may be
submitted to: Sharon M. Leitch. U.S.
EPA. Region 1. Wastewater
Management Branch. Water
Management Branch. WMi’J. John F.
Kennedy Federal Building. Boston,
Massachusetts 022fl2 The draft permits
are based on an administrative record
available for public review which are
available at this location between the
hours of 9 a.m. and 4p.m.. Monday
through Friday excluding holidays .
Copies of the NPDES draft p 1 Ite and
additional information connamfng the
draft permit. may also be obtained at
this location.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACY:
Sharon M. Leitch at (617) 565-3585.
“ wm me
SUARYJ TIO
-------
Federak I ater gI VoL 57 Po. 17 I Tuesday, September 15, 92 No cei
FAcT I T aim S%IPPLEMBiTARY -
INFORMATtOI -
1. Background Information
A General Penn ite
Section 3 0 1 (e) o(the aeasr Water Act
(the Act7priMdes that the discharge of
pollutants is tmlawful eacept in
accordance with * National Uutant
Discharge F.lim1IIJit±O System (NFDES)
permzt Althongh such. permits to date
have generally been issued to Individual
discharges, EPAs regulations authorize
the lsaunnce oi general pernxltf to
categorle& of discharges. See 40 ( R
122.28(48 FR 14t48 , April 1. 1983). EPA
may issue. a single, general permit to a
category of point sources located within
the same geographic area whose permits
warrant similar pollutant control
measures.
The Director of an NPDuZ permit
program La authorized to Issue a general
permit If there me a nnmber of point
sources operating in a geographic area
that:
1. involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
2. Dh e the same types of wastes;
3. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
4. Require the samsor similar
monlinring requ n1 ni t and
5. In the opinion of the Regional
Admini frator. are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
tuider Individual permits.
Violations of a condition of a general
permit constftutew a violation of the
Clean Watu Act end subjects the
discharger to the penalties in section 309
of the Act.
Any owner or operator authnrw’id.by
a general permit may be exrlii d icL from
coverage of a general permit by applying
for an Individual permit This request
may be made by submitting a NPDE
permit application together with reasons
suppofling the request no later than SO
days after publication by EPA of the
. general p r xiIt intheF’ heai
Registo The flhrectormey requfre any
person authorized by a vuv l permit to
apply fntaná obtain an individual
permit Any In es*ed pereca may
petition the Director to take thin action.
However, Individual permits will not be
issued for sources discharging non-
contact cooling water covered by these
general permits erileas 11 can be clearly
demonstrated that Inclusion under the
general permit is Inappropriate. The
Director may consider the isauance of
individual permits whem
1. The discharge(s) Is a significant
contrthutor of poUuUo
2. The discharge(s) Ii noUn
compIinn n with the terms and
conditions of the general permit.
3.Atha og eha.oca a redji rth, :
avuilabilityof dJ”m .-frated technology
or practices for theoontraIorabah ’ n. vt
of pollutants applicable to thapoint
4.. Effluent limitations guldelinsa are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit
5. A Water Quality Management plait
containing requirements applicable to
such point sources is approve* or
& The requfr ments listed In the
previous paragraphs are ant met.
B. Non-Contact Cooling Water
Description of Discharges
The proposed general pEn t are fan.
1. Massachusetts operators of any
famlitles with. cooling water discharges.
2. Maine operators of industrial
facilities with cooling water discharges.
3. New Hampshire operators of any
Industrial facilities with cooling waiter
discharges.
Non-contact cooling water Is water
used to reduce temperature which does
not come into direct contact with any
raw material, intermediate product
waste product (other than heat) or
finished product Non-contact cooling
water discharges are similar hr
composition event though they are not
generated by a single industrial categery
or point source.
The sIi Thii4ty of the discharges has
prompted EPA to prepare this cfraft
general permit for public review and
comment When issued, this permit wili
enable facilities to ma tain compliance
with the Act and will extend
environmental and regulatory controls
to a larganumberof discharges and
reduce some permit backlog. The
Issuance of this geu f permit for the
geographic areas described below Is
warranted by the similarity of (a)
environmental conditions, (b7 State
regulatory requirements applicable to
the discharges and receiving watnm , and
(c) technology emp1oye L
Maine
In the State of Mains, there are 27!
industrial applicantsorpt -witteea. Itla
estimated that 12 of the Industries that
have direct discharges to the waters of
the State are strictly non-contact cooling
water.
New Hampshire
In the State of New Hampsbirs. there
are 178 Industrial applications or
perraittees. It La estimated that 23 of the
Induatties that have the direct
discharge. to the waters of the State are
strictly non-contact conling water.
In thn Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. there are 651 Industrial
applicants orpermlttees. It Is estfmared
that 129 of the inthinfries illat have
dlrectdiSchargu to the watarsof the
State are strictly non coctact cooling
water.
IL Conditions of the Draft General
NPDES Pe t
A. Geographic Areas
Maine (permit No. MEG2500EX)). All of
the discharges to be authorized by the
general NPDES permit for the State of
Maine from diachargers are into all
waters of the State. except lakes.
Mat athasetts (Permit No.
MAG250000). All of the discharges to be
authorized by the general NPDES permit
for the Co” nwealth of
Massachusetts diachargers are into all
waters in Water Quality Classifications
B and C as designated in Massachusetts
Water Quality Standards. 314 C4R 4.( )
- etseq.
New Hampshire (Permit No.
NHG7 00(J)J. All of the discharges to be
authorized by the general NPDES permit
for the State of New Hampshire
dlachazgers are Into all waters of the
State of New Hampshire unless
otherwise restricted by the State Water
Quality Standards, New Hampshire
RSA 484-As
B. Notification by Permitteer
- Operators of facilities whose
discharge. or&sâhaxges are non-
contact cooling water and whose
facilities are located In the geographic
areas described in Part II A above may
submit to the Regional Administrator,
Region I. a notice of intent to be covered
by the. ay up Iate general permit. This
written notification must include the
owner’s or a ratar’ name and
address, the number and type of
facilities to be covered, the facility
locatlons, the names of the receiving
waters Into which discharge will occur
and in the State of Maine, only, a special
listofdiemlcals must be Included. The
facilities authorized to discharge under
a final general permit will receive
written notification from EPA, Region L
withIn 30 days of permit coverage.
Failure to submit to EPA, Region I. a
notice of Intent to be covered or failure
to receive from EPA written notification
of permit coverage means that the
facility Is not authorized to discharge.
C Effluent Limitations
1. Statutory Requirements
The Clean Water Act requires all
diachargers to meat effluent limitations
-------
42574
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 1992 I Notices
based on the technological capability of
diachargers to control the discharge of
the pollutants. Section 301(b)(1)(A)
‘equires the application of “Best
Practicable C trol Technology
Currently Available” (BPT). Section
3m(b)(2)(A), (C), (D). and (F) requires
the application of “Best Available
Technology Economically Available”
(BAT) by July 1, 1984. for all toxic —
pollutants referred to in Table I of.
Committee Print Nmrmbered 95-30 of the
Committee on Public Works and -
Transportation of the House of’
Representatives and not later than three
years after the date any limitations are
established for toxic pollutants listed
under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of
section 307 of the Act which are not
referred to in subparagraph (C) of
section 301(b)(2). Section 301(b)(2)(A).
and (F) requires “Best Available
Treatment Technology Economically
Achievable” (BAT) for nonconventional
pollution by July 1, 1984. and section
301(b)(2J(E) requires the application of
the Best Conventional Pollutant Confrol
Technology (BC ) for conventional
pollutants by uly 1,1984. The effluent
limitations in the general permit are
consistent with these statutoiy
requirements.
2. Technology-based Effluent-
‘imitations —
EPA has not promulgated Natio aJ
Effluent Guidelines for non-contact
cooling water discharges. For a categoiy
where Guidelines have been
promulgated, such a. !t! ’ i electric
generating stations, the Issuance of an
individual permit for the discharges
would be more appropriate. Therefore,
as provided in section 402(a)(1) of the
Act. EPA has determined to Issue this -
general permit utili 4 ng best professional
judgement to meet the above stated
criteria for BAT described ’in aectioi
304(b) of the Act.
The pH has been defined as a
conventional pollutant A review of the
BC !’ regulations reveals the teal cost is
Inappropriate because: (1) The pH is not,
adjusted as nothing but heat Is addedtó -
the discharge and no chemical addition
or treatment Is provided, and (2) pH,
even though it is a conventional
pollutant, is not measured in pounds as
the other conventional poflutants. The
permits do not allow the addition of any
toxics or oil and grease. Since these are
not permitted, there are no BAT limits,
that must be provided. : -.
3. Water Quality Standard.
Non-contact cooling water discharges
.0 not contain or come In contact with
raw materials, intermediate products,
finlahed products, or proceu wastes,... -
They do not contain toxic or hazardous
pollutants or oil and grease. Therefore,
water quality criteria established for
toxic or hazardous pollutants do not
apply to these discharges. Water
• Quality Standards applicable to these
discharges are limited to pH and
temperature. EPA has reviewed the
Water Quality Standards for pH and
temperature of each of the affected
• states and incorporated the appropriate
effluent limitations Into each permit.
4. MonItoring and Reporting
R quIrements
Effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements are Included in the general
permit describing requirements to be
Imposed on facilities to be covered.
Facilities covered by the final general
permits will be required to submit to
EPA, Region I, and the appropriate State
a Discharge Monitoring Report
contsiining effluent data on a semi-
annual basis.
The monitoring requirements have
been established to yield data
representative of the discharge under
authority of sectIon 308(a) of the Act -
and 40 CFR 122.41W, 1 2 2 . 44(1) and
122.48, and as cert lfledby the State.The
monitoring frequency Is dependent upon
the flow rates,
Ill. Other Requirements
The remaining conditions of the
permit are based on the NPDES
regulations 40 CFR parts 122 through 125
and consist priiuarüy of’ management
requirements common to all permits.
IV. State Certification
Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act
requires that NPD permits contain
conditions which ensure compliance
with applicable State water quality
standards or limitations. Section 401
requires that States certify that
Federally issued permits are in
compliance with State law.
These permits are for operations
within waters of the States. EPA is
requesting the States to review and
provide appropriate certification to
these general permits pursuant to 40
CFR 12U3.
V. A’lmInI ,itrativ. Aspects
A. Request to be Covered
Afacility Is not covered by any of
these general permits until it meets two
requirements. First, It must send a letter
of intent to EPA indicating It meets the
requirements of the permit and wants to
covered. And second. It must be nOtified
-byEPA thatit Is covered by a general
permit. If It has an existing individual - -
NPDES permit, It will be terminated as
outlined in 40 CFR § 122.28(b)(2)(iv).
B. Mechanisms
All persons, including diachargers
who believe any condition of the draft
permit Is inappropriate must raise all
issues and submit all available
arguments and supporting material for
their arguments in full by the close of
the public comment period, to the U.S.
EPA, Wastewater Management Branch,
WMN, JFK Federal Building, Boston.
Massachusetts, 02203 . Any person, prior
to such date, may submit a request in
writing for a public hearing to consider
the draft permit to EPA and the fate
Agency. Such requests shall state the
nature of the Issues proposed to be
raised In the hearing, A public hearing
may be held after at least a 30-day
public notice whenever the Regional
Administrator finds that response to this
notice indicates significant Interest. In
reaching a final decision on the draft
permits, the Regional Adminiqtr or will
respond to all significant comments and
make these responses available to the
public at EPA’s Boston office.
Following the close of the comment -
period, and after the public hearing, if
such hearing is held, the Regional
Administrator will issue a final permit in
the Federal Register.
C The Coastal Zone Man agement Act. -
The Coastal Zone ?Aa’na emezit Act -
(CZMA), 10 US.C. 1451 et seq., and its
implementing regulations (15 CFR part
930) require that any federally licensed
activity affecting the coastal zone with
an approved Coastal Zone Management
Program (CZ?IP) be determined to be
consistent with the CZMP. EPA, Region
I, has determined that these general
NPDES permits are consistent with the
CZMP. EPA has requested the
Massachusetts, Maine. and New
Hampshire coastal zone agencies for a
determination that these three permits-
are consistent with their respective
State policies.
D. The Endangered Species Act
EPA Region I has concluded that the
discharges to be covered by the general
NPDES permits will not affect or -
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species or
adversely affect its critical habitat EPA
has requested consultations with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to
confirm this conclusion. - ‘- -
-------
! edIraL I VoL 5Z . Nn. m I Tuesday , 9ept iber 15 1 / Notleaa
£ En vi ormeutoi impact Statement
Requirements
1ge . l permitadO not authorize
the construction of any water resaur s
pr*ctor the tmpaunthnent of any
water body or have any effect on
hiatorfca property, an are not major
Federal thitfes needing preparation of
any vironmenta} Impact Statement.
Therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Act. 16 U.S.C 1273 at seq., the.Natlonal
Historic Preservation Act of 1968, 15
U.S.C 470 ef seq., the Fish and Wildlife
CoordinatfoirAct 16 U.S.C. 611 etseq,
and the National Eavfxonmental PoiTcy
Act. 33 U.S.C. 327 ef seq., do no! apply
to the Issuance of these general NPC
permits.
VL Other Legal Requirements.
A. Economic Impact (Executive Order
EPA has. reidawed tha effect of
Exeaitive Order 12291 on thia draft
general permit and beadet r inpd that
it lsnot a major ruleuedev that order.
This regulation wee auhmitted.
previously to the Offl ce ofManagjm .ent.
and Budget for review as requfrndby
Executive Order 12291. The Office of
M jw iit and D L4 t hat e am ,t 1 d
this action from the review re wents
of Executive Order 12291 pursuant to
sectIon 8(b) of that Onfer-.
Heduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities by these
draft general t WDES permits. under the
Puperwork Reductton t ctotiget 44
tLS .C. * 1350! eL seq. The Informatton
collection requirements of these draft
permits have already been approved by
the Office of vfanagement and Thidget
under submiasisne . made fm the IWDES
per t program under the provieicn&of
the Clean Water Act. Ni, nmments fr
the Offl of Management and Budget or
the Public were received on the
Information collection requirements in
these permits.
C The & atory Flexth:711y Act
After review of the facto presented in
the notlceprinted above..! h reby
certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 6O5(b) thatthase permits do not
have a I iiiCcantimpsctoa.
substantial number of emnll piiiftfpq .
Moreover. the. draft. pPrmif will reduce
a sIgpiTh nnt athrdniativabuixfen .on.
regulated sources..
Datedi August 32, ison.
Ju l ie Bei
RcgiondAdnia ot .
Appemfl A—Draft General Purwit
Proposed Draft General Pe r,rlis Tnder
the National Pollutant DJ.whairga -
Eiimthotlon stem (1VPDES)
Noter The IOUOWfng thethaft nemI
NPDES p itv q hean i,thM.d -
purpose. of this f isrM Ra ne* gzIa
order to eliminate duplication of material
co on to alt pernilt . fbr the tedividuat
states.
1. Mase setts Draft General Permit
Ifl.l flmplIanr-r4 . with the proviainrnr of
the Federal Clean Water Act .as
amended. U.S.C. . etseg.: the
“CWA”)I operators of facilities located
In Maeeachusetta whi h. dleeherge
solely non-contact cooflntwafe, as
deffned in Part ff at a rate of one mflffoir
gallons per day or less to Class B and C
waters as designated In the
Massachusetts Water QuaM ’y
Slanifazd s, 314 C v 4(X1 et seq.; are
authorized ts.diacharge ta.afl Caee.3.
and C waters In accordance with
efflns’nt limitatfons, monitoring
reqtth em nti and other conditions set
forth herein.
This permit ahaff become effective on
the date of the signature betaw.
Ths. permit and the antharlzatfoij to
&scherga expire atmldnight. five years
from dete c i Issuance.
This permit consists of 6 pages In Part
I including effhyp, ,p l tut1an&
monttorthequfr en etc.. and 18
pages In Part II ir dwi 1 iiigCe al
Condtions.an ijD fi iftfo ns ..
Operaters c xl fzthuktf within the
g e it e reawkjItp 5 tjfy
the Thrector at their Enh-..t to be covered
by r ikpermitand iri i e
written natifi mtioa of pc”n $ onverage.
or thosewhoazedenieclbythe Director
are t 2uthn,i d nuder thin gPrwrnl
permit to dbtrPtsn 80 fr these £ Iit+
to the receiving w or areas nemed.
S ig xxedth l s____dayof_
David A. Flerra ,.
Director. Water nagemen Wigisiori.
EnvfronmentaJPrafarctjo,r4gejycy, RegionZ
Boston. Mhu
Pkrf I
A. Effldent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements
1.. During the. p in fb nning
effective date and lasting through
expiration, the permitlee La anfhnrf od to
discharge from seth outfall of non-
contact cooling’wate, to a drainage
basin dasslfled as a or cold water
fishery as designated below..
a. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored by the pernuttee as
specified below
b The discharge shall not cause or
contribute to a rise in temperatore of the
receiving waterr resulting from artificial
origin ofgeater than 4’F (Z.2”C7.
c. This permit does not allow for the
addition of any blocida or chemical for
any purpose to the effluent
d. There 3hall be no discharge of
floating solids orvisible foanrinother
than trace amounts.
a. The effluent limitations. are based
on the state water quality standards and
are certified by the State’.
f. Samples taken In complIance with
the monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the point of
discharge.
g. The pH c i the effluent shall not be
less than norgrea tar than the range
given for the receiving water
classifIcatIons, unless these values are
exceeded due to natural causes.
B t
D is tations Other
(Sçe ty)
Ssmp ps
,
M da
Flow_____________________________________
to r —
53 (28.3 ’C).
98 ’F (20’C)
( s Per .
LAt.g)
Re afl O Iy-
q.as1w _._
quean r
(Pet tAt.t .
4.grs . n . and e ç.
Igrabs repwThq ine m,n and n* mum values.
t grub
Temperaat, ( w’ wi 4’
(caid water IW,e L
pi4
LC. &C-blO8C, & (use Pet LA.1.h)-
‘The && .u r ot id we,,, wan, ifatwios ihaS be that piavidod ui thi Maaesctnown, Water iUty SIas14 .4.. 314 Q R 4. (4) • 4.05(5) ,. T eI 1-
-------
42576
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 1992 / Notices
clusthcabon Rang.
tS4
t$
h. One chronic Toxicity Screening
Test shall be performed by the permittee-
within 90 days after the issuance date of
his general NPDES permit on the cooling
water discharge. One grab sample will
be taken during normal facility.
operation. The Ceriodaphnio diibia shall
be used as the test organism In the test
procedure and protocol detailed In
Attachment A (Attachment A is -.
standard EPA toxicity protocoL A copy
will be provided upon request from EPA.-
Region I). A portlonof the grab sample:
will be analyzed for totalcopper. total
lead, total zanc and total residual.
chlorine. Th. results of the chronic- -
biological test (C-NOEC and LC. 6 ) and
chemical analysis tests will be . -
forwarded to State and EPA within )
daye after the completion of all the tests.
The test method shall follow those
recommended by EPA: Weber, Ci. at a!.
1980, Short Term Methods foi.- -.
Eslimating the Chronic and Acute.
Toxicity of Effluents andJ’ eceiving
Woter to Freshwater Organisms. id
Edition. Office of Research and -
Development, Cincinnati. OFt. EPA-800/
4-89- O OL-
8. Maine Draft General Permit
In compliance with thiprovisions of
the Federal Clean Water Act, as
amended. (33 U.S.C 1251 et seq.; the
“CWA”), operators of Induafrial
facilities discharging solely non-contact
cooling water, as defined In Part Ii,
located In Maine are authorized to .
discharge to aliwaters Inaccordancé
with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements and other conditions set
forth herein. No discharge into lakes is
authorized by this permit- -
This permit shall become effective on
the date of the signature below. - -
This permit and the authorization to -
discharge expire at midnight. five years
frvmdateofissuanca -
This permirconsista of 7 pages In Part
1 including effluent limitations, -
monitoring requirements, etc. and 18-
pages In Part U including General
CondIlion and Dpfhilf1ons. • - -
Operators of facilities within the
general permit area who fail to notify
the Director of their Intent to be covered
by this general permit and receive
written notification of permit coverage,
or those who are denied coverage by the
Director are not authorized under this
general permit todiatharge from those
facilities to the receiving waters or areas
named.
Signid this ........ day of...._
David A. Fleirs,
Director,. Water Management Divisi u
Environmental PmLectios Agency,, Region L
Boston, Massachusetts
PartI.
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements : -
1. DurIng the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting expiration, the
permittee Is authorized to discharge
from each outfall of non-contact cooling
water (as defined In Paragraph LA.1.L
below) into fresh and marine water.
a. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored by the permittee as
specified below.. - -
b. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 prevent deposition of scale forming
standard units nor greater than 8.5 materials which do not exhibit any
standard units and shall be monitored residual toxic effect on the receiving
monthly with 4 grabs, reporting - - waters;
maximum and minimum values (see g. Discharge Temperature and
LA.1i. below). - Vohene.
C. There shall-be no di of - - - The temperature and volume of the
floating solids or visible foam in oTher- ha shall not exceed 120 ‘F and 3.0
than trace amOUfltS. - millions gallons per day (MCD). The
d. The efflnent .limltatlons are based. - acceptability of the total or combined
on the state water quality standards and nan-contact cooling waters from each
certified by the State. . facility must be determined using the
a. Samples taken In compliance with graph on Figure 1. The Intersection of
the monitoring requiiements specified the maximum effluent temperature and
aboveshaflbetakenatthepolntof thedilutlonratioshallbe lnthe
discharge. “acceptable” range shown on Figure 1,
f. Deflniilons titled “Effluent Temperature/Dilution.
Non-contact cooling water is water Graph” for coverage by the General
used to reduce temperature which does- Permit Program. lithe Intersection falls
not come Into direct contact with any within the “non-acceptable” area, the -
raw material, Intermediate product.. facility must be covered by the.
waste product or finished, productq - Individual NPDES Permit. not the-.
No,n-toxic water treatment additives General Peimit Program.
arechemlçals used in cooling wàte . - .The effluent temperature is the
-- system prImaril)i b-coiirol corloelon or- - ma,.i,nmw daily temperature. The
dilution factor Is the sum of the 7Q10
low stream flow at the facility site and
the dafly maximum effluent flow divided
by the daily maximum effluent flow. For
facilities with multiple outfalls. the daily
maximum effluent flow shall be the sum
of the flow from all outfalls. -
h. Water Treatment Additives
- Non-toxic watei treatment additives
are allowed In non-contact cooling
water systems. The State of Maine will
review each Identified chemical to -
determine Its acceptability. Additives
used to control biological growth in such
cooling systems are prohibited due to
their inherent toxicity to aquatic life.
Residual chlorine discharges resulting
from the use of potable water suppiea
will be exempt from this provision.
The follo ilng water treatment
additive biological and chemical data -
- must be supplied In the letter of intent to
be vere4 by this general permit - -
-
- -
-
-
Efl u ciactàiitic -,
- -
sju 6 llTlUIXIWh oth
- - wi _ -
: -. - - - - - -
- -.
M aa w inud
hi rcy
• ,-- -‘ - - - -
-
‘-•
-

—. -.
- M dab’
Flow (as. L&14) - - -
Teruperati,. (ass LA.I.g )’ -
Total Res ual Ch crWie (see L&14.J____________
-- —
S% Flgit. 1_
See Rguse I —
Repoit -
- -
Ucr S*y

0* Average. -. - - - - -
4 g s. ‘ . iui1kig mwi.. and avg. - -
Grab. - . - - -
- -
‘Ncn. r oaig wat may be d W Id ói lilo cleas 8 C, SB, d SC waters that have a amage wise twigs, n ten (10) s jere miles it
acssrd ice with Mama State Law. See Pwa apIu L&1.g. for det s for dat. ,.. ,.....g S the cc fic dfschvge(s) tuave araeptabfo d altion wind can be wrered by tho
General Pemtit Pr am . - - - -
-------
Wednesday
September 9. 1992
Non Construction—Industrial
Permit Language
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits For Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
Industrial Activity; Permit Language
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices 41297
Appendix B—NPDES General Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Industrial Activity
Permit No. MER00000IF
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except as
provided in part l.B 3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, for
Indian Tnbes located in the State of
Maine. are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part 11 of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Ronald Manfredonia.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
with storm waler discharges. for indian
Tribes located in the State of Maine.
Permit No. NHR00000IF
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except as
provided in part f.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, for
Indian Tribes located in the State of
New Hampshire, are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of intent in
accordance with part Ii of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
-------
41298
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
associated with industrial activity who
fall to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia,
Acting Director. Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions In part Xl which apply to facilities
with storm water discharges, for Inthan
Tribes located in the State of New
Hampshire.
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Permit No. MAR00000IF
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part l.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, for
Indian Tribes located in the State of
Massachusetts, are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Ronald Manfredonia,
Acting Director
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
and storm water discharges. for Indian Tnbes
located in the State of Massachusetts
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Permit No. MER000000
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq: the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located in the State of Maine, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein,
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity
within the general permit area who
Intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent In
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
Signed and Issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia,
Acting Director.
This signature Is for the permit condition,
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
located in the State of Maine.
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Permit No. NHR000000
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq. the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located in the State of New Hampshire,
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activIty, who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Ronald Manfredonia.
Acting Director
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
located in the State of New Hampshire
General Permit No. FLR000000
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. the ‘Act”) except as
provided in part l.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of Florida are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authonzed by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part 11 of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
Dated: August 28, 1992
Robert F. McGhee,
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature Is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
located in the State of Flonda.
General Permit No. NCR00000F
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. the “Act”) except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located on Indian land in North Carolina
belonging to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians in the State of North
Carolina are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41299
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
Date& August 28. 1992.
Robert F McGhee,
Acting Director, Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area
General Permit No. FLR00000F
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. the “Act”) except as
provided in part l.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located on Indian land in Florida
belonging to the Seminole Tribe of
Florida are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend tc be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part 11 of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
Dated August 28. 199Z.
Robert F McChee,
Acting Director. Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permii conditions
in paris I through X and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area
General Permit No MSR00000F
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the “Act”) except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located on Indian land in Mississippi
belonging to the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
Dated. August 28. 1992.
Robert F. McGhee.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area.
General Permit No. FLR0000IF
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1231 et seq. the “Act”) except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located on Indian land in Florida
belonging to the Miccosukee Indian
Tribe of Florida are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
Dated. August 28. 1992.
Robert F McGhee.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
In parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area
Permit No. LAR000000
Covet Page
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U SC 1251 et seq. the ‘Act’) except as
provided in part I B 3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located in the State of Louisiana. are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authonzed by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 27th day of August.
1992.
Myron 0. Knudson. P.E..
Water Management Director, Region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana
Permit No N M R000000
Cover Page
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq; the Act), except as
-------
41300
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of New Mexico, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent In
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 27th day of August.
1992.
Myron 0. Knudson. P.E.,
Water Management Director. Region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana
Permit No.0 K R000000
Cover Page
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part l.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of Oklahoma, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 27th day of August.
1992
Myron 0 Knudson. P E
Water Management Director. Region VI
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Paris I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part Xi which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana
Permit No TX R000000
Cover Page
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq: the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located in the State of Texas. are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued this 27th day of August.
1992
Myron 0. Knudson, P.E..
Water Management Director, Region VI
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Paris i through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana
Permit No. COR00000F
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq: the Act), except
as provided in Part I.B 3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity in
applicable federal facilities located in
the State of Colorado. and in the
following Indian Reservations:
Southern Ute Reservation: and,
Ute Mountain Reservation—Includes the
entire Reservation, which Is located In
Colorado and New Mexico.
Are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part fl of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Kerngan dough.
Acting Regionol Administrator
Ti is signature is for the permit conditions
in Paris I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part Xl which apply to facilities
located in the State of Coiorado and the
portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation
located in the State of New Mexico
Permit No. MTR00000F
Authorization To Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S C. . 1251 et. seq. the Act), except
as provided in Part I B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, in all
Indian Reservations in Montana
including the following Reservations.
Blackfeet Reservation;
Crow Reservation:
Flathead Reservation;
Fort Belkr.ap Reservation;
Fort Peck Reservation,
Northern Cheyenne Reservation; and,
Rocky Boys Reservation.
Are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41301
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued thIs 28th day of August.
1992.
iCemgan Clough.
Acting RegionolAdmin,stroier.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through DC and for any additional
condition, in Part X I which apply to facilities
located in the State of Montana.
Permit No. NDR00000F
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. . 1251 et. seq; the Act), except
as provided in Part 1.8.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity in all
the Indian Reservations located in the
State of North Dakota including the
following (with the exception of the
portion of the Lake Traverse
Reservation, also known as the Sisseton
Reservation, located in North Dakota)
Fort Totten Reservation—Also known
as Devils Lake Reservation;
Fort Berthold Reservation
Standing Rock Reservation—Includes
the entire Reservation, which is
located in both North Dakota and
South Dakota; and,
Turtle Mountain Reservation.
Are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fall to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Kemgan Clough.
Acting Regaonol Administmeor.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions In Part Xl which apply to facilities
located in the State of North Dakota and the
portion of the Standing Rock Reservation
located in the State of South Dakota.
Permit No. SDR000000
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the entire State of South
Dakota induding the Indian reservations
noted below (with the exception of the
portion of the Standing Rock
Reservation located in South Dakota).
and the portion of the Lake Traverse
Reservation located In North Dakota
Cheyenne River Reservation;
Crow Creek Reservation;
Flandreau Reservation;
Lake Traverse Reservation—Also
known as the Siseeton Reservation.
Includes the entire Reservation, which
Is located in North Dakota and South
Dakota;
Lower Brule Reservation;
Pine Ridge Reservation—Includes only
the portion of the Reservation located
in South Dakota;
Rosebud Reservation; and.
Yankton Reservation.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fall to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Kerngan Clough.
Acting RegionalAdm,nrntretor.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located lit the State of South Dakota and the
portion of the Lake Traverse Reservation
located in the State of North Dakota.
Permit No. UTR00000F
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.. the Act), except as
provided in Part 1.8.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located in the following Indian
Reservations in Utah (except for the
portions of the Navajo Reservation and
Goshute Reservation located in Utah)
Northern Shoshoni Reservation;
Paiute Reservations—several very small
reservations located in the southwest
quarter of Utah;
Skull Valley Reservation; and.
Uintah & Ouray Reservation.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
Intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part H of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Kemgan dough.
Acting Regional Administrator
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Utah
Permit No. WYR00000F
Authorization To Dlacharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
located in the Wind River Indian
Reservation in the State of Wyoming.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
-------
41302
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Kerrigan Clough.
Acting Regional Administrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts 1 through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Wyoming.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. CAR0000IF
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended
(U.S.C.. . 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except
as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity).
located on
Indian Lands in the State of California
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein
Operators of storm wate’r discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part Ii of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and iasued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern.
Regzona!Admin:stmtor. Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part Xl which apply to facilities
located on Indian lands in California.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. AZR000000
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended,
(U.S.C.. . 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except
as provided In part 1.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located In the
State of Arizona (Excluding Indian
Lands)
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part U of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
RegionolAdminsstrotor. Region 9
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part Xl which apply to facilities
located in the State of Arizona (excluding
Indian lands).
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. JAR(X)OO(X)
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended
(U.S.C.. . 1251 et. seq.: the Act), except
as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity).
located on
Johnston Atoll
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industnal activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fall to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern.
Reg ionolAdnnnist rotor. Region 9
This signature Is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part Xl which apply to facilities
located on Johnston Atoll.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No MWRl )OO(X)
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended,
(U.S.C. . . 1251 et seq.; the Act), except
as provided in Part l.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial achvity
(excluding construction activity).
located on
Midway Island or Wake Island
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operatc rs of storm water discharges
associatea with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fall to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnLgbt,
September 9. 1997.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No . 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41303
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
RegionalAdm,n,strotor. Region 9.
This signatwe is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part Xl which apply to facilities
located on Midway Island or Wake Island.
Storm Water General Permit for
industrial Activity (Exduding
Construction Activities)
Permit No AZR0000IF
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
in compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S.C. . . 1251 et seq.; the Act), except
as provided In Part LB.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity).
located on
Indian Lands in the State of Arizona,
Including Navajo Territory in the
States of New Mexico and Utah
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and Issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W. McCovern,
Regiona/Adm,n,strg:or, Region 9
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on the Indian lands specified above.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. NVR0000IF
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S C. . . 1251 et seq.; the Act), except
as provided in Part !.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located on
Indian Lands in the State of Nevada,
Including Goshute Temtory the State
of Utah
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with induatnal activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
Regzona!Adnnnisz rotor. Region 9.
This signature Is for the permit conditions
In Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on the Indian lands specified above
General Permit No.. AK—R-O0-0000
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L 100—4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators of facilities
engaged in discharging storm water
associated with industrial activities,
except facilities identified in Part I
hereof and except facilities located on
Indian lands within the State of Alaska.
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 limitations.
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992
Harold E Geren,
Acting Director. Water Division, Region 10.
US Environmen to/Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
in the State of Alaska
General Permit No ID—R—0O-000F
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P L. 100—4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators of facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Idaho that are engaged in discharging
storm water associated with industrial
activities, except facilities identified in
Part I hereof, are authorized to discharge
to waters of the United States, in
accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E Geren.
Acting Director. Water Division. Region 10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
in the State of Idaho
General Permit No.. AK-R-OO-000F
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L 100—4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators of facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Alaska that are engaged in discharging
storm water associated with industrial
activities, except facilities identified in
Part I hereof, are authorized to discharge
to waters of the United States, in
accordance with effluent limitations.
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur
-------
41304
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. ‘175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992
Harold E. Geren,
Acting Director. Wafer Division. Region 10.
(IS Environmental Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions In Part XI which apply to facilities
loca ted on indian lands in the State of
Alaska.
General Permit No.. WA-R-O0-OOiF
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Flimlniatlon
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.s.c § 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L 100-4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators of facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Washington that are engaged in
discharging storm water associated with
industrial activities, except facilities
identified in Part I hereof, are authorized
to discharge to waters of the United
States. in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements,
and other conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992
Harold E Geren.
Acting Director. Water Division. Region 10.
US Environmental Protection Agency
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Paris I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Washington
General Permit No. WA-R-oo-000F
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 el
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. P.L 100—4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators of federal
facilities in the State of Washington,
that are engaged in discharging storm
water associated with industrial
activities, except facilities Identified in
Part I hereof and except facilities
located on Indian lands within the State
of Washington. are authorized to
discharge to waters of the State of
Washington and waters of the United
States adjacent to State waters, in
accordance with effluent limitations.
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992
Harold E Geren.
Acting Director. WoterDivision. Region 10.
U.S. En viromnentol Protection Agency.
This signature Is for the permIt conditions
In Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to federal
facilities in the State of Washington.
General Permit No.: ID-R-OO-0000
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L 100—4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators of facilities
engaged in discharging storm water
associated with Industrial activities,
except facilities identified in Part I
hereof and except facilities located on
Indian lands within the State of Idaho,
are authorized to discharge to waters of
the State of Idaho and waters of the
United States adjacent to State waters,
in accordance with effluent limitations.
monitoring requirements. and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
SIgned this 27th day of August 1992
Harold E. Geren.
Act jag Director, Water Division. Region 10,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
in the State of Idaho.
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity
Table of Content.
Preface
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A Permit Area.
B. Eligibility.
C. AuthorizatIon.
Part II Notice of intent Requirements
A Deadlines for Notification
B Contents of Notice of Intent
C Where to Submit
D. Additional Notification
E Renotification
Part Ill Special Conditions
A Prohibition on non 5torm water
discharges
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
Part IV Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plans
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
B. Signature and Plan Review
C. Keeping Plans Current
D. Contents of Plans
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Coal Pile Runoff
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Failure to Certify
B. Monitoring Requirements
C. Toxicity Testing
D Reporting Where to Submit
B. Retention of Records
Part VII. 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.
C. Signatory Requirements.
H Penalties for Falsification of Reports
I. Penalties for Falsification of Monitoring
Systems
Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K Property Rights
L Severability.
M. Requiring an Individual permit or an
alternative general permit
N. Stete/Environmental Laws
0. Proper Operation and Maintenance.
P. Monitoring and Records.
Q Inspection and Entry
R Permit Actions
S Bypass of Treatment Facility
T Upset Conditions
Part VIII. Reopener Clause
Part LX. Notice of Termination
A. Notice of Termination
B. Addresses.
Part X. Definitions
Part XI State Specific Conditions
A Maine
B. Louisiana.
C. New Mexico.
D. Oklahoma.
B. Texas.
F. Colorado (Federal Facilities and Indian
Lands)
C Arizona.
H. Alaska.
I. Idaho
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No . 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices
41305
f. Washington (Federal Facilities and Indian
Lands).
ADDENDUM A—Pollutants Listed in Tables
U and Ill of Appendix P of 40 CFR 122
ADDENDUM B.—Sectlon 313 Water Pnonty
Chemicals
ADDENDUM C—Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
PREFACE
The CWA provides that storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from a point source (including
dIscharges through a municipal separate
storm sewer system) to waters of the
United States are unlawful, unless
authorized by a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. The terms ‘storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity”. “point source” and “waters of
the United States” are critical to
determining whether a facility is subject
to this requirement. Complete
definitions of these terms are found in
the definition section (Part X) of this
permit. In order to determine (he
applicability of the requirement to a
particular facility, the facility operator
must examine its activities in
relationship to the eleven categories of
industrial facilities described in the
definition of “storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity”.
Category (xi) of the definition, which
address facilities with activities
classified under Standard Industrial
Classifications (SIC) codes 20. 21. 22. 23,
2434, 2.5, 265, 267, 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)). differs from other categories listed
in that it only addresses storm water
discharges where material handling
equipment or actIvities, raw materials.
Intermediate products, final products,
waste materials, by-products, or
industrial machinery are exposed to
Storm water. i
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
established the Storm Water Hotline at
(703) 821-4823 to assist the Regional
Offices In distributing notice of intent
forms and storm water pollution
prevention plan guidance. and to
provide information pertaining to the
NPDES storm water regulations.
On June 4, 1992, the United State. Court of
Appeal. for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
exclu.ion for maisufactunng facilitie, in category
)xi) which do not have material, or activities
exposed to storm water to the EPA for further
rulemaking )NoZuml Resouives Defense Council
EPA. No. 90—70671 and 91—70200)
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
The permit covers all areas of:
Region I—for the States of Maine and
New Hampshire: for Indian lands
located in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire. and Maine.
Region lV—for the State of Florida:
and for Indian lands located in Florida,
Mississippi. and North Carolina.
Region VI—for the States of
Louisiana, New Mexico. Oklahoma, and
Texas; and for Indian lands located in
Louisiana, New Mexico (except Navajo
lands and Ute Mountain Reservation
lands), Oklahoma, and Texas.
Region VIll—for the State of South
Dakota; for Indian lands located in
Colorado. Montana. North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah (except Goshute
Reservation and Navajo Reservation
lands), and Wyoming: for Federal
facilities in Colorado; and for the Ute
Mountain Reservation in Colorado, and
New Mexico.
Region IX—for the State of Arizona;
for the Territories of Johnston Atoll, and
Midway and Wake Island; and for
Indian lands located in California, and
Nevada; and for the Goshute
Reservation in Utah and Nevada, the
Navajo Reservation in Utah, New
Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley
Reservation iii Nevada and Idaho.
Region X—for the State of Alaska,
and Idaho; for Indian lands located in
Alaska, Idaho (except Duck Valley
Reservation lands), and Washington;
and for Federal facilities in Washington.
B. Eiigib,Iity
1. This permit may cover all new and
existing point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity to waters of the United States,
except for storm water discharges
identified under paragraph I.B,3.
2. This permit may authorize storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are mixed with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities provided that the storm water
discharge from the construction activity
is in compliance with the terms.
Including applicable notice of intent
(NOl) or application requirements, of a
different NPDES general permit or
individual permit authorizing such
discharges.
3. L,mitations on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
not authorized by this permit:
a. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are mixed
with sources of non-storm water other
than non-storm water discharges that
(t) in compliance with a different
NPDES permit: or
(ii) identified by and in compliance
with Part lILA 2 (authorized non-storm
water discharges) of this permit
b. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity which are
subject to an existing effluent limitation
guideline addressing storm water (or a
combination of storm water and process
water) 2.
c, storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are subject
to an existing NPDES individual or
general permit: are located at a facility
that where an NPDES permit has been
terminated or denied, or which are
issued in a permit in accordance with
paragraph VILM (requirements for
Individual or alternative general
permits) of this permit. Such discharges
may be authorized under this permit
after an existing permit expires provided
the existing permit did not establish
numeric limitations for such discharges.
d. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from
construction sites, except storm water
discharges from portions of a
construction site that can be classified
as an industrial activity under 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14) (i) through (ix) or (xi)
(including storm water discharges from
mobile asphalt plant, and mobile
concrete plants);
e. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that the Director
(EPA) has determined to be or may
reasonably be expected to be
contributing to a violation of a water
quality standard:
f. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that may
adversely affect a listed or proposed to
be listed endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat; and
g. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from inactive
mining, inactive landfills, or inactive oil
and gas operations occurring on Federal
lands where an operator cannot be
identified.
A. Perrz,it Area are
C For the purpose of thu permit, the following
affluent limitation guideline. address storm water
(or. combinatIon of .torm water and proceas
water) cement manufactunng (40 CFR 411) feedlota
(40 CFR 412). fertilizer manufacturing (40 CFR 418).
petroleum refining (40 CFR 419) phosphate
rnanufactunng (40 CFR 422). steam electric (40 CFR
423). coal mining (40 CFR 434). mineral mining end
proceaerng (40 CFR 438), ore mining and dressing (40
CFR 440). and asphalt emulaion (40 CFR 443 Subpart
A) Thi. permit may authonze storm water
discharge. aa.ociated with industrial activity which
are not .ub)ect to an effluent limitation guideline
even where a different storm water discharge at the
facility I. eub,ect to an effluent limitation guideline
-------
41306
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
4. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity which are
authorized by this permit may be
combined with other sources of storm
water which are not classified as
associated with industrial activity
pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14), so long
as the discharger is in compliance with
this permit.
c. Authorization
1. Dischargers of storm water
associated with industrial activity must
submit a Notice of Intent (NO l) in
accordance with the requirements of
Part II of this permit, using a NO! form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereofl, to be authorized to discharge
under this general permit .
2. 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 2 days
after the date that the NO! is
postmarked.
3. The Director may deny coverage
under this permit and require submittal
of an application for an individual
NPDES permit based on a review of the
NO! or other information.
Part U. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
II.A.4 (rejected or denied municipal
group applicants). II A.5 (new operator)
and ILA.6 (late NOls), 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
(NO!) in accordance with the
requirements of this part on or before
October 1, 1992.
2. Except as provided in paragraphs
II.A.3 (oil and gas operations), II.A 4
(rejected or denied municipal group
applicants). ll.A.5 (new operator), and
II.A.6 (late NO!) operators of facilities
which begin industrial activity after
October 1, 1992 shall submit a NO! in
accordance with the requirements of
this part at least 2 days prior to the
commencement of the industrial activity
at the facility:
3. Operators of oil and gas
exploration, production, processing, or
treatment operations or transmission
facilities, that are not required to submit
a permit application as of October 1.
1992 in accordance with 40 CFR
122.26(c)(1)(iii), but that after October 1,
1992 have a discharge of a reportable
‘A copy of the approved NOl form I. provided in
Appendix C of thie notice
quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
for which notification is required
pursuant to either 40 CFR 110.6, 40 CFR
117.21 or 40 CFR 3026. must submit a
NOl in accordance with the
requirements of Part Il.C of this permit
within 14 calendar days of the first
knowledge of such release.
4. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from a facility
that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated in a
timely Part I group application and
where either the group application is
rejected or the facility is denied
participation in the group application by
EPA. and that are seeking coverage
under this general permit shall submit a
NO! in accordance with the
requirements of this part on or before
the 180th day following the date on
which the group is rejected or the denial
is made, or October 1, 1992, whIchever is
later.
5. Where the operator of a facility
with a storm water discharge associated
with industrial activity which is covered
by this permit changes, the new operator
of the facility must submit an NOl In
accordance with the requirements of
this part at least 2 days prior to the
change.
6. An operator of a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity is not precluded from submitting
an NO! In accordance with the
requirements of this part after the dates
provided in Parts II.A 1, 2, 3, or 4 (above)
of this permit. In such instances, EPA
may bring appropriate enforcement
actions.
B. Contents of Notice of Intent The
Notice of Intent shall be signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit and shall
include the following information:
1. The street address of the facility for
which the notification is submitted.
Where a Street address for the site is not
available, the location of the
approximate center of the facility must
be described in terms of the latitude and
longitude to the nearest 15 seconds, or
the section, township and range to the
nearest quarter section:
2 Up to four 4-digit Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that
best represent the principal products or
for hazardous waste treatment, storage
or disposal facilities, land disposal
facilities that receive or have received
any industrial waste, steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage. a
narrative identification of those
activities;
3, The operator’s name, address,
telephone number, and status as
Federal, State. private, public or other
entity.
4. The permit number(s) of additional
NPDES permit(s) for any discharge(s)
(including non-storm water discharges)
from the site that are currently
authorized by an NPDES permit:
5. The name of the receiving water(s).
or if the discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer
and the ultimate receiving water(s) for
the discharge through the municipal
separate storm sewer
6. An indication of whether the owner
or operator has existing quantitative
data describing the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges
(existing data should not be included as
part of the NO!),
7. Where a facility has participated in
Part I of an approved storm water group
application, the number EPA assigned to
the group application shall be supplied;
and
8. For any facility that begins to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity after October 1. 1992.
a certification that a storm water
pollution prevention plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
with Part IV of this permit. (A copy of
the plan should not be included with the
NO! submission).
C. Where to Submit. Facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity must use a NOl form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereof) The form in the Federal
Register notice in which this permit was
published may be photocopied and used
Forms are also available by calling (703)
821—4823 NOIs must be signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit NOIs are to
be submitted to the Director of the
NPDES program in care of the following
address: Storm Water Notice of Intent,
P.O. Box 1215, Newington, VA 22122
D. Additional Notification. Facilities
which discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity through large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems (systems located in an
incorporated city with a population of
100.000 or more, or in a county identified
as having a large or medium system (see
definition in Part X of this permit and
Appendix E of this notice)) shall, in
addition to filing copies of the Notice of
Intent in accordance with paragraph
ll.D, also submit signed copies of the
Notice of Intent to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer through
which they discharge in accordance
with the deadlines in Part II.A
(deadlines for notification) of this
permit.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41307
E. Renotification. Upon issuance of a
new general permit, the permittee is
required to notify the Director of their
Intent to be covered by the new general
permit.
Part III. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
1. Except as provided in paragraph
llI.A.2 (below). all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water.
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
IILA.2.b (below), discharges of material
other than storm water must be in
compliance with a NPDES permit (other
than this permit) issued for the
discharge.
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit provided the non-storm water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.3 g.(2)
(measures and controls for non-storm
water discharges): discharges from fire
fighting activities; fire hydrant flushings:
potable water sources including
waterline flushings: imgation drainage;
lawn watering; routine external building
washdown which does not use
detergents or other compounds:
pavement washwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
have not occurred (unless all spilled
material has been removed) and where
detergents are not used; air conditioning
condensate: springs: uncontaminated
ground water, and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents.
B. Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities
1. The discharge of hazardous
substances or oil in the storm water
discharge(s) from a facility shall be
prevented or minimized in accordance
with the applicable storm water
pollution prevention plan for the facility.
This permit does not relieve the
permittee of the reporting requirements
of 40 CFR part 117 and 40 CFR part 302.
Except as provided in paragraph l!1.B.2
(multiple anticipated discharges) of this
permit, where a release containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reporting
quantity established under either 40 CFR
117 or 40 CFR 302. occurs during a 24
hour period.
a. The discharger is required to notify
the National Response Center (NRC)
(800—424—8802; in the Washington. DC
metropolitan area 202—428—2675) in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 as soon as he
or she has knowledge of the discharge:
b. The storm water pollution
prevention plan required under Part IV
(storm water pollution prevention plans)
of this permit must be modified within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release to: provide a description of the
release, the circumstances leading to the
release, and the date of the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed by
the permittee to identify measures to
prevent the reoccurence of such releases
and to respond to such releases, and the
plan must be modified where
appropriate; and
c. The perrnittee shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph !lI.B.i.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
Vl.D.1.d (reporting: where to submit) of
this permit.
2. Multiple Anticipated Discharges—
Facilities which have more than one
anticipated discharge per year
containing the same hazardous
substance in an amount equal to or in
excess of a reportable quantity
established under either 40 CFR 117 or
40 CFR 302. which occurs during a 24
hour period, where the discharge is
caused by events occumng within the
scope of the relevant operating system
shall:
a. submit notifications in accordance
with Part IILB.i.b (above) of this permit
for the first such release that occurs
during a calendar year (or for the first
year of this permit, after submittal of an
NO!); and
b. shall provide in the storm water
pollution prevention plan required under
Part IV (storm water pollution
prevention plan) a written description of
the dates on which all such releases
occurred, the type and estimate of the
amount of material released, and the
circumstances leading to the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
identify measures to prevent or
minimize such releases and the plan
must be modified where appropriate.
3. Spills. This permit does not
authorize the discharge of hazardous
substances or oil resulting from an on-
site spill.
Part IV. 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 and in accordance
with the factors outlined in 40 CFR
125.3(d) (2) or (3) as appropnate. 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
Facilities must implement the provisions
of the storm water pollution prevention
plan required under this part as a
condition of this permit
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
I Except as provided in paragraphs
IV A.3 (oil and gas operations) 4
(facilities denied or rejected from
participation in a group application) 5
(special requirements) and 6 (later
dates) the plan for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity that is existing on or before
October 1. 1992:
a. shall be prepared on or before April
1, 1993 (and updated as appropriate);
b. shall provide for implementation
and compliance with the terms of the
plan on or before October 1. 1993;
2. a. The plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences after
October 1, 1992, but on or before
December 31, 1992 shall be prepared.
and except as provided elsewhere in
this permit. shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit on or before the date 60 calendar
days after the commencement of
industrial activity (and updated as
appropriate);
b. The plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences on or
after January 1. 1993 shall be prepared.
and except as provided elsewhere in
this permit. shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit. on or before the date of
submission of a NO! to be covered
under this permit (and updated as
appropriate):
3. The plan for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
an oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operation or
trensmission facility that is not required
to submit a permit application on or
before October 1, 1992 in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii). but after
October 1, 1992 has a discharge of a
-------
41308
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 11992 / Notices
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
substance for which notification is
required pursuant to either 40 CFR 110.6,
40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6, shall be
prepared and except as provided
elsewhere in this permit. shall provide
for compliance with the terms of the
plan and this permit on or before the
date 60 calendar days after the first
knowledge of such release (and updated
as appropriate);
4. The plan for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
a facility that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated in a
timely group application where either
the group application is rejected or the
facility is denied participation in the
group application by EPA.
a. shall be prepared on or before the
365th day following the date on which
the group is rejected or the denial is
made, (and updated as appropriate);
b. except as provided elsewhere in
this permit, shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit on or before the 545th day
following the date on which the group is
rejected or the denial is made; and
5. Portions of the plan addressing
additional requirements for storm water
discharges from facilities subject to
Parts IV.D.7 (EPCRA Section 313 and
I .D.8 (salt storage) shall provide for
compliance with the terms of the
requirements identified in Parts IV.D.7
and lV.D.8 as expeditiously as
practicable, but except as provided
below, not later than either October 1,
1995. Facilities which are not required to
report under EPCRA Section 313 prior to
July 1. 1992. shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the requirements
identified in Parts IV.D.7 and IV.D.8 as
expeditiously as practicable, but not
later than three years after the date on
which The facility is first required to
report under EPCRA Section 313.
However, plans for facilities subject to
the additional requirements of Part
IV.D.7 and IV.D.8 shall provide for
compliance with the other terms and
conditions of this permit in accordance
with the appropriate dates provided in
Part IV.1, 2, 3, or 5 of this permit.
6. Upon a showing of good cause, the
Director may establish a later date in
writing for preparing and compliance
with a plan for a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity that
submits a NOl in accordance with Part
ll.A.2 (deadlines for notification—new
dlachargers) of this permit (and updated
as appropriate).
B. Signature and Plan Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VILG (signatory
requirements), and be retained on-site at
the facility which generates the storm
water discharge in accordance with Part
VI,E (retention of records) of this permit
2. The perrnittee 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, to the operator of
the municipal system.
3. 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. Such
notification shall identify those
provisions of the permit which are not
being met by the plan, and identify
which provisions of the plan requires
modifications in order to meet the
minimum requirements of this Part.
Within 30 days of such notification from
the Director, (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized
representative, the permittee shall make
the required changes to the plan and
shall submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made.
C. Keeping Plans Current
The permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design,
construction, operation, or maintenance,
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States or if
the storm water pollution prevention
plan proves to be ineffective in
eliminating or significantly minimizing
pollutants from sources identified under
Part IV.D.2 (description of potential
pollutant sources) of this permit. or in
otherwise achieving the general
objectives of controlling pollutants in
storm water discharges associated with
industhal activity. Amendments to the
plan may be reviewed by EPA in the
same manner as Part IV.B (above).
D. Contents of Plan
The plan shall include, at a minimum,
the following items:
1. Pollution Prevention Team. Each
plan shall identify a specific individual
or individuals within the facility
organization as members of a storm
water Pollution Prevention Team that
are responsible for developing the storm
water pollution prevention plan and
assisting the facility or plant manager in
its implementation, maintenance, and
revision. The plan shall clearly identify
the responsibilities of each team
member. The activities and
responsibilities of the team shall
address all aspects of the facility’s
storm water pollution prevention plan.
2. Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources Each plan shall provide a
description of potential sources which
may reasonably be expected to add
significant amounts of pollutants to
storm water discharges or which may
result in the discharge of pollutants
during any 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, at a
minimum:
a. Drainage.
(1) A site map indicating an outline of
the portions of the drainage area of each
storm water outfall that are within the
facility boundaries, each existing
structural control measure to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff, surface
water bodies, locations where
significant materials are exposed to
precipitation, locations where major
spills or leaks identified under Part
IV.D.2.c (spills and leaks) of this permit
have occurred, and the locations of the
following activities where such
activities are exposed to precipitation.
fueling stations, vehicle and equipment
maintenance and/or cleaning areas.
loading/unloading areas, locations used
for the treatment, storage or disposal of
wastes, liquid storage tanks, processing
areas and storage areas.
(2) For each area of the facility 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 identification of the types of
pollutants which are likely to be present
in storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. Factors to
consider include the toxicity of
chemical: quantity of chemicals used.
produced or discharged, the likelihood
of contact with storm water and history
of significant leaks or spills of toxic or
hazardous pollutants Flows with a
significant potential for causing erosion
shall be identified.
b. Inventory of Exposed Materials An
inventory of the types of materials
handled at the site that potentially may
be exposed to precipitation. Such
inventory shall include a narrative
description of significant materials that
have been handled, 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 and
location of on.site storage or disposal;
materials management practices
employed to minimize contact of
materials with storm water runoff
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No.175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41309
between the time of three years prior to
the date of the issuance of this permit
and the present; 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
storm water receives.
c. Spills and Leaks. A list of
significant spills and significant leaks of
toxic or hazardous pollutants that
occurred at areas that are exposed to
precipitation or that otherwise drain to a
storm water conveyance at the facility
after the date of three years prior to the
effective date of this permit. Such list
shall be updated as appropriate during
the term of the permit.
d. Sampling Data. A summai’y of
existing discharge sampling data
describing pollutants in storm water
discharges from the facility, including a
summary of sampling data collected
during the term of this permit.
e. Risk Identification and Summary of
Potential Pollutant Sources. A narrative
description of the potential pollutant
sources from the following activities:
loading and unloading operations;
outdoor storage activities; outdoor
manufacturing or processing activities;
significant dust or particulate generating
processes; and on-site waste disposal
practices. The description shall
specifically list any significant potential
source of pollutants at the site and for
each potential source, any pollutant or
pollutant parameter (e.g. biochemical
oxygen demand. etc.) of concern shall be
identified.
3. Measures and 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:
a. Good Housekeeping.—Good
housekeeping requires the maintenance
of areas which may contribute
pollutants to storm waters discharges in
a clean, orderly manner.
b. Preventive Maintenance. A
preventive maintenance program shall
involve timely inspection and
maintenance of storm water
management devices (e.g. cleaning oilf
water separators, catch basins) as well
as inspecting and testing facility
equipment and systems to uncover
conditions that could cause breakdowns
or failures resulting in discharges of
pollutants to surface waters, and
ensuring appropriate maintenance of
such equipment and systems.
c. Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures, Areas where potential spills
which can contribute pollutants to storm
water discharges can occur, and their
accompanying drainage points shall be
identified clearly in the storm water
pollution prevention plan. Where
appropriate, specifying material
handling procedures, storage
requirements, and use of equipment
such as diversion valves in the plan
should be considered. Procedures for
cleaning up spills shall 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.
d. Inspections. In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation required under Part IV.4 of
this permit, qualified facility personnel
shall be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan. A set of tracking or followup
procedures shall be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in
response to the inspections. Records of
inspection shall be maintained.
e. Employee Trainrng. Employee
training programs shall inform personnel
responsible for implementing activities
identified in the storm water pollution
prevention plan or otherwise
responsible for storm water
management at all levels of
responsibility of the components and
goals of the storm water pollution
prevention plan. Training should
addrea8 topics such as spill response,
good housekeeping and material
management practices. A pollution
prevention plan shall identify periodic
dates for such training.
f. Recordkeeping and Internal
Reporting Procedures. A description of
incidents (such as 8pills, or other
discharges), along with other
information describing the quality and
quantity of storm water discharges shall
be included in the plan required under
this part. Inspections and maintenance
activities shall be documented and
records of such activities shall be
Incorporated into the plan.
g. Non-Storm Water Discharges.
(1) The plan shall include a
certification that the discharge has been
tested or evaluated for the presence of
non-storm water discharges. The
certification shall include the
identification of potential significant
sources of non-storm water at the site, a
description of the results of any test
and/or evaluation fv r the presence of
non-storm water discharges. the
evaluation criteria or testing method
used, the date of any testing and/or
evaluation, and the on-site drainage
points that were directly observed
during the test Certifications shall be
signed in accordance with Part VILG of
this permit. 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, along with the
identification of potential significant
source of non-storm water at the site. A
discharger that is unable to provide the
certification required by this paragraph
must notify the Director in accordance
with Part VI.A (failure to certify) of this
permit.
(2) Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed in Part Ill.A 2 (authorized non-
storm water discharges) of this permit
that are combined with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must be identified in the plan.
The plan shall identify and ensure the
implementation of appropriate pollution
prevention measures for the non-storm
water component(s) of the discharge.
h. Sediment and Erosion Control. The
plan shall identify areas which, due to
topography, activities, or other factors,
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion, and identify structural.
vegetative, and/or stabilization
measures to be used to limit erosion.
i. Management of Runoff. The plan
shall contain a narrative consideration
of the appropriateness of traditional
storm water management practices
(practices other than those which
control the generation or source(s) of
pollutants) u8ed to divert, infiltrate.
reuse, or otherwise manage storm water
runoff in a manner that reduces
pollutants in storm water discharges
from the site. The plan shall provide that
measures that the permittee determines
to be reasonable and appropriate shall
be implemented and maintained. The
potential of various sources at the
facility to contnbute pollutants to storm
water discharges. associated with
industrial activity (see Parts IV.D.2.
(description of potential pollutant
sources) of this permit) shall be
considered when determining
reasonable and appropriate measures.
Appropriate measures may include:
vegetative swales and practices, reuse
of collected storm water (such as for a
process or as an irrigation source), inlet
controls (such as oil/water separators),
-------
41310
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
snow management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices.
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation. Qualified personnel shall
conduct site compliance evaluations at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan, but, except as provided in
paragraph IV.D.4.d (below), in no case
less than once a year. Such evaluations
shall provide:
a. Areas contributing to a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity shall be visually inspected for
evidence of, or the potential for,
pollutants entering the drainage system.
Measures to reduce pollutant loadings
shall be evaluated to determine whether
they are adequate and properly
implemented in accordance with the
terms of the permit or whether
additional control measures are needed.
Structural storm water management
measures, sediment and erosion control
measures, and other structural pollution
prevention measures identified in the
plan shall be observed to ensure that
they are operating correctly. A visual
inspection of equipment needed to
implement the plan. such as spill
response equipment, shall be made.
b. Based on the results of the
inspection, the description of potential
pollutant sources identified in the plan
in accordance with Part IV.D.2
(description of potential pollutant
sources) of this permit and pollution
prevention measures and controls
identified in the plan in accordance with
paragraph IV.D.3 (measures and
controls) of this permit shall be revised
as appropriate within two weeks of such
inspection and shall provide for
implementation of any changes to the
plan in a timely manner, but in no case
more than twelve weeks after the
inspection.
c. A report summarizing the scope of
the inspection, personnel making the
inspection, the date(s) of the inspection,
major observations relating to the
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan, and actions
taken in accordance with paragraph
IV.D.4.b (above) of the permit shall be
made and retained as part of the storm
water pollution prevention plan for at
least one year after coverage under this
permit terminates. The report shall
identify any incidents of non-
compliance. Where a report does not
identify any incidents of non-
compliance, the report shall contain a
certification that the facility Is In
compliance with the storm water
pollution prevention plan and this
permit. The report shall be signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit.
d. Where annual site inspections are
shown in the plan to be impractical for
inactive mining sites due to the remote
location and inaccessibility of the site.
site inspections required under this part
shall be conducted at appropriate
intervals specified in the plan. but, in no
case less than once in three years.
5. Additional requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity through municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of or more.
a. In addition to the applicable
requirements of this permit, facilities
covered by this permit must comply with
applicable requirements in municipal
storm water management programs
developed under NPDES permits issued
for the discharge of the municipal
separate storm sewer system that
receives the facility’s discharge.
provided the discharger has been
notified of such conditions.
b. Permittees which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
through a municipal separate storm
sewer system serving a population of
100.000 or more shall make plans
available to the municipal operator of
the system upon request.
6. Consistency with other plans Storm
water pollution prevention plans may
reflect requirements for Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
plans developed for the facility under
section 311 of the CWA or Best
Management Practices (BMP) Programs
otherwise required by an NPDES permit
for the facility as long as such
requirement is incorporated into the
storm water pollution prevention plan.
7. Additional requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities subject
to EPCRA Section 313 requirements. In
addition to the requirements of Parts
IV.D.1 through 4 of this permit and other
applicable conditions of this permit.
storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA Section 313
for chemicals which are classified as
‘Section 313 water priority chemicals’ in
accordance with the definition in Part X
of this permit, shall describe and ensure
the implementation of practices which
are necessary to provide for
conformance with the following
guidelines:
a. In areas where Section 313 water
priority chemicals are stored, processed
or otherwise handled, appropriate
containment, drainage control and/or
diversionary structures shall be
provided. At a minimum, one of the
following preventive systems or its
equivalent shall be used:
(1) Curbing. culverting. gutters. sewers
or other forms of drainage control to
prevent or minimize the potential for
storm water run-on to come into contact
with significant sources of pollutants, or
(2) Roofs, covers or other forms of
appropriate protection to prevent
storage piles from exposure to storm
water, and wind.
b. In addition to the minimum
standards listed under Part IV.D.7.a
(above) 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:
(1) Liquid storage areas where storm
water comes into Contact with any
equipment, tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 323 water.
priority chemicals
(a) 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.
(b) Liquid storage areas for Section
313 water priority chemicals shall be
operated to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals. Appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals may include
secondary containment provided for at
least the entire contents of the largest
single tank plus sufficient freeboard to
allow for precipitation. a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan,
and/or other equivalent measures.
(2) Material storage areas for Section
323 water priority chemicals other than
liquids. Material storage areas for
Section 313 water priority chemicals
other than liquids which are subject to
runoff. leaching. or wind shall
incorporate drainage or other control
features which will minimize the
discharge of Section 313 water priority
chemicals by reducing storm water
contact with Section 313 water priority
chemicals.
(3) Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid Section 313
water priority chemicals, Truck and rail
car loading and unloading areas for
liquid Section 313 water priority
chemicals shall be operated to minimize
discharges of Section 313 water priority
chemicals. Protection such as overhangs
or door skirts to enclose trailer ends at
truck loading/unloading docks shall be
provided as appropriate. Appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals may include: the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41311
placement and maintenance of drip pans
(including the proper disposal of
materials collected in the drip pans)
where spillage may occur (such as hose
connections, hose reels and filler
nozzles) for use when making and
breaking hose connections: a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan:
and/or other equivalent measures.
(4) Areas where Section 313 water
priority chemicals are transferred,
processed or otherwise handled.
Processing equipment and materials
handling equipment shall be operated so
as to minimize discharges of Section 313
water priority chemicals. Materials used
in piping and equipment shall be
compatible with the substances
handled. Drainage from process and
materials handling areas shall minimize
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals. Additional
protection such as covers or guards to
prevent exposure to wind, spraying or
releases from pressure relief vents from
causing a discharge of Section 313 water
priority chemicals to the drainage
system shall be provided as appropriate.
Visual inspections or leak tests shall be
provided for overhead piping conveying
Section 313 water priority chemicals
without secondary containment.
(5) Discharges from areas covered by
paragraphs (1). (2), (3) or (4).
(a) Drainage from areas covered by
paragraphs (1), (2), (3) or (4) of this part
should be restrained by values or other
positive means to prevent the discharge
of a spill or other excessive leakage of
Section 313 water priority chemicals.
Where containment units are employed.
such units may be emptied by pumps or
ejectors; however, these shall be
manually activated.
(b) Flapper-type drain valves shall not
be used to drain containment areas.
Valves used for the drainage of
containment areas should, as far as is
practical, be of manual, open-and-closed
design.
(c) if facility drainage is not
engineered as above, the final discharge
of all in-facility storm sewers shall 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.
(d) Records shall be kept of the
frequency and estimated volume (in
gallons) of discharges from containment
areas.
(6) Facility site runoff other than from
areas covered by (1/. (2). (3) or (4) Other
areas of the facility (those not addressed
in paragraphs (1), (2). (3) or (4)), 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.
(7) Preventive maintenance and
housekeeping. All areas of the facility
shall be inspected at specific intervals
identified in the plan 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,
waste materials or products. In
particular, facility piping, pumps.
storage tanks and bins, pressure vessels,
process and material handling
equipment, and material bulk storage
areas 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 waters of the United States, action to
stop the leak or otherwise prevent the
significant release of section 313 water
priority chemicals to waters of the
United States shall be immediately
taken or the unit or process shut down
until such action can be taken. When a
leak or noncontaininent of a Section 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.
(8) Facility security. Facilities shall
have the necessary secunty systems 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.
(9) Training. Facility employees and
contractor personnel that work in areas
where Section 313 water priority
chemicals are used or stored shall be
trained in and informed of preventive
measures at the facility. Employee
training shall be conducted at intervals
specified in the plan, but not less 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
minimize 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 spill
emergency procedures and reporting
requirements so that spills and
emergency releases of Section 313 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 facility
operation and design features in order to
prevent discharges or spills from
occurring.
(10) Engineering certification The
storm water pollution prevention plan
for a facility subject to EPRCA Section
313 requirements for chemicals which
are classified as ‘section 313 water
priority chemicals’ shall be reviewed by
a Registered Professional Engineer and
certified to by such Professional
Engineer. A Registered Professional
Engineer shall recertify the plan every
three years thereafter or as soon as
practicable after significant modification
are made to the facility. 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
facility covered by the plan of their duty
to prepare and fully implement such
plan
8. Additional Requirements for Salt
Storage
Storage piles of salt used for deicing
or other commercial or industrial
purposes and which generate a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity which is discharged to
a waters of the United States shall be
enclosed or covered to prevent exposure
to precipitation, except for exposure
resulting from adding or removing
materials from the pile. Dischargers
shall demonstrate compliance with this
provision as expeditiously as
practicable, but In no event later than
October 1. 1995. Piles do not need to be
enclosed or covered where storm water
from the pile is not discharged to waters
of the United States.
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Coal Pile Runoff
Any discharge composed of coal pile
runoff shall not exceed a maximum
concentration for any time of 50 mg/I
total suspended solids. Coal pile runoff
-------
41312
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
shall not be diluted with storm water or
other flows in order to meet this
limitation The pH of such discharges
shall be within the range of 6 0—9.0. Any
untreated overflow from facilities
designed. constructed and operated to
treat the volume of coal pile runoff
which is associated with a 10 year. 24
hour rainfall event shall not be subject
to the 50 mg/I limitation for total
suspended solids. Failure to
demonstrate compliance with these
limitations as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no case later than
October 1, 1995. will constitute a
violation of this permit.
Part Vi. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Failure to Certify
Any facility that is unable to provide
the certification required under
paragraph IV.D.3.g.(1) (testing for non-
storm water discharges], must notify the
Director by October 1, 1993 or. for
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
alter October 1, 1992. 180 days after
submitting a NOl to be covered by this
permit. If the failure to certify is caused
by the inability to perform adequate
tests or evaluations, 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
so ’irces of non-storm water discharges
.ie storm sewer and why adequate
tests for such storm sewers were not
feasible. Non-storm water discharges to
waters of the United States which are
not authorized by an NPDES permit are
unlawful, and must be terminated or
dischargers must submit appropriate
NPDES permit application forms,
B. Monitoring Requirements
1. Limitations on Monitoring
Requirements.
a. Except as required by paragraph b..
only those facilities with activities
specifically identified in Parts Vl.B.2
(semi-annual monitoring requirements)
and VI.B.3 (annual monitoring
requirements) of thic permit are required
to conduct sampling of their storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.
b. The Director can provide written
notice to any facility otherwise exempt
from the sampling requirements of Parts
VLB.2 (semi-annual monitoring
requirements) or VI.B.3 (annual
monitoring requirements), that it shall
conduct the annual discharge sampling
required by Part VLB.3.d (additional
facilities), or specify an alternative
monitoring frequency or specify
additional parameters to be analyzed.
2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit. permittees with facilities
identified in Parts Vl.B.2.a through f
must monitor those storm water
discharges identified below at least
semi-annually (2 times per year) except
as provided in Vl.B.5 (sampling waiver),
VI.B.6 (representative discharge), and
Vl.C.1 (toxicity testing) Permittees with
facilities identified in Parts Vl.B.2.a
through f (below) must report in
accordance with Part Vl.D (reporting:
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permittee
shall provide 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;
a. Section 313 of EPCRA Facilities. In
addition to any monitoring required by
Parts Vl.B.2.b through f. or Parts VI.B.3.a
through d. facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are subject to Section 313 of
EPCRA for chemicals which are
classified as ‘Section 313 water priority
chemicals’ are required to monitor storm
water that is discharged from the facility
that comes into contact with any
equipment tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
Section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a truck or rail car loading or
unloading area where a Section 313
water priority chemical is handled for
Oil and Grease (mg/L); Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/L). Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended Solids
(mg/LI; Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
(mg/L): Total Phosphorus (mg/L): pH;
acute whole effluent toxicity; and any
Section 313 water prionty chemical for
which the facility is subject to reporting
requirements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1986.
b. Primary Metal Industries. Facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity classified as
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
33 (Primary Metal Industry) are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for. oil and
grease (mg/U: Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/U); total suspended solids
(mg/LI: pH. acute whole effluent
toxicity, total recoverable lead (mgfL).
total recoverable cadmium (mgfL). total
recoverable copper (mgIL): total
recoverable arsenic (mg/L): total
recoverable chromium (mg/LI; and any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject Facilities
that are classified as SIC 33 only
because they manufacture pure silicon
and/or semiconductor grade silicon are
not required to monitor for total
recoverable cadmium. total recoverable
copper, total recoverable arsenic. total
recoverable chromium or acute whole
effluent toxicity. but must monitor for
other parameters listed above
c. Land Disposal Units/Incineratorsl
BIFs. Facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from any active or inactive
landfill, land application sites or open
dump without a stabilized final cover
that has received ar.y industrial wastes
(other than wastes from a construction
site), and incinerators (including Boilers
and industrial Furnaces (BIF5)) that burn
hazardous waste and operate under
interim status or a permit under Subtitle
C of RCRA, are required to monitor such
storm water that is discharged from the
facility for Magnesium (total
recoverable) (mg/L). Magnesium
(dissolved) (mg/U), Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L). Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/L). Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/L]. Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/L), oil and
grease (mg/L). pH. Total recoverable
arsenic (mg/LI. Total recoverable
Barium (mg/LI, Total recoverable
Cadmium (mgfL), Total Chromium (mgi
L), Total recoverable Cyanide (mg/L).
Total recoverable Lead (mg/L). Total
Mercury (mg/L). Total recoverable
Selenium (mg/L), Total recoverable
Silver (mg/L), and acute whole effluent
toxicity.
d. Wood Treatment Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industnal activity from areas that are
used for wood treatment, wood surface
application or storage of treated or
surfaci proteated wood at any wood
preserving or wood surface facilities are
required to monitor such storm water
that is discharged from the facility for:
oil and grease (mg/L). pH. COD (mg/L).
and TSS (mg/L). In addition, facilities
that use chlorophenolic formulations
shall measure pentachloropheiiol (mg/L)
and acute whole effluent toxicity;
facilities which use creosote
formulations shall measure acute whole
effluent toxicity, and facilities that use
chromium-arsenic formulations shall
measure total recoverable arsenic (mgi
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41313
L), total recoverable chromium (mg/U,
and total recoverable copper (mg/L).
e. Cool Pile Runoff Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from coal pile runoff
are required to monitor such storm
water that is discharged from the facility
for oil and grease (mg/L), pH. TSS (mgi
L), total recoverable copper (mg/I), total
recoverable nickel (mg/I) and total
recoverable zinc (mg/I).
f. Battery Reclaimers. Facilities with
storm water di8charges associated with
industrial activity from areas used for
storage of lead acid batteries.
reclamation products, or waste
products, and areas used for lead acid
battery reclamation (including material
handling activities) at facilities that
reclaim lead acid batteries are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for Oil and
Grease (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/U): pH: total
recoverable copper (mg/I): and total
recoverable lead (mg/I).
3. Annual Monitoring Requirements.
During the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through the
expiration date of this permit.
permittees with facilities identified in
Parts Vl.B.3.a through d. (below) must
monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least annually (I
time per year) except as provided in
V1.B.5 (sampling waiver), and VI.B.6
(representative discharge). Permittees
with facilities identified in parts VIB.3.a
through d. (below) are not required to
submit monitoring results, unless
required in writing by the Director.
However, such permittees must retain
monitoring ,results in accordance with
Part VI.E (retention of records), In
addition to the parameters listed below.
the permittee shall provide 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;
a. Airports. At airports with over
50.000 flight operations per year.
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
areas where aircraft or airport deicing
operations occur (including runways,
taxiways. ramps. and dedicated aircraft
deicing stations) are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility when deicing activities
are occurring for Oil and Grease (mg/L);
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) (mg/L): Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/U); pH; and the
primary ingredient used In the delcing
materials used at the site (e.g. ethylene
glycol, urea. etc.).
b. Cool.f,red Steam Electric Facilities.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
coal handling sites at coal fired steam
electric power generating facilities
(other than discharges in whole or in
part from coal piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
423—which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit) are required to
monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for: Oil and
grease (mg/L). p 1-i, TSS (mg/U). total
recoverable copper (mg/L), total
recoverable nickel (mg/L) and total
recoverable zinc (mg/U).
c. Animal Handling / Meat Packing.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
animal handling areas, manure
management (or storage) areas, and
production waste management (or
storage) areas that are exposed to
precipitation at meat packing plants.
poultry packing plants, and facilities
that manufacture animal and marine
fats and oils, are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility for Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/L); oil and grease (mg/L): Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L); Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L); Total
Phosphorus (mg/U); ph: and fecal
coliform (counts per 100 rnL).
d. Additional Facilities. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that:
(i) come in contact with storage piles
for solid chemicals used as raw
materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified as
SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products);
(ii) are from those areas at automobile
junkyards with any of the following: (A)
over 250 auto/truck bodies with
drivelines (engine, transmission, axles,
and wheels), 250 drivelines, or any
combination thereof (in whole or in
parts) are exposed to storm water, (B)
over 500 auto/truck units (bodies with or
without dnvelines in whole or in parts)
are stored exposed to storm water or
(C) over 100 units per year are
dismantled and drainage or storage of
automotive fluids occurs in areas
exposed to storm water
(iii) come into contact with lime
storage piles that are exposed to storm
water at lime manufacturing facilities;
(iv) are from oil handling sites at oil
fired steam electric power generating
facilities,
(v) are from cement manufacturing
facilities and cement kilna (other than
discharges in whole or in part from
material storage piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
411—which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit);
(vi) are from ready.mixed concrete
facilities; or
(vii) are from ship building and
repairing facilities;
are required to monitor such storm
water discharged from the facility for’
Oil and Grease (mg/U: Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH: and
any pollutant limited in an effluent
guideline to which the facility is subject.
4. Sample Type. For discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours, (estimated by dividing 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) a minimum 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 samples 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
rainfall) 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 thirty minutes is impracticable. a
grab sample can be taken during the
first hours 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
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
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
the discharge. with each aliquot being
separated by a minimum penod of
fifteen minutes. Grab samples only must
be collected and analyzed for the
determination of pH, cyanide, whole
effluent toxicity, fecal coliform. and oil
and grease.
5. Samphng 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
-------
41314
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
8amples could not be collected,
including available documentation of
the event. Adverse weather 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.). Dischargers are precluded from
exerci8ing this waiver more than once
during a two year period.
6. RepresentaL ve Discharge. When a
facility baa two or more outfalls that,
ba8ed on a consideration of industrial
activity, significant materials, and
management practices and activities
within the area drained by the outfall.
the permittee reasonably believes
discharge substantially identical
effluents, the permittee may test thern
effluent of one of such outfalls and
report that the quantitative data also
applies to the substantially identical
outfalls provided that the permittee
Includes in the storm water pollution
prevention plan a description of the
location of the outfalls and explaining in
detail why the outfalls are expected to
discharge substantially identical
effluents. In addition, for each outfall
that the permittee believes is
representative, an estimate of the size of
the drainage ar3a (in square feet) and an
estimate of the runoff coefficient of the
drainage area (e.g. low (under 40
percent). medium (40 to 65 percent) or
high (above 65 percent)) shall be
provided in the plan Perrnittees
required to submit monitoring
information under Parts VI.D.1.a, b or c
of this permit shall include the
description of the location of the
outfalls, explanation of why outfalls are
expected to discharge substantially
Identical effluents, and estimate of the
size of the drainage area and runoff
coefficient with the Discharge
Monitoring Report.
7. Alternative Certification. A
discharger is not subject to the
monitoring requirements of Parts VI.B.2
or 3 of this permit provided the
discharger makes a certification for a
given outfall, on an annual basis, under
penalty of law, signed in accordance
with Part VILG (signatory
requirements), that material handling
equipment or activities, raw materials,
Intermediate products, final products.
waste materials, by-products. Industrial
machinery or operations, significant
materials from past industrial activity,
or. in the case of airports, deicing
activities, that are located in areas of
the facility that are within the drainage
area of the outfall are not presently
exposed to storm water and will not be
exposed to storm water for the
certification period. Such certification
must be retained in the storm water
pollution prevention plan. and submitted
to EPA in accordance with Part Vl.D of
this permit.
8. Alternative to WET Parameter. A
discharger that is subject to the
monitoring requirements of Parts
VI.B.2.a through d may. in lieu of
monitoring for acute whole effluent
toxicity, monitor for pollutants identified
in Tables II and Ill of Appendix D of 40
CFR 122 (see Addendum A of this
permit) that the discharger knows or has
reason to believe are present at the
facility site. Such determinations are to
be based on reasonable best efforts to
identify significant quantities of
materials or chemicals present at the
facility. Dischargers must also monitor
for any additional parameter identified
In Parts VI.B.2.a through d.
C. Toxicity Testing Permittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series
of tests described below wIthin 180 days
after the issuance of this permit or
within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
1. Test Procedures.
a. The permittee shall conduct acute
24 hour static toxicity tests on both an
appropriate invertebrate and an
appropriate fish (vertebrate) test species
(EPA/600/4—90—027 Rev. 9/91, Section
6.1). Freshwater species must be used
for discharges to freshwater water
bodies. Due to the non-saline nature of
rainwater, freshwater test species
should also be used for discharges to
estuarine, marine or other naturally
saline waterbodies.
b. All test organisms, procedures and
quality assurance criteria used shall be
In accordance with Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
EPA/600/4-.90-027 (Rev. September
1991) EPA has proposed to establish
regulations regarding these test methods
(December 4. 1989. 53 FR 50218)
c. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge. Tests shall be
conducted using 100 effluent (no
dilution) and a control consisting of
synthetic dilution water. Results of all
tests conducted with any species shall
be reported according to EPA/600/4—90-
027 (Rev. September 1991), Section 12.
Report Preparation. and the report
submitted to EPA with the Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMR’s) On the
DMR. the permittee shall report “0’S if
there is no statistical difference between
the control mortality and the effluent
mortality for each dilution If there is
statistical difference (exhibits toxicity),
the permittee shall report “1” on the
DMR
2. If acute whole effluent toxicity
(statistically significant difference
between the 100% dilution and the
control) is detected on or after October
1, 1995, In storm water discharges. the
perinittee shall review the storm water
pollution prevention plan and make
appropriate modifications to assist in
identifying the source(s) of toxicity and
to reduce the toxicity of their storm
water discharges. A summary of the
review and the resulting modifications
shall be provided in the plan
D. Reporting Where to Submit
1. a. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VLB.2.(a) (EPCRA Section 313). and (d)
(Wood Treatment facilities), shall
monitor samples collected during the
sampling periods running from January
to June and during the sampling period -
from July to December. Such permittees
shall submit monitoring results obtained
during the reporting period running from
January to December on Discharge
Monitoring Report Form(s) postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the
following January. A separate Discharge
Monitoring Report Form is required for —
each sampling period. The first report
may include less than twelve months of
information
b. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VI.B.2.(b) (Primary Metal facilities), (e)
(Coal Pile Runoff), and (f) (Battery
Reclaimers) shall monitor samples
collected during the sampling period
running from March to August and
during the sampling period running from
September to February. Such permittees
shall submit monitoring results obtained
during the reporting period running from
April to March on Discharge Monitoring
Report Form(s) postmarked no later than
the 28th day of the following April. A
separate Discharge Monitoring Report
Form is required for each event
sampling period. The first report may
Include less than twelve months of
information.
C. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
T1B.2 .(c) (Land disposal facilities), shall
monitor samples collected during the
sampling period running from October to
March and during the sampling period
running from April to September. Such
permlttees shall submit monitoring
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September g. 1992 / Notices
41315
results obtained during the reporting
period running from October to
September on Discharge Monitoring
Report Form(s) postmarked no later than
the 28th day of October. A separate
Discharge Monitoring Report Form is
required for each sampling period. The
first report may include less than twelve
months of information,
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a, VI.D.1.b. and Vl.D.1 c,
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office’
1. CT.MA,ME,NH.RI. VT
United States EPA. Region I, Water
Management Division. (WCP—2109),
Storm Water Staff. John F. Kennedy
Federal Building, Room 2209. Boston.
MA 02203.
2. NJ. NY PR. VI
United States EPA, Region Il. Water
Management Division. (2WM—WPC).
Storm Water Staff. 26 Federal Plaza.
New York, NY 10278.
3. DE. DC. MD. PA, VA, WV
United States EPA, Region Ill, Water
Management Division, (3WM55).
Storm Water Staff, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
4.AL,FL,GA,KY,MS,NC.SC. TN
United States EPA. Region IV, Water
Management Division, (FPB—3), Storm
Water Staff, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta. GA 30385.
5. IL. IN, MI. MN, OH. WI
United States EPA. Region V. Water
Quality Branch, (5 WQP), Storm Water
Staff, 77 West Jackson Boulevard.
Chicago, IL 60604.
8. AR, LA, NM (except see Region IX for
Navajo lands, and see Region VilIfor
Ute Mountain Reservation lands), OK,
TX
United States EPA, Region VI. Water
Management Division, (6W—EA),
Storm Water Staff. First Interstate
Bank Tower at Fountain Place. 1445
Ross Avenue. 12th Floor, Suite 1200.
Dallas. TX 75202.
7. IA, KS, MO, NE
United States EPA. Region VII. Water
Management Division, Compliance
Branch. Storm Water Staff, 726
Minnesota Avenue. Kansas City. KS
68101.
a CO. MT. ND, SD. WY, UT (except see
Region IX for Goshute Reservation and
Navajo Reservation lands)
United States EPA. Region VIII. Water
Management Division. NPDES Branch
(8WM—C). Storm Water Staff. 999 18th
Street, Denver. CO 80202—2468.
Note.—For Montana Indian Lands, please
use the following address
United Staies EPA. Region VIII. Montana
Operations Office. Federal Office Building.
Drawer 10096. 301 South Park. Helena. MT
59620—0028.
9 AZ CA. HI, NV, Guam, American
Samoa, the Gosh ule Reservation in UT
and NV. the Navajo Reservation in UT.
NM, and AZ, the Duck Valley
Reservation in NV and ID
United States EPA, Region IX, Water
Management Division, (W—5 —1), Storm
Water Staff, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
10. AK, ID (except see Region IX for
Duck Valley Reservation lands), OR.
WA
United States EPA. Region X. Water
Management Division, (WD—134).
Storm Water Staff. 1200 Sixth Street,
Seattle, WA 98101(i).
e. Permittees with facilities identified
in Parts VI.B.3 (annual monitoring) are
not required to submit monitoring
results, unless required in writing by the
Director.
2. Additional Notification
In addition to filing copies of
discharge monitoring reports in
accordance with Part VI.D.1 (reporting’
where to submit), 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) must
submit signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports to the operator of the
municipal separate 3torm sewer system
in accordance with the dates provided
in paragraph VLD.i (reporting: where to
submit). Facilities not required to report
monitoring data under Part VI.B.3
(annual monitoring requirements). and
facilities that are not otherwise required
to monitor their discharges. ‘ieed not
comply with this provision.
E. Retention of Records.
1. The permittee shall retain the
pollution prevention plan developed in
accordance with Part IV (storm water
pollution prevention plans) of this
permit until at least one year after
coverage under this permit terminates.
The permittee shall retain all 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 this
permit. until at least one year after
coverage under this permit terminates.
This period may be explicitly modified
by alternati e provisions of this- permit
(see paragraph VI.E,2 (below) of this
permit) or extended by request of the
Director at any time
2. For discharges subject to sampling
requirements pursuant to Part VI.B
(monitoring requirements). in addition to
the requirements of paragraph VI E.1
(above), permittees are required to
retain for a six 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 monitoring
results to the Director upon the requests
of the Director, and submit a summary
of such result as part of renotification
requirements in accordance with Part
II F (renotification)
Part VII. Standard Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Cornpl;
1. The permittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of
CWA and is grounds for enforcement
action; for permit termination.
revocation and reissuance, or
modification; or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions
a. Criminal.
(1). Negligent violations.—The CWA
provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302. 306. 307.
308. 318. or 405 of the Act is subject to 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 both.
(2). Knowing violotions.—The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307,
308, 318. or 405 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 3 years,
or both.
(3). Knowing endangerment —The
CWA provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302. 306, 307.
308. 318, or 405 of the Act and who
knows at that 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
-------
41316
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
imprisonment for not more than 15
years, or both.
(4) False statement —The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly makec any false 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 device or method required to
be maintained under the 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. If
a conviction is for a violation committed
after a first conviction 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. (See
section 309(c)(4) of the Clean Water
Act).
b. Ci vii penolties.—The CWA
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing Sections
301, 302, 308, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the
Act is subtect to a civil penalty not to
exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation
c. Administrative penalties.—The
CWA 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
an administrative penalty, as follows
( 1). Class I penalty —Not to exceed
$10,000 per violation nor shall the
maximum amount exceed $25,000
(2) C/ass II penalty —Not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues nor shall
the maximum amount exceed $125,000.
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit
This permit expires on October 1,
1997. However, an expired general
permit continues in force and effect until
a new general permit is issued.
Permittees must submit a new NOl in
accordance with the requirements of
Part U of this permit, using a NOl form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereof) between August 1, 1997 and
September 29. 1997 to remain covered
under the continued permit after
October 1. 1907. Facilities that had not
obtained coverage under the permit by
October 1, 1997 cannot become
authorized to discharge under 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 Dutj 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.
E. Duty to Pmvide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Director, within a time specified by the
Director, 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, Notices of
Termination, storm water pollution
prevention plans, reports, certifications
or information either submitted to the
Director (and/or the operator of a large
or medium municipal separate storm
sewer system). or that this permit
requires be maintained by the permiltee,
shall be signed
1. All 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 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 $25,000,000 (in
second-quarter 1980 dollars) if authority
to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures;
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
Federdi agenc includes (1) the chief
executive officer of the agency, or (2) a
senior executi e officer having
responsibilit for the overall operations
of a principal geographic unit of the
agenc (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 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).
c. Changes to authorization. If an
authorization under paragraph VIl.G.2.
is no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility, a
new notice of intent satisfying the
requirements of paragraph II.C must be
submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information,
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative
d 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 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
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
41317
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.
I. 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.
J. Oil and Hazardous Substances
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 permittee is or
may be subject under section 311 of the
CWA or section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
K. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort,
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.
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
circumstance. is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this
permit shall not be affected thereby.
M. Requiring an Individual Permit or an
Alternative General Permit
1. The Director may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and/or 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 permit only if the
owner or operator has been notified in
writing that a permit application is
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 issuance or denial 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. Individual
permit applications shall be submitted
to the address of the appropriate
Regional Office shown in Part Vl.D.i.d
(reporting: where to submit) of this
permit. 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 as required by the
Director, then the applicability of this
permit to the individual NPDES
perrnittee 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. The owner or operator shall
submit an individual application (Form I
and Form 2F) with reasons supporting
the request to the Director. Individual
permit applications shall be submitted
to the address of the appropriate
Regional Office shown in Part VLD.1.c.
of this permit. The request may be
granted by the issuance 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 authorized for
coverage under an alternative NPDES
general permit, the applicability of this
permit to the individual NPDES
permittee is automatically terminated on
the effective date of the individual
permit or the date of authorization of
coverage under the alternative general
permit, whichever the case may be.
When an individual NPDES permit is
denied 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 NPDES permittee is
automatically terminated on the date of
such denial, unless otherwise specified
by the Director.
N. State/Environmental Laws
1. 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.
2. No condition of this permit shall
release the permittee from any
responsibility or requirements under
other environmental statutes or
regulations.
0. 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 and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and 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 compliance
with the conditions of the permit.
P. Monitoring and Records
1. Samples and 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 records
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation,
copies of the reports required by this
permit, and records of all data used to
complete the application for this permit,
for a penod of at least 8 years from the
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, instrument
readouts, computer disks or tapes. etc.,
used to determine these results.
-------
41318
Federal Register / Vol 57, No 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
4. Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
Q. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director
or an authonzed representative of EPA.
the State. 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
permit: and
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities or equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment].
R. 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 reissuanci , or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition.
S. Bypass of Treatment Facility
1. Notice:
a. Anticipated bypass. If a permittee
subject to the numeric effluent limitation
of Part V.A of this permit 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 an evaluation of the
anticipated quality and effect of the
‘pass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
perinittee subject to the numeric effluent
limitation of Part V.A of this permit shall
submit notice of an unanticipated
bypass. Any information regarding the
unanticipated bypass 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 permittee became 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 not been
corrected, the anticipated time it Is
expected to continue; and steps taken or
planned to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent reoccurance of the bypass
2. Prohibition of bypass
a Bypass is prohibited and the
Director 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 facilities, retention of
untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not satisfied
if the perinittee should, in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment, have
installed adequate backup equipment to
prevent a bypass which occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance; and
(3) The perinittee submitted notices of
the bypass.
b. The Director may approve an
anticipated bypass after considering its
adverse effects, if the Director
determines that it will meet the three
conditions listed in Part VlI.S.2.a.
T. Upset Conditions
1. An upset constitutes an affirmative
defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with technology-based
numeric effluent limitations in Part V.A
of this permit 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
permittee can identify the specific
cause(s) of the upset:
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated; and
c. The permittee provided oral notice
cf the upset to EPA 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 permittee became aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description
of the upset and its cause; the period of
the upset: including exact dates and
times, and If the 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 upset.
3 In any enforcement proceeding the
perrnittee seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof
Part VIII. 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 VII.M (requiring
an individual permit or alternative
general permit) of this permit or the
permit may be modified to include
different limitations and/or
requirements
B. Permit modification or revocation
will be conducted according to 40 CFR
122.62. 122.63, 122.84 and 124.5
Part IX. Termination of Coverage
A Notice of Termination
Where all s:orm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
are authorized by this permit are
eliminated, or where the operator of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity at a facility changes,
the operator of the facility may submit a
Notice of Termination that is signed in
accordance with Part VILG (signatory
requirements) of this permit. The Notice
of Termination shall include the
following information:
1. Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. Where a street
address for the site is not available, the
location of the approximate center of the
site must be described in terms of the
latitude and longitude to the nearest 15
seconds, or the section, township and
range to the nearest quarter section,
2. The name, address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Termination;
3. The NPDES permit number for the
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity identified by the
Notice of Termination,
4. An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges has
changed; and
5. The following certification signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit:
“I certify under penalty of law that all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified
facility that are authorized by a NPDES
general permit have been eliminated or
-------
Federal_Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41319
that I am no longer the operator of the
industrial activity. I understand that by
submitting this notice of termination,
that I am no longer authorized to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity under this general
permit, and that discharging pollutants
in storm water associated with
industrial activity to waters of the
United States is unlawful under the
Clean Water Act where the discharge is
not authorized by a NPDES permit. I
also understand that the submittal of
this notice of termination does not
release an operator from liability for any
violations of this permit or the Clean
Water Act.”
B. Addresses
All Notices of Termination are to be
sent, using the form provided by the
Director (or a photocopy thereof).’ to
the Director of the NPDES program in
care of the following address: Storm
Water Notice of Termination, PC Box
1185. Newington, VA 22122.
Part X. 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 facility 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.
Coo/pile runoff means the rainfall
runoff from or through any coat storage
pile.
CWA means Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972).
Director means the Regional
Administrator or an authonzed
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 discharge
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
impoundment, injection well, or waste
pile.
‘A copy of the approved NOT form is provided in
Appendix Dot thés notice
Land application unit 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 eitheri (I)
located in an incorporated place (city)
with a population of 100.000 or more as
determined by the latest Decennial
Census by the Bureau of Census (these
cities are listed in Appendices F and C
of 40 CFR Part 122): or (ii) located in the
counties with unincorporated urbanized
populations of 100,000 or more, except
municipal separate storm sewers that
are located in the incorporated places.
townships or towns within such counties
(these counties are listed in Appendices
I-I and I of 40 CFR Part 122); or (iii)
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 II of this
permit.)
NOT means notice of termination (see
Part H of this permit.)
Point source means 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 discharges.
This term does not include return flows
from irrigated agriculture or agricultural
storm water runoff.
Section 323 water priority chemical
means a chemical or chemical
categories which. 1) Are listed at 40 CFR
372.65 pursuant to Section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (also
known as Title HI of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1988); 2) are present at r
above threshold levels at a facility
subject to EPCRA Section 313 reportIng
requirements; and 3) that meet at least
one of the following criteria: (i) Are
listed in Appendix D of 40 CFR 122 on
either Table II (organic priority
pollutants), Table Ill (certain metals,
cyamdes. and phenols) or Table V
(certain toxic pollutants and hazardous
substances); (ii) are listed as a
hazardous substance pursuant to section
311(b)(2)(A) of the CWA at 40 CFR 116.4:
or (iii) are pollutants for which EPA has
published acute or chronic water quality
criteria. See Addendum B of this permit.
Significant materials includes, but is
not limited to: raw materials; fuels:
materials such as solvents, detergents.
and plastic pellets: finished matenals
such as metallic products; raw materials
used in food processing or production:
hazardous substances designated under
section 101(14) of CERCLA. any
chemical the facility is required to report
pursuant to EPCRA Section 313:
fertilizers; pesticides, and waste
products such as ashes, slag and sludge
that have the potential to be released
with storm water discharges.
Significant spills includes, but is not
limited to: releases of oil or hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities under section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (see 40 CFR 11010 and CFR
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
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. For
the categories of industries identified in
paragraphs (i) through (x) of this
definition, the term includes, but is not
limited to, storm water discharges from
industrial plant yards: 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 401):
sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling
equipment; 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 paragraph (xi) of
this definition, the term includes only
storm water discharges from all areas
(except access roads and rail lines)
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:
-------
41320
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
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 (i)—(xi)
of this definition) include those facilities
designated under 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 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) of this
definition);
(ii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 24 (except
2434), 26 (except 265 and 267), 28 (except
283), 29. 311, 32 (except 323), 33, 3441,
373;
(iii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 10 through 14
(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 reclamation
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 Oil 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, including
those that are operating under interim
status or a permit under Subtitle C of
RCRA;
(v) Landfills, 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. and
automobile junkyards, including but
limited to those classified as Standard
Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093;
(vii) Steam electric power generating
facilities, including coal handling sites:
(viii) Transportation facilities
classified as Standard Industrial
Classifications 40, 41, 42 (except 4221—
25). 43, 44, 45 and 5171 which have
vehicle maintenance shops. equipment
cleaning operations, or airport deicing
operations. Only those portions of the
facility that are either involved in
vehicle maintenance (including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs,
painting, fueling, and lubrication),
equipment cleaning operations. airport
deicing operations. or which are
otherwise identified under paragraphs
(i).(vii) or (ix).(xi) of this subsection are
associated with industrial activity;
(ix) 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. including land
dedicated to the disposal of sewage
sludge that are located within the
confines of the facility, with a design
flow of 1.0 mgd or more, or required to
have an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CFR 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 503.
(x) Construction activity including
clearing, 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
larger common plan of development or
sale;
(xi) Facilities under Standard
Industrial Classifications 20, 21, 22. 23,
2434, 25, 285, 287, 27, 283, 285, 30, 31
(except 311), 323, 34 (except 3441). 35, 36,
37 (except 373), 38, 39, 4221—25, (and
which are not otherwise included within
categories (i}—(x)). 5
On june 4. 1992. the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
exclusion for manufactunng facilities in category
(xi) which do not have matenals or activities
exposed to storm water to the EPA for further
rulemaking. (Nos 90-70671 end 91—70200)
Time- weigh ted composite means a
composite sample consisting of a
mixture of equal volume aliquots
collected at a constant time interval
Upset means an exceptional incident
in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with the
numeric effluent limitations of part V of
this permit 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.
Waste pile means any
noncontainerized accumulation of solid.
nonflowing waste that is used for
treatment or storage
Waters of the United States means.
(a) All waters which are currently
used, were used in the past. or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide:
(b) All interstate waters, including
interstate “wetlands”:
(c) All other waters such as interstate
lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats,
sandflats, 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:
(d) All impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this definition.
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
definition,
(f’) The territorial sea: and
(g) Wetlands adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)
through (1) of this definition
Waste treatment systems. including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirements of CWA are not
waters of the United States.
Part XI. State Specific Conditions
The provisions of this part provide
modifications or additions to the
applicable conditions of parts I through
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41321
IX of this permit. Part X of this permit
does not establish special provisions for
the States of Maine. New Hampshire.
South Dakota, Johnson Atoll. Midway.
Wake Island, New Mexico (Indian
lands), Montana (Indian lands), North
Dakota (Indian lands). Utah (Indian
lands), Wyoming (Indian lands).
Region I
A. Maine. Maine 401 certifIcation
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. This permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 1 in
the State of Maine.
2. The following section is added to
Part VI of the permit:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
. . . . .
C. Toxicity Testing
3. The discharge described will not
lower the quality of the receiving waters
below the minimum requirements of
their classification and will satisfy the
appropriate requirements of Maine Law
provided that the test organisms include
ceriodaphnia dubia and brook trout,
salvelinus fontinalis, to meet the whole
effluent toxicity requirements for certain
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity
Region 8
B. Louisiana. Louisiana 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of Louisiana.
I I • I I
2. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read:
Part N. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
A storm water pollution prevention
plan shall be developed for each facility
covered by this permit. The pollution
prevention plan shall provide for
compliance with numeric effluent
limitations as part V.B. 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. Facilities must
implement the provisions of the storm
water pollution prevention plan required
under this part as a condition of this
permit.
• I • I I
3. The following section is added to
part V of the Permit:
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Cool Pile Runoff
• I I I •
B. Limitations For All Discharges of
Storm Water Associated With
Industrial Activity.
1) General Limitations: Effective 10/1/
95.
Parameter
Daily maximum
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ..
Oii&Grease .
50 mg/I
15mg/i
2) Oil & Gas Exploration and
Production Facilities: Effective 10/1/92.
Parameter
Daily maximum
Chemical Oxyaen Demand
100 mg/i
(COD)
Total Organic Carbon (rOC)
50 mg/I
Oil & G’aase
IS mg/i
C ilondes...
a) Maximum chloride concentration of
the discharge shall not exceed two times
the ambient concentration of the
receiving water in brackish marsh areas.
b) Maximum chloride concentration of
the discharge shall not exceed 500 mg/I
in freshwater or intermediate marsh
areas and upland areas.
Facilities without monitoring
requirements must insure the pollution
prevention plan developed in
accordance with part IV will insure
compliance with these effluent
limitations.
• • I • •
4. Part VI.B.2 of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• I I I I
B. Monitoring Requirements.
2 Serni.Annuol Monitoring
Requirements
I I I • I
a. Section 313 of SARA Title III
Facilities. In addition to any monitoring
required by parts VI.B 2.b through f or
parts VI.B.3.a through d. facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are subject to
requirements to report releases into the
environment under section 313 of
EPCRA for chemicals which are
classified as ‘section 313 water priority
chemicals’ are required to monitor storm
water that is discharged from the facility
that comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a truck or rail car loading or
unloading area where a section 313
water priority chemical is handled for
Oil and Grease (mg/L); Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/I). Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/L); Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/L): Total Suspended Solids
(mg/Li; Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (11(N)
(mg/L): Total Phosphorus (mg/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 1986.
b. Primary Metal Industries. Facilities
with storm water discharges-associated
with industrial activity classified as
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
33 (Primary Metal Industry) are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for Oil and
Grease (mg/L); Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) (mg/I); Five Day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD5) (mg/L);
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (mgi
L); Total Suspended Solids (mg/L); pH;
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity; Total
Lead (mg/L); Total Cadmium (mg/L);
Total Copper (mg/U; Total Arsenic (mgi
U; Total Chromium (mg/Li; and any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is sub;ect.
c. Land Disposal Units/lncinerators/
BIFs. Facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from any active or inactive
landfill, land application sites or open
dump without a stabilized final cover
that has received any industrial wastes
(other than wastes from a construction
site); and incinerators (including Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs)) that burn
hazardous waste and operate under
interim status or a permit under Subtitle
C of RCRA, are required to monitor such
storm water that is discharged from the
facility for: Ammonia (mg/L).
-------
41322
Federal_Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
Magnesium (total) (mg/L). Magnesium
(dissolved) (mg/L), Nitrate plus Nitrite
Nitrogen (mg/L), Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L). Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) (mg/L). Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/L). Oil and Grease
(mg/L). pH, Total Arsenic (mg/L), Total
Barium (mg/L), Total Cadmium (mg/L).
Total Chromium (mg/L), Total Cyanide
(mg/U, Total Lead (mg/L), Total
Mercury (mg/U), Total Selenium (mg/L).
Total Silver (mg/U), and Acute Whole
Effluent Toxicity.
d. Wood Treatment. Facilities with
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 are
required to monitor such storm water
that is discharged from the facility for...
Oil and Grease (mg/L). Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/I); pH, Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/U). Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/L). and Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L). In addition.
facilities that use chlorophenolic
formulations shall measure
Pentachlorophenol (mg/L) and Acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity; facilities which
use creosote formulations shall measure
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity; and
facilities that use chromium-arsenic
formulations shall measure Total
Arsenic (mg/L). Total Chromium (mg/L),
and Total Copper (mg/L)
e. Coal Pile Runoff. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from coal pile runoff
are required to monitor such storm
water that is discharged from the facility
for Oil and Grease (mg/L), Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/I): pH: Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L), Total
Copper (mg/I). Total Nickel (mg/I) and
Total Zinc (mg/I).
f. Battery Reclaimers. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas used for
storage of lead acid batteries,
reclamation products, or waste
products, and areas used for lead acid
battery reclamation (including material
handling activities) at facilities that
reclaim lead acid batteries are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for Oil and
Grease (mg/Li; Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) (mg/l): Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/U); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH: Total Copper
(mg/I); and Total Lead (mg/I),
5. Part VI.B.3 of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
B. Monitoring Requirements.
• • • • •
3. Annual Monitoring Requirements.
a. Airports. At airports with over
50.000 flight operations per year.
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity from
areas where aircraft or airport deicing
operations occur (including runways,
taxiways. ramps, and dedicated aircraft
deicirig stations) are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility when deicing activities
are occurring for: Oil and Grease (mg/U);
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/I);
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(80D5) (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH: and the
primary ingredient used in the deicing
materials used at the site (e.g. ethylene
glycol, urea, etc.).
b. Coal-fired Steam Electric Facilities.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
coal handling sites at coal fired steam
electric power generating facilities
(other than discharges in whole or in
part from coal piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
423—which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit) are required to
monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for: Oil and
Grease (mg/L), Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) (mg/I): pH. Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/U), Total Copper (mgi
I). Total Nickel (mg/I) and Total Zinc
(mg/I).
c. Animal Handling/Meat Packing.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
animal handling areas, manure
management (or storage) areas and
production waste management (or
storage) areas that are exposed to
precipitation at meat packing plants.
poultry packing plants, and facilities
that manufacture animal and marine
fats and oils, are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility for Oil and Grease
(mg/I); Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
(mg/I): Five Day Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD5) (mg/L); Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/L): Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (rng/L): Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/U); Total
Phosphorus (mg/U): pH; and Fecal
Coliform (counts per 100 ml).
d. Additional Focihtres. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that:
(i) come in contact with storage piles
for solid chemicals used as raw
materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified as
SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products).
(ii) are from those areas at automobile
junkyards with any of the following: (A)
over 250 auto/truck bodies with
drivelines (engine, transmission, axles,
and wheels), 250 drivelines. or any
combination thereof (in whole or in
parts) are exposed to storm water: (B)
over 500 auto/truck units (bodies with or
without drivelines in whole or in parts)
are stored exposed to storm water or
(C) over 100 units per year are
dismantled and drainage or storage of
automotive fluids occurs in areas
exposed to storm water,
(iii) come into contact with lime
storage piles that are exposed to storm
water at lime manufacturing facilities,
(iv) are from oil handling sites at oil
fired steam electricpower generating
facilities:
(v) are from cement manufacturing
facilities and cement kilns (other than
discharges in whole or in part from
material storage piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
411—which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit);
(vi) are from ready-mixed concrete
facilities: or
(vii) are from ship building and
repairing facilities,
Are required to monitor such storm
water discharged from the facility for.
Oil and Grease (mg/L): Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH: and any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject
8. Part VI.C of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• • • • *
c. Toxicity Testing. Permittees that-
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series
of tests described below within 180 days
after the issuance of this permit or
within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
1. Test Procedures
• • • • •
c. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100 percent
strength (no dilution) and a control
consisting of synthetic dilution water.
-------
Federal_Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
41323
Results of all tests conducted with any
species shall be prepared according to
EPA/600/4—9O-.027 (Rev. September
1991), Section 12. Report Preparation.
and the report retained on-site. Results
of the testing shall be summarized on
Table Vl—A and submitted to EPA with
the Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR’s). On the DMR. the permittee
shall report results of the testing in
accordance with questions 1—4 of Table
Vl-A.
Table Vl—A (Sheet I of 2)
Permittee.
NPDES pei
Outfall(s)
Daphnia pulex Survival
Time Date
Composite sample
cotiecled
Test initiated
Dilution water used Receiving
stream synthetic water.
Time
Itepiicate
Percent efltuent (%)
0
100
24Hr
A
B
c
0
Mean
...
..
I Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution 7
Yes ______
No ______
If you report a NO. enter a I on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TEE3D Otherwise.
enter a 0
2. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100% dilution as
compared to the control (0%)’
No ______ Yes ______
ii you report a YES. enter a 1 on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TGE3D Otherwise.
enter a 0
Table VI—A (Sheet 2 of 2)
Permittee
NPDES permit
Outfall(s)
Fathead minnow (Pimepholes prome/os)
Sur ival
Time Date
Composite sample
coliectea
Test initiated, ...
Time
Date
., ..
.
Dilution water used Receiving
stream synthetic water,
Time
—
Replicate
Percent effluent (%)
0 , [ ioo
24Hr
A
B
C
0
Mean
3. Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?
Yes ______ No______
If you report a NO. enter a I on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TCE8C. Otherwise.
enter a 0
4 Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100% dilution as
compared to the control (0%)?
Yes ______ No______
If you report a YES, enter a I on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TEE6C. Otherwise.
enter a 0
7 The following definitions are added to
Part X of the permit
Part X. Defmitions
Brackish Marshes—those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface
water or groundwater of moderate
salinity at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support. and that under
normal circumstances do support.
emergent vegetation characterized by a
prevalence of species typically adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions. Typical
vegetation includes wiregrass (Spartina
patans). three-cornered grass (Scirpus
olney ,). coco (Scirpus robustus). and
widgeongrass (Ruppia mantima).
Interstitial water salinity normally
ranges between 7 and 15 parts per
thousand. (LAC 33.1X108)
Freshwater Swamps and Marshes—
those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface water or
groundwater of negligible to very low
salinity at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support. and that under
normal circumstances do support.
emergent vegetation characterized by a
prevalence of species typtcally adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions. Typical
vegetation includes maiden cane
(Ponicurn hem,tomon). Hydrocotyl sp,
water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes).
pickereR% eed (Pontedena cordata),
alligatorweed (Alternanthem
philoxeroides). and bulltongue
(Sagittona sp) Interstitial water
salinity is normally less than 2 parts per
thousand. (LAC 33 IX.708)
Intermediate Marshes—those areas
that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater of salinity
at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support. and that under normal
circumstances do support. emergent
vegetation characterized by a
prevalence of species typically adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions Typical
vegetation includes wiregrass (Spartino
patens). deer pea (Vigna repens),
bulltongue (Sagittana sp). wild millet
(Echinochloo wolfer,), bullwhip (Scirpus
californicus). and sa wgra ss (C/odium
jarnoicense). Interstitial water salinity
normally ranges between 3 and 8 parts
per thousand. (LAC 33 IX 708)
Saline Marshes—those wetland areas
that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater of salinity
characteristic of near Gulf of Mexico
ambient water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support. and that
under normal circumstances do support,
emergent vegetation characterized by a
prevalence of species typically adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions. Typical
vegetation includes oystergrass
(Sport ma olterniflora). glasswort
(Solicornia sp). black rush (Juncus
roemencon us), Batis marthmo, black
mangrove (A vicennia nitida). and
saltgrass (D ,stichl,s spicoto). Interstitial
water salinity normally exceeds 16 parts
per thousand. (LAC 33.IX.708)
Upland—any land area that is not
normally inundated with water and that
would not, under normal circumstances.
be characterized as swamp or fresh,
intermediate, brackish, or saline marsh
The term shall have both a regional and
site-specific connotation: for example.
naturally occurring and man-made
topographic highs that are partially or
totally surrounded by swamp, marsh, or
open water will be considered upland
on a local basis, but will not necessitate
characterization of the surrounding area
as upland. The land and water bottoms
of all parishes north of the nine parishes
contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico shall
be determined on a case-by-case basis
with reference to the presences of a
regional expanse of emergent aquatic
vegetation or open water. (LAC
33:lX.708)
C. New Mexico New Mexico 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows.
-------
41324
‘ Federal Register / Vol 57, No 175 / Wednesday . September 9 1992 I Notices
1. Part I A. of the permit is revised to
read
Part 1. Coverage Under this Permit
A Permit Areri The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of New Mexico
• • • • •
2. Part Vl.B of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
B. Monitonng Requirements.
• • • • •
2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements. During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit. permittees with facilities
identified in parts Vl.B 2 a through f.
must monitor those storm water
discharges identified below at least
semi-annually (2 times per year) except
as provided in VI B 6 (sampling waiver).
VLB.7 (representative discharge), and
VI C.1 (toxicity testing) Permittees with
facilities identified in parts VI.B.2.a
through f (below) must report in
accordance with part Vl.D (reporting
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permittee
shall provide 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.
• • a • •
3. Annual Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through the
expiration date of this permit.
permittees with facilities identified in
parts Vl.B.3.a through d. (below) must
monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least annually (1
time per year) except as provided in
VI.B.8 (sampling waiver), and Vl.B.7
(representative discharge). Perrnittees
with facilities identified in parts VI.B.3.a
through d. (below) are not required to
submit monitoring results. However.
such permittees must retain monitoring
results in accordance with part VI.E
(retention of records). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permittee
shall provide 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
4. Discharges to Domestic Water
Supplies
a. During the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through the
expiration date of this permit.
permittees with facilities discharging
into waters of the State of New Mexico
designated by the latest design of Water
Quality Standards for Interstate and
In! rust ate Streams in New Mexico for
use as a domestic water supply (See
Appendix ‘ ) must monitor those
storm water discharges into the
domestic water supply waterbody at
least annually (once per year) except as
provided in VI.B.6 (sampling waiver),
and Vl.B.7 (representative discharge).
These monitoring requirements for the
parameters listed below are in addition
to any monitoring required under parts
VI.B.2 (semi-annual monitoring) or part
V1.B.3 (annual monitoring requirements)
Monitoring results must be reported in
accordance with part VI.D. (reporting:
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permittee
shall provide 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:
Reportable
Parameter
quantury action
level
Dissolved arsenic
005 mg/I
Dissolved banum
1 0 mg/I
Dissolved cadmium
,
0010 mg/i
Dissolved chromium
005 mg/i
Dissolved lead .
005mg/I
Total mercury
0 002 mg/I
Dissolved nutr3te (as N)
100 mg/I
Dissolved selenium
.
0 05 mg/I
Dissolved silver
005 mg/I
Dissolved cyanide
02 mg/i
Dissolved uranium
50 mg/i
Radaum .-226+radium-228
.
300 pCi/i
b. If the concentration of any sample
exceeds a Reportable Quantity Action
Level listed above, the permittee shall.
within 24 hours of receipt of the
sampling data, submit the results of the
sample analysis to the State at the
address specified in part VI.D.2.b
(additional notification: where to
submit). Dischargers occurring on Indian
Nations shall submit the required report
directly to EPA Region 6 at the address
specified in part VI D with a copy
pros ided to th. Go eming Body of the
Indian Nation
5. Sampk Ttpe For discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours. (estimated by dividing 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) a minimum 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 samples 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 150 hours from the previously
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event. There shall be a
minimum of 60 days between sampled
events for facilities required to monitor
semi-annually (twice per year) The grab
sample shall be taken during the first
thirty minutes of the discharge If the
collection of a grab sample during the
first thirty 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
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
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
the discharge. with each aliquot being
separated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes. Only grab samples must
be collected arid analyzed for the
determination of pH, cyanide, whole
effluent toxicity, and oil and grease
6. Sampling Waiver
• • a a
7. Representative Discharge
a Alternative Certification
9. Alternative to WET Parameter
3. Part Vl.C of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
C. Toxicity Testing. Permittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices
41325
of tests described below within 180 days
after the issuance of this permit or
within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
1. Test Procedures
* . . . *
C. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100 percent
strength (no dilution) and a control
consisting of synthetic dilution water.
Results of all tests conducted with any
species shalt be prepared according to
EPA/600/4—90-027 (Rev. September
1991). Section 12. Report Preparation.
and the report retained on-site. Results
of the testing shall be summarized on
Table Vl—A and submitted to EPA with
the Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR’s). On the DMR. the perrnittee
shall report results of the testing in
accordance with questions 1—4 of Table
VI-A.
Permittee.
NPDES Permit
Outfall(s)
Daphn,o pulex Survival
Time
Date
Composite sample
collected ..
Test initiated .
.
.
Time Replicate

Percent
effluent (%)
0
100
A
24Hr lB
‘C
D
Mean
Yes ______ No ______
If you report a NO. enter a I on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TGE3D. Otherwise.
enter a 0.
2. Is there a statIstIcally significant
difference in survival at the 100% dIlution as
compared to the control (0%)?
Yes ______ No ______
If you report a YES, enter a I on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TEE3D Otherwise.
enter a 0
Permittee’
NPDES Permit:
Outfall(s):
Fathead Minnow (Pimepha/es prome/as)
Survival
Time Date
Composite sample
collected.
Test initiated
Dilution water used: Receiving
stream Synthetic water.
Time
Replicate

Percent
effluent (%)
100
24 1v
A .
B ..._
C,.., i
0
Mean
..




3. Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?
Yes ______ No______
If you report a NO, enter a I on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TGE6C. Otherwise.
enter a LI.
4. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100% dilution as
compared to the control (0%)?
Yes______ No______
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TEE8C. Otherwise,
enter a 0.
4. Part Vl.D i.e of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
I
I •
e. Permittees with facilities identified
only in Part V1.B.3 (annual monitoring)
or VI.B 4 (discharges to domestic water
supplies), are not required to submit
monitoring results, unless required in
writing by the Director or by the
provisions of Part VI.B 4 b. (discharges
to domestic water supplies. 24 hour
reporting).
5. Part VI.D.2.b of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
D Reporting Where to Submit
2. Additional Notification
b. Facilities located in the following
States shall provide copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a, Vl.D.i.b, and VI.D.1.c,
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, to the
Director of the appropriate State Agency
at the address listed below:
New Mexico
Program Manager. New Mexico
Environment Department, Surface
Water Quality Bureau, Surface Water
Section. 1190 St. Francis Drive. P.O.
Box 26110, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
87502
APPENDIX’ • ‘—NEw MExico RIVER SEGMENTS DESIGNATED FOR USE AS A DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY
The Jemez Rarer and all its trIbutaries above State HIghway 4 near U e town of Jemes Spring. and the Guadalupe River and all its
dan e 5
Perennial reaches of Btuewater Creek. Rio Moquino, Sebcyeta Creek, Rio Paguate, the Rio Puerco within the Santa Fe National Forest.
and all other perennial reaches of tnbutanes to the Rio Puerco including the Rio San Jose in Cibola County from the USGS gaging
station at Cameo upstream to Horace Springs
The perennial reaches of Rio Valiecdo. and its titbulanes, and Rio del Oso, and El Rito Creek above the town of El Rita
All perennial reaches of tributanes to the Rio CPianra above Absquiu Reservoir except the Rio Gallina and Rio Puorco so Chema north at
Slate Highway 98 end the main stem of the Rio Chains from the headwaters of El Vado Reservoir upstream to the New Mexico.
Colorado line
Perennial tnbularies to the Rio Grand. In Bandehen National Monument end their headweters in Sandoval County, all perennial reaches at
mbutane, to the Rio Grand. in Santa Fe County unless included in Other segments
The Red River upstream of the mouth of Piecer Creek, all tnbutanes to the Red RIver, and all other perennial reaches of tnbutanes to the
Rio Grande in Taos end Rio Amba counties unless included In OilIer segments
Eagle Creek above the Alto Reservoir. Bonito Creek upstream of Angus. and the Rio Ruido o and its tnbutanes above Seeping Springs
Lakes,
The Gallinas Riven and all its tributaries above the dIversion for the Las Vega. municipal reservoir and perennial reaches of Tecotote Creek
and its perennial tnbutanes.
0. Reporting’ Where to Submit.
Dilution water used’ Receiving
stream Synthetic water
1. Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?
No Description
2-106
2-107
2-112
2-116
2-118
2-120
2-209
2-212
-------
41326
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
APPENDIX• • —NEW MEXICO RIVER SEGMENTS DESIGNATED FOR USE AS A DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY—Continued
No
Description
2-214
Cow Creek arid all its tributaries and the main stern of the Paces Rover from one river mile below me bridge on State Highway 223
upstream to its headwaters, including all tnbutanes thereto
2-306
The Mona River and its tributaries above More, all tributaries to the More River upstream from Slate Highway 518 Coyote Creek the
Cimarron River above State Highway 21 in Cimarron. all tnbtitarras to the Cimarron River, Rayado Creek above Miami Lake Diversion,
Ocate Creek and its tributaries upstream of Ocate. and all other tnbutanes to the Canadian River northwest and north of U S Highway
84 in Colt ax County unless included in other segments
2-503
..
.
The main Item of Gila River from Gila Hot Springs upstream to the headwalers and all perennial tnbutanes to the Gila River at or above
the town of Cliff
2-603
.. ..
All perennial reaches of tributaries to the San Franasco River at on above the town cit Glenwood
2-802
..
. .
Perennial reaches of Three Rivers
2-804
..
The Mirnbres River upstream of the USGS gaging stabon at Mimbres and ef f perennial mbutanes thereto
2-805
Perennial reaches of the Sacramento River (Sacramertto.Safi Fiat Closed Basin) and all perennial tributaries thereto
D. Oklahoma. Oklahoma 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised to
reed’
Part I. Coverage under this Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of Oklahoma.
2 The following section is added to
Part I.B.3 of the permit:
B. Eligibility.
• • • • .
3. Limitations on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
not authorized by this permit:
h. “new” poir t source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity (those commencing after the
June 25, 1992, effective date of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards—
Oklahoma Annotated Code Title 785.
Chapter 45) to the following waters:
(i) waterbodies designated as
“Outstanding Resource Waters” and/or
“Scenic Rivers” in Appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards;
(ii) Oklahoma waterbodjes located
within the watersheds of waterbodies
designated as “Scenic Rivers” in
Appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards; and
(iii) waterbodies located within the
boundaries of Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards Appendix B areas which are
specifically designated as “Outstanding
Resource Waters” in Appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
• • • • •
3. Part VI.C.1.c of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• * • • •
c. Toxicity Testing.
1. Test Procedures
• • • •
c. Teats shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100 percent
strength (no dilution) and a control
consisting of synthetic dilution water.
Results of all tests conducted with any
species shall be prepared according to
EPA/600/4—90-027 (Rev. September
1991), Section 12, Report Preparation,
and the report retained on-site. Results
of the testing shall be summarized on
Table VI—A and submitted to EPA with
the Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR’s). On the DMR, the permittee
shall report results of the testing in
accordance with questions 1—4 of Table
Vt-A.
Table Vt—A (Sheet I of 2)
Permitfee
NPDES Permit
Outfall(s)
Daphnzo pu/ex Survival
Time Date
Composite Sample
Collected. . .
Test initiated . .
,. -.
.
Dilution Water Used: Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water
Time
Replicate
Percent Effluent (%)
0
100
24Hr
.
A
B. ._
C
0
Mean. ..
.. .
.,.
..

..
.


1. Is the mean survival at 24 hours
>50% in the 100% dilution?
Yea ____ No ____
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TCE3D.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
2. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100%
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?
Yes ____ No ____
Yea____ No____
If you report a YES, enter a I on the
DMR Form, Parameter No TEE3D.
Otherwise, enter a 0
Table Vt—A (Sheet 2 of 2)
Permittee
NPDES Permit
Outfall(s)
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales prome/as)
Survival
Time Date
Composite Sample
Collected. . .
Test Initiated .
..
.
Dilution Water Used’ Receiving
Stream Synthetic Waler
Time Replicate
Percent Effluent (%)
0 100
24Hr
A
B..
C
0 .
Mean
.. .
..

.
3. Is the mean survival at 24 hours
>50% in the 100% dilution?
Yes ____ No ____
If you report a NO, enter a 2 on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TGE6C.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
4. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100%
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?
Yes ____ No ____*
if you report a YES, enter a I on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TEE6C.
Otherwise, enter a o.
4. The following section is added to
Part VIII of the permit:
Part VIII, Reopener Clause
• * • • •
C. This permit may be reopened and
modified if the State of Oklahoma
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9 1992 I Notices
41327
adopts new or revises existing waler
quality requirements regarding the
discharge of storm water.
E. Texas. Texas 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised to
read:
Part £. Coverage Under This Permit
• • • • .
A. Permit Areo. This permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of Texas.
• • * S
2. The following sections are added to
Part V of the permit:
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
• I * • I
B. All Discharges to Inland Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/I). for discharges to inland
waters are as follows’
blat metal
Monthly
average
Daily
compos-
to
Single
grab
Araernc....
01
02
03
Danum.
1.0
20
40
Cadmium
.
005
01
02
chromium
. .
05
10
50
Copper......
..
05
10
20
Lead...
.
05
10
15
Manganese
10
20
30
Mercury
0005
0005
001
Nickel .. .
10
20
30
Selenium
005
01
02
Silver..
005
01
02
ZInc.....
10
20
60
C. All Discharges to Tidal Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/I), for discharges to tidal
waters are as follows:
Total rv elal
Monthly
average
Daily
compos-

&ngle
grab
Msensc.._..
01
02
03
Barium. .
10
20
40
Cadmium
01
02
03
chromium .
05
10
50
Copper.
05
10
20
lead.
05
10
15
Manganese
10
20
30
Mercury
0005
0005
001
Nickel .
10
20
30
Selenium
01
02
03
Silver . .
005
01
02
Zinc
10
20
80
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
S • S • •
B. Monitoring Requirements
S I • • •
2. Semi.Annual Monitonng
Requirements
• I S S S
d. Wood Treatment. Facilities with
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 are
required to monitor such storm water
that is discharged from the facility for
oil and grease (mg/L). pH. BOD5 (mgfL).
COD (mg/L). and TSS (mg/L). In
addition, facilities that use
chiorophenolic formulations shall
measure pentachiorophenol (mg/Li and
acute whole effluent toxicity; facilities
which use creosote formulations shall
measure acute whole effluent toxicity:
and facilities that use chromium.arsenic
formulations shall measure acute whole
effluent toxicity, total arsenic (mg/L).
total chromium (mg/L), and total copper
(mg/L).
4. Parts VI.C and VI.C.i of the permit
are revised to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
C. Toxicity Testing Permittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series
of tests described below within 180 days
after the issuance of this permit or
within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
The permittee shall test the effluent
for lethality in accordance with the
provisions of this section. Such testing
will determine if an effluent sample
meets the Texas Surface Water Quality
Standard listed at 31 TAC
§ 307.6(e)(2)(B) of greater than 50%
survival of the appropriate test
organisms in 100% effluent for a 24-hour
period.
1. Test Pmcedures
a. The permittee shall condu%t acute
24 hour static toxicity tests on both an
appropriate invertebrate and an
appropriate fish (vertebrate) test species
(EPA/600/4—90-027 Rev. 9/91, Section
6.1.). Freshwater species must be used
for discharges to freshwater water
bodies. Due to the non-saline nature of
rainwater, freshwater test species
should also be used for discharges to
estuanne. marine or other naturally
saline waterbodies.
The following tests shall be used:
I Acute static 24-hour definitive
toxicity test using Dophnia pulex. A
minimum of four (4) replicates with a
minimum of five (5) organisms per
replicate shall be used for this test.
2. Acute static 24-hour definitive
toxicity test using fathead minnow
(Pimepha/es promelas) A minimum of
four (4) replicates with a minimum of ten
(10) organisms per replicate shall be
used for this test.
b. Five dilutions in addition to an
appropriate control (0% effluent), shall
be used in the toxicity tests. These
effluent concentrations shall be 6%. 13%.
25%. 50% and 100%. The control and/or
dilution water shall consist of a
standard, synthetic, moderately hard.
reconstituted water If more than 10% of
the test organisms in any control die.
that test, including the control and all
effluent dilution(s), shall be repeated.
with all results from both tests reported
as per paragraph d. of this section.
c. All test organisms, procedures and
quality assurance criteria used shall be
in accordance with Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
EPA/600/4—90—027 (Rev September
1991). EPA has proposed to establish
regulations regarding these test methods
(December 4, 1989, 53 FR 50216)
d. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100% strength
(no dilution), the dilutions specified in
paragraph b above, and a control
consisting of either receiving water or
synthetic dilution water. Results of all
tests conducted with any species shall
be reported according to EPA/600/4—90—
027 (Rev September 1991). Section 12.
Report Preparation. and the report
retained onsite. The test results shall be
summanzed in the format used on Table
VI—A and submitted to EPA with the
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR’s).
On the DMR. the permittee shall report
test results in accordance with the
instructions on Table V1—A.
• I S I I
Table V1—A (Sheet I of 2)
Permit tee.
NPDES Permit
Outfall(s)’
Dophnia pulex Survival
Time Date
Composite Sample
Collected
Test Initialed
3. Part Vl.B.2.d of the permit is revised
to read:
Dilution Water Used Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water
-------
41328
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
Percent Effluent (%)
Time Aephcate ‘. —
0 100 50 I 25 13 6
——
IA
C
24Ht 6 I
D
Mean —
I
1. Is the mean survival at 24 hours Yea_____ No_____ Fathead Minnow (P,mephales prornelas)
>50% in the 100% dilution? If you report a YES, enter a I on the Survival
Yea____ No____ DMR Form, Parameter No. TEE3D.
Time Date
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the Otherwise, enter a 0.
DMR Form, Parameter No. TGE3D. Table Vl—A (Sheet 2 of 2) Composite Sample
Otherwise, enter a 0. Permittee. COIMCtOd
Test Initiated
2. Is there a statistically significant NPDES Permit:
difference in survival at the loO% Outfall(s)
dilution as compared to the control (0%)? Dilution Water Used Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water.
Thne
24Hr
Replicate
A. .
B
C
D
Mean
Percent Effluent (
%)
0
100
— I ••
50


— —
3. Is the mean survival at 24 hours
>50% in the 100% dilution?
Yes____ No____
If you report a NO, enter a I on the
DMR Form. Parameter No TGE6C
Otherwise, enter a 0.
4. Is there a statistically signficant
difference in survival at the 100%
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?
Yes_____ No_____
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the
DRM Form, Parameter No. TEE8C.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
5. The following definitions are added
to Part X of the permit:
Part X. Defmitions
‘inland Water’s”—all surface waters
in the State other than “tidal waters” as
defined below.
“Tidal Waters”—those waters of the
Gulf of Mexico wIthin the jurisdiction of
the State of Texas, bays and estuaries
thereto, and those pomona of the river
systems which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tides, and to the
intrusion of marine waters.
Region 8
F. Colorado (Federal facilities and
Indian lands), There are no special
conditions pursuant to Colorado 401
certification In this permit for storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity located on Indian
lands In Colorado. Colorado 401
certification special permit conditions
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from Federal
facilities is revised as follows:
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
Federal Facilities administered by EPA
Region 8 in the State of Colorado.
2. Part III.A.2.b of the permit is revised
to read:
Part III. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on non-storm water
discharges
. .
2.
* . .
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit provided the non-storm water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.3.g. (2)
(measures and controls for non-storm
water discharges): discharges from fire
fighting activities: fire hydrant flushings;
potable water sources Including
waterline flushings; irrigation drainage;
lawn watering routine external building
washdown which does not use
detergents or other compounds:
pavement washwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
have not occurred (unless all spilled
material has been removed) and where
detergents are not used, air conditioning
condensate that has not been
contaminated by industrial activity and
no chemicals have been added to it.
naturally occurring springs which have
not been altered by the industrial
activity, uncontaminated ground water.
and foundation or footing drains where
flows are not contaminated with process
materials such as solvents.
3. Part lII.B.c of the permit is revised
to read’
Part III. Special Conditions
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities
c. The permittee shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph III.B.i.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
VI.D.1.d (reporting: where to submit) of
this permit and to the Colorado Water
Quality Control Division at the following
address. Colorado Department of
Health, Water Quality Control Division,
-------
Federal_Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41329
4. Part IV.B.2 of the permit is revised
to read:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
B. Signature and Plan Review
. . a a a
2. The perrnittee 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, to the operator of
the municipal system. Federal Facilities
located on non-Indian lands in Colorado
shall make plans available upon request
to the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division.
5. Part VIII of the permit is revised to
readS
Part VIII. 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 VILM (requiring
an individual permit or alternative
general permit) of this permit or the
permit may be modified to include
different limitations and/or
requirements. If EPA develops new
regulations which specifically impact
storm water permit requirements or
there is a change in statute which
imposes additional requirements, this
permit may be reopened and modified
(following administrative procedures) to
include the appropriate requirements.
. a . a .
Region 9
G. Arizona. Arizona 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1, Part LA of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 9 in
the State of Arizona, excluding all
Indian lands.
2. The following section is added to
Part II of the permit:
F. Special NOl Requirements for the
State of Arizona. NOIs shall also be
submitted to the State of Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality at
the following address: Storm Water
Coordinator, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 600.
Phoenix. Arizona. 85001-0600.
NOls submitted to the State of
Arizona shall include the well
registration number if storm water
associated with industrial activity is
• discharged to a dry well or an injection
well.
. * a a *
3. The following section is added to
Part III of the permit:
Part III. Special Conditions
. . a a
C. Compliance with Water Quality
Standards of the State of Arizona.
Discharges authorized by this permit
shall not cause or contribute to a
violation of any applicable water quality
standard of the State of Arizona (A.G.
Rule No. R92-008).
a . a • a
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
a . * a a
7. Additional requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities subject
to EPCRA Section 313 requirements.
. a 4 a *
b.
a a a a a
(1) Liquid storage areas where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment, tank container, or other
vessel used for Section 313 water
priority chemicals,
(b) Liquid storage areas for Section
313 water priority chemicals shall be
operated to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals. Appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals shall include
secondary containment provided for at
least the entire contents of the largest
single tank plus sufficient freeboard to
allow for the 25-year, 24-hour
precipitation event, a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan.
and/or other equivalent measures.
5 The following section is added to
Part IX of the permit
Part IX. Termination of Coverage
C. Special NOT Requirement for the
Slate of Arizona NOTs shall also be
submitted to the State of Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality at
the following address Storm Water
Coordinator, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, P 0. Box 600,
Phoenix. Arizona 85001-0600
6. The following definition is added to
Part X of the permit’
Part X. Definitions
“Significant sources of non-storm
water” includes, but is not limited to:
discharges which could cause or
contribute to violations or water quality
standards of the State of Arizona. and
discharges which could include releases
of oil or hazardous substances in excess
of reportable quantities under section
311 of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR
110.10 and CFR 117 21) or section 102 of
CERCLA (see 40 CFR 3024)
• . • a •
H. Alaska. Alaska 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised to
Part 1 Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 10 in
the State of Alaska. except Federal
Indian reservations.
2. Part Il.C of the permit is revised to
read:
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
* . * 4 *
C. Where to Submit.
1. Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NOl form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof). The
form in the Federal Register notice in
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821—4823. NOIs
must be signed in accordance with Part
VII.G (signatory requirements) of this
permit NOls are to be submitted to the
Director of the NPDES program in care
of the following address: Storm Water
Notice of Intent, P0 Box 1215,
Newirigton. VA, 22122.
2. A copy of initial Notice of Intent
(NOl). any NO! for the continuation of
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
Colorado. 80222—1530. Attention: Permits • a a
and Enforcement.
a a a a a
4. Part IV.D.7.b.(1).(bJ of the permit is Region 10
revised to read as follows:
a a a *
D. Contents of Plan read.
-------
41330
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices
the general permit, and any Notice of
Termination shall be submitted to the
appropriate State regional office.
attention Storm Water Coordinator, as
follows:
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Northern Regional
Office, 1001 Noble Street, Suite 350,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, (907) 452—
1714. Fax: 451—2187.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Southeastern Regional
Office, 410 W. Willoughby, Suite 105,
Juneau, Alaska 99801, (907) 465—5350.
Fax: 465—5362.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southcentral Regional
Office, 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1334,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (907) 563—
6529. Fax: 562—4026.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Pipeline Corridor
Regional Office, 411 W. 4th Ave., Suite
2C, Anchorage, Alaska, 99502. (907)
278-8594, Fax: 272-0690.
3. With the NOI to the State, a brief
description of the activities to be
covered shall be submitted. This shall
be on a single sheet and shall describe
the area to be disturbed to the nearest
acre, the primary pollutants expected
from the activities and the type of
treatment to be provided.
3. Part II1.B.j.c is revised to read as
follows:
Part HI. Special Conditions
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities
1.
. . . . .
c. The permlttee shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph 111 B.1.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
VI.D,1.d (reporting: where to submit) of
this permit and to the appropriate State
regional office at the address provided
In Part B.C.
• • • * •
4. Part IV.D of the permit is revised as
follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
D Contents of Plan
Note: A copy of the Inventory of Exposed
Materials (IV.D 2 b) and Spills and Leaks
(lv ii 2 Cl from the Pollution Prevention Plan
shall be submitted by the plan preparation
date stated in Part 1V.A to the appropriate
State Regional office
• • * • .
5. The following section is added to
Part VLD.2 of the permit:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• • * . •
D. Reporting: Where to Submit
• • . . *
2. Additional Notification
• • • • •
b. Facilities located in Alaska shall
provide copies of the discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
V1.D.1.a, VI.D.i.b, and V1.D.1.c,
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, to the
Director of the appropriate State Agency
at the addresses listed below:
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Northern Regional
Office, 1001 Noble Street, suite 350,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, (907) 452—
1714. Fax: 451—2187.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Southeastern Regional
Office. 410 W. Willoughby, suite 105,
Juneau, Alaska 99801, (907) 485—5350.
Fax: 465—5362,
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Southcentral Regional
Office, 3601 “C” Street, suite 1334.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (907) 563—
8529. Fax: 562—4026.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Pipeline Corridor
Regional Office, 411 W. 4th Ave., suite
2C, Anchorage, Alaska 99502. (907)
278—8594. Fax: 272—0690.
• • • • •
I. Idaho.
Idaho W i certification special permit
conditions revise the permit as follows:
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised as
follows:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area
The permit covers all areas
administered by EPA Region 10 in the
State of Idaho.
• I I I I
2. The following section is added to
Part 111 of the permit:
Part III. Special Conditions
• • * • I
C. All storm water shall be treated
and disposed of In such a manner that
the round water standards of Idaho are
not violated Such standards are
specified in Section 1 02299 of the
“Idaho Water Quality Standards and
Wastewater Treatment Requirements.”
Washington (Federo/facibties and
Indian lands) Washington 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows.
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
Federal Facilities administered by EPA
Region 10 in the State of Washington
2. The following section is added to
Part III of the permit.
Part III. Special Conditions
C. Washington State Standards
1. This permit does not authorize the
violation of ground water standards
(Chapter 173—200 WAC). surface water
standards (Chapter 173—201 WAC), or
sediment management standards
(Chapter 173—204 WAC) of the State of
Washington. The point of compliance
with surface water standards shall be
determined after consideration of the
assignment of a dilution zone as allowed
under Chapter 173—201 WAC. The point
of compliance with ground water
standards shall be determined by
applying the provisions of Chapter 173—
Zoo WAC The point of compliance with
sediment management standards shall
be determined in accordance with
Chapter 173-204 WAC.
2. Diversion of storm water discharges
to ground water from existing
discharges to surface water shall not be
authorized by this permit if this causes a
violation or the potential for violation of
ground water standards (Chapter 173—
200 WAC). Such discharges below the
surface of the ground are also regulated
by the Underground Injection Control
Program (Chapter 173—218 WAC).
3. Washington Department of Ecology
(WDOE) is currently developing a
“Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan” which will require facilities to
assess the potential of their storm water
discharges to violate the Washington
State surface water, ground water, or
sediment management standards. Those
discharges with a high potential to
violate standards will be required to
develop and implement a monitoring
program.
Upon issuance of the “Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan” by WDOE,
EPA may reopen this permit to require
facilities to assess their storm water
I • I • I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41331
discharges and to require additional
monitoring.
Addendum A
Pollutants Identified in Tables 11 and ifi of
Appendix D of 40 CFR 122.
Addendum A
Table H—Organic Toxic Pollutants in
Each of Four Fractions In Analysis by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectros.
copy (GS/MS)
Volo b/es
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
bromoform
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chiorodibromomethane
chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
chloroform
dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dich loroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1. l’dichloroethyiene
1.2-dich loropropane
1.3-dichioropropylene
ethyibenzene
methyl bromide
methyl chloride
methylene chloride
1.L2.2.tetrachloroethane
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
l,2-trans-djchjoroethylene
1,1,1-tnchloroethane
L1.2.trichloroethane
tnchloroethy lene
vinyl chloride
Acid Compounds
2-chlorophenol
2.4-d ichiorophenol
2.4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2.4-dlnitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenot
p-ch loro-m-cresol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
Table Il—Organic Toxic Pollutants in
Each of Four Fractions in Analysis by
Gas ChromatographyfMau Spectros.
copy (GS/MS)—.Contjnued
2.4.6-t r lchlorophenol
Bose/Neutmi
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzidlne
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(ejpyrene
3.4-benzofiuoranthene
benzo(ghi)perylene
benzo(k)fiuoranthene
bie(2-chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyflether
bis(2-ethyIhexyl)phtha late
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
butylbenzyl phthalate
2 -chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
chrysene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzer ie
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3.3’-dich lorobenz idine
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthaiate
di-n-butyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-din ltrotoluene
dI-n-octyl phthalate
1.2-dlphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)
fiuroranthene
fluorene
hexach lorobenzene
hexachiorobutadiene
hexachlorocyc lopentadlene
hexachioroethane
indeno(1,2 ,3-cd)pyrene
leophorone
napthalene
nltrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodl-n.propylamine
N-nitrosodipheny lamine
phenanthrene
pyrene
1 ,2,4-tr lchlorobenzene
aldrin
alpha -Bi- IC
beta-BHC
gamma-Bi-IC
delta-BHC
chlordane
4.4’-DDT
4,4-DDE
4.4 ’-DDD
dieldnn
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endnn
endrin aidehyde
heptachior
heptachlor epoxide
PCB—1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB—1248
PCB-1260
PCB—i 016
toxaphene
Addendum A
Table 111—Other Toxic Pollutants
(Metals and Cyanide) and Total Phenols
Antimony, Total
Arsenic. Total
Beryllium. Total
Cadmium. Total
Chromium. Total
Copper. Total
Lead. Total
Mercury. Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Sliver, Total
Thallium. Total
Zinc. Total
Cyanide. Total
Phenols, Total
AOOENOUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRIORIrI CHEMICALS.
Common name
75—07—0 ..,
75865 ,,
1 07 -02- .8
107-13-1 ........

107-05- i
7429—00—5
7664-41—7
-53-3
120—12—7
7440—36—0
7647189
28300745
Acetaldehyde
Acetane cynohydrin
Acroieln
Acrylonitrile
Aidrin (1.4:5.8-Dlmethanonaphthalene, 1,2.3.4,10, 10-hexachloro-1.4.4a.5.a.8a.hexahydro -(1.alpha., 4 alpha ,4a.beta,
5.alpha..8.alpha.,8a.beta.) -J
AIlyi Chloride
Aluminum (fume or dustl
Ammonia
Aniline
Anthracene
Antimony
Antimony pentachloride
Antimony potassium tartrate
Table Il—Organic Toxic Pollutants in
Each of Four Fractions in Analysis by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectros-
copy (GS/MS)—Continued
Pesticides
CAS number
-------
41332 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
ADDENDUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRIoRrri’ CHEMICALS —Conttnued
CAS number
Common name
7789619 Antimony tnbromide
10025919 . .. Antimony tnchloride
7783564 Antimony trifluoride
1309644 .. Antimony trioxide
7440-38—2 Arsenic
1303328 Arsenic disulfide
1303282 Arsenic pentoxide
7784341 Arsenic trichloride
1327533 Arsenic trioxide
1303339 Arsenic trisullide
1332—21—4 Asbestos (friable)
542621 Barium cyanide
71—43—2 .. Benzene
92—87—5 Benzidine
100470 Benzonitrile
98—88-4 Benzoyi chloride
100—44—7 Benzyl chloride
7440-41—7 Beryllium
7787475 Beryllium chloride
7787497 Beryllium fluoride
7787555 Beryllium nitrate
111—44—4 Bis(2.chloroethyl) ether
75-23-2 Brornoform
74—83—9 Brornomethane (Methyl bromide)
85—88—7 Butyl benzyl phthalate
7440-43-9 .. Cadmium
543908 Cadmium acetate
7789428 .. Cadmium bromide
10108842 Cadmium chloride
7778441 Calcium arsenate
52740166 Calcium arsenite
13765190 Calcium chromate
592018 Calcium cyanide
133—06—2 Captar. I1H.lsoindole.l.3(2H)-dione.3a.4.7.7a.tetrahydro-2. (trichloromethyl)thioJ-]
83—25—2 Carbaryl (1-Naphthalenol. methylcarbamate)
75—15—0 Carbon disulfide
56—23—5 . .. . . Carbon tetrachioride
57—74—9 Chiordane 14.7-Methano lndan.1,2.4,5,6.7.8.8- octachloro.2.3.3a.4.7.7a.hexahydro.)
7782-50-S Chlorine
59-50—7 Chloro.4—methyl-3-phenol p-Chloro-m-cresol
108-90-7 Chlorobenzene
75—00—3 Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride)
87-66-3 Chloroform
74—87—3 Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
95—57—8 2 .Chlorophenol
106-48-9 4.Chlorophenol
1068304 Chromic acetate
11115745 Chromic acid
10101538 Chromic sulfate
7440—47—3 Chromium
1306-14-1 .. Chromium (Tn)
10049055 Chromoua chloride
7769437 .. .. Cobaltous bromide
544183 Cobaltous formate
14017415 Cobaltous eulfarnate
7440-50-8 Copper
108-39-4 m .Cre sol
9548-7 o-Cre eol
106—44—5........ .. .... p-Creed
1319—77—3 Cresol (mixed Isomers)
142712 .. Cupric acetate
12002038.... .. Cupnc acetoarsenite
7447394 ._. Cupric chloride
3251238 ..........._... .. . ... Cupric nitrate
5893883 ..._....... ..... Cupric oxalate
7758987 .. Cupric sulfate
10380297 Cupric sulfate. amnioniated
815827 Cupnc tartrate
57—12—8 ... . ....... . . Cyanide
506774 ...... Cyanogen chloride
110-82—7 .._._....__...._.... Cyclohexane
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices 41333
ADDENDUM B—SECTiON 313 WATER PRIoRrr CHEMIcAL.S.—COnvnued
CAS number Common name
94—75—7 ..... 2.4-D (Acetic acid. (2.4.dichforophenoxyj-j
106-93—4 L2 Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)
84—74—2 Dibutyl phthalate
25321—22—0 Dichlorobenzene (mixed isomers(
95—50—1 1.2.Dichlorobenzene
541—73—1 1.3-Dichlorobenzene
106—48—7 1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
91—94—1 ..... _. 3.3 -DicMorobenzidine
75—27—4 Dichiorobrornomethane
107-06-2 ..... 1.2.Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichioride)
540—59-0 1,2-Dichloroethylene
120-83—2 2.4-Dichlorophenol
78—87—5 ... 1.2.Dichloropropane
542—75—8 1 ,3.Dichloropropylene
62—73—7 Dichlorvos (Phosphoric acid. 2.2-dichioroethenyl dirnethyl ester)
115—32—2 Dicofol (Benzenemethanol, 4-chloro-.alpha.-(4-chlorophenyl)-.alpha.-(trtchlorornethyl)- (
177—81—7 Di-(2-ethyihexyl phthalate (DEHP)
84—68—2 Diethyl phthalate
105—67—0 2.4 -Dimethylphenol
131—11—3 Dimethyl phthalate
534—52-1 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
51—28-5 2..4-Dinitrophenol
121—14—2 2.4-Dinitrotoluene
608—20—2 2.6-Dinitrotoluene
117—84—0 n.Dioctyl phthalate
122—86—7 1.2-Diphenylhydrazine (Hydrazobenzene)
106-89—8 Epichiorohydrin
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene
106934 Ethylene dibromide
50-00-0 Formaldehyde
76-44—8 Heptachlor (1.4.5.8.7 ,8,8-Heptachloro.3a.4,7.7a.tetrahydro.4,7.methano-1H-indene
118—74—1 Hexachlorobenzene
87—68—3 ..... Hexachloro.1.3-butadlene
77-47—4 .... Hexachlorocyc lopentadiene
67—72—1 Hexachioroethane
7647—01-0 Hydrochloric acid
74—90-8 Hydrogen cyanide
7684—39-3 Hydrogen fluoride
7439—92—1 Lead
301042 Lead acetate
7784409 .... Lead arsenate
7645252 Do.
10102484 Do.
7758954 Lead chloride
13814965 Lead fluoborate
7783462 Lead fluoride
10101630 Lead iodide
10099748 Lead nitrate
7428480 Lead stearate
10fl351 Do.
52852592 Do.
7446142 Lead sulfate
1314870 Lead sulfide
592870 Lead thiocyanate
58-10-0 Lindane (Cyclohexane, 1.2.3.4.5.6.hexachloro.(1.alpha..3.beta..4.alpha. ,5.alpha..6.beta.). )
14307358 Lithium chromate
106-31-6 ...... Maleic anhydride
592041 Mercuric cyanide
10045940 Mercuric nitrate
7783359 Mercuric sulfate
592858 Mercuric thiocyanate
7782867 Mercurous nitrate
7439—97—8 Mercury
72—43—5 Methoxychlor (Benzene. 1,1 -(Z.2.2.tnchloroethylidene)bia (4.methoxy.J
80-62—8 Methyl methacrylate
91—28-3 Naphthalene
7440-02—0 Nickel
15690180 Nickel ammonium sulfate
37211055 Nickel chloride
7718340 Do.
12054487 Nickel hydroxide
-------
41334 FederaL Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
ADDENDUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS —Continued
CAS number Common name
14216752 Nickel nitrate
7786814 ... Nickel sulfate
7697—37—2 Nitric acid
98—95—3 Nitrobenzene
88—75—5 2-Nitrophenol
100-02—7 4-Nitrophenol
62—75—9 N-Nltrosodimethylamine
88-30-8 N-Nit.rosodiphenylamine
621—64—7 N-Nitrosodi-n.propylamine
58-38—2 Parathion Phosphorothioic acid. O,O-diethyl-O.(4--nitrophenyl) ester)
87—86—5 Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
106-95-2 Phenol
75-44.5 Phosgene
7664—38—2 Phosphoric acid
7723—14—0 Phosphorus (yellow or white)
1336—36—3 Poiychlonnated biphenyls (PCBs)
7784410 Potassium arsenate
10124502 Potassium arsenite
7778509 Potassium bichromate
7789006 Potassium chromate
151508 Potassium cyanide
75—56-9 Propylene oxide
91—22—5 Quinoline
7782—49-2 Selenium
7446084 Selenium oxide
7440-224 Silver
7761888 Silver nitrate
7631892 Sodium arsenate
7784465 Sodium arsenite
10588019 Sodium bichrornate
7775113 Sodium chromate
143339 .. Sodium cyanide
10102188 .... Sodium selenite
7782823 Do
7789062 Strontium chromate
100—42—5 Styrene
7664—93—9 Sulfuric acid
79—34—5 . 1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
127—18—4 . ... Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
935—95—5 .. 23.5 6-Tetrachlorophenol
78002 Tetraethyl lead
7440—28—0 Thallium
10031591 Thallium sulfate
108—88—3 Toluene
8001—35-2 .. . Toxaphene
52—68-6 Trichlorfon (Phosphonic acid. (2.2.2.tnchloro. 1.hydroxyethyl).dimethylesterj
120-26-1 1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
71—55—8 . . 1.1.1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)
79-00—5 . ... 1.1.2.Tnchloroethane
79-01-6 Trichloroethylene
95-95-4 2.4.5-Tnchlorophenol
88—06—2 ... 2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
7440—62—2 Vanadium (fume or dust)
108-05-4 Vinyl acetate
75-01-4 Vinyl chloride
75—35—4 Vinylidene chloride
108-38-3 . m-Xylene
95—47—6 o-Xylene
10&-42—3 p-Xylene
1330—20—7 Xylene (mixed isomers)
7440-66-8 Zinc (fume or dust)
557346 Zinc acetate
14839975 Zinc ammonium chloride
14839988 Do
52i 2 82c8 .. .. Do.
1332076 .. Zinc borate
7699458 Zinc bromide
3488359 Zinc carbonate
7646857 Zinc chloride
557211 ..... .. Zinc cyanide
7783495 Zinc fluoride
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices 41335
ADDENDUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS.—COntlnUed
CAS number
Common name
557415
Zinc formate
7779864
Zinc hydrosulfite
.
7779888
Zinc nitrate
127822
Zinc phenolsulfonate
1314847
Zinc phosphide
16871719
Zinc silicouluoride
7733020
Zinc sulfate
Addendum C
Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems
GIWNO coos 5560-50-M
-------
41336 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 f Wednesday. September 9, 1992 I Notices
Addendum C
State
Large and Medium Municipalities Located in the Non-Delegated States
(Including Colorado. Delaware and Washington because they’ do not have
Federal Facility permitting authority)
AK
Anchorage
AZ
Mesa
Phoenix
Pima County
Tempe
Tucson
FL Apopka Davie Homestead
Atlantis Deerfield Beach Hypo] .uxo
Bal Harbor Village Deiray Beach Indian Creek Village
Bay Harbour Island Duvall Islandia
Bay Lake Eatonville Jacksonville
Belle Glade Edgewood Jurto Beach
Belle Isle El Portal Jupiter
Belleair Escambia County Lake Buena Vista
Belleair Beach Florida City Lake Clark Shores
Belleair Bluffs Ft. Lauderdale Lake Park
Belleair Shore Glen Ridge Lake %Jorth
Biscayne Park Golden Beach Lantana
Boca Racon Golf Village Lauderdale.by.the-Sea
Boynton Beach Colfview Lauderdale Lakes
Briny Breezes Creeriacres City Lauderhill
Broward County Gulf Stream Lazy Lake Village
Century Hacienda Village Lighthouse Point
Clearwarer Hallandale Maitland
Cloud Lake Haverville Mangonia Park
Coconut Creek Hialeab Margate
Cooper City Hialeab Gardens Medley
Coral Gables Highland Beach Miami
Coral Springs Hilisboro Beach Miami Beach
Dade County }fillsborough County Miami Shores
______ Dania Hollywood Miami Springs
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday , September 9. 1992 I Notices 41337
Addendum C
$tat•
large and Medium MunLcipalitLea Located in the Non-Delegated States
(Including Colorado, Delavare and Washington because they do not bay.
Federal Facility permitting authority)
FL
(Cont.)
Miramar Palm Springs South Miami
North Bay Park] .and South Palm Beach
North Miami Pembroke Park - Sunrise
North Miami Beach Pembroke Pines Surfsf.de
North Lauderdale Pennsuco Sweetwater
Oakland Pensacola Tamarac
Oakland Park Pine l] .as Tampa
Ocean Ridge Plantation Temple Terrace
Ocoee Plant City Tequesta Village
Opa-Locka Polk Virginia Gardens
Orange County Pompano Beach Walton Manor
Orlando Riviera Beach West Miami
Pahokee Royal Palm Beach West Palm Beach
Palm Beach Sarasota Windermere
Palm Beach Gardens Sea Ranch Lakes Winter Gardens
Palm Beach Shores South Bay Winter Park
ID
Boise City
LA
Baton Rouge
Jefferson County
New Orleans
Shreveport
MA
Boston
Lowell
Springfield
Worcester
ME
NH
N M
Albuquerque
OK
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
-------
41338 Federal RegIster/Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9, 1992 I Notices
Addendun C
Stat.
Large and Medium Municipalities Located in the Non-Dslegat.d St*tes
(“. qud Coloredo, Delavaxe and Uaahingtoza b.cauaa they do not have
Federal Facility_permitting_authority)
SD
TX
Abilene El Paso Lubbock
Aarillo Fort Worth Mesquite
Arlington Garland Pasadena
Austin Harris County Piano
Beaumont Houston San Antonio
Corpus Christi Irving Waco
Dallas Laredo
CO
Aurora
Colorado Springs
Denver
Lakewood
Pueblo
DE
New Castle County
WA
King County
Fierce County
Seattle
Snohomish County
Spokane
Tacoma
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 I Notices 41339
APPENDIX C—Notice of Intent and Instructions
Se. R.v.rs. for Instructions A rov
United Sates Envrorvnentel Prote on AQency
POEB W flmgten. DC 20460
FORM Notice of Intent (NOl) for Storm Water Dlschar9es Associated with IndustrIal
ActIvity Under the NPDES General Permit
Subrnholai of this Nodos of bient osrs0t tes nodos that tie pwly ldarEsid k Secton I of this torn ibn bbs a,? od by a NPDES permit usued h stemi
disdla’Qes sedaied idti dusthaI d fty fr i ie S Idert fled fri Seodon 1101 tile form Beosmtn a pematbe odI s sudi dI.dwpor te nply WIth
Its temie aid i4iU of thu permit AU. NECESSARY INFORMATiON MUST BE PROVIDED ON This FORM
I. F Operatsr fornaton
P4,.s: I i a p I,.,., p n p i , i Pt i. ’e I I I
Staea of
Ad sss: I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ner perabr
eJty I i I I I i i i i i I i I I.... ..J ZIPCXe I I I
ii FadiityiSl Lo ton Inforrnadon
Is tie Faclity Locabd a,
pZ I ..e I i i i p I I I I I I I I I I I Ind Iant..ands (YorN)
Add asa I , i i i i I p t p i t
City Iii I I I Ii iii iii ii I S (_ ..j.... _ .j ZiPCodeI ii I 1I I I
I,IiI iILor lg i sideIitI iIiIou a, e I , ISecdonL_i__ITo m& i lP I . , IRarç 1 11 1 1
Iii Site A vIty &itolmaaai
f.tS 4 Cpao,Pda” .o I • I • I I I I a I I I I I I I I I
R iwing WasrOody I I a a i I
ft Y j a s Ring ea a Co.pemimee, Are There ExIsang Is the Faahfy Regurod le Submit
Enter Stern Water GenemJ Permit Number I I Ouai taivo Oa ? ( ‘1 N) Montonng Dab’ (1.2. or 3)
P,liiary Ilial ‘id IIIII 3rd IIIII4Oi III
If Th Fedi1ey sMerrberofaGroup
Apel 3Ofl . Enter &oup Appbcaxn Nunt I
Yo kasOe ierExssangNPDES
PSITTIS, Enter Paj,,iit I 4 u flbers I I I I I I I I I I ________________________________________________
IV Mdllcn frilornaxn Requred tor Consaucton AcO es i$y
Piclud C UI II
S 1 . D . is the Storm Wate, Poliudon PTOVteI5O Plan
Estma iia bbs ri Complarios WIth S aidter I .oc
I • I . . I I I I DssaatedQnAores) I I I I I I $QdIrnentaIdEro6ionPla 7( wN)
V Cer1flos& . I earthy teider porsay of is. that this doajmsnt aid a dimau te ,u aed wider my dItUCbOfl or supervision fri a rdanea atti a
system designed te aiswe that qu zfled gersoroisi edy gadw aid er j tie mfomiaacn submiead Based on my Ir uiry Of the person or porsors dio
( T teQs tie ays n. or those persons duecdy responsible for g ier ç tie u*rvna0cn, the .ntomtaton submitted is, to tie beat olmy leloWIedge aid beel. tue.
,ate. aid aapleb I an e that there as .lgnIfl nt pen ees for submiteng faMe informaitorl. mduding tie goesiblity of fine aid Impnsonment for
P, itNa i is U
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
5-.
EPA Form 35104(842)
-------
sf40 CFR Pisi 1 i LJ1I x ml dodW SS of SWII 5 5W
—- - wth lójsv J s y is 5 body(iss) of ‘is U S w0 jt
Poljisni wgs Syoi.m (NPOES) p . 0 1 s t The oxmisr ci ist
Ify Psi Psi sad. asam W ó .cPstp. mist .id.ou. NOt is olouhi
w P s I OES Sisim w Gensisi PsiPsI. P you Pes iIci. ut of d
you ‘m.d S 0 1 1 511 Ulal 1 II l O€S Søm WiW pi nsTI. U i mbinsion
. 01 dispw. p.dct p.p.m 01,ljuisisd by EPA . .psary. cisi et
P. SW. *5.0 HoSes. St (703) 051
W . Ti PU. NOS Pu,.
NO isis C. . I n i is O s s isl -.. 5 s10 si
Sisnis * 5 * NiP. of tours
POB@i 1215
VA
cm. siv Ths Pam.
YO isiul type or pnsst uses upper ..0as louf I. in Ps up.cpr.t. .m.s oily Pissis
01.05011 d*act.i beMsefi P. ivisiii AC01ys.t. if rs. sssry is isp ispin ‘is
vsm sr of ctacac*. SM55d c s.d isis. U.. cm. s u, r buoSu wotCi
bat fist pjr oaSDcn nwtis unless hey —. ,m.doS is p pot, ruins. It you
P555 lisp que40ons on Ps bus. u,i Ps Stiun *5* HoSeis St (703) 02 1.4&3
laclon I P.disy Cp le
Gm. P. legef ‘WIS of ‘is P5510P lilt PubliC OfgIfiZ.CQfl. C I Sisy 00 11 in11y Slit
315 leofity SIlOS dSWisSS in 0 $ 5051 1.0501 The rs.ns. of ‘is opsr.ot nisy
or lisp 1 St Cs Pt. sans a. his ‘sans of Ps. isolity The ruipoisads cisly s Pie legil
55117 PsI WWblU hIS leofiI7S Opeia.oi. rassa Psfl ‘ii PW II 01515 ITisISgir nOt
IJss 5 I S ItIS Ei P. oSósss as 5 ) sr . fUf 1 Ot ‘is
001 5*
Erns t ‘is .ppmpnsts le is vld ts P. fegI SSOiS of ‘is opsIaW of ‘is fiofily
F • F.dsruj N • Public (ohier Psit IsdsvuLcr 51511)
- S.Sst, P.Pvsat.
$ in U P . 0057 1 511, Locitlon biNomitlon
Erisr P. flolity. or St. a offIcial 01 lepsi us fs. SItl iNh lIt i *511 . ddtS$& Sldudittg
city. 51515. SM ZIPOSOS If ‘is flOddy Or oh ldii a sheet sidu .u. mieoth 015.151..
his SM lliçrCid. of his flelity is hi. m.m.t lS irds Cr hi. 1511111.
s .cbon. wsp SM ISIQ 5 (is Its ns .’sst iami, s.cior) of his . ouwusta nior
of ‘is .
b rais adisPis P. faorny is loca 1 1d on tlasn leMs
Secbon is S i. Adlelly
lIP. SW. *tis is S nsassapei . Ipsmts sis,m s r syuism ( 14 54) mis
runs of ‘is op.uisr of his MS4 e . flWlOpaiitp Iwits. .0unly risnI) aud his
rsc.. m.* of Pt. diadw s liom Os. 1454 (A 1 454 i i dull us C SI a WissySnce
SI eySism of .yvim. (odudoug msds ss01 disss.gs uylisns Imjr .ap .J shes .
05*1 bwhs, qgbs. gijitirL “isWU ...
5d01 opSiSISO by . sists. city. i. borough. Cotlflty. peii.tt , Oshict. ‘-‘n .
01 aPis p CIc bedy d. tu S dSSIgnSO 01 uSId l et isllSCtng or es ii sisim wa ter)
P P. 05 is, 5 s s Ims discly is .seswç m.ou(s). stIr Ps fism. of hi.
P porn *5 SWig us espsnuuSss SM a am .alv onu ,ii perTh ruttIer Psi bum
___ 1st 51 , 15151 I i ‘is .p.es dii .
0 ’ list ‘is i or opwabr of his flofity Psi su.0ig quvm.vvs
451 lIst . ...1 ‘is CIfs1 r55 . 0 SM . 015.0 131 50 11 of poSulnl I I 5 . 0Th 55*
oS01t.r P. Nobly is rpoulod is etbPs urlLmg dolby .ourro c ii. of his
I • NI IS 01 is StIed lisd*5 451
2 • Ausised is isiNo#ir U
S • NI 1517*51 is . . ... ..JsirL . 4 5h sdosllrç wS3 lon C.
TPsso A3 . I hist 11111 lifiTht llUtlisiWl3 dS (S0. disii 2) at. Secton 313
EPCRA flouiOss. plliuiy musS) md.*s.s. land deitoMi iV01tistIsI,,#9 )P 5. 5504
hs.Dtlsnt fle l iCsI. fld50as ‘i esi p45 m w bsoury r e
Lot. in d.... ..md... , 014 . of s ilfIw.0. up is bar 4- giI sW d UduiOS)
d s5isb (SIC) oudes Psi bust Carnal . ‘is viopsJ od.mi or a e pur.4..d
St St. dy 01 *5 leeMfI.d ii Oscbori Uolr. spoflessori.
F Vidja.flj dufesoS In 40 CFR 1 .2 5(bXl4Xl). f) 1st do ‘ist
.045. Ps I u05 ifSisly 45.01105 ‘is pitsayst p.4.15 p.dJOSdO I ..nless pon his
flli— ,g 2.dw.cisr . 0d.s is. is Cs .13.1
HZ - Hrnz.rdo.te m.ah 31SPTW11t 51I I. Or disposal floSmes. uicludrç P.15 PsI
515 Opsllblhg mOst *5IITI 1S 015 PSITTII o laCe., C of RA (40
CFR 1 (b)(14Xfo)L
If • LardS).. bud spsP.$on •bo. aid ogin dtitigs PsI rs . 0res or P s ,. meswad
Slip SC aDs) is. uidudoig P . 05 0151 SI, 5 ,5 ,CI is rugulson undsr
sate.. Dot RCRA 140 CFR 1 .26 (bUl4Xv)I.
SE • Slum duciuc plush Wig flofiDus. itidudrg J twCrig sitss t 0 CFR
1 .25 (bXllXvi)J,
TW • Tmarws m.me. he.Wig denials snags or airy oPieI g. sludge Cr
*SIl uI heSitsurit doncs of Syallult uSed in pie sisaig. PsShnsfrt
IIC7Cnp . 5114 riduirisOon of lvlasapL of donissOc . Im.gs 40 CFR i 26
(b)(i4Xii)J. 01.
CO - Cananicion schiSm. 140 CFR 1 .05 (0X 14)(x)j
if p. fiduly listed in Secbori II Pus psltcpst,d in P.1 1 of sit 815101*5 11
,Oup I IIplOSOel slid S p1I furl. Pm. been suipusd. ma his ioup apolieslOn
01115101 in pis spses . , t
It Oh . !. ItS OPISI P4PCES pu nt5 posseridy iluld for his flcdity or Sits 6 5150 in Sacton
I I. list his p51 151 Isrlsra. If an sppl ton C. his lacibty Psi been sutliuttid Cut ‘is
P511 551 liWIlSI Pus beer esaghed. misc its 5051.05011 usjnte,
lisbon IV Addibonal . ...giCm R .quC.d C. Cotlitnalbu Asdutu.. . Only
Cofisptclon acdotbus natal Sedan IV in sddmofi is Sistan. I h r rou r Ill
Only esisfucoun adsIms. used is . 0n lØuts Secton IV
Eros, ‘is puc act sWt data isid ‘is SsZmatad usmofeson dais lot his stil,,
d_ ft -
Pru,id. sir ISCIT I sI of his 115) 154 ,13., of acts. ot sue Ide CI I stlcti eel 515 Cs
disSjsbsd (round is p. rs.sa ’est acts)
frdite sfusP. , his slim 55tsc PSilu lon pIs.snDon plan ).r his oI.us in wTipl.ri . 0
*41 .00101.4 sot. alGer loosi seQm.nI a id sro.stn plans psmuts. or . m sit.!
lisnIos ,T .nl —
Se01loit V C.utIiOcsiou,
FsiauiJ isSues poovidu C. . r. xus.mss fir subnzsng bliss esfonvieCon on Pus
sppl* fonTs. P.0*4 lugulDons rs vs P. WIt 1 ”01 is Cs s csi as fllfosi
For. es r .*t by a responsubl. esigorat. olfIes . u11idi mists ) p.sidsrit.
SSC?55fIf. PISIWS I. or Vis .poisdeni of Ps . 0fporuoon in claps eta pliricipal
business PjriC$Oft Olifl Ohs ’ person allis prfoniss 541 151 Odicy or dealer miuiing
handlers, 01 (a) Pie ussaisger ef on. 01 ussr. neiutacatrv’ig. cm ucscn. or coursIng
fad me . ussr. Olel 250015011501 rwvmrg Q01 55 Sinus) 5 5 )55 Or Stpsnditjrs$
sicesdo ig $25 idlon (in ssomd 4uastsr 1005 Ocibu) if suP.nty is sign 000jnsctt.
Psi bois’m m.çs.d or deIsgetad is ‘is mrsis.gur in s s4.iu, .131 u,rpoiata
F . poiii...S ier CI ads by s oursnd psrpisr or hi. pu...mw 01
F e ’ a nuuc i . 5* F.bo’aL ora Istpubec flolp. by a41e a pm i c ipd sisejs,s
O sI or rsrbug 5*501 ol l.
Ad Node.
Pidiic . , ..rfa g findes C. P45 a es50n Ii sslmust.d is usugs 0.5 Pours pe
sc Don. usiubog Wrs Cs m. t bie.u.0ous. aaaldwig uiadip 4515 sot,ces,
gihuuvig and uss.wiaadii , PsU 1554.1.5114 wiOlPiy *14 rna5)ug P.
of Iibius s. Slid ocavn.ua. Iep.dsig his buidun suhisuls, i s 1 7 0 5 ’ s ’ aspect of tie
of .dunnid.n. or sa .fl - for Inuomup Pus flu.. SC 4rq slip
sugp.sor. I isp 1*551501 isdios P45 bail. is. Clad. bdums5on P Icy
SWiofi, P15. U.S. C,i.rU.......aJ Proi.a.,n Apeicy. 401 14 Sts SW.
Waallng.u.l. DC 05450.01 ruonr. ClUes of Iduu IT*5OI I aid Regulismy 5P.m. OlVu
of Mar.g.ns’it and &aegst Ws*whp.n. DC e.toa
41340
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
ltSt ,uctlolis. EPA Pomen 33104
Nodes Of tittsl 5 (7401) For SlIm Wiley Dlecliwgss Saseclitad WfIti CI4UIIII AciMly
To Is Ccsnd Under The NPO€S 0.11 .1 5 1 Pwsbt
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices 41341
APPENDIX 0—Notice of Termination and Instructions
Firm . ê OW N.. W OW
Pie... S .. nictions Bsfor COnIP1.tISIg This Forni esz $414 0
1be $ s QMQm Oie Ofl
*013 ___ W bd.I . DC 20460
FORI w Notice of Termination (NOT) of Coverage Under the NPDES General Permit
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with lndustñal Activity
01 e No ol Tb .,,J. re ti no ti Ii. cmty leei 5ed Vi Se on II 01 bin I no bnQer aj1 o& .,d dledwge 0Dm w1Dt
Vi mol lly w er tie NPDES , m . ALL NECESSARY INFORMATiON litiSi BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORK
L Pwrdt Vi 11 & , 1
NPOES 3Dm Qiedi Hers I You a. No Len sr Chsdi Hers I Ii , 5Dm W1Dr
I I I I tie iti .Fi ty D Id i sIB el igTum IntL4.
U. Fe i v Op.ias V mi01w
I I I I I I . Iphon,:I I I I
Ad see:l A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A I I I I A — t I I
cIty: 1! I!; I I III’ II I ! ! I S D ,: I __ . __ L. _ . _ J ZiPCod,:I 1:1
UL F.dhtyI ie L oii Vi miiXn
t4wis: I I I i I I I i I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I A I I I I
city Ii it ii i i iii II S : i.... __ i _ ........I ZiPC o i ii I I
L : I I I t I Lw t s: I i I t I I ________ ________ T i i L
iv. CwtI&.ti.... : I wIly ti er psna!y 01 be tiIl 01 sierm er .l. d 01th Vmtt bfty torn lie idendf led teolhty lied asthoitz..d bys
NPOES peiwE permit be. been slrnla1Dd ir l I wino Cnpev Ii . ia .. . 01 tie ty ir nonaou01on saie I widers d list by subrnistng tile Nod of
Tw, slon. I wino blger ast tzc,d b disdiags 5Dm — ‘ sNi Vdiest 4ty ttder 54s generli permit, mid tlat dhsdwgtnq potuDm Vi
— d edli Vi all01 ty b metes 01 Its Lbwd 3Dm I *.ribeti wider Its Clew Water Ast .hiois tie dadwq. I not a01cndod bye
NPOES pwNL I o wid 4 I D lie subndD 01 ID NoID 01 T....J..li..n dorm I D mIDs en w from IDity br eny vbIWrm of tile permit er be
Clew W r Ad.
Pibit t4a, i e: i I I _________
bebueons lot Coenplsdng Noeo. ol Ysiminseon (NOT) Form
s No, Rbs Ned .. .1 T ...beI.gi (NOT) Firm Where Ii pes NOT Ports
P .Il... We a. d taller be EPA hued P Pc$ fl Sell Its bin te1 be bleufri sU
CieJ . B1..J. ..& . . Sysa. (IIPOES Garmid Forms b Stemi Weot
010.015 AIwO..d met 110mW AWi’ n s iArni S NW, 01 T.m .llD n 0Dm Wtev NOW 01
NOT) term Dun view IDOlS Its DiQur NW 5Dm OWie, .s P0. 0D I 155
Wet Vidi .asIl mW ee leWd Vi be 1Dm NW rs # ie a 40 P1...t . , VA 221fl
CFR 1ft20 (bXI4).er Wien l sue bigurbe 01 Its
Fir oneviWet led. WIDen 0101 Win NW d.Ji .. r l be Ports
Wet bealIl NW Wet dotibsI ills a be wiehimW lie NW
bet Wily - ‘- “- — -— “ash end Jrn.rl onWd muon,. Typo er pW, talig i S , .OW IsOuS, Vi lie io4 w1 ..I msus oily. Plseei
1W been . ... ...J er We its . ......rI a en Sins, ir 11001 Ibm pIes emit dbonur U.men be IrmSL Aitb iete I r.assss,y m say Whit
NW diJi . — - - ‘ WIt Vibesil NW bee be asuievimian be ID be isebir 01 dw . 011W D emit item. Us. oi ens spa. 10
me 5áh J by S P4’OES guiell purnit bes u been DnI . b.s , ds. be run 10 pu , 1Wn nerts is is .. lily a. needed e
fled ——.--— .‘-— . mOW ted 01 soI.dsDUiig jOmi a lie lie 1W bsun t . e nas . I a NW s jssIono leW T I. bm. be 3Dm W Ib
eerr Iis4 , ID ma wlbm po..iil sDrs _ Wit S duledy 01 70% IDms a (70 14a..
be 10 tr ud W I . ID 5W ID essind by p .i unuasaus be
beer’. .sW,*isd, rla. , ... 1 itOWsIS (salt lie
me 01 .Dm. ulU,ir -—- -- 5J bee bu ,J.
EPA Perle 10.7 (I
-------
41342
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9, 1992 I Notices
Idlo. of T .rninaion (NOT) of Cu,.. . , tki i The NPV IW .I P 5IW 1N
r Otønn W.tst OIscMrVs. £ _ J With du.bIsI Adivoy
E,ar the NPCES SDm W .av G. w PWII mriDsr uaQnsd a the
dIip Idindlid bl 5S Ill. Ø ru the p 1 1 1 1 11 fl ITtSr,
the 8mm — ftthm a (701) 1.48
bi pow mson IIL.J PU helm. of T.m*isdw bp dlsdikIg D l i

I Puts bun a digs of end pou ma no Icnsr Pu apmaat
01 Pie uPs .rdflsd F Sudion UI. disdi the ow,si oidsip bux.
III n mamvd .d.gsa a the U bundlsd F S.uPon UI ha. blur
disdi Pa m.n. J,p box.
IsdFn I . --.
WeePulspii tans of the pmowi. Pu. p Ic wpothsrurPip Pu
Pie iIy lbs diwltid F PuP i Am. n Th. tans of Pie apss.a
my nay not be Pu m.me tan. u Pu Fdliy The cpot r of Pu halty I .
Pu IsçU unIty iddd owimoF the bdbly. opin Ion , tsthun than Pu plan in
maay.r Do rot — a vpjU tans Emin Pie otripisa adotus. end
li4.t.t lnanIui of the cpuia .
S Iøn II FadUIyil*. biuPtadlion
Enw Pu fadity ’s in die’s of in Fgd rena and ni .I S 5Ul, Puud rç
dip, u end ZIP uds. UPu 1 d b ?1 I a sesa idWss. , 1d the lone,
Pie laDid. ad lotipisid. of the Folly a Die nssssl 15 s.wib?. , in the opaw.
isbn. Wf p. end m c. (to Pa na..! qm.1 .r auclor) of Pa uproxinla
can., 01 Pa .4.
lodlion N .d sgFo
Fds til asadss p moxlds he anins pstidbss b stbT .mm fas. llfamtxior or
Pu ‘ - t btn. Fidmi rs iMmors rsqiire Pu luploxbon abs s tiud u
Fmya bps v orobs W. i . 01Dm. ,, disdt na.w (I) prssld.rt.
I. y , VSNisin. my vIcs.prsaldsrf 01 Pu r F brge 01. p’VW&
buinso. ba n. o r a lp othor pinion Wim potti.,,.s lindin pclicy in dsddon
mddrc bjadotie. in (U) Pu of one in nans mws tv ig o d icn.
in opssb’ç FolIss ur lig mmm i Poni 0 pinion in hsvli ;mss wvssui
db g $25 milon (F ssca* aa, 1010 dolotu). U
ie dpi dosanuru ha bum ssdpisd in d01u mad a Pie flaagsr F
_ . _ J ,. __ alpi ptvm.
Fin a pwPh.rdi ( . mm ’ db&. .,.M ,. bps snuvU paths, my Pu in
Fin a nu*sP F.dwa in o * p . c fdb - by Slier a prm p&
. 4omm , Slow my m$Iç efemmsd offioni
P.,.......J. P. mno Ad Notioe
Pi rupotwc bwdun Fr Pm opploxIur e sudnaied a avir . 0.5 ha,. pot
CUoxbe1, Fdi4mQ Ime ion Inseucoors, ssindsrc . otno da
lowe... g40lsiv inS monierFp Pu 4 5th nhsdsd. and e.rieFong inid
the e.lem&. , of don . Send owivrotta mgwdMg ’ the bisdin
s sfa . alp 0Pm ss iucI 01 Pa P’ ’i of bdiimsonn. in m g..xns Fr
IrciwIc Pu bm rlduoop vip su eacors a4nd i may .ss. my nudum. Pu
ioaden a QUI, Fbm.dcr Poi Bturdi, PM. . US Eiwumrmsntaj
Prolidor Apsrop. 401 U Soxel, SW, Wulntçan. DC 20410. in Off ,ce
of aid P. jIa y MW.. alia, of iopsmuro ai Sudpit ,
Walican, CC 2C50
IFR Doc 92—21384 Filed 9—8—92; 8’45 amj
SI WHO C CCI 15 10-60-C
-------
Wednesday
September 9. 1992
Non Constructjon—Industrjaj
Fact Sheet
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits For Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
Industrial Activity; Fact Sheet
-------
41236
Federal_Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
(FRL-4202 ’ -5 I
Final NPOES General Permits for
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final NPDES general
permits.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrators
of Regions I. IV. VI. VIII, IX. and X (the
“Regions” or the “Directors”) are issuing
final National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(except discharges from construction
activity) in 11 States (Alaska. Arizona.
Florida. Idaho. Louisiana. Maine. New
Hampshire. New Mexico. Oklahoma.
South Dakota. and Texas): the
Territories of Johnston Atoll. Midway
and Wake Islands: on Indian lands in
Alaska. Arizona, California. Colorado.
Florida. Idaho. Maine. Massachusetts.
Mississippi. Montana. New Hampshire.
Nevada. North Carolina. North Dakota.
Utah. Washington. and Wyoming from
Federal facilities in Colorado. and
Washington: and from Federal facilities
and Indian lands in Louisiana. New
Mexico. Oklahoma. and Texas.
These general permits establish
Noiice of Intent (NO!) requirements.
prohibitions, requirements to develop
.ind implement storm water pollution
prevention plans. and requirements to
onduct site inspections for facilities
with dischargers authorized by the
permit. In addition, these general
permits establish monitoring
requirements for certain classes of
f.u.ilities and a numeric effluent
limitation for discharges of coal pile
runoff subject to the general permits.
ADDRESSES: Notices of Intent to be
.iuthorized to discharge under these
permits should be sent to: Storm Water
Notires of Intent, P0 Box 1215,
iwington VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Oflire The addresses of the Regional
Offices and the name and phone number
if the Storm Wdter Regional
iiiirclinator is provided in section IV.G
if thp F.ict Sheet
Ihi . uncjp’ to the administrative
fi’ orils for these permits are available
,ii ih . .ipprnpri,itp Regional Office The
impli.,i. .idministrative record is
i F.P,\ I ir’Idqiiarterg. EPA
Public Information Reference Unit, room
2402. 401 M Street SW.. Washington. DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying. Specific record information
will be made available at the
appropriate Regional Office as
requested.
DATES: These general permits shall be
effective on September 9. 1992. This
effective date is necessary to provide
appropriate dischargers with the
opportunity to comply with the October
1, 1992 deadline for submitting an
NPDES application for storm water
discharges associated with industrial by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NO!) to be
covered by the permits.
Deadlines for submittal of Notices of
Intent (NOls) are provided in section
IV.A.2 of the Fact Sheet and Part II.A of
the general permits. Today’s general
permits also provide additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the permit
and for submitting monitoring data
where required.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON COMTACTI
For further information on the final
NPDES general permits, contact the
NPDES Storm Water Hotline at (703)
821—4823 or the appropriate EPA
Regional Office. The name, address and
phone number of the Regional Storm
Water Coordinators are provided in
section IV.G of the Fact Sheet.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges
Associaied With Industrial Activity
lii. Coverage of General Permits
IV Summary of Permit Conditions
A. Notification Requirements
1. Contents of NOIs
2. Deadlines
3. Additional Notification
4. Notice of Termination
B. Special Conditions
1. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil
C. Tailored Pollution Prevention Plan
Requirements
1. Pollution Prevention Team
2. Description of Potential Pollution
Sources
a. Drainage
b. Inventory of Exposed Materials
c. Significant Spills and Leaks
d. Non.storm Water Discharges
e. Sampling Data
F Risk Identification and Summary of
Potential Pollutant Sources
3. Measures and Controls
a. Good Housekeeping
b Preventive Maintenance
c. Spill Preveniion and Response
Procedures
d. Inspections
e Employee Training
F Recordkeepung and Internal Reporting
Procedures
g. Sediment and Erosion Control
h Management of Runoff
4 Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation
D Special Requirements
I EPCRA Section 313
2. Salt Piles
3 Discharges to Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems
4 Coal Piles
E Monitonng and Reporiing Requirements
F Regional Offices
C Compliance Deadlines
V Cost Estimates
VI Economic Impact (Executive Order 12291)
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII 401 Certification
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Introduction
The Regional Administrators of the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) are issuing final general
permits for the majority of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity as follows:
Region 1—For the States of Maine and
New Hampshire: for Indian lands
located in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire. and Maine.
Region IV—For the State of Florida.
and for Indian lands located in Florida.
Mississippi. and North Carolina.
Region V1—For the States of
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma. and
Texas: and for Indian lands located in
Louisiana. New Mexico (except Navajo
lands and Ute Mountain Reservation
lands). Oklahoma. and Texas.
Region Vhf—For the State of South
Dakota: for Indian lands located in
Colorado. Montana. South Dakota.
North Dakota. Utah (except Goshute
Reservation and Navajo Reservation
lands), and Wyoming: for Federal
facilities in Colorado: and for the Ute
Mountain Reservation in Colorado and
New Mexico.
Region IX—For the State of Arizcna.
for the Territories of Johnston Atoll, and
Midway and Wake Island: and for
Indian lands located in California and
Nevada: and for the Coshute
Reservation in Utah and Nevada. the
Navajo Reservation in Utah. New
Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley
Reservation in Nevada and Idaho.
Region X—For the States of Alaska
and Idaho: for Indian lands located in
Alaska. Idaho (except Duck Valley
Reservation lands), and Washington:
and for Federal facilities in Washington
These general permits may authorize
the majority of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States, including
discharges through large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
and through other municipal separate
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
41237
storm sewer systems. As discussed
below, these permits do not authorize
storm waler discharges associated with
rndustrial activity from construction
activities I and several additional
classes of storm water discharges
This notice contains four appendices.
Appendix A summarizes EPAs response
to mator comments received on the draft
general permits published on August 16.
1991 (56 FR 40948). Appendix B provides
the language of the final general permits.
Except as provided in part X I of the
permits, parts I through X apply to all
permits. Part XI of the permit contains
conditions which only apply in the State
indicated. Appendix C is a copy of the
Notice of Intent (NO!) form (and
associated instructions) for dischargers
to obtain coverage under the general
permits. Appendix D is a copy of the
Notice of Termination (NOT) form (and
associated Instructions) that can be used
by dischargers wanting to notify EPA
that their storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity have
been terminated or that the permittee
has transferred operation of the facility.
On August 16. 1991 (56 FR 40948). EPA
requested public comment on draft
general permits forming the basis for
today’s final general permits In addition
to addressing those storm water
discharges from industrial activity
addressed in today’s permits, the August
18. 1991, draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges from
construction activities. The permits in
this notice only address storm water
associated with industrial activity other
than construction activities Elsewhere
in today’s Federal Register. EPA is
publishing NPDES permits for storm
E ewhere in ioda Federal Regisier EPA is
publlshln9 final general permits (or storm waler
discharges associated with indusinal activity from
construction sites in a number of Siaies
water discharges from construction
industrial facilities.
EPA received more than 330
comments on the August 16. 1991. draft
general permits In addition, public
hearings to discuss the draft general
permits were held in Dallas. TX.
Oklahoma City. OK. Baton Rouge. LA.
Albuquerque. NM. Seattle. WA. Boise.
ID: Juneau. AK. Pierre. SD. Phoenix. AZ.
Orlando. FL. Tallahassee. FL Augusta.
ME Boston. MA; and Mancheser. NH.
EPA is incorporating, by reference,
portions of the detailed fact sheet for the
draft general permits published on
August 16. 1991. as part of the final fact
sheet and statement of basis for todays
final permit. The sections of the prior
fact sheet being incorporated are section
1. Background: section 4. Summary of
Options for Controlling Pollutants: and
section 5. The Federal/Municipal
Partnership: The Role of Municipal
Operators of Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewers.
II. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
The volume and quality of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity depend on a number
of factors, including the industrial
activities occumng 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. spills, and other
improperly dumped materials. may
increase the pollutant loads discharged
from separate storm sewers. The
sources of pollutants in storm water
2 illicit connections are contributions of
unpermitted nonsiorm water discharges to storm
sewers from any of a number of sources including
sanitary sewers industnal facilities commercial
establishments or residential dwelhngs
discharges differ with the type of
industry operation and specific facility
features For example. air emissions
may be a significant source of pollutants
at some facilities, material storage
operations at others, and still other
facilities may discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity with
relatively low levels of pollutants.
From 1978 through 9B3. EPA provided
funding and guidance to the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to study
runoff from commercial and residential
areas. NURP included 28 projects across
the Nation conducted separately at the
local level but centrally reviewed.
coordinated, and guided.
One focus of the NURP program was
to characterize the water quality of
discharges from separate storm sewers
that drain residential, commercial, and
light industrial (industrial parks) sites
The majority of samples collected in
NURP were analyzed for seven
conventional pollutants and three
metals. Table I summarizes the data in
the NURP data base on concentrations
for these 10 pollutants and fecal
coliform. The data collected in NURP
indicated that on an annual loading
basis suspended solids in discharges
from separate storm sewers draining
runoff from residential, commercial. and
light industrial areas are approximately
an order of magnitude or more greater
than effluent from sewage treatment
plants receiving secondary treatment
The study also found that annual
loadings of chemical oxygen demand
(COD) are comparable to effluent from
sewage treatment plants receiving
secondary treatment When analyzing
annual loadings associated with urban
runoff, it is important to recognize that
discharges of urban runoff are highly
intermittent and that the short-term
loadings associated with individual
events will be high and may have shock
loading effects on receiving water, such
as sag in dissolved oxygen levels.
TABLE 1 —QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF RUNOFF FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS
C OT I SU tU OI II
Average residential or Weighted mean residential or NUAP recommendations br
Commercial site concentration corrmerciai site concentration toad estimates
ISS
800
COD .. . .
Total Phosphorus ...
Soluble Pho phorue .
Total K ieldahI Nitrogeri . .
Nitrate-Nitrite .
Total Copper
Total Load . , .
Total ZinC .
Focal Conform
.
.
..
. .. .
. .

. ... .
..
.... .
239 mg/I
12mg/I
94mg/i
05 mg/I
i 0 IS mg/I
23 mg/I
I 1 37 mg/I
53Mg/i
238 ug i
353 pg/i
tso mg/I 180—548 mg/I
12 mg/i 12-19 mg/i
82 1 119/I 82—178 mg/I
042 mg/I I 042-088 mg/I
015 mg/i 015—028 mg/i
1 90 mg/i 1 90-4 18 mg/i
086 mg/I 086—221 mg/i
43 Mg/I 43...1 18 Mg / 1
182 Mg/i I 182—443 Mg/i
202 M .9/i I 202-833 pg/I
I
Warm Weatner
50 240 counis/ 100
I
Cold Weather
gmt
22.918 counts/tOO gmi 7.075 counts/100 ml
Source. Developed Irom Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Vol 1—Final Report. EPA 1983
-------
41238
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
NURP also involved monitormg 120
prionty pollutants Seventy-seven
priority pollutants, including 14
inorganic and 63 organic pollutants.
were detected in samples of storm water
discharges from residential, commercial.
and light industrial lands taken during
NtJRP. Table 2 shows the priority
pollutants detected in at least 10 percent
of the discharge samples that were
tested for priority pollutants. The NURP
data also showed that a significant
number of these samples exceeded
various freshwater water quality
criteria.
Although NURP did not evaluate oil
and grease. other studies have
demonstrated that urban runoff is an
extremely important source of oil
pollution to receiving waters. 3 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 time and can adversely affect benthic
organisms.
TASLE 2.—PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DE-
TECTED IN AT LEAST 10 PERCENT OF
NURP SAMPLES
Metals and Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Other studies have shown that many
storm sewers contain illicit non-storm
water discharges and that large amounts
of wastes are disposed of improperly in
storm sewers. Removal of these
discharges presents opportunities for
dramatic improvements in the quality of
storm water discharges Storm water
discharges from industrial facilities may
contain, in addition to illicit connections
and improperly disposed wastes, toxics
and conventional pollutants when
material management practices allow
exposure to storm water.
In some municipalities. illicit
connections of sanitary. commercial.
and industrial discharges to storm sewer
systems have had a significant impact
on the water quality of receiving waters
Although NURP did not emphasize
identification of illicit connections to
storm sewers other than to ensure that
monitoring sites used in the study were
free from sanitary sewage
contamination, the study concluded that
illicit connections can result in high
bacterial counts and dangers to public
health.
Studies have shown that illicit
connections to storm sewers can create
severe, widespread contamination
problems. For example. the Huron River
Frequency Pollution Abatement Program inspected
of Detection 660 businesses, homes, and other
( percent ) buildings located irs Washteriaw County.
Michigan. and found that 14 percent of
13 the buildings had improper storm drain
52 connections. Illicit discharges were
12 detected at a higher rate of 60 percent
48 for automobile-related businesses.
including service stations, automobile
23 dealerships. car washes, body shops.
94 and light industrial facilities While
some of the problems discovered in this
study were due to improper plumbing or
illegal connections, a majority were
20 approved connections at the time they
19 were built, but have since become
unlawful discharges.
NURP and other studies of urban
11 runoff insight on what can be
14 considered background levels of
19 pollutants for urban runoff, as these
to studies have focused primarily on
monitonng runoff from residential.
commercial, and light Industrial areas
io However. NURP concluded that the
18 qu:lity of urban runoff can be impacted
12 adversely by several sources of
15 pollutants that were not evaluated
directly in the study and that are
generally not reflected in the NURP
data. such as illicit connections.
construction site runoff, industrial site
runoff, arid illegal dumping
For some industrial facilities, the
types and concentrations of pollutants
in storm water discharges are similar to
the types and concentrations of
pollutants generally found in storm
water discharges from residential and
commercial areas However, storm
water discharges from other industrial
facilities have a significant potential for
higher pollutant levels. In addition,
pollutant loadings per unit area from
some industrial facilities may be high
because of a high degree of
imperviousness
Six activities can be identified 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 inappropriate
management practices: and (6) waste
disposal practices. 4 The potential for
pollution from many of these activities
may be influenced by the presence and
use of toxic chemicals. These activities
are discussed in more detail below.
1. Loading and unloading operations
typically are performed along facility
access roads and railways and at
loading/unloading docks and terminals
These operations include pumping of
liquids or gases from truck or rail car to
a storage 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 may discharge directly to the
storm drainage systems or may
accumulate in soils or on surfaces and
Aipfla.endo s ij lfan
Chiordane
lindane
Haiogenatec Aliphaucs
Metnane, alcnioro-
Phenols arid Cresois
Phenol
Phenol penta ch toro-
Phenoi, 4-aiim
PPIII’ iaiate Esters
Phtptaiate buS (2 -ethyihexyl)
Polycyclpc Aron,atic Hydrocartions
Chrysena
Fiuorarutpi en
PPuenanifl,ene
Pytene
I’or “ .impIi. ‘tee r.iintroulun Urban Runoff
Pr ui , i %tinuai fur I’I.unnung and Designing Urban
tI%ti’. l.’iropu,Lui.in W. hingion Council of
u, rnm,’fli (iilv P487
‘ lSee ‘Best Management Practices’ Useful Toots
for cieaning Up’ Rogoshewski. P 1982. Proceedings
of the 1982 Hazardous Matenal Spilis Conference
‘Manual of Practice On Site identificaiion of Illicit
Connections’. The Cadmus Group. 1990 ‘Design of
Urban Runoff Quality Controls Amencan Society
of Civil Engineers. 1988, ‘Urban Siormwater Qualiiy
Enhancement-Source Control Relrofuttung. and
Combined Sewer Technology’ Tomo Amencan
Society of Civil Engineers. i989 NPDES Best
Management Practices Guidance Document EPA.
1979. ‘Guidelines io Pollution Prevention The
Pesticide Formulaling Industry i990. EPA/623/7—
90/004. Guides io Pollution Prevention The Paint
Manufacturing Industry’ 1990 EPA/625/7—90/005
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Fabricated
Metal Products Industry i990 , EPA/625/7—90/Ol]8
and Analysis of Implementing Permuting Activities
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
industrial Activity EPA. 1991
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41239
be washed away during a storm or
facility washdown.
2. Outdoor storage activities include
the storage of fuels, raw materials.
byproducts, intermediates, final
products and process residuals.
Methods of material storage include
using storage containers (e.g. drums or
tanks), platforms or pads. bins, silos.
boxes, or piles Materials, containers.
and material storage areas that are
exposed to rainfall and/or runoff may
contribute pollutants to storm water
when solid materials wash off or
materials dissolve into solution.
3. Other outdoor activities include
certain types of manufacturing and
commercial operations and land-
disturbing operations. Although many
manufacturing activities are performed
indoors, some activities, such as
equipment maintenance,,ar,id/or
cleaning, timber processn . rock
crushing. vehicle maintenance and/or
cleaning, and concrete mixing, typically
occur outdoors. Processing operations
may result in liquid spillage and losses
of material solids to the drainage system
or surrounding surfaces, or creation of
dusts or mists, which can be deposited
locally. Some outdoor industrial
activities cause substantial physical
disturbance of land surfaces that result
in soil erosion by storm water. For
ecample. disturbed land occurs in
construction and mining. Disturbed land
may result in soil losses and other
pollutant loadings associated with
increased runoff rates. Facilities whose
major process activities are conducted
indoors may still apply chemicals such
as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer
outdoors for a variety of purposes.
4. Dust or particulate generating
processes include industrial activities
with stack emissions or process dusts
that settle on plant surfaces. Localized
atmospheric deposition is a particular
concern with heavy manufacturing
industries. For example, monitoring of
areas surrounding smelting industries
has shown much higher levels of metals
at sites nearest the smelter. Other
industrial sites. such as mines. cement
manufacturing, and refractones,
generate significant levels of dusts.
5. Illicit connections or inappropriate
management practices result in
improper non-storm water discharges to
storm sewer systems. The likelihood of
illicit discharges to storm water
collection systems is expected to be
higher at older facilities, due to past
practices, as well as for facilities that
use high volumes of process water or
dispose of significant amounts of liquid
wastes, including process waste waters.
cooling 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. spills. improper dumping.
and the belief that the absence of visible
solids in a discharge is equivalent to the
absence of pollution Illicit connections
are often associated with floor drains
that are connected to separate storm
sewers. Rinse waters used to clean or
cool objects discharge to floor drains
connected to separate storm sewers.
Large amounts of rinse waters may
originate from industries that use regular
washdown procedures: for example.
bottling plants use rinse waters for
removing waste products. debris, and
labels. Rinse waters can be used to cool
materials by dipping. washing. or
spraying objects with cool water, for
example. rinse water is sometimes
sprayed over the final products of a
metal plating facility for cooling
purposes. Condensate return lines of
heat exchangers often discharge to floor
drains. Heat exchangers, particularly
those used under stressed conditions
(such as exposure to corrosive fluids)
such as in the metal finishing and
electroplating industry, may develop
pinhole leaks that result in
contamination of condensate by process
wastes, Th se and other non-storm
water discharges to a storm sewer may
be intentional. based on the belief that
the discharge (condensate in the
example previously discussed) does not
contain pollutants. or they may be
inadvertent, if the operator is unaware
that a floor drain is connected to the
storm sewer
8 Waste management practices
include temporary storage of waste
materials, operating landfills, waste
piles. and land application sites that
involve land disposal Outdoor waste
treatment operations also include waste
water and solid waste treatment and
disposal processes. such as waste
pumping, additions of treatment
chemicals, mixing. aeration.
clarification, and solids dewatering
Facilities often conduct some waste
management on site
Coal Pile Runoff
The following description of coal pile
runoff is summarized from the “Final
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category”
(EPA-440/ ’i--82/o29), EPA. November
1982. A more complete description of
coal pile runoff can be found in the
development document
The pollutants in coal pile runoff can
be classified into specific types
according to chemical characteristics.
Each type relates to the pH of the coal
pile drainage. The pH tends to be of an
acidic nature, primarily as a result of the
oxidation of iron sulfide in the presence
of oxygen and water The potential
influence of pH on the ability of toxic
and heavy metals to leach from coal
piles is of particular concern Many of
the metals are amphoteric with regard to
their solubility behavior. These factors
affect acidity. pH. and the subsequent
leaching of trace metals
• Concentration and form of pyritic
sulfur in coal:
• Size of the coal pile:
• Method of coal preparation and
clearing prior to storage:
• Climatic conditions. including
rainfall and temperature.
• Concentrations of calcium
carbonate and other neutralizing
substances in the coal:
• Concentration and form of trace
metals in the coal; and
• The residence time of water in the
coal pile.
Coal piles can generate runoff with
low pH values, with the acid values
being quite variable, The suspended
solids levels can be significant, with
levels of 2.500 mg/I not uncommon,
Metals present in the greatest
concentrations are copper. iron.
aluminum, nickel, and zinc. Others
present in trace amounts include
chromium, cadmium, mercury. arsenic.
selenium, and beryllium
Ill. Coverage of General Permits
These final general permits may
authorize all new and existing
discharges composed of storm water
associated with industrial activity To
be authorized under today’s general
permit, the owner or operator of a
facility with a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity must
submit a Notice of Intent (NOl) to be
covered, using an NOt form (or
photocopy thereofi provided by the
Director Unless notified by the Director
to the contrary. owners or operators
who submit such notification are
authorized to discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity under
the terms and conditions of this permit
Upon review of the NOl, the Director
may deny coverage under this permit
and require submittal of an application
for an individual National Pollutant
A more complete descnpiion of poliutanie in
coai piie runoff ii provided in the FIn i
Development Documeni for Effluent Limitaiions
Guidelines and Standards and Preireatment
Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source
Caiegorv (EPA—44o/1—8a/o si. EPA November
1982
-------
41240
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday , September 9. 1992 / Notices
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.
Dischargers that have previously
submitted an individual permit
application or participated in a group
application are not precluded from
submitting an NOl to obtain coverage
under todays general permits.
Seven types of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
not authorized by and may not be
covered by todays general permit. Each
of these is discussed in turn below:
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are mixed
with sources of non-storm water other
than discharges that are either (1) in
compliance with a different NPDES
permit or (2) identified in the permit as
being a class of non-storm water
discharge that can be authorized by the
permit and comply with the
requirements of the permit.
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are subject
to an existing effluent limitation
guideline for storm water or a
combination of storm water and process
water ‘
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from facilities
with an existing NPDES individual or
general permit for the storm water
discharges. Storm water discharges that
are authorized by an existing NPDES
individual or general permit may be
authorized by this permit after the
existing permit expires, provided that
the permit did not establish numeric
limitations for such discharges. In
addition, storm water discharges that
are not covered by an existing NPDES
permit may be authorized by this permit
even where other storm water
discharges from the same facility are
covered by a different NPDES permit:
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from
construction activities: 7
‘For the purpose of this permit. the following
effluent limitations guidelines address alarm water
or a combinailon of storm water end process water
cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411). feedlots (40
CFR 412). fertilizer manufacturing (40 CFR 418):
petroleum refining (40 CFR 419). phosphate
manufacturing (40 CFR 422): steam electric (40 CFR
423). coal mining (40 CFR 434): mineral mining and
processing (40 CFR 438)’ ore mining and dressing [ 40
CFR 440). and asphait emulsion (40 CFR 443). This
permit may authorize storm water discharges
associated with indusinal activity that are not
subject to an efilueni limitation guideline even
where a different storm water discharge at the
facility is subject to an effluent limitation guideline
EPA is in the process of issuing separate general
permits for storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction activities In
aituationa where construction activitie, occur at an
existing industrial facility or where industrial
activities addressed by 40 CFR 122 26 (b) (i) through
(ix ) or (xi). such is asphalt plants and concrete
plants are employed at a construction site he
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that the Director
has determined to be or may reasonably
expect to be contributing to a violation
of a water quality standard;
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that may
adversely affect a listed or proposed to
be listed endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat; and
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from inactive
mining, inactive landfills, or Inactive oil
and gas operations occurring on Federal
lands where an operator cannot be
identified.
IV. Summary of Permit Conditions
The conditions of today’s general
permits have been designed to comply
with the technology-based standards of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
general permits contain a prohibition on
discharging sources of non-storm water.
requirements for releases of hazardous
substances or oil in excess of reporting
quantities. a set of tailored requirements
for developing and implementing storm
water pollution prevention plans.
monitoring requirements for selected
discharges. and numeric effluent
limitations for coal pile runoff.
A. Notification Requirements
General permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity muat require the submittal of an
NO! prior to the authorization of such
discharges (see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i),
April 2. 1992. (57 FR 11394fl. Consistent
with these regulatory requirements,
today’s general permits establish NO!
requirements that operate instead of
individual permit application
requirements.
Dischargers submitting an NO! must
use the form provided by the Director
(or photocopy thereofl. A copy of the
NOl and accompanying instructions are
provided iii appendix C. NO! forms are
also generally available from the Storm
Water Hotllne ((703) 821—4823) and
appropriate EPA Regional offices (see
the Regional Offices section of today’s
notice).
1. Contents of NOls
The NO! must include the following
information:
Name, mailing address. and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. Where a
mailing address for the site is not
storm water discharge associated with industrial
activity from the industrial ucii’.ity r,ddreqsed by 40
CFR 122 28(b) Ii) through ii) or lxi) i.jn be
authorized by the permit addressed by this fact
aheei
available, the location can be described
in terms of the latitude and longitude of
the facility to the nearest 15 seconds
that the facility is located in:
• Up to four 4-digit Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that
best represent the principal products or
activities provided by the facility or for
hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facilities, land disposal
facilities that receive or have received
any industrial waste, steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage. a
narrative identification of those
activities:
• The operator’s name, address.
telephone number, and status as
Federal, State. private. public, or other
entity:
• The permit number of any NPDES
permit for any discharge (including non-
storm water discharges) from the site
that is currently authorized by an
NPDES permit;
• The name of the receiving water(s),
or if the discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer
and the receiving water(s) for the
discharge through the municipal
separate storm sewec
• An indication of whether the owner
or operator has existing quantitative
data describing the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges
(existing data should not be included as
part of the NO!):
• An indication as to whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process. 8 Where a
facility has participated in a group
application, the number EPA assigned to
the group application shall be supplied:
and
• For any facility that begins to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity after October 1, 1992.
a certification that a storm water
pollution prevention plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
with Part IV of this permit. (A copy of
the plan should not be included with the
NO! submission).
The NO! must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 122.22. A
complete description of these signatory
requirements are provided in the
instructions accompanying the NO! (see
appendix C). Completed NO! forms must
be submitted to the Director of the
NPDES program in care of the following
‘Aa discussed above discharger, that have
previously participated in a group applicauon are
not precluded from submitting an NOt to be covered
by today s permits
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday , September 9. 1992 / Notices
41241
address: Storm Water Notices of Intent.
P.O Box 1215, Newington, VA 22122.
2. Deadlines
Except for the special circumstances
discussed below, dischargers who
intend to obtain coverage under today’s
general permit for a storm water
discharge from an industrial activity
that is in existence prior to October 1,
1992, must submit an NO! on or before
October 1. 1992. and facilities that begin
industrial activities after October 1,
1992. are required to submit an NO! at
least 2 days prior to the commencement
of the new industrial activity.
Oil and gas exploration, production,
processing, or treatment operations or
transmission facilities that are not
required to submit a permit application
as of October 1. 1992. in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii) but that
have a discharge after October 1. 1992,
of a reportable quantily of oil or a
hazardous substance for which
notification is required pursuant to 40
CFR 110.6. 40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6
are required to submit an NO! within 14
calendar days of the first knowledge of
such release.
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from any facility
owned or operated by a municipality
that has participated in a timely part 1
group application and where either the
group application is rejected or the
municipally owned or operated facility
is denied participation in the group
application by EPA must submit an NO!
on or before the 180th day following the
date on which the group is rejected or
the denial is made, or on or before
October 1. 1992. whichever is later. This
deadline is consistent with section
1068(b) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
A discharger is not precluded from
submitting an NO! at a later date.
However, in such instances, EPA may
bring appropriate enforcement actions.
EPA may deny coverage under this
permit and require submittal of an
individual NPDES permit application
based on a review of the completeness
and/or content of the NOt or other
information (e.g.. water quality
information, compliance history, history
of spills. etc.). Where EPA require a
discharger authorized under the general
permit to apply for an individual NPDES
permit or an alternative general permit.
EPA will notify the discharger in writing
that a permit application is required.
Coverage under this general permit will
automatically terminate if the discharger
Iails to submit the required permit
application in a timely manner Where
the discharger does submit a requested
permit application, coverage under this
general permit will automatically
terminate on the effective date of the
issuance or denial of the individual
NPDES permit or the alternative general
permit as it applies to the individual
permittee.
3. Additional Notification
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
discharge through a large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer
system’ must. in addition to submitting
an NO! to the Director, submit a copy of
the NO! to the municipal operator of the
system receiving the discharge.
4. Notice of Termination
Where a discharger is able to
eliminate the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
a facility, the discharger may submit a
Notice of Termination (NOT) form (or
photocopy thereof) provided by the
Director. This will assist EPA in tracking
the status of the discharger.
A copy of the NOT and instructions
for completing the NOT are provided in
appendix D of today’s notice The NOT
form requires the following information:
Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted Where a street
address for the site is not available, the
location of the approximate center of the
site must be described in terms of the
latitude and longitude to the nearest 15
seconds, or the section. township and
range to the nearest quarter;
• The name, address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Termination,
• The NPDES permit number for the
storm water discharge associated with
Industrial activity identified by the
NOT;
• An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges has
changed: and
• The following certification:
“I certify under penalty of law that all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified facility
that are authonzed by a NPDES general
permit have been eliminated or thai I am no
longer the operator of the facility or
construction site. I understand that by
submitting this Notice of Termination. I am
no longer authorized to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
‘The term, large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems (sy.ten , .erving a pupulation
of or more) are defined at 40 CFR 122 28(b)
(4) and (7) Some of the cities and counties in which
these systems ore found are listed in Appendices F
C. H and 11040 CFR part 122 Other larg and
medium system, have been designated b) EPA on a
case.bv.ca.e bouts
under this general permit and that
discharging pollutants in storm water
associated with industrial activity to waters
of the United States is unlawful under the
Clean Water Act where the discharge is not
authorized by a NPDES permit I also
understand that the submittal of this notice of
termination does not release an operator
from liability For any violations of this permit
or the Clean Water Act
NOTs are to be sent to the Director of
the NPDES program in care of the
following address: Storm Water Notice
of Termination. P0 Box 1185.
Newingtori. Virginia 22122.
The NOT must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 122.22. A
complete description of these signatory
requirements is provided in the
instructions accompanying the NOT (see
appendix D).
B. Special Conditions
1. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
Today’s general permits do not
authorize non-storm water discharges
that are mixed with storm water except
as provided below. Non-storm water
discharges that can be authorized under
today’s permits include discharges from
fire fighting activities; fire hydrant
flushings. potable water sources,
including waterline flushrngs; irrigation
drainage: lawn watering; routine
external building washdown without
detergents. pavement washwaters
where spills or leaks of toxic or
hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been
removed) and where detergents are not
used. air conditioning condensate:
springs; uncontaminated ground water,
and foundation or footing drains where
flows are not contaminated with process
materials such as solvents that are
combined with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
To be authorized under the general
permits, these sources of non-storm
water (except flows from fire fighting
activities) must be identified iii the
storm water pollution prevention plan
prepared for the facility (Plans and
other plan requirements are discussed in
more detail below). Where such
discharges occur, the plan must also
identify and ensure the implementation
of appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
component(s) of the discharge. For
example, to reduce pollutants in
imgation drainage, a plan could identify
low maintenance lawn areas that do not
require the use of fertilizers or
herbicides. for higher maintenance lawn
areas, a plan could identify measures
-------
41242
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
such as limiting fertilizer use based on
seasonal and agronomic considerations,
decreasing herbicide use with an
integrated pest management program,
introducing natural vegetation or more
hardy species. and reducing water use
(thereby reducing the volume of
irrigation drainage).
Today s permits do not require
pollution prevention measures to be
identified and implemented for non-
storm water flows from fire-fighting
activities because these flows will
generally be unplanned emergency
situations where it is necessary to take
immediate action to protect the public.
The prohibition on unpermitted non-
storm water discharges in these permits
ensures that non-storm water discharges
(except for those classes of non-storm
water discharges that are conditionally
authorized) are not inadvertently
authorized by these permits. Where a
storm water discharge is mixed with
non-storm water that is not authorized
by today’s general permits or another
NPDES permit. the discharger should
submit the appropriate application
forms (Forms 1. 2C. and/or 2E) to gain
coverage of the non-storm water portion
of the discharge.
2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil
These general permits provide that the
discharge of hazardous substances or oil
from a facility must be eliminated or
minimized in accordance with the storm
water pollution plan developed for the
facility. Where a permitted storm water
discharge contains a hazardous
substance or oil in an amount equal to
or in excess of a reporting quantity
established under 40 CFR 110. 40 CFR
117. or 40 CFR 302 during a 24 hour
period, the following actions must be
taken:
Any person in charge of the facility
is required to notify the National
Response Center (NRC) (800—424—8802:
in the Washington, DC. metropolitan
area. 202-”426- ’2675) in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 110. 40 FR
117, and 40 CFR 302 as soon as they
have knowledge of the discharge;
• The storm water pollution
prevention plan for the facility must be
modified within 14 calendar days of
knowledge of the release to provide a
description of the release, an account of
the circumstances leading to the release,
and the date of the release. In addition.
the plan must be reviewed to identify
measures to prevent the reoccurrence of
such releases and to respond to such
releases, and it must be modified where
appropriate
• The permittee must also submit to
EPA within 14 calendar days of
knowledge of the release a written
description of the release (including the
type and estimate of the amount of
material released), the date that such
release occurred, the circumstances
leading to the release, and steps to be
taken to modify the pollution prevention
plan for the facility.
Anticipated discharges containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of reporting
quantities are those caused by events
occurring within the scope of the
relevant operating system. Facilities that
have more than one anticipated
discharge per year containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reportable
quantity are required to:
• Submit notifications for the first
release that occurs during a calendar
year (or for the first year of this permit,
after submittal of an NOl): and
• Provide a written description in the
storm water pollution prevention plan of
the dates on which such releases
occurred, the type and estimate of the
amount of material released, and the
circumstances leading to the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
identify measures to minimize such
releases and the plan must be modified
where appropriate.
Where a discharge of a hazardous
substance or oil in excess of reporting
quantities is caused by a nonstorm
water discharge (e.g., a spill of oil into a
separate storm sewer), that discharge is
not authorized by this permit and the
discharger must report the discharge as
required under 40 CFR 110. 40 CFR 117.
or 40 CFR 302. In the event of a spill, the
requirements of section 311 of the CWA
and other applicable provisions of
sections 301 and 402 of the CWA
continue to apply. This approach is
consistent with the requirements for
reporting releases of hazardous
substances and oil that make a clear
distinction between hazardous
substances typically found in storm
water discharges and those associated
with spills that are not considered part
of a normal storm water discharge (see
40 CFR 117 12 (d)(2)(ifl.
C. Tailored Pollution Prevention Plan
Requirements
All facilities covered by today’s
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must prepare and implement a
storm water pollution prevention plan.
The storm water permits address
pollution prevention plan requirements
for a number of categories of industries,
including: Baseline requirements for all
industries: special requirements for
certain facilities subject to Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) section 313; special
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems: and
special requirements for facilities with
outdoor salt storage piles. These tailored
requirements allow the implementation
of site-specific measures that address
features, activities, or priorities for
control associated with the identified
storm water discharges. This framework
provides the necessary flexibility to
address the variable risk for pollutants
in storm water discharges associated
with the different types of industrial
activity addressed by these permits.
This approach also assures that
facilities have the opportunity to
identify procedures to prevent storm
water pollution at a particular site that
are appropriate, given processes
employed, engineering aspects.
functions, costs of controls, location.
and age of the facility (as contemplated
by 40 CFR 125.3). The approach taken
also allows the flexibility to establish
controls that can appropriately address
different sources of pollutants at
different facilities.
The pollution prevention approach
adopted in today’s general permits
focuses on these two major objectives:
(1) To identify sources of pollution
potentially affecting the quality of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the facility; and
(2) to describe and ensure
implementation of practices to minimize
and control pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from the facility and to ensure
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit.
The storm water pollution prevention
plan requirements in the general permit
are intended to facilitate a process
whereby the operator of the industrial
facility thoroughly evaluates potential
pollution sources at the site and selects
and implements appropriate measures
designed to prevent or control the
discharge of pollutants in storm water
runoff. The process involves the
following four steps: (1) Formation of a
team of qualified plant personnel who
will be responsible for preparing the
plan and assisting the plant manager in
its implementation. (2) assessment of
potential storm water pollution sources.
(3) selection and implementation of
appropriate management practices and
controls, and (4) periodic evaluation of
the ability of the plan to prevent storm
water pollution and comply with the
terms and conditions of this permit.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41243
EPA believes the pollution prevention
approach is the most environmentally
sound and cost-effective way to control
the discharge of pollutants in storm
water runoff From industrial facilities.
This position is supported by the results
c i a comprehensive technical survey
EPA completed in 1979.’° The survey
found that there are two classes of
management practices industry uses to
conirol the non-routine discharge of
pollutants from sources such as storm
water runoff, drainage from raw
material storage and waste disposal
areas, and discharges from places where
spt 1 is or leaks have occurred. The first
class of management practices includes
those that are low in cost, applicable to
a broad class of industries and
substances, and generally are
considered essential !o a good pollution
control program. Some examples of
practices in this class are good
housekeeping. employee training, and
spill prevention procedures. The second
class includes management practices
that provide a second line of defense
against the release of pollutants This
class addresses containment. mitigation.
cleanup, and treatment.
Since publication of the 1979 survey.
EPA has imposed management practices
and controls in NPDES permits on a
case-by-case basis. The Agency also has
continued to review the appropriateness
and effectiveness of such practices. tt as
well as the techniques used to prevent
and contain oil spills.’ 2 Experience with
these practices and controls has shown
that they can be used in permits to
reduce pollutant discharges in storm
water in a cost-effective manner EPA
has developed guidance entitled “Storm
Water Management for Industrial
Activities. Developing Pollution
Prevention Plans and Best Management
Practices”, EPA, 1992 to assist
permittees in developing and
° See NPIJES Be i Management Practices
Guidance Document U $ EPA December 1979
EP -6m/9-;p-o45
For example see Beat Management Pracitces
Useful ‘loots for Cleaning Up Thron H
Rogoshewski P 1982 Proceedings of the 1982
Hazardous Material SptIIa Conference The
Chemical Industries Approach to Spill Pre eniion
Thompson C Coodier 1980 Proceedings of the
1980 National Conference of Control of Hazardous
Matet tale Spills a series ol EPA memorandum
entitled Beat Management Practices in NPDES
Permits—Informattoni Memorandum i983 1985
1988 1987 1988 Revtew of Emergency Syatema
Report to Congreas EPA. 1988 and ‘Analysis or
Implementing Permuting Acitvittea for Storm Water
Discharges A sociaied with Industrial Activity
EPA. 1991
See for example The Oil Spill Prevention
Control and CounierTneasures Program Task Force
Report EPA 1988 and Guidance Manual (ci the
Des elopnient of an Accidental Spill Prevention
Program prepared by SAIC for EPA. 1988
implementing pollution prevention
measures.
1. Pollution Prevention Team
As a first step in the process of
developing and implementing a storm
water pollutton prevention plan.
perrnittees must identify a qualified
indi’ idual or learn of individuals to be
responsible for developing the plan and
assisting the facility or plant manager in
its implementation When selecting
members of the learn, the plant manager
should draw on the expertise of all
relevant departments within the plant to
ensure that all aspects of plant
operations are considered when the plan
is developed. The plan must clearly
describe the responsibilities of each
team member as they relate to specific
components of the plan. In addition to
enhancing the quality of communication
between team members and other
personnel. clear delineation of
responsibilities will ensure that every
aspect of the plan is addressed by a
specified individual or group of
individuals. Pollution Prevention Teams
may consist of one individual where
appropriate (e g. in certain small
businesses with limited storm water
pollution potential).
2. Description of Potential Pollution
Sources
Each storm water pollution prevention
plan must describe activities, materials,
and physical features of the facility that
may contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to storm water runoff or.
during periods of dry weather, result in
pollutant discharges through the
separate storm sewers or storm water
drainage systems that drain the facility.
This assessment of storm water
pollution risk will support subsequent
efforts to identify and set priorities for
necessary changes in materials.
materials management practices. or site
features, as well as aid in the selection
of appropriate structural and
nonstructural control techniques Plans
must describe the following elements
a. Drainage The plan must contain a
map of the site that shows the pattern of
storm water drainage structural
features that control poliutaists in
runoff.ia surface water bodies (including
wetlands). places where significant
materials ‘ are exposed to rainfall and
Nonatruciural fniiture, tuch as grass swates
and vegetative boiler strips also should be ihown
iS Signtflcant materials include but are noi
limited to the foUowing raw materials fuels
sotsenis detergents and plautic polk-is finished
rnaieriais such as metallic products ras materials
uaed in food processing tic production hazardous
aubsiance. designated under section rniiii) ot its
Comprehenat’. e En imonmentat Response
runoff. atid locations of major spills and
leaks that occurred in the 3 years prior
to the effective date of this permit The
map also must show areas where the
following activities take place Fueling.
vehicle and equipment maintenance
and/or cleaning, loading and unloading.
material storage (including tanks or
other vessels used for liquid or waste
storage), material processing. and waste
disposal. For areas of the facility that
generate storm water discharges with a
reasonable potential to contain
significant amounts of pollutants. the
map must indicate the probable
direction of storm water flow and the
pollutants likely to be in the discharge
Flows with a significant potential to
cause soil erosion also must be
identified.
b Inventory of exposed materials.
Facility operators are required to
carefully conduct an inspection of the
site and related records to identify
significant materials that are or may be
exposed to storm water. The inventory
must address materials that within 3
years prior to the effective date of the
permit have been handled, stored,
processed. treated, or disposed of in a
manner to allow exposure to storm
water Findings of the inventory must be
documented in detail in the pollution
prevention plan. At a minimum, the plan
must describe the methods and location
of on-site storage or disposal. practices
used to minimize contact of materials
with rainfall and runoff existing
structural and rionstructural controls
that reduce pollutants in runoff, and any
treatment the runoff receives before it is
discharged to surface waters or a
separate storm sewer system. The
description must be updated whenever
there is a significant change in the types
or amounts of materials, or material
management practices. that may affect
the exposure of materials to storm
water
c Significant spills and leaks. The
plan must include a list of any
significant spills and leaks of toxic or
hazardous pollutants that occurred in
the 3 years prior to the effective date of
the permit Significant spiil include, but
are not limited to. releases of oil or
hazardous substances in excess of
quantities that are reportable under
section 311 of CWA (see 40 CFR 11010
and 117 22) or section 102 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability
Compensation and Liability Act ICERCLA1 any
chemical ihe fjci1ii is required to repori pursuant
iii EPCRA Section :i13 fertilizers pesticides d Od
waste products such as ashes stag and sludge thai
have the potential to he released with storm water
discharges ISee 40 CF’R 122 26 1h1 181l
-------
41244
! ral Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
Act (CERCLA) (see 40 302.4). SignifIcant
spills may also include releases of oil or
hazardous substances that are not in
excess of reporting requirements and
releases of materials that are not
classified as oil or a hazardous
substance.
The listing should include a
description of the causes of each spilt or
teak, the actions taken to respond to
each release, and the actions taken to
prevent similar such spills or leaks in
the future. This effort will aid the facility
operator as she or he examines existing
spill prevention and response
procedures and develops any additional
procedures necessary to fulfill the
requirements of part IV D.3 c. of this
permit.
d. Non-storm water discharges Each
pollution prevention plan must include a
certification, signed by an authorized
individual, that discharges from the site
have been tested or evaluated for the
presence of non-storm water discharges.
The certification must describe possible
significant sources of non-storm water.
the results of any test and/or evaluation
conducted to detect such discharges. the
test method or evaluation criteria used.
the dates on which tests or evaluat:ons
were performed. and the on-site
drainage points directly observed during
the test or evaluation. Acceptable test or
evaluation techniques include dye tests.
television surveillance, observation of
outfalls or other appropriate locations
during dry weather, water balance
calculations. and analysis of piping and
drainage schematics t5
Except for flows that originate from
fire fighting activities, sources of non-
storm water that are specifically
identified in the permit as being eligible
for authonzation under the general
permit must be identified in the plan.
Pollution prevention plans must identify
and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
discharge.
EPA recognizes that certification may
not be feasible where facility personnel
do not have access to an outfall.
manhole, or other point of access to the
conduit that ultimately receives the
discharge. In such cases, the plan must
describe why certification was not
feasible. Permittees who are not able to
certify that discharges have been tested
or evaluated must notify the Director in
accordance with part V1.A. of the
permit.
I In general smoke tests should not be used For
ewaiu.iting the discharge of non storm water to a
separate storm sewPr is many sources of non storm
water typtc.tiiv p.tss through a trap that would limit
the effectiveness of the smoke teit
e. Sampling data. Any existing data
on the quality or quantity of storm water
discharges from the facility must be
described in the plan. These data may
be useful for locating areas that have
contributed pollutants to storm water.
The description should include a
discussion of the methods used to
collect and analyze the data. Sample
collection points should be identified in
the plan and shown on the site map.
f Risk identification and summary of
potential pollutant sources. The
description of potential pollution
sources culminates in a narrative
assessment of the nsk potential that
sources of pollution pose to storm water
quality. This assessment should clearly
point to activities, materials, and
physical features of the facility that
have a reasonable potential to
contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to storm water Any such
activities, materials, or features must be
addressed by the measures and controls
subsequently described in the plan. In
conducting the assessment, the facility
operator must consider the following
activities, loading and unloading
operations: outdoor storage activities:
outdoor manufacturing or processing
activities, significant dust or particulate
generating processes; and on-site waste
disposal practices. The assessment must
list any significant pollution sources at
the site and identify the pollutant
parameter or parameters (i.e..
biochemical oxygen demand, suspended
solids. etc.) associated with each source
3 Measures and Controls
Following completion of the source
identification and assessment phase. the
permittee must evaluate, select, and
describe the pollution prevention
measures, best management practices
(BMPs). and other controls that will be
implemented at the facility BMPs
include processes. procedures.
schedules of activities, prohibitions on
practices. and other management
practices that prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants in storm water
runoff.
EPA emphasizes the implementation
of pollution prevention measures and
BMPs that reduce possible pollutant
discharges at the source. Source
reduction measures include, among
others, preventive maintenance.
chemical substitution, spill prevention.
good housekeeping. training, and proper
materials management Where such
practices are not appropriate to a
particular source or do not effectively
reduce pollutant discharges. EPA
supports the use of source control
measures and BMPs such as material
segregation or covering, water diversion.
and dust control. Like source reduction
measures, source control measures and
BMPs are intended to keep pollutants
out of storm water. The remaining
classes of BMPs. which involve
recycling or treatment of storm water,
allow the reuse of storm water or
attempt to lower pollutant
concentrations prior to discharge.
The pollution prevention plan must
discuss the reasons each selected
control or practice is appropriate for the
facility and how each will address one
or more of the potential pollution
sources identified in part IV D.2. of the
plan. The plan also must include a
schedule specifying the time or times
during which each control or practice
will be implemented. In addition, the
plan should discuss ways in which the
controls and practices relate to one
another and. when taken as a whole,
produce an integrated and consistent
approach for preventing or controlling
potential storm water contamination
problems. The portion of the plan that
describes the measures and controls
must address the following minimum
components.
a Good housekeeping. Good
housekeeping involves using common
sense to identify ways to maintain a
clean and orderly facility and keep
contaminants out of separate storm
sewers. It includes establishing
protocols to reduce the possibility of
mishandling chemicals or equipment
and training employees in good
housekeeping techniques. These
protocols must be described in the plan
and communicated to appropriate plant
personnel.
b. Preventive maintenance Permittees
must develop a preventive maintenance
program that involves regular inspection
and maintenance of storm water
management devices and other
equipment and systems. The program
description should identify the devices.
equipment. and systems that will be
inspected: provide a schedule for
inspections and tests; and address
appropriate adjustment. cleaning, repair.
or replacement of devices, equipment.
and systems. For storm water
management devices such as catch
basins and oil/water separators. the
preventive maintenance program should
provide for periodic removal of debris to
ensure that the devices are operating
efficiently. For other equipment and
systems. the program should reveal and
enable the correction of conditions that
could cause breakdowns or failures that
may result in the release of pollutants.
c Spill prevention and response
procedures. Based on an assessment of
possible spill scenarios. permittees must
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41245
specify appropriate material handling
procedures, storage requirements.
containment or diversion equipment.
and spill cleanup procedures that will
minimize the potential for spills and in
the event of a spill enable proper and
timely response. Areas and activities
that typically pose a high risk for spills
include loading and unloading areas.
storage areas, process activities, and
waste disposal activities. These
activities and areas, and their
accompanying drainage points, must be
described in the plan. For a spill
prevention and response program to be
effective, employees should clearly
understand the proper procedures and
requirements and have the equipment
necessary to respond to spiiis.
d. Inspections In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation, qualified facility personnel
must be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan. A set of tracking or followup
procedures must be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in
response to the inspections. Records of
inspections must be maintained.
e. Employee training. The pollution
prevention plan must describe a
program for informing personnel at all
levels of responsibility of the
components and goals of the storm
water pollution prevention plan. The
training program should address topics
such as good housekeeping, materials
management, and spill response
procedures. A schedule for conducting
training must be provided in the plan.
Where appropriate, contractor
personnel also must be trained in
relevant aspects of storm water
pollution prevention.
f. Recordkeep:ng and internal
reporting procedures. The pollution
prevention plan must describe
procedures for developing and retaining
records on the status and effectiveness
of plan implementation. At a minimum.
records must address spiiis, monitoring,
and inspection and maintenance
activities. The plan also must describe a
system that enables timely reporting of
storm water management-related
information to ap7ropriate plant
personnel.
g. Sediment and erosion control. The
pollution prevention plan must identify
areas that, due to topography, activities,
soils. cover materials, or other factors
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion. The plan mu8t identify
measures that will be implemented to
limit erosion in these areas.
h. Management of runoff The plan
must contain a narrative evaluation of
the appropriateness of traditional storm
water management practices (i e..
practices other than those that control
pollutant sources) that divert, infiltrate.
reuse, or otherwise manage storm waler
runoff so as to reduce the discharge of
pollutants Appropriate measures may
include. among others, vegetative
swales. collection and reuse of storm
water, inlet controls, snow management.
infiltration devices, and wet detention/
retention basins.
Based on the results of the evaluation.
the plan must identify practices that the
permittee determines are reasonable
and appropriate for the facility. The plan
also should describe the particular
pollutant source area or activity to be
controlled by each storm water
management practice. Reasonable and
appropriate practices must be
implemented and maintained according
to the provisions prescribed in the plan.
In selecting storm water management
measures, it is Important to consider the
potential effects of each method on
other water resources. such as ground
water. Although storm water pollution
prevention plans primarily focus on
storm water management. facilities must
also consider potential ground water
pollution problems and take appropriate
steps to avoid adversely impacting
ground water quality. For example. if the
water table is unusually high in an area.
an infiltration pond may contaminate a
ground water source unless special
preventive measures are taken. Under
EPA’s July 1991 Ground Water
Protection Strategy, States are
encouraged to develop Comprehensive
Slate Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSGWPP). Efforts to control
storm water should be compatible with
State ground water objectives as
reflected in CSGWPPs,
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation
The storm water pollution prevention
plan must describe the scope and
content of comprehensive site
inspections that qualified personnel will
conduct to (1) confirm the accuracy of
the description of potential pollution
sources contained in the plan. (2)
determine the effectiveness of the plan.
and (3) assess compliance with the
terms and conditions of the permit. The
plan must indicate the frequency of such
evaluation which in most cases must be
at least once a year. ’ 6 The individual or
“Where annual site inspection. are shown in ihe
plan to be impeactical for maclive mining site, due
to remote location and inacceaaibiltty aite
inepections must be conducted at least once every
ihree years However at iea t one inspection must
take piece before October 1. 1994 For minins site.
that become inociive after October 1 1894, ihe first
individuals who will conduct the
inspections must be identified in the
plan and should be members of the
pollution prevention team
Material handling and storage areas
and other potential sources of pollution
must be visually inspected for evidence
of actual or potential pollutant
discharges to the drainage system
Inspectors also must observe erosion
controls and structural storm water
management devices to ensure that each
is operating correctly Equipment
needed to implement the pollution
prevention plan. such as that used
during spill response activities, must be
inspected to confirm that it is in proper
working order
The results of each site inspection
must be documented in a report signed
by an authorized company official The
report must describe the scope of the
inspection, the personnel making the
inspection, the date(s) of the inspection,
and any major observations relating to
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan Inspection
reports must be retained for at least
three years after the date that the permit
expires.
Based on the results of each
inspection, the description of potential
pollution sources in part lV.D.2. and
measures and controls in part lV.D.3 of
the plan must be revised as appl’opriate
within two weeks after each inspection
Changes in the measures and controls
must be implemented on the site in a
timely manner, and never more than 12
weeks after completion of the
inspection.
D. Special Requirements
1. EPCR.A Section 313
Today’s permits establish special
requirements for certain permittees
subject to reporting requirements under
section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community.Right.to-Kriow Act
(EPCRA) (also known as title III of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reattthonzation Act (SARA)), EPCRA
section 313 requires operators of certain
facilities that manufacture (including
import), process. or otherwise use listed
toxic chemicals to report annually their
releases of those chemicals to any
environmental media. Listed toxic
chemicals include more than 300
chemicals listed at 40 CFR 372.
The criteria for facilities that must
report under section 313 are given at 40
CFR 372.22. A facility is subject to the
annual reporting provisions of section
aite inspection must take piece on the date two
year, .fter such a aite becomes inactive
-------
41246
Federal Register / Vol . 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
313 if it meets all three of the following
criteria for a calendar year
• It is included in Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39:
• It has 10 or more full-time
employees: and
• It manufactures (including imports).
processes, or otherwise uses a chemical
listed in 40 CFR 372.65 in amounts
greater than the “threshold” quantities
specified in 40 CFR 372.25.
There are more than 300 individually
listed Section 313 chemicals, as well as
20 categories of Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) chemicals for which reporting is
required. EPA has the authority to add
to and delete from this list. The Agency
has identified approximately 175
chemicals that it is classifying for the
purposes of this general permit as
“Section 313 water priority chemicals”.
For the purposes of this general permit.
sectIon 313 water priority chemicals are
defined as chemicals or chemical
categories that (1) are listed at 40 CFR
372.85 pursuant to EPCRA section 313;
(2) are manufactured, processed. or
otherwise used at or above threshold
levels at a facility subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements: and
(3) meet at least one of the following
criteria: (i) Are listed in appendix D of
40 CFR part 122 on either Table II
(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 CWA at 40
CFR 116.4; or (iii) are pollutants for
which EPA has published acute or
chronic toxicity criteria. A list of the
water priority chemicals is provided in
addendum B to the permit in appendix
B.
Summary of Special Requirements
The special requirements in today’s
permits for facilities subject to reporting
requirements under EP BA Section 313
for a water priority chemical state that
storm water pollution prevention plans,
in addition to the baseline requirements
for plans. must contain special
provisions addressing areas where
Section 313 water priority chemicals are
stored, processed. or otherwise handled.
The permit provides that appropriate
containment, drainage control, and/or
diversionary structures must be
provided for such areas. At a minimum.
one of the following preventive systems
or its equivalent must be used:
Curbing, culverting, gutters. sewers.
or other forms of drainage control to
prevent or minimize the potential for
storm water run-on to come into contact
with significant sources of pollutants: or
• Roofs. covers, or other forms of
appropriate protection to prevent
storage piles from exposure to storm
water and wind.
In addition, the permit establishes
requirements for priority areas of the
facility. Priority areas of the facility
including the following:
• Liquid storage areas where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment. tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals:
• Material storage areas for section
313 water priority chemicals other than
liquids:
• Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals: and
• Areas where section 313 water
priority chemicals are transferred,
processed. or otherwise handled.
The permit provides that site runoff
from other industrial areas of the facility
that may contain section 313 water
priority chemicals or spills of section 313
water priority chemicals must
incorporate the necessary drainage or
other control features to prevent the
discharge of spilled or improperly
disposed material and to ensure the
mitigation of pollutants in runoff or
leachate. The permit also establishes
special requirements for preventive
maintenance and good housekeeping,
facility security, and employee training.
Storm water pollution prevention
plans for facilities subject to these
special requirements must be reviewed
by a Registered Professional Engineer
(PE). The PE must be able to certify that
the storm water pollution prevention
plan has-been prepared in accordance
with good engineering practices. The PE
must personally examine the facility and
be familiar with the requirements of
today’s permit before making a
certification. The permit requires that a
PE certification be made every three
years. Where significant modifications
are made to the facility, such as the
addition of material handling areas or
chemical storage units, permittees are
required to obtain an additional PE
certification as soon as practicable. The
PE certifications do not relieve the
discharger of the duty to prepare and
implement fully a storm water pollution
prevention plan that is in accordance
with the permit.
Sampling requirements for storm
water discharges from EPCRA section
313 are discussed below Facilities
should review monitoring data and
evaluate pollution prevention measures
suitable for reducing pollutants in
discharges
Requirements for Priority Areas
The permit provides that drainage
from priority areas should be restrained
by valves or other positive means to
prevent the discharge of a spiii or other
excessive leakage of section 313 water
priority chemicals. Where containment
units are employed, such units may be
emptied by pumps or ejectors: however.
these must be manually activated.
Flapper-type drain valves must not be
used to drain containment areas. as
these will not effectively control spills
Valves used for the drainage of
containment areas should. as far as is
practical. be of manual, open-and-closed
design. If facility drainage does not meet
these requirements. the final discharge
conveyance of all in-facility storm
sewers must be equipped to be
equivalent with a diversion system that
could, in the event of an uncontrolled
spill of section 313 water priority
chemicals, return the spilled material or
contaminated storm water to the facility.
Records must be kept of the frequency
and estimated volume [ in gallons) of
discharges from containment areas
Additional special requirements are
related to the types of industrial
activities that occur within the priority
area. These requirements are
summarized below:
• Liquid storage areas. Where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment. tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals. the material and
construction of tanks or containers used
for the storage of a section 313 water
priority chemical must be compatible
with the material stored and conditions
of storage, such as pressure and
temperature. Liquid storage areas for
section 313 water priority chemicals
must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals.
Appropriate measures to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals may
include secondary containment
provided for at least the entire contents
of the largest single tank plus sufficient
freeboard to allow for precipitation, a
strong spill contingency and integrity
testing plan. and/or o .her equivalent
measures. A strong spill contingency
plan would typically contain, at a
minimum, a description of response
plans. personnel needs. and methods of
mechanical containment (such as use of
sorbants. booms, collection devices.
etc). steps to be taken for removal of
spill chemicals or matenals. and
procedures to ensure access to and
availability of sorbents and other
equipment. The testing component of the
plan would provide for conducting
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No . 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 f Notices
integrity testing of storage tanks at set
intervals such as once every five years.
and conducting inte3rity and leak testing
of valves and piping at a minimum
frequency, such as once per year In
addition, a strong plan would include a
written and actual commitment of
manpower. equipment and materials
required to comply with the permit and
to expeditiously control and remove any
quantity of spilled or leaked chemicals
that may result in a toxic discharge.
Other material storage areas.
Material storage areas for section 313
water priority chemicals other than
liquids that are subject to runoff.
leaching. or wind must Incorporate
drainage or other control features to
minimize the discharge of section 313
water priority chemicals by reducing
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals.
Trucic and rail car loading and
unloading areas Truck and rail car
loading and unloading areas for liquid
section 313 water priority chemicals
must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 water priority
chemicals. Appropriate measures to
minimize discharges of section 313
chemicals may include the placement
and maintenance of drip pans (including
the proper disposal of materials
collected in the drip pans) wh2re
spillage may occur (s’uch as hose
connections, hose reels. and filler
nozzles) when making and breaking
hose connections, a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan:
and/or other equivalent measures,
• Other transfer, process, or handling
areas. Processing equipment and
materials handling equipment must be
operated to minimize discharges of
section 313 water priority chemicals.
Materials used in piping and equipment
must be compatible with the substances
handled. Drainage from process and
materials handling areas must minimize
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals. Additional
protection such as covers or guards to
prevent exposure to wind, spraying or
releases from pressure relief vents to
prevent a discharge of section 313 water
priority chemicals to the drainage
system. and overhangs or door skirts to
enclose trailer ends at truck loading/
unloading docks must be provided as
appropriate Visual inspections or leak
tests must be provided for overhead
piping conveying section 313 water
priority chemicals without secondary
containment.
2. Salt Piles
Today’s general permits contain
special requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from salt storage facilities.
Storage piles of salt used for deicing or
other commercial or industrial purposes
must be enclosed or covered to prevent
exposure to precipitation, except for
exposure resulting from adding or
removing materials from the pile This
requirement only applies to runoff from
storage piles discharged to waters of the
United States, Facilities that collect all
of the runoff from their salt piles and
reuse it in their processes or discharge it
subject to a separate NPDES permit do
not need to enclose or cover their piles.
Permittees must comply with this
requirement as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than
three years from the date of permit
issuance,
3 Discharges to Large and Medium
Separate Storm Water Systems
Permittees which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
through large or medium municipal
separate storm water systems 17 are
required to submit a signed copy of their
NO! to the operator of the municipal
separate storm sewer system.
Facilities covered by these permits
must comply with applicable
“Large and medium municipal separate sIorTn
sewer oy tems are s stems located in an
incorporaied cliv with a population of 100 000 or
more, or in a county identified as having a large or
medium system see 40 CFR 122 261b 1(4l and 171 and
appendices F through ho part ifl)
41247
requirements in municipal storm water
management programs developed under
NPDES permits issued for the discharge
of the municipal separate storm sewer
system that receives the facility s
discharge. provided the discharger has
been notified of such conditions In
addition. permittees that discharge
storm water associated with industrial
activity through a municipal separate
storm sewer system serving a
population of 100.000 or more must make
their pollution prevention plans
available to the municipal operator of
the system upon request by the
municipal operator.
4 Coal Piles
Today’s permits establish effluent
limitations of 50 mg/I total suspended
solids and a pH range of 6.0—9.0 for coal
pile runoff Any untreated overflow from
facilities designed. constructed: and
operated to treat the volume of coal pile
runoff associated with a 10 year. 24 hour
rainfall event is not subject to the 50
mg/I limitation for total suspended
solids Permittees must comply with this
requirement as expeditiously as
practicable. but in no event later than
three years from the date of permit
issuance.
E. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
Today’s permits establish discharge
monitoring requirements for certain
classes of industrial facilities. These
monitoring requirements are
summarized in Table 3 For the most
part. special monitoring requirements
are limited to discharges associated
with specific industrial activities at
facilities within the identified class.
such as landfills or coal piles Facilities
with storm water discharges that are
subject to monitoring requirements are
not required to monitor storm water
discharges that are not addressed by a
monitoring requirement so long as the
two discharges are segregated and the
flows do not commingle
BiWNG CODE 65-5O.. I
-------
41248 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Type of
Facility
Type of
Storm Water Discharge
Parame(er
Moai*on.
Freq y
Reparda
Fraqa y
EPCRA,
Section 313
Facilities
Subject to
Reporting
Reqwremeats
for Water
Priority
Chemicals
Storm water discharges that come into
contact with any equipment, tank.
container, or other vessel or area used
for storage of a Section 313 water
priority chemical, or located at a truck
or rail car loading or unloading area
where a Section 313 water priority
chemical is handled
Oil and Grease, BOD5, COD,
TSS. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, pH, acute
whole effluent toxicity, any
Section 313 water priority
chemical for which the facility
reports
Semi-
annual
Annual
Primary Metal
Industries
(SIC 33)
All storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity
Oil and Crease, COD, TSS,
pH, acute whole effluent
toxicity, Total Recoverable
Lead, Total Recoverable
Cadmium, Total Recoverable
Copper, Total Recoverable
Arsenic. Total Recoverable
Chromium, and any pollutant
limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject
Semi-
annual
Annual
Land Disposal
Un itsl
Incuierators/
B IFs
Storm water discharges from active or
inactive land disposal units without a
stabilized cover that have received any
waste from industrial facilities other
than construction sites; and storm water
discharges from incinerators and BIFs
that burn hazardous waste
.
Ammonia. Total Recoverable
Magnesium. Magnesium
(dissolved), Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen. COD, TDS, TOC,
Oil and Crease, pH, Total
Recoverable Arsenic, Total
Recoverable Barium, Total
Recoverable Cadmium, Total
Recoverable Chromium, Total
Cyanide. Total Recoverable
Lead, Total Mercury, Total
Recoverable Selenium, Total
Recoverable Silver, Acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Semi-
annual
Annual
Wood
Treatment
Facilities
Storm water discharges from area.s that
aie used for wood treatment, wood
surface application or storage of treated
or surface protected wood
Facilities that use chlorophenolic
formulations
Facilities that use creosote formulations
Facilities that use chromium-arsenic
formulations
Oil and Grease, pH. COD,
TSS
Plus Pentachlorophenol and
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity
Plus Acute Whole Effluent
Toxicity
Plus Total Recoverable
Arsenic, Total Recoverable
Chromium, Total Recoverable
Copper
Semi-
annual
.
Annual
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices 41249
Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Type of
Facility
Type of
Storm Water Discharge
Parameters
Moiiitorw
Fr IIUeaCI
Raporeni
FrMueacy
Lndustnal
Facilities with
Coal Piles
Storm water discharges from coal pile
runoff
Oil and Grease, pH, TSS,
Total Recoverable Copper,
Total Recoverable Nickel,
Total Recoverable Zinc
Semi-
annual
Annual
Battery
Reclaimers
Storm water discharges from areas for
storage of lead acid batteries,
reclamation products, or waste
products, and areas used for lead acid
battery reclamation
Oil and Grease, COD, TSS,
pH, Total Recoverable Copper,
Total Recoverable Lead
Semi-
annual
Annual
Airports
(with over
50,000 flight
operations per
y )
Storm waler discharges from aircraft or
airport deicing areas
.
.
Oil and Grease, BOD5, COD,
TSS, pH, and the pnmary
ingredient used in the deicing
matenals
Annual
Retain
onsite
Coal-fired
Steam Electric
Facilities
Storm water discharges from coal
handling sites (other than runoff from
coal pile.s which is not eligible for
coverage under this permit)
Oil and Grease, pH, TSS,
Total Recoverable Copper,
Total Recoverable Nickel.
Total Recoverable Zinc
Annual
Retain
onsite
Animal
Handling!
Meat Packing
Facilities
Storm water discharges from animal
handling areas, manure management
areas, production waste management
areas exposed to precipitation at meat
packing plants, poultry packing plants,
facilities that manufacture animal and
marine fats and oils
BOD5, Oil and Grease, COD,
TSS, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN), Total Phosphorus. pH,
Fecal Coliform

Annual
Retain
ons ite
Chemical and
Allied Product
Manufacturers!
Rubber
Manufacturers
(SIC 28 and
30)
Storm water discharges that come into
contact with solid chemical storage piles
Oil and Grease, COD, TSS,
pH. any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
A.nnual
Retain
onsite
Automobile
Junkyazds
Storm water discharges exposed to:
(a) over 250 auto/truck bodies with
dnveluies, 250 drivelines, or any
combination thereof
(b) over 500 auto/truck units
(c) over 100 units dismantled per year
where automotive fluids are drained or
stored
Oil and Grease, COD, TSS,
pH, any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility as subject
Annual
Retain
onsite
-------
41250 Federal Register / Vol . 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Type o( Type of
Facility Storm Water Discharge
Para meters
Monitonii
Frequ y
Reporting
Frequ icy
Lime
Manufacturing
Facilities
Storm water discharges that have come
into Contact with lime storage piles
Oil and Grease, COD, TSS.
pH. any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
onsite
Oil-fired
Steam Electric
Power
Generating
Facilities
Storm water discharges from oil
handling sites
Oil and Crease, COD, TSS,
pH. any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
onsite
Cement
Manufacturing
Facilities and
Cement Kzlns
All storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity (except those
from material storage piles that are not
eligible for coverage under this permit)
Oil and Crease, COD. TSS,
pH, any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
onsite
Ready-mix
Concrete
Facilities
All storm waler discharges associated
with industrial activity
Oil and Grease, COD, TSS,
pH. any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
onsice
Ship Building
and Repairing
Facilities
All storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity
Oil and Grease, COD, ISS,
pH, any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
onsite
BIWNO CODE eseo-so-c
-------
Federal Reg*ster I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41231
Where a given storm water discharge
is addressed by more than one class of
monitoring requirements. then the
monitoring requirements for the
applicable classes of activities are
additive Monitoring requirements must
be evaluated on a outfall-by-outlall
basis (ía particular discharge fits under
more than one set of monitoring
requirements. the facility must comply
with both sets of sampling requirements.
Discharges composed entirely of
runoff from coal piles must be monitored
in a manner thai ensures that the runoff
is not diluted or otherwise intermingled
with storm water from other sources or
other types of discharges This is
necessary to ensure that coal pile runoff
complies with the numeric effluent
limitations in today s permit
As noted in Table 3. only those
facilities required to conduct semiannual
monitoring must report monitoring
results to EPA on a regular basis. Other
facilities required to conduct monitoring
must only submit the results of their
sampling data if the data are requested
by EPA. Facilities that are not identified
itt Table 3 are not required to conduct
discharge monitoring unless the Director
provides written notice that monitoring
is necessary
All samples must be collected from
the discharge resulting from a storm
event greater than 0.1 inches in
magnitude and that occurs a’ least 72
hours after the previously measurable
(greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm
event A minimum of one grab sample
na ’ be taken for discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours For all other discharges. data
must be reported for both a grab sample
and a composite sample The grab
sample must be taken during the first
thirty minutes of the discharge If the
collection of a grab sample during the
first thirty minutes is practicable, a grab
sample can be taken during the first
hour of the discharge In such cases the
discharger must submit with the
monitoring report a description of why a
grab sample during the first thirty
minutes was .mpracticable The
composite sample must either be flow.
weighted or time-weighted. Composite
samples may be taken with a continuous
sampler or as a combination of a
minimum of three sample aliquots taken
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
he discharge. with each ailquot being
eparated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes. Composite samples do
riot have to analyzed for pH. cyanide.
whole effluent toxicity. and oil and
grease Only grab samples need to be
analyzed for these parameters where
these parameters are specified. Samples
must be analyzed in accordance with
the analytic methods approved under 40
CFR 136
The permit allows the use of
substantially identical outfalls to reduce
the monitoring burden on a facility.
Permittees that intend to use this
provision must justIfy and document in
writing why one outfall is representative
of others All facilities must include the
written tustification in the facility storm
water pollution prevention plan. Where
a facility that is subtect to semi-annual
monitoring requirements (EPCRA
section 313. waste disposal sites. wood
preserving facilities, battery reclaimers.
coal pile runoff, and primary metal
facilities) does not monitor a
substantially identical outfall, the
permiltee must submit the tustification
of why an outfall(s) is representative of
others with the discharge monitoring
report Other facilities required to
conduct monitoring under the permit
(e g those with annual monitoring
requirements) are not required to submit
the tustification unless it is requested by
the Director These facilities must keep
the ;ustification in the storm water
pollution pre vention plan
The permit allows for temporary
waivers from sampling based on
adverse climatic conditions This
temporary sampling waiver is only
intended to apply to insurmountable
weather conditions such as drought or
dangerous conditions such as lightning.
flash flooding, or hurricanes These
events tend to be isolated incidents and
should not be used as an excuse for not
conducting sampling under more
favorable conditions associated with
other storm events, The sampling waiver
is not intended to apply to difficult
logistical conditions, such as remote
facilities with few employees or
discharge locations which are difficult to
access.
The location for submittal of all
reports is contained in the permit
Consistent with Office of Management
and Budget Circular A—lOS. facilities
located on certain Indian Lands in
Arizona, Utah. New Mexico. Idaho.
Nevada. arid Colorado should note that
permitting authority has been
consolidated in one EPA Region where a
reservation crosses the boundaries
between the Regions. For example. all
NPDES permitting for Navato lands is
handled by EPA Region IX The permits
require dischargers that must submit
monitoring information annually to
provide copies to receiving large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems and States that have requested
this information.
The permit requires retention of
monitoring records for six years. since
not all facilities who monitor will be
required to submit the results annually
In addition. pollution prevention plans
must be kept for the life of the permit
P. Regional Offices
Notices of Intent to be authorized to
discharge under these permits should be
sent to: Storm Water Notices of Intent
P0 Box 1251. Newington, VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office.
CT. MA.ME. NH. RI. VT
United States EPA. Region I.
Water M ariagement Division. (WCP—
alog),
Storm Water Staff,
John F Kennedy Federal Building, room
2209.
Boston. MA 02203
Contact. Veronica Har’rington. (617) 565—
3525
NJ. NY. PR. VI
United States EPA, Region Ii. Water
Management Division. IZWM-WPC).
Storm Water Sti ff. 26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278 Contact. Jose
Rivera, (212) 262—2911
AL. FL. CA. KY MS. .VC. SC. TN
United States EPA. Region IV. Water
Management Division. (FPB—3 ). Storm
Water Staff. 345 Courtland Street. NE
Atlanta. GA 30365 Contact Chris
Thomas. (404) 347—3012.
AR. LA. NM (except see Region IX for
Navo o lands and see Region VIII for
Kite Mounlain Reservation land). OK.
TX
United States EPA, Region VI. Water
Management Division. (6W-EA).
Storm Water Staff. First Interstate
Bank Tower at Fountain Place. 1445
Ross Avenue. 12th Floor. Suite 1200.
Dallas, TX 75202. Contact’ Region VI
Storm Water 1-lotline at (214) 655—
7185.
CO. MT. ND. SD. W Y. ff7’ (except see
Region IX for Goshute Reservation and
Navalo Reservation lands)
United States EPA. Region VIII. Water
Management Division. NPDES Branch
(BWM-C). Storm Water Staff. 999 18th
Street. Denver, CO 80202—2466
Contact: Vern Berry (303) 293—1630
-------
41252
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday , September 9,1992 / Notices
Note—For Montana Indian Lands.
p/ease use the following address:
United Stales EPA. Montana Operations
Office. Federal Office Building.
Drawer 10096. 301 South Park. Helena.
MT 59620—0026 Contact: Paul
Montgomery. (406) 449—5486.
AZ CA. III. NV. American Samoa.
Guam. the Goshute Reservation in UT
and NV. the Navajo Reservation in UT
NM. and AZ the Duck Valley
Reservation in NV and ID. Johnston
Atoll. Midway and Wake Island
United States EPA. Region IX. Water
Management Division. (W—5—l). Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco. CA 94105. Contact: Eugene
Bromley. (415) 744—1906.
AK. ID (eYcept see Region IX for Duck
Valley Reservation lands), OR. WA
United States EPA. Region X. Water
Management Division. (WD—134),
Storm Water Staff. 1200 Sixth Street.
Seattle, WA 98101 Contact: Steve
Buboick. (206) 553—8399.
C Compliance Deadlines
For most permittees. today’s permits
establish deadlines of April 1. 1993 for
development of pollution prevention
plans and October 1. 1993 for
compliance with the terms of the plan.
Alternative deadlines are provided for
facilities where industrial activities
commence after October 1. 1992. certain
oil and gas operations: and municipal
operators of facilities that have
participated in a timely part 1 group
application where either the group
application is rejected or the facility is
denied participation in the group
application by EPA.
For facilities where industrial activity
commences after October 1. 1992. but on
or before December 31. 1992. the storm
water pollution prevention plan must be
prepared and provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and the
permit on or before 60 calendar days
after the commencement of industrial
activity. For facilities where industrial
activity commence on or after January 1.
1993, the storm water pollution
prevention plan must be prepared. and
provide for compliance with the terms of
the plan and the permit, on or before the
date of submission of a NOt to be
covered under this permit.
For storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from an oil and
gas exploration, production, processing.
or treatment operation or transmission
facility that is not required to submit a
permit application on or before October
1. 1992 in accordance with 40 CFR
122.26(c)(t)(iii), but after October 1. 1992
has a discharge of a reportable quantity
of oil or a hazardous substance for
which notification is required pursuant
to either 40 CFR 110.6. 40 CFR 117 21 or
40 CFR 302.6. the storm water pollution
prevention plan must be prepared and
must provide for compliance with the
terms of the plan on or before the date
60 calendar days after the first
knowledge of such release.
For storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from a facility
that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated in a
timely group application and where
either the group application is rejected
or the facility is denied participation in
the group application by EPA. the
pollution prevention plan must be
prepared on or before the 365th day
following the date on which the group is
rejected or the denial is made. and must
provide for compliance with the terms of
the plan and this permit on or before the
545th day following the date on which
the group is rejected or the denial is
made.
The permits provide additional time
for complying with the additional
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities and for salt storage facilities.
The portions of a plan addressing these
additional requirements must provide
for complianc e with the plan on or
before October 1. 1995 In addition, the
permits provide that facilities with coal
pile runoff are required to comply with
the numeric effluent limitations of the
permit by October 1, 1995. However,
storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities subject to these additional
requirements must be prepared by April
1, 1993 (or. for facilities that commence
industrial activity after October 1, 1992.
before the facility commences industrial
activity) and provide for compliance
with the baseline terms and conditions
of the permit (other than the numeric
effluent limitation) as expeditiously as
practicable. but by no later than
October 1. 1993 (or. for facilities that
commence industrial activity after
October 1. 1992. on or before 60 calendar
days after the commencement of
industrial activity).
V. Cost Estimates
1. Pollution Prevention Plan
Implementation
Storm water pollution prevention
plans for the majority of facilities will
address relatively low cost baseline
controls for the majority of industrial
facilities. EPA’s analysis of storm water
pollution prevention plans indicates that
the cost of developing and implementing
the costs of these plans is variable and
will depend on a number of the
following factors: The size of the facility,
the chemicals stored or used at a
facility, the nature of the plant
operations, and the plant designs (e g..
the processes used and layout of a plan).
and the housekeeping measures
employed. Table 4 provides estimates of
the range of costs of preparing and
implementing a storm water pollution
prevention plan. It is expected that the
low cost estimates provided in Table 4
are appropriate for the majority of
smaller facilities. High cost estimates
are also provided.
b. SARA title III facilities. Table 5
provides estimates of the range of costs
of preparing and implementing a storm
water pollution prevention plan for
facilities subject to the special
requirements for facilities subject to
SARA Title III section 313 reporting
requirements for chemicals classified as
“Section 313 water priority chemicals ’
EPA expects the majority of facilities to
have existing containment systems that
meet the majority of the requirements of
these permits. High cost estimates
correspond to facilities that are
expected to be required to undertake
some actions to upgrade existing
containment systems to meet the
requirements of these permits.
TABLE 4 —SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RANGES OF COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITh STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
WiTH BASELINE REQUIREMENTS
Low Costs
Nigh Costs
First Year
Annual
First Y g,
Annual
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Submittal of NOt
$14
I
$14
Notification of f.funicipaiity
14
14
Plan Preparation
1,518
76 153
Plan imDtementaiion
go
$294
35 400
S9 371
-------
Federal Register / vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41253
TABLE 4 —SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RANGES OF COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PL . . NS
WITH BASELINE REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Low
First Year
Costs
Annual
High
First Year
Costs
Annual
Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation/plan Revision
Reportable Quantities
Total
Costs
I
‘
1.636
costs
267

561
costs
8 501
120082
COStS
8875
18246
No costs
This table identifies estimated low
and high costs to develop and
implement storm water pollution
prevention plans.
Low Costs of implementing program
components are zero where existing
programs or procedures is assumed
adequate.
Costs in 1992 dollars.
The estimated costs for plan
preparation and plan revisions includes
costs of preparing/revising plan to
address baseline requirements and any
applicable special requirements, such as
EPCRA Section 313 requirements.
1-lowever. the costs of implementing
special requirements, such as those for
EPCRA Section 313 facilities are not
otherwise addressed in this table.
The high cost estimate for
requirements to address reportable
quantities of hazardous substances will
occur in the year the reportable quantity
release occurs and will not necessarily
occur in the first year of permit
compliance.
This table identifies estimated
additional low and high costs to develop
and implement storm water pollution
prevention plans for EPCRA section 313
facilities subject to special conditions.
Low costs of implementing program
components are zero where existing
programs, procedures or security is
assumed adequate.
The high costs for prepanng pollution
preven icn plans to include EPCRA
section 313 additional requirement were
addressed as part of the estimated high
costs for preparation of baseline
pollution prevention plans (see Table 4).
PE Certification is only required once
every three years. Cost shown if
averaged over three year period.
Costs for toxicity reductions will only
be incurred during the last two years of
the permit. Thus, this cost has been
averaged over a five year period.
2. Salt Storage Facilities
Salt pile covers or tarpaulins are
anticipated to have a fixed cost of $400
and an annual cost of $160 for medium.
sized piles and a fixed cost of $4,000 and
an annual cost of $2,000 for very large
piles. Structures such as salt domes are
generally expected to have a fixed cost
of between $30,000 for small piles ($70 to
$80 per cubic yard) and $100,000 for
larger piles ($18 per cubic yard) with
Costs depending on size and other
construction parameters.
3. Coal Pile Runoff
The effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in the draft permits can be
achieved by these two primary methods:
limiting exposure to coal by use of
covers or tarpaulins and collecting and
treating the runoff. In some cases, coal
pile runoff may be in compliance with
the effluent limitations without covering
of the pile or collection or treatment of
the runoff. In these cases. the operator
of the discharge would not have a
control cost.
The effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in the draft permits can be
achieved by limiting exposure of storm
water to coal by use of covers or
tarpaulins and storm water runon
berms. The use of tarpaulins and berms
to prevent exposure is expected to be
practical for coal piles smaller than
30,000 cubic meters. EPA expects the
majority of industrial facilities subject to
the requirement will have coal piles
smaller than 30,000 meters.
The cost of covering up to a 30,000
cubic meter coal pile with covers or
tarpaulins is anticipated to cost
approximately $0.70 per cubic yard. or
$0.91 per cubic meter, For a 30.000 cubic
meter pile the cost of tarpaulins alone
would be $27,440. The cost of a berm to
divert storm water runon that may flow
under a covered pile and exit as
TABLE 5 —SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
FOR FACILITIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 313 OF EPCAA FOR WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS
Low
Costs
during first
3
Costs
Annual
Costs
High
Costs
during first
Costs
Annual
Costs
years
3years
sn Preparation
I
Uqiad Storage Areas . .
Material Storage Areas
.,.
.

.
•
‘
$630
.
$11,200
LoadingAreas .
Process Areas ..
Drair iage/Runon .
Fa It Secun
Housekeeping/M a int 3 0
Emoloyee Training
, .
. . . . .
.
.
..
.
.
..

::
.
.
.. .
. . . .
.
‘
560
21.000 -

S5 957
3.240
- .
. .
.
.
. .
.
, .I.
PE Cenifioauon
,
1 403
Monutonng Costs
,
.
53
1 000
Toxi Red CtjOn
. .
2.424
4847
TOTALS
.
I
630 2,477
54 940
3,046
16,253
-------
41254
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
polluted runoff is expected to be $7 per
linear foot of berm. For a 30.000 cubic
meter coal pile that is twenty feet in
height. it is anticipated that a 450 foot
berm at a cost of $3,150 would be
needed. Therefore, the total cost of
tarpaulins and a berm to avert exposure
of storm water to a coal pile 30.000 cubic
meters in size would be $30,590.
For those facilities which manage coal
piles greater than 30.000 cubic meters.
EPA assumes that these facilities will
use the technology specified in the
steam/electric effluent guidance based
upon costs indicated in the guidance. if
facilities can not meet permit limits
using this control technology and cannot
afford another control technology, they
have the opportunity of seeking an
individual permit.
Table 6 provides estimates of the
costs of treating coal pile runoff. ’ 8
These costs are based on a
consideration of a treatment train
requiring equalization. p 1-I adjustment.
and settling, including the costs for
impoundment (for equalization), a lime
feed system and mixing tanks for pH
adjustment. and a clarifier for settling
The costs for the impoundment area
include diking and containment around
each coal pile and associated surnps and
pumps and piping from runoff areas to
the impoundment area. The costs for
land are not included. The lime feed
system employed for pH adjustment
includes a storage silo, shaker, feeder.
and lime slurry storage tank.
instrumentation, electrical connections.
piping, and controls.
Additional costs may be incurred if a
polymer system is needed. In this case.
costs would include impoundment for
equalization, a lime feed system. mixing
tank, and polymer feed system for
chemical precipitation, a clarifier for
settling, and an acid feeder and mixing
tank to readjust the pH within the range
of 6 to 9. The equipment and system
design. with the exception of the
polymer feeder, acid feeder, and final
mixing tank. are essentially the same as
shown in Table 6. Two tanks are
required for a treatment train with a
polymer system. one for precipitation
and another for final pH adjustment
with acid. The cost of mixing is
therefore twice that shown in Table 6.
The polymer feed system includes
storage hoppers, chemical feeder.
‘‘The type and degree of treatment required to
meet the effluent limitations of these permits vary
depending on factors such as the amount of sulfur in
he coal This section describes a mode) treatment
scheme For estimating Costa for compliance with the
effluent limitations Discharger, may implement
other less expensive treatment approaches to
enable them to discharge in accordance with the,e
inuts where appropriate
solution tanks. solution pumps.
interconnecting piping. electrical
connections, and instrumentation The
costs of clarification are identical to that
of Table 6. A treatment train with a
polymer system requires the use of an
acid addition system to readjust the pH
within the range of 8 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 f these technologies can be found
in “Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category.”
(EPA—440/l82/029). November 1982.
EPA.
TA8LE 6.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED
COSTS FOR TREATMENT OF COAL PILE
RUNOFF
30,000
120 000
Cubic
Cubic
meter coat
meter coal
pde
pile
I
Impoundment
Installed Capital Cost
(5)
6.850
8850
Operation and
Maintenance (SI
year)
‘
I
Lime Feed System
lnstailed Capital Coal
(SI
138800
255700
Operation and
Maintenance (SI
year)
5780
10655
Energy Requirements
(kwft lyr)
36’10’4
36 10”4
Land Requirements
(ft”2)
5.000
5000
Mixing Equipment
installed Capital Cosi
( 5)
65.750
91,320
Operation and
Maintenance (5/
year)
2.280
2.430
Energy Requirements
(kwh/yn)
13 1O”3
33xt0 ’3
Land Requirements
)
2.000
2.000
Ctaithcatiow
Installed Capital Cost
IS) .
182.650
237,4W
Operation and
Maintenance 151
year (
3.200
3.650
Energy Requirements
Ikwt llyr)
1 3clO”3
33x10”3
Land Requirements
lacres)
01
01
‘Negtigible
Source Development Document for Elf tuent Ljmni.
tations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment
Standardg for the Steam Electric Point Source Cate.
gory’ (EPA—440/ 182/029). NovemOer ‘982, EPA)
Costs estimates are in 1992 dollarS
V i. Economic impact (Executive Order
12291)
EPA has submitted this notice to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review under Executive Order 12291
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in these
final general permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U S C. 3501 et seq. EPA did not prepare
an Information Collection Request (ICR)
document for todays permits because
the information collection requirements
in these permits have already been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) in submissions made
for the NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act
VIII. 401 Certification
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or’ permit. including
NPDES permits. to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge into
navigable waters shall be granted until
the State in which the discharge
originates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of sections 301. 302. 303. 306.
and 307 of the CWA. The section 401
certification process has been completed
for all States. Indian lands and Federal
facilities covered by todays 8eneral
permits. The following summary
indicates where additional permit
requirements have been added as a
result of the certification process and
also provides a more detailed discussion
of additional requirements for Maine.
Louisiana. New Mexico, Oklahoma and
Texas.
Region /
Maine’ See the following and part
X1.A for additional 401 conditions.
The State of Maine included the
following requirements as conditions for
Certification of the Storm Water
General Permit. Test organisms for
certain whole effluent toxicity testing
requirements pertaining to discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
discharges shall include Cenodophnio
dub:a and Solve/inus Jon Unahs (Brook
Trout). The EPA and the State of Maine
currently agree to require that half of all
freshwater vertebrate whole effluent
toxicity testing for most individual
permits. shall be conducted using the
State’s Brook Trout. Solve/inus
fontina/is Chronic or Acute protocols
The remainder of the toxicity tests
utilize the Region I. fathead minnow
acute or chronic protocols.
The State of Maine includes the
requirement for the substitution of the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57 , No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41255
State’s protocols for the EPA’s protocols.
s part of the State Certification for
each permit The Region I EPA received
a December 18. 1990. MOU from the
State defining the freshwater vertebrate
species substitution requirement To
expedite permit issuance, draft
individual permits and fact sheets
include the State’s brook trout protocol
based on the MOU The Region does not
object to the certification conditions
requiring the use of the Maine protocols
for the species Ceriodophnio dubia and
Sa/ve/inusfont,na/,s (Brook Trout). The
State of Maine shall provide the
appropriate brook trout protocol.
Maine Indian lands: No 401
conditions.
Massachusetts Indian lands only. no
401 conditions
New Hampshire. no 401 conditions.
New Hampshire. Indian lands only. no
401 conditions.
Region IV
Florida: no 401 conditions. Florida.
Indian lands only, no 401 conditions
(two separate permits for two different
tribes (
Mississippi indian lands only. no 401
conditions.
North Carolina. Indian lands only. no
I conditions.
.egion VI
Louisiana. see the following and Part
XI B for 401 conditions Louisiana Indian
Lands. see the following and Part XLB
for 401 conditions
As a condition for certification under
Section 401 of the CWA. the State of
Louisiana required inclusion of the
following limitations necessary to Insure
compliance with State water quality
standards, These limitations are
required under Louisiana Annotated
Code 33 IX.708 (LAC 33’IX.708). in
accordance with a July 17. 1992. letter
from the State clarifying certification
requirements, the Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production facility
limitations will be effective on the
effective date of the permit. Oil and gas
exploration facilities in Louisiana have
been subject to the LAC 33.IX.7o8
limitations since March 20. 1991. The
general permit establishes a three year
compliance date for facilities other than
oil and gas exploration and production
facilities: the General Limitations will
become effective October 1. 1995. This
compliance schedule is included to
itliow the facilities not currently
ulated under NPDES or State
charge permits time to implement the
illution prevention plan components
necessary to achieve the discharge
limitations.
(1) General Limitations. Effective 10/
1/95
Parameter
Daily
Maximum
Total Organic
Oil & Giease
Carbon (TOC)
50 mg/I
15 mg/I
(2) Oil & Gas Exploration and
Production Facilities Effective 10/1/92.
Parameter
Daily
Maximum
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COO)
Total Organic Carøon (TOC)
mg/I
50
Oil & Grease
mg/i
15 mg/i
Chlorides’ (a) Maximum chloride
concentration of the discharge shall not
exceed two times the ambient
concentration of the receiving water in
brackish marsh areas
(b) Maximum chloride concentration
of the discharge shall not exceed 500
mg/I in freshwater or intermediate
marsh areas and upland areas,
Monitoring requirements for Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) and Oil and
Grease have been added to all facilities
required to monitor annually or semi-
annually. Facilities without monitoring
requirements must insure the pollution
prevention plan developed in
accordance with part IV will insure
compliance with these effluent
limitations The definitions of brackish
marsh, freshwater marsh intermediate
marsh, upland area, and saline marsh at
LAC 33 IX.708 have been included in
part X of the permit
New Mexico’ See the following and
part X.C for 401 conditions. New Mexico
Indian lands (except Navajo lands and
Ute Mountain Reservation lands)’ see
the following and part X.C. for 401
conditions,
As a condition for certification under
Section 401 of the CWA, the State of
New Mexico required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards. These conditions apply only
to permittees with facilities discharging
into waters of the State of New Mexico
designated by the latest edition of
Water Quality Standards for interstate
and Intrastate Streams in New Mexico
for use as a domestic water supply. A
list of these waters as of June 29. 1991. is
included with the final permit. For all
discharges to domestic water supply
waterbodjes, the final permit establishes
an annual monitoring requirement for all
parameters for which the state has
established a domestic water supply
water quality standard. This testing
requirement is in addition to any other
annual or semi-annual monitoring
required under the permit Should any
test result exceed the following action
levels (the water quality standard). the
permittee must submit the monitoring
results to the State within 24 hours of
receiving the test results from the
laboratory The parameters to be tested
and the associated action levels are
Parameter
Reøorta Ie
Quantity
Action Level
Dissolved arsenic
005 mg/I
Dissoiveø banum
1 0 mgi I
Dissolved cadmium
0010 mg/I
Dissolved chromium
005 mg/I
Dissolved lead
005 mg/I
Total mercury
0002 mg/I
Dissolved nrt,ate (as N)
100 mg/I
Dissolved selenium
o 05 mg/I
Dissolved silver
a 05 mg/I
Dissolved cyanide
02 mg/I
Dissolved uranium
R dium.226 — ra dn ,im.228
5 0 mg/I
300 pCi/I
Results of the domestic water supply
testing requirement will be used to
evaluate whether a public health risk
was present after mixing (dilution) with
the stream and further determine if an
individual or alternative general permit
was necessary. To insure protection of
domestic water supplies, this condition
applies to all affected waterbodies
within the State of New Mexico where
EPA Region 6 is the permitting authority.
including Indian Nations and Federal
Facilities. The 24.hour report for
discharges on Indian Nations must be
sent directly to EPA Region 6. with a
copy provided to the go erning body of
the Indian Nation
Much of the State of New Mexico is
characterized as and or semi-arid, with
long periods between rain e ents. Due
to this climate pattern, characterized by
seasonal precipitation and a build-up of
pollutants on the ground between storm
events, the State requested inclusion of
a requirement for a minimum of 60 days
between sampled events and a minimum
of 150 hours since the previous
measurable storm event. These
requirements would insure the sampling
results would be more representative of
the quality of storm water discharges in
the State For consistency this condition
applies to all areas within the State of
New Mexico where EPA Region 6 IS the
permitting authority, including Indian
Nations and Federal Facilities
Oklahoma; See the following and part
XI D for 401 conditions.
Oklahoma Indian lands. See the
following and part Xl.D for 401
conditions
Under section 301 of the CWA and 40
CFR 122 44. EPA is required to include
-------
41256
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday . September 9. 1992 / Notices
permit conditions necessary to insure
compliance with more stringent
conditions of State law. On April 28.
1992. the Agency published a
supplemental notice for the draft
Oklahoma General permit in the Federal
Register (57 FR 17909). This notice
added a requirement based on the 1988
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
prohibiting new point source discharges
to several classes of high quality
waterbodies of the State. On June 25.
1992. the Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards were revised, modifying the
discharge prohibition section upon
which the April 28. 1992. proposed
permit conditions were based. The final
permit conditions reflect the
requirements of Oklahoma Annotated
Code Title 785, chapter 45 (OAC 785:45—
5—25), effective June 25. 1992. Todays
notice of the final permit also serves as
final notice of the Agency’s decision on
the April 28. 1992, Federal Register
Notice.
In order to comply with OAC 785 45—
5—25. the permit will not authorize any
new point source discharge of storm
water associated with industrial activity
to “new” point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity (those commencing after the
June 25. 1992. effective date of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards—
OAC 785:45) to the following waters:
(I) Waterbodies designated as
“Outstanding Resource Waters” and/or
“Scenic Rivers” in appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards;
(ii) Oklahoma waterbodieg located
within the watersheds of waterbodies
designated as “Scenic Rivers” in
appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards: and
(iii) Waterbodies located within the
boundaries of Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards appendix B areas which are
specifically designated as ‘Outstanding
Resource Waters’ in appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
In addition to this general permit
exclusion on coverage, the Agency
would like to emphasize that OAC
785.45—5—25 also prohibit. the issuance
of any NPDES discharge permit (other
than for storm water runoff from
temporary construction activity) for new
point source discharges to ORWs or
Scenic Rivers, that commences after
June 25. 1992.
Outstanding Resource Waters and
Scenic Rivers are located in the
following river basins identified in
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
Basin 1—Middle Arkansas Riven
Barren Fork and certain listed
tributaries: and the Upper Illinois River
above Barren Fork confluence and
certain listed tributaries.
Basin 2—Lower Arkansas Riven Lee
Creek and certain listed tributaries,
Basin 4—Lower Red River Upper
Mountain Fork River and certain listed
tributaries.
For specific applicability, or a
complete listing affected waterbodies.
permitteeg should refer to the Oklahoma
Water Quality Standards, appendices A
and B. or contact the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board.
To address possible statutory changes
regarding the “new discharge”
prohibition, the following reopener
clause has been added at the request of
the State. “This permit may be reopened
and modified if the State of Oklahoma
adopts new or revises existing water
quality requirements regarding the
discharge of storm water,”
Texas: See the following and part Xl.E
for 401 conditions. Texas Indian lands:
See the following and part X1.E. for 401
conditions,
As a condition for certification under
section 401 of the CWA, the State of
Texas required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards.
The following effluent limitations are
required under the Texas Water Quality
Standards (31 TAC 319.22 and 319.23).
All pollution prevention plans
developed pursuant to this permit must
enable the discharger to comply with the
limitations listed below.
All Discharges to Inland Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/I). for discharges to inland
waters are as follows:
TOI J
Monthly
average
Daily
composite
Single
grab
Atsenic,,.,,,,,,,,.,,.
01
02
03
Bara,an.....
10
20
. , .
Cadmejm,.,.,,.
005
01
02
,..
c i rom im
05
10
50
.
Copper
05
tO
20
.
Lead.....
05
10
IS
........
Manganesi
1 0
20
3,0
Mercur 1 ’ ....... 0005 0005
Nickel ...,..,,,, 10 20
Selenium . . 005 01
Sdver. . ‘ 005 01
Zinc . . tO 20
001
30
02
02
60
A/I Discharges to Tidal Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in :erms of milligrams per
liter (mg/I), for discharges to tidal
waters are as follows
Total metal
.
Monthty
average
Daily
composite
Single
Arsenic
‘
grao
02
03
Barium.
.,
,j
tO
20
40
Chromium
01
02
03
05
10
50
Copper
Lead
Manganese
05
05
io
10
10
20
20
15
30
Mercury
Nickel
0005
0005
001
‘0
20
30
01
02
03
Zinc
ocs
‘0
01
20
02
60
The definitions of “inland” and “tidal”
waters has been included in part Xl.E of
the Texas permit. Inland waters are
those not defined as tidal waters. Tidal
waters include those waters of the Gulf
of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the
State of Texas. bays and estuaries
thereto, and those portions of the river
systems which are sublect to the ebb
and flow of the tides, and to the
intrusion of marine waters.
Since the malority of discharges
covered by this permit have never
before been regulated by NPDES permit,
a three year compliance schedule for the
limitations has been included to allow
dischargers an opportunity to develop
and implement the pollution prevention
plan controls necessary to achieve
compliance. Unless already required
under semi.annual or annual monitoring
requirements of the permit, sampling for
the hazardous metals listed above will
not be required. The permittee will.
however, be responsible for compliance
with the discharge limitations at all
times following the October 1, 1995.
effective date of the limitations.
The Texas Surface Water Quality
Standards also contain a whole effluent
toxicity standard requiring all
discharges to exhibit greater than 50%
survival of the appropriate test
organisms in 100% effluent for a 24-hour
period (i.e. 24-hr LC5O> 100%). As a
condition for certification, the State
required modification of the toxicity test
protocol contained in the permit to
conform to that specified to demonstrate
compliance with the State standard, The
test protocol for the Texas general
permit requires the use of a five dilution
acute freshwater toxicity test. reporting
of pass/fail on 50% or greater survival in
the 100% effluent dilution, and reporting
of pass/fail on statistically significant
difference in toxicity between the
control the 100% effluent dilution. In
addition, the State required inclusion of
acute toxicity testing for the chromium-
arsenic formulations category of wood
treatment facilities. The results of the
toxicity testing will be used to
demonstrate compliance with the State
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 19921 Notices
41257
water quality standard and identify
discharges that wilt require more
stringent pollution prevention plans
and/or individual or alternative general
permit coverage.
Generol Penn ifs for EPA Region 6
With regard to reporting the results of
any toxicity testing required under the
permit. the permits for Louisiana, New
Mexico. Oklahoma, and Texas have
been modified to require the submittal
of a summary of the results, with the lull
toxicity report retained by the permittee
The results are to include pass/fail
information on 50% survival in the 100%
dilution after 24 hours in addition to the
pass/fail information on a statistically
significant difference in toxicity
between 100% effluent and the control.
The format to be used is included as
Tables in the final permit. The Texas
permit also requires only submittal of
the summary table, which are modified
to include the five-dilution series test
required as a condition for State
certification. The net cost to the
permittee is expected to be minimal.
since the information necessary to
determine 50% or greater survival in the
100% dilution is readily available from
the results of the test used to determine
a statistically significant difference
between the control and the 100%
dilution. No additional testing is
required. The additional information
gained will allow the permfttee and the
Agency to prioritize action on
discharges exhibiting relatively greater
toxicity ft e those showing greater than
50% lethality would be more toxic than
those exhibiting only a statistically
significant difference in survival) The
use of simple test report summaries will
reduce the report mailing cost and
simplify completion of Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for the
permittee: while also reducing the
administrative burden on the permitting
authority, both for review and document
storage
In addition to conditions required for
State Section 401 certification. EPA
Region 6 has made the following
modifications to the Louisiana. New
Mexico, Oklahoma. and Texas general
permits. First, the area covered by each
permit has been clarified to include all
administered by EPA Region 8 in the
appropriate State. This clanfication was
included to insure coverage on federal
‘ nds and Indian Nations. EPA Region 6
s not administer NPDES authority on
vajo Nation lands in New Mexico
Ladministered by EPA Region 9) and the
Mountain Tribal lands in New Mexico
(administered by EPA Region 8).
Region Viii
South Dakota No 401 conditions
South Dakota Indian Lands No 401
conditions
Montana Indian Lands No 401
conditions.
North Dakota Indian lands No 401
conditions.
Wyoming Indian lands. No 401
conditions
Utah Indian lands (except the Goshute
Reservation and Navajo reservation
artds in Utah) No 401 conditions.
Colorado federal facilities: See Part
XI.F for 401 conditions.
Colorado Indian lands and New
Mexico Indian lands (including only the
Navajo Reservation lands and the
Mountain Reservation lands located in
Colorado and New Mexico) See part
XI.F for 401 conditions.
Region IX
Arizona’ See part Xl C for 401
conditions. Arizona Indian lands
(including Navajo reservation lands in
Utah and New Mexico)’ No 401
conditions. California Indian lands: No
401 conditions Nevada Indian lands
(including the Coshute Territory in Utah
and the Duck Valley reservation lands
in Idaho). No 401 conditions Johnston
Atoll: No 401 conditions Midway and
Wake Island. No 401 conditions.
Region X
Alaska’ See part Xl)-l for 401
conditions Alaska Indian Lands No 401
conditions Idaho. See part XII for 401
conditions Idaho Indian lands (except
the Duck Valley reservation lands in
Nevada arid Idaho). No 401 conditions
Washington Indian lands: See part XLI
for 401 conditions. Washington federal
facilities. See part XI.) for 401
conditions.
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 ‘hat the
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Today’s permits provide small entities
with an application option that is less
burdensome than individual
applications or participating in a group
application. The other requirements
have been designed to minimize
significant economic impacts of the rule
on small entities and does not ha’. e a
significant impact on industry In
addition, the permits reduce significant
administrative burdens on regulated
sources Accordingly. I hereby certify
pursuant to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, that these
permits will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities
Authority Clean Water Aci 33 USC 1251 el
seq
Dated August 28. 1992
Patricia Meaney.
Acting Regional A drn:nrstroior Region /
Dated August 28. 1992
Patrick M Tobiri,
Acting RegionolAdrnintsiroior Region IV
Dated August 27 1992
B J Wynne
Regional 4dnunistrator Region VI
Dated August 28 1992
Kerrigan Clough.
.4 cling Reg;oiioi Admrnisirator Region Viii
Dated Augusi 28. 1992
Daniel W McGovern,
Regional 4dministrator Region 1X
Dated August27 1992
Dana Rasmussen.
Regional 4drnin:slralor Region X
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the August 16, 1991
Draft General Permits
Definition of S orrn Water Discharge
Associated With Industrial Activity
Some coinmenters on the August 16,
1991 draft general permits expressed or
suggested confusion over the scope of
the regulatory definition of “storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity” which the Agency had
promulgated on November 16. 1990 (55
FR 47990) In EPA’s view, however,
while the August 18. 1991 notice dtd not
request comments on modifying the
regulatory definition, the Agency
believes that it is appropriate to add a
preface to today’s general permit that
clarifies the NPDES regulatory
framework for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. In
addition. the Agency has corrected
several typographical errors and
inadvertent omissions to the text of the
definition of “storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity” in
the “Defirntiona” section of today’s
general permits.
Coverage issues
Consistent with Tier I of United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) long.ierm permitting strategy. the
August 16. 1991 draft general permits
were intended to allow the malority of
storm water discharges associated with
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday . September 9. 1992 / Notices
41258
industrial activity (located in the State
for which the permit was issued) the
opportunity to obtain coverage.
However, the draft permits provided
four limitations on coverage. The draft
permits proposed to exclude certain
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, including those (1)
that storm water effluent limitations
guidelines cover (2) that an existing
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
authonzes; (3) that the Director
designates as causing or expected to
cause a water quality standard
violation: and (4) that originate from
inactive mining or oil and gas operations
on Federal lands where an operator
cannot be identified.
Several commenters urged EPA to
provide maximum opportunities for
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
obtain coverage under the general
permits. A number of commenters were
concerned that several provisions of the
August 16. 1991 draft permits could be
interpreted to mean that if one storm
water discharge at a facility was
ineligible for coverage under the general
permit. then any remaining storm water
discharges on site would also be
ineligible.
In response. EPA intends that the
limitations on coverage be applied on a
discharge-by-discharge basis, as
opposed to a facility-by-facility basis In
response to concerns raised in the
comments, the Agency has clarified two
provisions of the permit to reflect this
concept. The first provision addresses
storm water discharges that are subject
to an effluent limitation guideline iO The
Agency wants to clarify that if a facility
has multiple storm water discharges.
with one or more storm water
discharges subject to an effluent
limitation guideline and one or more
discharges not sub ect to an effluent
limitation guideline, then the
discharge(s) that are not subject to an
effluent limitation guideline may obtain
coverage under today’s permits.
However, the discharges from the
facility that are subject to an effluent
limitation guideline may not be covered
by today’s permits because today’s
For the purposes of ihis permit ihe allowing
efflueni litTIlijilons guidelines .iddress siorm whet
or .s combirtaiton of storm w.hier md procesa w.sier
cemeni m.mnuf.jciuring 40 CFR 411) feedtots 140
CFR 4121 fertilizer m nuI,iciuring 40 CFR 4ii1
peiroleum refining 1411 CFR 419) phosphdie
m.mnuI ctunng 40 (SR 422) ste,mm e(ei’iric power
generaiinn 140 CFR 4.3 1 io.ml mining (40 CFR 434)
mineral minina md prorc iing (41) Ci-R 4361 ore
mining .snd dreising 40 Ci-R 44111 md msph,mli 40
CFR 4431
permits do not incorporate the
limitations for these discharges
The second provision in the August
16. 1991 draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities with an
existing NPDES permit. The Agency
notes that this language was somewhat
ambiguous. in that it could apply to
storm water discharges with an existing
NPDES permit or to facilities with an
existing NPDES permit Thus, today s
permits have been clarified to provide
that only storm water discharges that
are authorized by a different NPDES
permit cannot be authorized by todays
permit
One commenter indicated that the
proposed general permit language
implied that coverage under the general
permit would be permanently restricted
for facilities that are currently permitted
under the NPDES program for their
storm water discharges.
In response. EPA has clarified today’s
general permits to provide that for storm
water discharges currently subject to an
individual NPDES permit. dischargers
may apply for coverage under the
general permit when the existing permIt
expires. prcvided that the existing
individual permit does not contain
numeric effluent limitations. Facilities
with existing NPDES permits for storm
water discharges that have established
numeric limits for these discharges are
generally not eligible for coverage under
the general permit
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that a given industrial facility
may be issued two separate NPDES
permits, one for process wastewater and
another for storm water. In response.
EPA wants to clarify that facilities with
an existing NPDES permit for process
wastewaters and/or other non-storm
water discharges are allowed to obtain
coverage for their storm water
discharges under today’s general
permits.
Two commen ters expressed confusion
regarding the exclusion of inactive and
abandoned mining and oil and gas
operations on Federal lands from
coverage under the draft general permit
These commenters thought that EPA
was exempting such sites from
regulation under the November lB. 1990
rule by excluding these sites from
coverage under the general permit
In response. the Agency explained in
the August 16. 1991 draft permits that it
is developing a distinct set of general
permits that more appropriately control
pollutants from inactive mining and
inactive oil and gas operdtions on
Federal lands where an operdlor cannot
be identified due to the unique nature of
these types of storm water discharges.
EPA wishes to reaffirm that today s
general permits do not provide coverage
for storm water discharges from these
inactive sites because an alternate draft
general permit is currently being
developed Such discharges do.
however, remain subject to the
requirement to submit a NPDES permit
application.
The Department of the Interior, which
has extensive land management
responsibilities, requested that storm
water discharges from inactive landfills
on Federal lands where an operator
cannot be identified be addressed in a
similar manner as inactive mining and
inactive oil and gas operations on
Federal lands The comrnenter indicated
that the significant number and
geographic distribution of such sites on
Federal lands favored an approach that
was similar to controlling storm water
from inactive mines and oil and gas
operations on Federal lands. The
commenter also indicated that NPDES
requirements should be coordinated
with ongoing efforts by Federal land
managers to address inactive landfills.
and that the best way to accomplish this
is to issue different general permits
tailored for these discharges In
response. EPA has excluded from
coverage under today’s permit those
storm water discharges from inactive
landfills on Federal lands where an
operator cannot be identified. The
Agency will address these discharges in
conjunction with distinct permitting
efforts addressing storm water
discharges from inactive mining
operations and inactive oil and gas
operations on Federal lands.
One commenter thought that EPA was
requiring’ facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to obtain coverage under the
general permit. and was precluding
dischargers from submitting individual
permit applications or participated in
appropriate group applications.
The Agency wants to clarify that by
encouraging the use of general permits
to address storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, and
August 16. 1991 proposal was riot
limiting the application options to Notice
of Intents (NOIs) and coverage under a
general permit. The submittal of an NOI
to be covered by a general permit is only
one of three application options for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity identified by the
November 16. 1990. NPDES storm water
application regulations.
A number of commenters expressed
confusion as 10 whether they must apply
for coverage under todays general
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No, 175 f Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41259
permit if a group application has already
been submitted. EPA wishes to clarify
that while facihties that had
participated in approved and completed
group applications are riot required to
obtain coverage under today’s general
permit. they do have the option to do so
Requiring an Individual Permit
Application
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permit provided that EPA may require
the submission of an individual permit
application at any time during the term
of the permit. The draft permit further
provided that where EPA requests an
individual permit application and an
owner or operator fails to submit a
timely application, the coverage of the
permit must be terminated on the date
the application is due.
Several corrirnenters questioned EPA’s
authority to terminate permit coverage
They believed that EPA must specify
requirements for permit coverage
termination, such as an adjudicatory
process that would allow the permittee
a formal appeal. Additionally. one
comnienter was concerned with the
discretionary authority granted to EPA
in requiring individual permit
applications and felt that certain
guidelines should be set forth.
In response. today’s permits reflect 40
CFR lZ2.28(b)(3 ( (as amended un April 2.
1992. (57 FR 11412)). which establish
procedures for EPA to require a
discharger authorized by a general
permit to apply for and obtain an
individual permit and for any interested
person to petition the Director to require
an individual permit EPA also has
broad authority under Section 308 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) to require
information, such as individual
applications.
Where the discharger fails to submit a
timely application, such a failure would
constitute noncompliance by the
permittee with a permit condition and
would constitute grounds for permit
termination (see 40 CFR 122.64) EPA
would follow the applicable procedures
in 40 CFR 124 in terminating permit
coverage In addition. 40 CFR 12452
provides guidelines for EPA to
determine that a facility required
covered by a general permit be required
to obtain an individual permit.
This discretionary authority is critical
because it allows the Director to identify
facilities that may be significant
contributors to water pollution or
icilities that have other site-specific
nditiorts that would be better
dressed under an individual permit. In
general. EPA will make decisions on
terminating coverage under the general
permit in a manner that is consistent
with the goals and obtectives of the
Agency’s four’tiered. long-term
permitting strategy for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity (see April 2. 1992. (57 FR 1139411.
One commenter disagreed with the
statement in the draft general permit
that storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are not
authorized by the general permit or
another NPDES permit are not in
compliance with the CWA. This
commenter stated that the simple
submission of art individual permit
application or participation in an
approved group application should
satisfy the discharger’s legal obligations
under the CWA. While timely submittal
of an individual permit application or
participation in an approved group
application constitutes compliance with
EPA’s storm water permit application
regulations. it does not. by itself, provide
for compliance with the CWA
requirement that storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States be
authorized by an NPDES permit.
NO! Requirements
The August 16. 1991 draft permits
included a requirement that each
discharger submit an NO! to be
authorized to discharge under the
permits. Under the August 16. 1991 draft
permits. NOls had to provide the name.
mailing address, and location of the
facility for which notification was
submitted: up to four 4.digil SIC codes
describing the facility, the operator’s
name address, and telephone number’
the latitude and longitude of the facility.
the name of the receiving water or. if the
discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer. the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer:
and existing sampling data.
A number of commenters on the
August 16. 1991 draft general permits
indicated that NO! requirements were
generally less burdensome than
individual permit applications and that
NOls are a useful tool in the permitting
process. A number of corrimeriters
indicated that a standardized NO! form
would be extremely useful and would
ease burdens on the regulated
community. In response. the Agency has
developed a standardized NOl form.
which is included in Appendix C of
today’s notice. Copies of the NOl form
are available from EPA Regional Offices
(see the ADDRESSES section of today’s
notice) or from the Storm Water Hotline
at 1703) 821-4823.
Some commenters noted that the
information required in the NO! was
adequate. sufficient. and/or appropnete.
However. commenters raised several
concerns with specific requirements of
the NO) Several conimenters suggested
that NOls should require additional
information describing the facility
These commenters suggested a number
of additional information requirements.
including descriptions of raw materials
that are received by the facility.
materials that are produced or
processed by the facility: raw materials
that are used or stored at the facility in
substantial amounts, approximate
amounts of materials at the facility that
fall under the above categories each
yeari how these materials are handled.
any precautions taken to prevent
pollutants in storm water runoff, and the
size of the facility and a
characterization of the surrounding area
The commenters indicated that this
information would assist EPA in
identifying priority facilities Several of
these commenters indicated that the
limited information in an NOl is not
sufficient to support further conclusions
or determinations on when and whether
Tier ll—IV permits should be required or
other evaluations of the risks posed by
storm water discharges from variotis
industrial categories
In response. the Agency notes that it
will use information from a number of
sources to evaluate appropriate Tier Ii,
Ill, and IV permits. For example, the
Agency will use information from group
applications and Iron, monitoring data
collected pursuant to today’s permit to
assist in the development of Tier Ill
(industry-specific) permits The Agency
can use information in section 305(b)
reports. along with information from
other sources, to develop Tier II
(watershed) permits. In addition, the
Agency will review individual permit
applications, information from
municipal operators of large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems. and other information to
develop Tier IV (individual) permits In
addition. today’s permits require
facilities to develop storm water
pollution prevention plans that contain
more detailed, facility-specific -
information, which the Ag ency can
request for review Given these other
sources of information and the initial
status of program development, the
Agency does not believe that such
additional information is necessary in
NOIs at this time The Agency is
requiring that diachargers provide the
permit number of any NPDES permit for
other discharges from the facility and
the group application number if the
facility has participated in a group
application. Obtaining this information
will allow the Agency to coordinate
permitting and compliance monitoring
-------
41260
Federal Register / Vol . 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
efforts associated with other discharges
with actions taken with respect to
today’s permits Obtaining the permit
numbers of non•storm water NPDES
permits will allow EPA to have access
to information about a perrrnttee’s
activities with a minimal burden placed
on the discharger and EPA. This
information will be particularly useful in
identifying priorities for storm water
permit issuance and in developing Tier
II. II !. and IV permits.
One commeriter suggested that EPA
provide expanded instructions to assist
facilities in accurately determining their
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code(s), their locations by latitude and
longitude, and the names of the
receiving waters. In response. EPA notes
that the NO! only requires dischargers
to provide a latitude and longitude
where a street address for the site is not
available. In addition. EPA has provided
additional guidance on obtaining this
type of information in the “Guidance
Manual for the Preparation of NPDES
Permit Applications for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity.’ April 1991. EPA—505/8—91—002.
This manual is available from the
National Technology Information
Service (NTIS) by calling (703) 487—4650
(NTIS publication number P8—92114578,
$35.00). EPA believes that identifying the
longitude and latitude of a site presents
a minimal burden to a small number of
dischargers.
One commenter raised concerns about
being required to submit sampling data
that have been collected by a facility
without the intention of having the data
submitted in order to evaluate potential
problems. They were concerned that
such data may not be reliable, and in
some cases may be meaningless. Other
commeriters suggested that the
requirement to submit quantitative data
be limited to the previous three years.
One mining company suggested that
EPA delete the requirement to submit
existing quantitative data because
processing and classifying the data
would impose a substantial burden on
Agency resources.
Based on additional consideration of
this provision, the NO! requirements for
today’s permits do not require the
submittal of existing quantitative data
(sampling data), but rather require
diachargers to indicate whether they
have sampling data available describing
their storm water discharges. As
discussed below, the Agency believes
that these data can serve useful
purposes. and is requiring facilities to
maintain records of existing data in their
storm water pollution prevention plans.
The Agency believes that this approach
will provide disuhargers with an
opportunity to explain problems with
data quality. The Agency has made this
change to reduce the administrative
burdens associated with submitting and
handling NOIs. The Agency notes that it
can request this information from the
discharger where appropriate.
One commenter recommended that
the NO! be used to cross-check with
other requirements and available data.
In response. EPA is requiring that NOls
include the number of any NPDES
permit for any discharge (including non-
storm water discharges) from the site
that is currently authorized by an
NPDES permit. In addition. dischargers
are required to indicate whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process. EPA
believes that this information will
greatly assist in its efforts to cross-check
other information regarding the facility
Several commenters requested that
EPA clarify whether a pollution
prevention plan must be included in the
NO!. In response, the Agency has
modified the language in today’s permits
to clarify that dischargers are not
required to submit a pollution
prevention plan when they submit an
NO!.
One commenter indicated that
dischargers should only have to submit
information required in the NO! if that
information is available. In response. the
Agency believes that the information
required in the NOls by today’s permits
will not impose excessive burdens on
dischargers. The Agency believes that
the information required in the NOls is
appropriate given the goals and
functions of these permits. For example
EPA must know where the industrial
facility is located in order to conduct
site visits. The street address of the
facility. or. where it is not available the
facility’s latitude and longitude (or
section. township. and range). can be
used to identify the site location. The
SIC codes that best represent the
principal products made or activities
conducted by the facility will give EPA
an indication of the nature of the
industrial activity at the facility. An
alternative indicator of the industrial
activity is required for classes of
facilities that do not have SIC codes that
accurately describe the principal
products or services provided (e.g
hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facilities, land disposal
facilities that receive or have received
any industrial waste. steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage). This
information gives an indication of the
pollution potential of the facilit3 1 and is
necessary to evaluate oversight and
enforcement priorities for followup
actions by EPA. In addition, this
information can be used to identify
particular classes of discharges where
industry- pecific general permits may be
appropriate or where individual permits
may be necessary. Today’s permits
require up to four SIC codes to
characterize facilities that conduct
multiple activities that are addressed by
more than one SIC code. The operators
name, address, and telephone number
are necessary to support
communications with the perrnittee and
to allow EPA to request information or
provide guidance. The permit number(s)
of additional NPDES permit(s) for any
discharge(s) (including non-storm water
discharges) from the site that are
currently authorized by an NPDES
permit will allow EPA to coordinate
oversight and compliance monitoring
activities taken under today’s permits.
such as inspections, with other actions
taken pursuant to other NPDES permits.
The name of the receiving water(s) will
allow EPA to identify discharges to
impaired. sensitive water bodies, or
high.value water resources that require
additional oversight and compliance
evaluation. Permittees that discharge to
a large or medium municipal separate
storm water permits require the
applicant to provide the name of the
municipal operator of the storm se ier.
The name of the municipal operator of
the storm sewer provides EPA with the
opportunity to coordinate compliance
monitoring activities and the
identification of priority discharges with
municipalities. An indication of whether
the owner or operator has existing
quantitative data describing the
concentration of pollutants in storm
water discharges informs EPA of
additional data to review in
characterizing the nature of the
discharge. An indication of whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process allows
EPA to implement the group application
process better and eliminates
redundancy or overlap between that
process and coverage with general
permits. The certification that a storm
water pollution prevention plan has
been prepared for the facility in
accordance with the permit ensures that
plans for new facilities have been
developed and assists the Agencys
compliance monitoring efforts.
One commenter indicated that
facilities such as remote oil and gas
operations may not have mailing
addresses. In response. the Agency has
modified today’s permits so that where
a mailing address for a site is not
-------
available, the location can be described
in terms of the latitude and longitude of
the facility.
One commenter suggested that it
would be more reasonable to allow
permittees to be automatically covered
by a renewed general permit EPA
disagrees with this comment The
Agency believes that It is appropriate
for permittees to reapply every five
years under a general permit in the same
manner as they would with an
individual permit application, and does
not believe that the requirement to
resubmit an NO! every five years
creates excessive burdens on
dischargers. This information also
allows EPA to update its record of
permittees.
One commenter indicated that
identification of Department of Defense
(DOD) facilities by a single SIC code
may preseni a problem because there
may not be an appropriate code or
several activities may be taking place at
different portions of the installation In
response. the Agency wants to clarify
that the NOIs associated with todays
permits provide for up to four SIC codes
that best describe the facility. In
general, a Federal facility, such as a
DOD installation, that has an industrial
activity on the facility should use the
SIC code that would describe the same
specific zndustri i activity at a private
facility. The Agency also notes that
some DOD bases or installations will
have different industrial activities at
multiple locations at the installation In
such cases, the facility should submit
one NO! for each location conducting a
different industrial activity.
One cominenter recommended that in
addition to the signature by a
responsible corporate officer (as defined
by 40 CFR 122.22) the person having
overall responsibility for environmental
matters should be required to sign the
NO!. The commenter indicated that this
information would simplify EPA’s efforts
to contact a permittee. In response. EPA
is concerned that such a requirement
may cause confusion among dischargers
during the initial application process.
The Agency notes that today’s permits
require permittees to develop storm
water pollution prevention plans that
provide for a description of a storm
water pollution prevention team. This
requirement is intended to provide a
clear description of personnel that are
responsible for implementing permit
requirements. Therefore, the Agency
does not believe that it is necessary to
require the person having overall
responsibility for environmental matters
to sign the NO !.
NO! Deadlines
In the August 16. 1991 draft general
permits, EPA proposed that NOls to
obtain coverage under the permits be
submittiid within 180 days of the date of
Issuance of the general permits or at
least 30 days prior to the
commencement of construction of a new
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity Subsequent to the
August 16. 1991 notice. EPA extended
the regulatory deadlines for submitting
individual permit applications (see
November 5. 1991 (56 FR 56549)) and
part 2 of group applications (see April 2,
1992 (57 FR 11394)) for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to October 1. 1992.
Today’s final general permits provide
that NOls for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
industrial facilities existing on or before
October 1. 1992. must be submitted on or
before October 1. 1992. The Agency has
selected the October 1. 1992 date to
provide consistency with the deadlines
for submitting individual permit
applications and Part 2 of group
applications. Using the October 1, 1992
deadline will minimize confusion
regarding these deadlines, particularly
where EPA issues permits for different
States on different dates. In addition.
the October 1. 1992 deadline provides an
equitable framework for complying with
permit application requirements.
Today’s permits provide that facilities
with industrial activity addressed by the
storm water program that begin to
operate after October 1. 1992, must
submit an NOl at least 2 days prior to
the commencement of the industrial
activity at the facility The Agency
believes that this short time period is
appropriate for new discharges or new
sources which begin operation after
October 1. 1992 because development of
a storm water pollution prevention plan
and submittal of an NO! can be
anticipated and planned for prior to the
initiation of opetations,
Several commenters requested
clarification of whether a new NO! must
be submitted where the operator of the
discharge changes. In response. 40 CFR
122.81 requires that permittees potify
EPA when a permit is transferred to a
new owner or operator. In addition, 40
CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) requires that
dischargers seeking coverage under a
general permit submit an NO!. The
Agency considers an operator change at
a facility to be analogous to a new
discharger seeking coverage under the
permit, and has clarified in today’s
permits that where an operator of a
facility with a discharge covered by the
permit changes. the new operator of the
41261
facility must submit an NO! at least 2
days prior to the change
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that not all oil and gas operations
are required to obtain NPDES permit
coverage for their storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity and asked EPA to clarify the
deadlines for submitting an NO! for
those facilities that are required to
obtain NPDES permit coverage
In response. section 402(1)(21 of the
CWA provides that EPA shall not
require a permit for discharges of storm
water runoff from mining operations or
oil and gas exploration, production,
processing or treatment operations. or
transmission facilities if the storm water
discharge is not contaminated by
contact with, or does not come into
contact with, any overburden, raw
material, intermediate product. finished
product, byproduct. or waste product
located on the site of such operations
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 122 26(a)(2)
codify this provision, and today’s permit
does not attempt to require coverage for
discharges that are excluded under the
CWA from the NPDES program. EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii)
state that the operator of an oil and gas
operation is not required to submit a
permit application for their storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity unless the facility has a
discharge of storm water resulting in the
release of oil or a hazardous substance
that exceeds the reporting quantities
established under 40 CFR 110.6. 40 CFR
117 21. or 40 CFR 302 6 or contributes to
a violation of a water quality standard
The Agency wants to clarify that oil
and gas operations that discharge
contaminated storm water at any time
between November 16. 1987 and
October 1, 1992. and that are currently
not authorized by an NPDES permit.
must submit an NO!, an individual
permit application, or participate in an
approved group application by no later
than October 1. 1992. The Agency also
wants to clarify that facilities that
evaluate their storm water discharge
after a release of a reportable quantity
of oil or a hazardous substance that
occurs after October 1. 1992, and
determine that their storm water
discharge is contaminated must either
submit an NOI to be covered by today’s
permits within 14 days of their first
knowledge of the release or submit an
individual permit application. This
provision does not require operators uf
oil and gas operations to submit an NO!
where they do not have a contaminated
storm water discharge Operators of oil
and gas operations that release a
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday , September 9. 1992 / Notices
-------
41262
Federal Register / Vol . 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
substance in a storm water discharge
who do not believe that their storm
water discharge is contaminated may
submit an individual permit application
in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii).
EPA believes the 14-day time frame is
appropriate because of the nsk
associated with such facilities. The
Agency also notes that facilities with a
reportable quantity release of a
hazardous substance or oil are required
to notify the National Response Center
(NRC) as soon as they know of the
release. and that the facility should have
the information necessary for submitting
an NO! readily on hand.
Some commenters requested
clarification of whether dischargers that
missed the deadlines for submitting an
NO! may ultimately obtain general
permit coverage. A number of these
commenters were particularly
concerned about dischargers unaware of
the requirement to obtain an NPDES
permit for their discharge by October 1.
1992. These commenters urged EPA to
provide flexibility in allowing them to
submit an NO! to be authorized to
discharge under the general permit after
the deadlines specified in the general
permit.
In response. EPA recognizes that there
will be situations where it will be
appropriate to allow a discharge to be
authorized under the general permit
after the deadline for submitting an NOl.
For example. some facilities may only
become aware of the general permit or
that their storm water discharge must be
authorized by an NPDES permit after the
deadline for submitting an NO! has
passed. The Agency recognizes that the
NPDES storm water program is
relatively new, at least in terms of
implementation activities, and the
application deadlines have changed on
several occasions, which may have
confused some dischargers. While
ignorance of NPDES storm water
requirements is not a shield from
enforcement for discharging without a
permit, the Agency recognizes the
administrative advantages in allowing
an existing discharger to obtain
coverage under the general permit.
In response to these concerns, today’s
permits clarify that a discharger that
misses either the October 1. 1992
deadline or the 48.hour deadline for
facilities that commence construction
after October 1. 1992. is not precluded
from submitting an NO! and being
authorized to discharge under the
general permits at a later date. EPA
wants to clarify that where a discharger
has submitted an NO! after the
deadlines specified in the permit the
Agency has the authority and reserves
the right to bring appropriate
enforcement actions.
Notice of Termination
Some commenters noted that facilities
with “paragraph (xi)” storm water
discharges could eliminate their storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity by eliminating
exposure of material to storm water. In
addition, several commenters indicated
that a facility can change industrial
activity or otherwise discontinue
industrial activity and can eliminate its
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity where significant
materials no longer remain exposed to
storm water Some of these commenters
requested that EPA provide a
mechanism for reporting to EPA when
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity at a facility have been
eliminated.
In response. the Agency wants to
clarify that the regulatory definition of
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity is provided at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14) Paragraph (xi) of the
regulatory definition provides that
facilities under Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 20. 21. 22. 23,
2434. 25, 265. 27. 283. 285, 30, 31 (except
311), 323. 34 (except 3441). 35. 36. 37
(except 373). 38. 39. or 4211—25 which are
not otherwise addressed by other
categories of the definition have a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity only where material
handling equipment or activities, raw
materials, intermediate products, final
products, waste materials, by-products.
or industrial machinery are exposed to
storm water 20
In response to these concerns, today’s
permits have been modified to allow
permittees to submit a Notice of
Termination (NOT) to EPA indicating
that the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
their facility have been eliminated.
Non-Storm Water Discharges
The August 18. 1991 draft permit
required all discharges covered by the
permits to be composed entirely of
storm water and discharges of material
other than storm water to be in
‘°The exclusion coniained in p.iragraph (xuj was,
however vacated and remanded to EPA (or further
proceedings .VROC’. 5P4 ‘40 90—70671 (9th Cit.
June 4 19921 EPA interprets the effect of the Court
remand as requiring the Agency to conduct further
proceedings to address the Court a decision Thus
EPA will not require that facilities deniitied by
paraqraph xi) without exposure to submit storm
water applications until the Agency has had the
opportunity to complete ,iddition,il proceedings in a
manner consistent with the “iinih Circuit decision
und the provisions of Section 40 (pI )t (B) of the
CWA
compliance with a different NPDES
permit issued for the non-storm water
discharge. EPA indicated that it was
taking this approach because these
general permits were not intended to
authorize process wastewater
discharges.
A number of commeriters strongly
supported the prohibition or noted that
it appeared reasonable. However, a
number of comments addressing this
provision raised technical concerns that
certain non-storm water discharges are
commonly allowed to discharge via a
separate storm sewer or are otherwise
mixed with storm water discharges.
These cornmenters indicated that some
classes of nonstorm water discharges
could not easily be separated from
drainage or separate storm sewer
systems and that separating such
discharges from storm sewer systems
usually would not provide any
environmental benefits. Some of these
commenters maintained that a strict
prohibition on non-storm water
discharges would significantly limit the
number of facilities obtaining coverage
under the general permit.
In response to these comments. EPA
believes that it is important to retain a
modified version of this provision in the
permit to clarify that certain non-storm
water discharges. such as process waste
waters or wastes improperly disposed
through a storm drain, are not
authorized by today’s general permits
for storm water discharges. However.
today’s permits provide for two sets of
circumstances where storm water
discharges that are mixed with storm
water may be authorized by this permit
Consistent with the proposal. today’s
permit authorizes storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are mixed with non-storm
water discharges in compliance with a
different NPDES permit. However, the
monitoring requirements and
compliance point for numeric limitations
for the non-storm water discharge must
be addressed in the permit for the non-
storm water discharge. In addition, the
Agency also recognizes that discharging
some classes of non-storm water via
separate storm sewers or otherwise
mixed with storm water discharges is
largely unavoidable and/or poses little
if any envtronmental risk. Therefore, the
Agency has clarified thst today’s
permits authorize storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are mixed with discharges
from firefighting activities, fire hydrant
flushing, potable water sources
including waterline flushings, landscape
irrigation drainage, routine exterior
building washdown which does not use
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9, 1992 / Notices
41263
detergents. pavement washwaters
where spills or leaks of toxic or
hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been
removed) and detergents are not used.
air conditioning condensate (but not
including cooling water from cooling
towers, heat exchangers or other
sources). springs, uncontaminated
ground water, and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents provided that the non-
storm water component of the discharge
is identified in the pollution prevention
plan. In addition, the plan must identify
and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention
measures for each of the non-storm
water component(s) of the discharge
As a general matter. EPA believes
that where these classes of non-storm
water discharges are identified iii a
pollution prevention plan and where
appropriate pollution prevention
measures are evaluated, identified and
implemented, they can be effectively
controlled under today’s permit. The
Agency also notes that it can request
individual permit applications for such
discharges where appropriate and
necessary The Agency is not requiring
that flows from firefighting activities be
identified in plans because of the
emergency nature of such discharges
coupled with their low probability and
the unpredictability of their occurrence
The Agency notes that the approach in
today’s permits taken for non-storm
water discharges is parallel to the
approach taken for non-storm water
discharges to large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
ri its November 16. 1990 rulemaking (55
FR 47990) The non-storm water
discharges addressed in today’s permits
are similar to those addressed in the
November 16. 1990 rulemaking. although
several modifications to the list have
been made that provide additional
clarity and that recognize the industrial
nature of facilities covered by today’s
permits The modifications also reflect
the generally higher degree of control
that industrial facilities can exercise
over the generation a’ non-storm water
discharges on a site, For example.
routine exterior building washdown that
does not use detergents and pavement
washwaters where spills or leaks of
toxic or hazardous materials have not
occurred (unless all spilled material has
been removed) and where detergents
are not used have been specified in
today’s permits to specifically identify
nonstorm water discharges that are
commonly expected from industrial
sites. The reference to spills is to ensure
that washwaters used to clean spills are
not flushed to the storm sewer and
directly to waters of the United States
Releases of Reportable Quont, lies of
Hazardous Substances
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits provided that the permits would
not relieve the permittee of reporting
requirements for releases of hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities established under 40 CFR 117
and 40 CFR 302. The draft permits
further provided that discharges of
hazardous substances in storm water
discharges are to be minimized in
accordance with the applicable storm
water pollution prevention plan and can
in no case contain a hazardous
substance equal to or in excess of a
reportable quantity.
A number of commenters strongly
supported the prohibition, or noted that
it appeared reasonable However,
several other commenters indicated that
the prohibition on releases of hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities acted as a series of effluent
limitations and that the Agency had not
established such limitations consistent
with the technology-based or water
quality-based standards of the CWA
These commenters indicated that the
reportable quantities established under
40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 were not
developed as numeric effluent
limitations under the NPDES program.
One of these commenters indicated that
some hazardous substances still had
reportable quantities of 1 pound that
had been originally established by
Congress However, a number of the
commenters that objected to the
prohibition as a perceived effluent
limitation agreed that the reporting of
such discharges was appropriate and
that a facility with such a discharge
should not be exempt from liability
provisions under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the
CWA Some of these commenters also
noted that the use of best management
practices aimed at preventing and/or
cleaning up the release, instead of
numeric end-of’pipe limitations, is the
most effective way to address these
discharges.
In response. the Agency has modified
this provision in today s permits to
provide additional consistency with the
reporting requirements for releases of
hazardous substances and oil in excess
of reporting quantities at 40 CFR 110, 40
CFR 117. and 40 CFR 302, to provide
clarification that the Agency does not
intend for the prohibition on releases in
excess of reporting quantities to act as
numeric effluent limitations, and to
address such releases in a manner
consistent with the approach taken in
today’s permits with respect to pollution
prevention plan implementation.
Today’s permits require that the
discharge of hazardous substances or oil
in the storm water discharge(s) from a
facility must be minirni7ed in
accordance with the applicable storm
water pollution prevention plan for the
facility Where a release containing a
hazardous Substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reporting
quantity established under either 40 CFR
117 or 40 CFR 302 occurs during a 24-
hour period, the permittee must’
• Notify the National Response
Center (NRC) as soon as he or she has
knowledge of the discharge:
• Notify the appropriate EPA
Regional Office within 14 calendar days
of knowledge of the release. The notice
must contain a written description of.
the release (including the type and
estimate of the amount of material
released), the date that such release
occurred, the circumstances leading to
the release, and steps to be taken to
identify measures to prevent the
reoccurrence of such releases and to
respond to such releases as needed: and
• Modify the storm water pollution
prevention plan for the facility within 14
days of knowledge of the release to
describe the release, the circumstances
leading to the release, and the date of
the release. In addition, the plan must be
reviewed and where appropriate
modified by the permittee to identify
measures to prevent the reoccurrence of
such releases and to respond to such
releases as needed
The Agency has clarified that today’s
permits do not authorize the discharge
of hazards substances or oil resulting
from an on-site spill of non-storm water
materials This is consistent with CWA
and CERCLA requirements for
hazardous substances and oil for
anticipated intermittent point source
discharges at 40 CFR 117 12(d)(i) I
The Agency believes that this
approach will result in the same
objectives as the approach in the August
16. 1991 draft permits (i.e. to provide the
Agency with information that allows for
considering whether an individual
permit is appropriate), while minimizing
confusion and concerns regarding the
provision Further, this approach
‘ 40 CFR 117 iZld j(2 ( ( I ) excludes discharges that
are continuous or anticipated intermittent
discharges from a point source identified in en
NPDES permit from reporting requirements if he
dl8charge of the hazardous substance results from
he contaminaiton of storm waler provided that he
siorm waler is not contaminated by an on .iIe spilt
of a hazardous substance
-------
41264
Federal Register I VoL 57. No.175 / Wednesday. September 9. lggZ I Notices
provides additional flexibility for
implementing appropriate pollution
prevention measures. The Agency also
believes that ample enforcement
authority under the CWA and CERCLA
exists for addressing releases of
hazardous substances in excess of
reportable quantities and that the
approach taken in today s permits
complements those authorities.
One discharger raised concerns that
the prohibition implied that discharges
of a hazardous substance up to an
applicable reportable quantity was
acceptable and that a pernuttee was not
required to do anything unless such a
release occurred. In response. EPA does
not intend to imply that discharges of
hazardous substances up to an
applicable reportable quantity are
acceptable in the sense that a discharger
should do nothing until discharging a
hazardous substance or oil in excess of
a reportable quantity. The Agency notes
that any point source discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States
without a permit is prohibited under
section 301 of the CWA. lii addition.
todays permits do not establish numeric
effluent limitations for such storm water
discharges from industrial activities
(except for coal pile runoff). Rather. the
permits requires dischargers to develop
and implement best management
practices and pollution prevention
measures to reduce and/or control
pollutants in the discharge even in cases
where the discharge does not contain
hazardous substances or contains
hazardous substances at levels
significantly lower than reportable
quantities.
Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
At the heart of the August 16. 1991.
draft permits were flexible requirements
for site-specific storm water pollution
prevention plans to be developed and
implemented to minimize and control
pollutants in storm water discharges.
The Agency adopted this approach in
order to address adequately the variable
storm water management/pollution
prevention opportunities at different
types of industrial facilities.
In general. many commenters
supported requiring storm water
pollution prevention plans to achieve
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) and
Best Conventional PolLutant Control
Technology (BCT) requirements in lieu
of numenc limitations Many of these
commenters indicated that pollution
prevention measures (e.g.. source
reduction measures and elimination of
pollutant sources) were for many
industrial facilities the most practicable
and cost-effective approaches to
reducing pollutants in storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters supported
the flexibility that the proposed
requirements provided for developing
tailored plans and pollution prevention
strategies. Some of these coinmenters
indicated that this approach allowed
facilities to use their own expertise and
knowledge of the facilities and that
industrial operators were in the best
position to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention
strategies. Other commenters noted that
it was essential for facilities to take the
lead role in determining requirements
that are reasonable and necessary for
their facility. Others urged the Agency
to maintain flexibility to address unique
industry-specific or facility-specific
conditions. Several commenters
indicated that they believed that broad
effluent limitations or national
performance standards for pollution
prevention requirements were not
appropriate at this time and that
industry should be given flexibility to
establish specific pollution prevention
measures for their facilities.
One commenter indicated that based
on experience at industrial sites . the
most effective means of controlling
pollutants in storm water was the
requirement for each permittee to
develop and implement a pollution
prevention plan. This commeriter
indicated that the plan requirements in
the August 16. 1991 proposal appeared
to be both effective and enforceable, as
well as easily understood by the people
responsible for complying with the
general permit.
Several commenters indicated that
requirements to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention
measures should be limited to a subset
of all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. One commenter. while noting
that pollution prevention measures can
be effective in some cases. indicated
that Industrial facilities should have the
option of preparing a pollution
prevention plan or meeting a numeric
effluent (imitation or other performance
standard. This commenter alternatively
suggested that only Facilities that have
been shown to contribute significantly
to storm water.related impacts on
receiving waters should be required to
comply with requirements to develop a
plan. Another commenter suggested that
numeric limitations be provided as a
floor. The commenter further suggested
that facilities should not be required to
implement pollution prevention
measures for storm water discharges
that contain pollutants at Levels lower
than the concentrations provided in the
numeric limitation. One commenter
indicated that permittees should only be
required to develop pollution prevention
plans if monitoring data shows that
these are appropriate or necessary. A
mining company indicated that runoff
from an industrial facility may actually
be of better quality than the receivtng
water and that a blanket requirement
that all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity prepare plans is not appropriate.
In response. EPA notes that the CWA
requires NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity (see section 402(p11 2 )(B)i In
addition. the CWA requires NPDES
permits for storm water discharges that
are significant contributors of pollutants
to waters of the United States or that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard (see section
402(p)(2)(E] of the CWA). All NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity must.
at a minimum, establish BAT/BCT
requirements (see section 402(p)(3) of
the CWA). Thus. consistent with the
requirements of the CWA. the
requirements in today s permits to
develop and implement storm water
pollution prevention plans apply to all
permittees whether the Agency has
made a showing that a facility is
contributing to a water quality impact or
not, or whether pollutants in the
discharge from a facility exceed the
concentrations in discharges from
surrounding land uses.
The Agency believes that Congress
establishes this technology-based
framework because it was aware of the
technical and administrative difficulties
of making a showing that a single
facility is a significant contributor to
specific water quality impacts and it
determined that mandatory minimum
pollution control requirements were
appropriate for industrial facilities with
storm water discharges. Today’s permit
establishes BAT/BCT requirements in
terms of requirements to develop and
implement storm water pollution
prevention plans. 22 These requirements
apply to all permattees.
The Agency notes that the
requirement to develop arid implement
storm water pollution prevention plans
is not the only option the Agency had
for establishing BAT/BCT requirements.
and that many NPOES permits
incorporate numeric limitations to
reflect application of BAT/BCT
requirements. However, the Agency
U in addition, wdey $ permits aatebiish a numeric
effluent timilation for coal pile runoff
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
currently does not have sufficient data
to develop appropriate numeric effluent
limitations for all of the varied sources
of storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity covered by these
permits The Agency also notes that
facilities covered by today’s permits
have varied potential for having many
different pollutants in their storm water
discharges. While today’s permits do not
provide permittees with the option of
meeting a numeric effluent limitation in
lieu of developing and implementing
pollution prevention measures, the
Agency notes that facilities that wish to
pursue numeric effluent limitations for
their storm water discharges may submit
data sufficient to support the
development of such limitations either
through the individual or group permit
application process.
One commenter thought plans should
not be required where facilities do not
have a previous history of spills or any
materials on site to create a spill. In
response. EPA wants to clarify that
spills are only one potential source of
pollutants in storm water discharges.
Other major potential sources of
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
include the following: loading and
unloading of materials; outdoor storage
of raw materials or products; outdoor
process activitie : dust or particulate
generating processes: illicit connections
or management practices: waste
disposal: and vehicle maintenance. 23
The requirements for storm water
pollution prevention plans in today’s
permits have been designed to address
these sources of pollutants as well as
spills. The potential for spills at a
facility is only one factor that pollution
prevention plans should address.
One commenter suggested that
facilities should be allowed to have a
Registered Professional Engineer (PE)
conduct a site review to identify
pollutant sources and establish a
schedule for elimination of those
sources as an alternative to
implementing a pollution prevention
plan. EPA has not adopted this
approach in today’s permit. Perhaps
most importantly. EPA needs well
documented plans to conduct its own
review of the adequacy of pollution
prevention measures and is concerned
that a PE certification without an
accompanying plan may be inadequate
for this purpose. While PE certifications
can play an important role in pollution
‘irevention strategies. the Agency also
as concerns that a PE evaluation, by
‘ A more complete discussion of these potential
pollutant source, can be found in the section 3 of
the August 18. 1991 draft fact aheei, (56 FR 40965)
itself. may not ensure successful
elimination of all potential sources of
pollutants to storm water The Agency
believes that PE certifications are best
suited for evaluations of structural
controls, spill prevention and response
measures. and the effectiveness of
comprehensive pollution prevention
plans. For many facilities, however.
complying with today’s permits means
relying on noristructural controls as part
of a comprehensive plan. In addition,
the Agency believes that this approach
would create unnecessary confusion
regarding the requirements of the permit.
Several commenters urged EPA to
ensure that requirements for developing
and implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans were feasible.
particularly for small businesses. Some
commenters suggested that a less
resource-intensive approach should be
developed for smaller facilities. Other
cornmenters indicated that they thought
the requirements for plans were too
complex or burdensome, particularly for
small businesses and small
municipalities with industrial
facilities.24 A few commenters
suggested that EPA delete some of the
components of the plan or phase in
some plan requirements to ease the
burden of development and -
implementation of plans. Others
suggested that facility size should be
considered when developing the plan.
EPA agrees that the varying sizes and
complexities of facilities should be
reflected in the storm water pollution
prevention plans This is one reason that
EPA favors having each perrnittee
develop and implement site-specific
storm water pollution prevention plans
under today’s general permits. EPA
believes that today’s permits generally
provide flexibility for those smaller
facilities which have smaller potential
for contributing pollutants to storm
water to develop and implement less
complex. and less costly, plans than
larger. more complex facilities.
EPA does not agree. however, that
some of the components of the plan
should be deleted for smaller facilities.
EPA believes that all of the components
for the plans required by today s permits
are essential for reducing pollutants in
storm water discharges and cannot be
selectively deleted or phased in without
hindering the effectiveness of the overall
pollution prevention efforts. Therefore.
‘ Subsequent to the August i S. 1991 proposai,
EPA ha. reserved the regulatory d.adlines lot storm
water discharges associated with induatnal
activities from facilities that are owned or operated
by a municipality with a popuiaiion of 100 000 or
less, other than discharges from airport,
powerplants or uncontrolled sanitary iandfii!a (see
Apnl 2. 1992. (57 FR 1i409} )
41265
EPA has determined that all components
of the storm water pollution prevention
plan required under today s permits are
necessary to reflect BAT/BCT The
pollution prevention plan requirements
of today’s permits can be described in
terms of four components In addition.
some facilities are required to conduct
discharge monitoring
The first component. formation of a
pollution prevention team is critical to
identifying individual responsibilities
and ensuring accountability for
implementing plans. The formation of
the Team formalizes the identification of
responsibilities and is not expected to
incur significant costs in and of itself
The role of the Team will depend on the
engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques
identified in the plan and the processes
employed at the facility.
Successful plan implementation must
be based on adequate identification of
pollutant sources The second
component of the plan. description of
pollutant sources, is achievable because
it is based on the information that
should generally either be readily
available from the normal business
practices of the facility (e.g. materials
inventories) or from standard
evaluations or observations. The costs
of these descriptions depend on such
factors as the nature of the process
employed, the age of the equipment and
facilities, and the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques
The third component of the plan is
identifying and implementing measures
and controls The costs of complying
with other measures and controls of the
plan depend on the nature of the process
employed, the age of the equipment and
facilities, and the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques. Good housekeeping,
preventive maintenance, spill
prevention and response, inspections.
employee training, and recordkeeping
and internal reporting have been
identified as measures that are broadly
applicable to all industry types and
acitivities 2$ and are achievable through
good engineering practices. The Agency
has identified a number of methods for
testing or evaluating the presence of
non-storm water discharges, such as
inspecting outfalls during dry weather
conditions, conducting dye testing, and
evaluating accurate schematics
25 See 4PDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Document EPA 1979 and Staff
Analysis of implementing Permitting Activities for
Storm Water Discharges A.soc aied with Industrial
Activity EPA 1991
-------
41266
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
available for meeting this requirement.
Where a certification that the discharge
has been tested or evaluated for the
presence of non-storm water discharges
is not feasible. today’s permits do not
require a certification, provided that the
storm water pollution prevention plan
indicates why the certification is not
feasible and identifies potentially
significant sources of non-storm water
at the site, and the discharger notifies
EPA. Today’s permits require permittees
to identify structural, vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures to limit erosion
and in a narrative consideration
evaluating the appropriateness of
traditional storm water management
practices used to divert, infiltrate, reuse.
or otherwise manage storm water runoff
in a manner that reduces pollutants in
storm water discharges from the site.
The flexibility of these provisions will
ensure that attainable practices are
implemented based on an consideration
of the costs of the measures and the
application of the control techniques to
a given facility
The fourth component of the plan are
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations. The requirements for these
evaluations include annual inspections
of the facility which are consistent with
practices at well run facilities. In
addition, the permit establishes targeted
monitoring requirements for selected
industrial activities. These monitoring
requirements. which are authorized by
section 308 of the CWA. are necessary
to ensure compliance with the
requirements of today’s permits and to
protect water quality Monitoring
requirements ha’.e been kept at a low
frequency and apply only to targeted
activities to limit cost of these
requirements.
The Agency has developed specific
guidance to assist facilities in
developing plans that comply with the
requirements of today’s permits (see
“Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices.” EPA. 1992).
This guidance contains worksheets.
checklists, and model forms that should
significantly reduce the burdens of
smaller facilities and help assist in the
development of plans under today’s
permits in an achievable manner.
Several commenters indicated that the
pollution prevention requirements in the
August 16. 1991 draft permits were
directed too hea .ilv towards
“traditional” industry and may not be
the most cost-effective requirements for
their facilities Some of these
commenters indicated that some
facilities would be better off pursuing
group applications or submitting
individual applications.
In response. as discussed above. EPA
believes that all of the components for
the plans required by today’s permits
are essential and cannot be selectively
deleted or phased in without hindering
the effectiveness of the overall storm
water pollution prevention efforts at a
facility. However, the Agency notes that
it has built considerable flexibility into
today’s pollution prevention plan
requirements. Under today’s permits.
while permittees must comply with all
applicable components of the plan,
facilities can focus most heavily on
those pollution prevention measures
that will most effectively reduce
pollutants to storm water discharges
from their industrial activities The
Agency believes that the requirements
in today’s permits can be tailored for the
different types of industrial facilities
that generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. The
Agency also wants to clarify that
today’s permits do not preclude
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
continuing participation in an approved
group application where they are
already an approved member or
- submitting an individual application
where they believe that the
requirements of today’s permits are not
appropriate for their discharges.
One commenter noted that the
requirements in the August 16. 1991 draft
permits appeared reasonable. but that
permit writers should have additional
discretionary authority to waive some of
the components of the general permit. In
response. the Agency notes that today s
permits do provide considerable
flexibility in developing site-specific
pollution prevention plans. Again, the
Agency wants to clarify its view that all
components of a storm water pollution
prevention plan outlined in today’s
permits are needed to comply with the
BAT/BCT standards of the CWA.
Industry comments regarding the level
of specificity of requirements were
mixed. A number of commenters
commended the Agency art its efforts to
promote flexibility in storm water
management. Some industrial
commenters urged EPA to provide
greater detail in plan requirements or
additional technical guidance to assist
them in developing site specific plans
and to allow facilities to better
determine whether they are in
compliance with the permit One
commenter noted that additional
technical guidance could greatly reduce
the burdens on small industries because
facilities could then prepare their plans
without the significant expense of an
outside consultant.
In response to these concerns, the
Agency has rearranged and reordered
the requirements of the pollution
prevention plans in today’s permits and
clarified several points found confusing
by commenters. These changes have
been made to simplify preparation and
implementation of plans and to
minimize confusion. As mentioned
above, the Agency has also developed
specific guidance to assist facilities in
developing plans that comply with the
requirements of today’s permits (see
“Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities’ Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices”. EPA 1992) This
guidance contains worksheets.
checklists and model forms which
should assist facilities which are not
using outside consultants to develop
plans under today’s permits in an
achievable manner.
Other commenters urged EPA to
specify the objectives of the plans
without prescribing the means by which
the objectives must be achieved (e g. to
establish guidelines for pollution
prevention measures. but to not specify
how they will be achieved). In response.
the Agency has considered the issue of
the appropriate balance between
flexibility and specifying requirements,
and believes that the approach taken in
today’s permits is appropriate. (e g to
identify specific classes of measures
that must be addressed in a pollution
prevention plan. but to provide
sufficient flexibility in meeting such
requirements as good housekeeping.
preventive maintenance, spill
prevention arid response procedures.
and employee training. so that specific
procedures or actions are not
prescribed). Today’s permits require the
development of plans that identify
potential sources of pollution which may
reasonably be expected to affect the
quality of storm water discharges from
the facility and describe and ensure the
implementation of practices which are
to be used to reduce the pollutants in
storm water discharges. Today’s permits
identify specific components that the
plan must address. including
requirements for a pollution prevention
team, description of potential pollutant
sources, measures and controls
appropriate for the facility, and
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations.
Other comrnenters indicated that
several provisions of the August 16. 1991
general permits (such as certain
recordkeeping provisions) appeared to
be redundant. In response. today’s
-------
Federal_Register/Vol 57. No 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41267
permits have been modified to eliminate
any such redundancy
One environmental group, white
noting that the concepts identified in the
plan were sound and important and
supporting the idea of having industrial
facilities create well-targeted plans that
contain the identified elements.
indicated its belief that the approach
was far too open.ended to ensure that
any given facility will go beyond
“business as usual” in preventing
pollutants to its storm water discharges.
The commenter urged the Agency to
require specific practices or preventive
actions or specific menus of practices
The commenter suggested that the
requirements for traditional storm water
controls and sediment and erosion
practices should at a minimum contain
both a Best Management Practices
(BMP) menu and a minimum number of
practices that each facility must select
from the menu
In response. the Agency disagrees
with this commenter. and believes that
today’s permits establish requirements
with a reasonable amount of specificity
that will result in substantial reduction
in the discharge of pollutants in storm
water As discussed above, the permit
establishes a prohibition on the
discharge of most non-storm water
discharges. specific requirements for
releases of hazardous substances, and
requirements for the development and
implementation of storm water pollution
prevention plans The provisions for
pollution prevention plans require that
perrnittees specifically address eight
different types of measures and controls.
as well as meet requirements for a
pollution prevention team, identify
potential pollutant sources, conduct
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations, and meet special
requirements for specific industry
categories.
The Agency has not established a
menu of traditional storm water controls
and sediment and erosion practices
because the significant variability in
facilities covered by today’s permits
precludes the identification of universal
standards or practices that are
appropriate or can be implemented by
all permittees For examples. small
facilities where the entire facility is
covered by impervious structures may
not have areas where significant erosion
occurs, and may have limited space for
traditional storm water measures. Other
facilities may have extensive areas with
ignifIcant erosion potential and/or
ore opportunities for traditional storm
/ater management measures.
However the permit has been
modified to provide that plans must
contain a narrative consideration of the
appropriateness of traditional storm
water management practices used to
divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise
manage storm water runoff in a manner
that reduces pollutants in storm water
discharges from the site The plan must
provide that measures determined to be
reasonable and appropriate shall be
implemented and maintained The
permit specifies that appropriate
measures may include vegetative swales
and practices. reuse of collected storm
water (such as for a process or as an
irrigation source). inlet controls (such as
oil/water separators). snow
management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices With respect to sediment and
erosion controls, the permit has been
modified to provide that the plan must
identify structural, vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures to be used to
limit erosion in areas with a high
potential for significant soil erosion. The
Agency believes that the additional
clarity added to these provisions
ensures that the permit is not too open-
ended and that permittees will
implement reasonable and appropriate
storm water management measures and
measures to limit erosion in areas that
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion
In addition. the guidance manual
“Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices.” U S EPA. 1992
identifies a number of specific storm
water management measures and
sediment and erosion controls that can
be used to satisfy these requirements
and discusses their general applicability
to industrial sites. Storm water
management measures addressed in the
document include flow diversion
practices: water reuse: vegetative
practices. such as flow attention by use
of open vegetated swales and natural
depressions. infiltration of runoff on site
via filter strips swales. level spreaders,
infiltration trenches, concrete grids, and
modular pavement and sequential
systems (which combine several
practices) Sediment and erosion
practices discussed in the manual
include the use of mulching, matting.
temporary seeding. permanent seeding.
permanent planting. sodding. chemical
stabilization, interceptor dikes and
swales. pipe slope drains, subsurface
drains, filter fences, gravel or stone filter
berms. storm drain inlet protection.
sediment traps. sediment basins, outlet
protection, check dams. and gradient
terraces
One commenter indicated that the
permits should clarify the specific
factors, including processes employed.
engineering aspects. functions, costs of
controls, location. dnd age of facilit
that permittees should take into account
when developing pollution prevention
measures.
In response. today’s permits require
that permittees consider the relevant
BAT and BCT factors when developing
and implementing storm waier pollution
prevention plans The following factors
are to be considered when evaluating
BAT requirements. the age of equipment
and facilities involved: the process
employed: the engineering aspects of the
application of various types of control
techniques, process changes’ the cost of
achieving such effluent reduction, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements)
The following factors are to be
considered when evaluating BCT
requirements: the reasonableness of the
relationship between the costs of
attaining a reduction in effluent and the
effluent reduction benefits derived the
comparison of the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from the
discharge from publicly owned
treatment works to the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from a class
or category of industrial sources: the age
of equipment and facilities involved the
process employed: the engineering
aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques: process
changes: and non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements).
Other commenters suggested that
similar plans. such as Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) or
BMP plans. could substitute as storm
water pollution prevention plans There
were numerous comments on
consistency with other plans.
specifically expressing a concern about
duplication of permitting Many
commenters argued that it was not
effective to have three different plans
covering safety. storm water pollution
prevention, and/or SPCC They felt that
these plans should be consolidated
Other program plans and
requirements such as those listed by
commenters contain provisions that
meet some elements of the storm water
pollution plan. but none, either alone or
in conjunction with others, specifically
addresses storm water concerns or the
requirements for plans in today’s
general permits. EPA does, however.
encourage facilities to use applicable
practices and provisions from existing
plans when developing their storm
water pollution prevention plans During
the development of the storm water
pollution prevention plan. EPA believes
the use and incorporation of other
-------
41268
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
existing plans will help reduce the
burdens associated with their
development and implementation.
Pollution Prevention Team
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits contained a provision requiring
that plans identify a pollution
prevention committee of individuals
within the plant organization who are
responsible for developing the pollution
prevention plan and assisting the plant
manager in its implementation.
maintenance, and revision.
In todays permits. the Agency has
changed the name of the committee to
“Pollution Prevention Team.” The
Agency believes that the term “Team”
will better convey the purposes of the
provision.
A number of commenters requested
that the Agency simplify requirements
for small businesses to implement
pollution prevention committees. Some
commenters indicated that many small
businesses may only have one person
dedicated to all aspects of
environmental and safety and health
regulatory compliance, or that facility
owners or operators address regulatory
compliance matters
In response. the Agency believes that
it is critical for plans to identify those
employees who will be responsible for
implementing the various provisions
identified in the plan. EPA agrees that
the storm w,ater pollution prevention
committee size will vary based on the
facility size and complexity. The Agency
agrees that in some situations it will be
appropriate for the ‘Team” to be
comprised of one employee. Today’s
permits have been clarified to reflect
that the team or committee may be
comprised of one employee where
appropriate.
Several commenters indicated that
because many facilities already have
individuals who are responsible for
environmental compliance, the creation
of a pollution control committee only
adds another layer to a compliance
strategy. Several commenters indicated
that the committee may interfere with
the facility manager and that the facility
manager should have ultimate
responsibility and accountability for the
content and implementation of the storm
water pollution prevention plan.
The Agency agrees that many
facilities have already identified
individuals responsible for
environmental compliance and that
often the facility manager should have
ultimate responsibility and
accountability for the content and
implementation of the plan. The Agency
believes that it is important that the plan
specifically identify those individuals
responsIble for developing the pollution
prevention plan and having specific
roles in its implementation, maintenance
and revision. The Agency believes that
the commenters’ situation is a fairly
common practice among industrial
facilities and that today’s permits are
designed along compatible principles
intended to identify such individuals
and their relationships to others who
have critical roles in implementing
measures identified in pollution
prevention plans. The Agency believes
that identifying a pollution prevention
team will ensure the structure and
organization necessary for successful
plan implementation. The Agency
strongly recommends that individuals
who have already been identified as
being responsible for environmental
compliance at industrial facilities be
given central roles in Pollution
Prevention Teams. The Agency does not
intend the Pollution Prevention Team in
any way to interfere with the facility
manager. but rather to assist the facility
manager in developing and
implementing the plan. in addition, the
Agency anticipates that in many
instances the plant manager or his/her
equivalent will be a prominent member
of the Pollution Prevention Team. EPA
disagrees that the requirement to
identify the Team in the plan will create
undue burdens on facilities where
responsible individuals have already
been identified, since such individuals
should generally play a major role on
the Team.
One commenter indicated that the
pollution prevention committee/team
should not be required to ‘address all
aspects of the facility storm water
pollution prevention plan.” The Agency
disagrees with this comment: it is
critical that responsibility be assigned
for implementing each activity identified
in the plan.
One commenter indicated that the
pollution prevention comnuttee is
unnecessary and noted that most
individual NPDES permits do not require
such committees. in response. the
Agency believes that a pollution
prevention team is necessary for the
successful implementation of a source
control-oriented pollution prevention-
based approach. The Agency agrees that
most individual permits for process
wastewaters do not require the
identification of pollution prevention
measures. However, most individual
permits for process wastewaters take a
different approach to regulating
pollutant discharges. that of numeric
effluent limitations, and do not focus on
comprehensive source controls.
Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources
The August 18. 1991 draft general
permits contained provisions requiring
that plans contain certain information to
assist in identifying and characterizing
potential sources that may contribute
pollutants to storm water discharges.
The pollutant source identification
requirements in the August 16. 1991 draft
permits addressed requirements for a
site map. a topographic map. a narrative
description of significant materials used
at the site, a lost of spills and leaks, an
estimate of the types of pollutants likely
to be present in the storm water, and a
summary of sampling data.
Seseral industry commenters agreed
that successful pollution prevention
strategies must be based on an accurate
understanding of the pollution potential
of the site being considered.
Some commenters felt that the
requirement for the plan to include a
topographic map was too burdensome.
They indicated that a topographic map
would not be useful and suggested that
a site map would be adequate in
response to these comments, the Agency
is concerned about the confusion with
respect to how facilities intend to use
the topographic map. As a result, to
simplify these requirements. today’s
permits do not specifically require the
inclusion of a topographic map. The
Agency believes that a site map
indicating an outline of the drainage
area of each storm water outfall, and
other appropriate information. ’ 6 will
generally serve the purposes that a
topographic map would be used for in
the context of pollution prevention plan.
The agency also notes that under the
August 16, 1991 draft general permits
facilities could utilize a site map as an
alternative to a topographic map, thus
today’s permits do not constitute a
significant change.
One commenter indicated that it
would be difficult to delineate off-site
portions of the drainage areas of some
outfalls. The commenter suggested that
they only be required to show the parts
of the drainage that are on site. in
response. the Agency has clanfied in
today’s permits that only the portions of
‘ in todai’ a permlis. drainage sue maps must
indicaie an outline of the portions of the drainage
area of each storm water outfall each existing
structural control measure to reduce pollutants in
storm waier runoff, surface water bodies, locations
where significant matenale are exposed to
precipitation, locations where mapor spills or leaka
have occurred, and locations of the fueling stations.
vehicle and equipment maintenance and/or
cleaning area, loading/unloading area, locations
used for treatment. storage or disposal of wastes.
liquid storage tank,, processing area. and storage
areas
-------
Federal_Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 19 2 I Notices
41269
the drainage area within the facility s
boundaries need to be identified.
A number of commenters indicated
that certain industrial activities, such as
loading and unloading operations, may
occur under covered areas such as in
buildings or loading docks with
sufficient cover to prevent exposure to
precipitation and that spills are not
normally exposed to storm water. One
commenter requested that EPA clarify
that the list of significant spills and
leaks should be confined to those
materials that cannot be fully cleaned
and removed and could potentially come
in contact with storm water, Another
commenter suggested that EPA only
require spill information for areas to be
covered by the general permit. One
commenter suggested that the listing of
spills and leaks should not include
releases to impervious surfaces that are
automatically drained to waste
treatment sumps and that do not go to
storm drains, or to impervious surfaces
that are cleaned up without any
chemicals entenng a storm drain.
Another comrnenter suggested that spills
and leaks into secondary containment
structures should not be listed, as the
presence of a secondary containment
system gives adequate notice that care
is exercised, and that this requirement
was unnecessary and unduly
burdensome.
In response, EPA recognizes that some
spills, such as those that occur inside
buildings that ‘Irain to a sanitary sewer.
are not potential sources of pollution to
storm water discharges. and thus do not
need to be identified in the storm water
pollution prevention plan. However, the
agency believes that spills to sumps or
secondary containment areas that
receive storm water discharges should
generally be identified in the storm
water pollution prevention plan because
such devices can overflow during large
or repeated storm events, or storm water
may be drained and discharged from
such devices The Agency also believes
that it is important to identify spills that
occur on impervious surfaces that are
exposed to precipitation or that
otherwise drain to a storm drain even
when the spill is cleaned up before any
of it enters a storm drain. Listing such
events provides an indication of
potential pollutant sources that may
occur in the future, and helps direct
priorities for developing and
implementing spill response measures,
In response to the concerns raised in
these comments, the Agency has limited
this provision to significant spills and
leaks at areas that are exposed to
precipitation or that otherwise draul to a
storm water conveyance at the facility.
One commenter recommended that
spill prevention and response
procedures be deleted because EPCRA
and the Resources Conservation
Recovery Act (RCRA) already address
accidental releases Another commenter
suggested that the list of spills be
deleted and that the need for such a list
is adequately addressed by reportable
quantities, as spills of such size must be
reported and are already on file with the
government.
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that the central reason for
requiring this information in the
pollution prevention plan is to ensure
that dischargers adequately consider
potential sources of pollution when
identifying and implementing storm
water pollution prevention measures.
The Agency believes that such site
evaluation is critical for appropriate
implementation of storm water pollution
prevention measures. Similarly, such
information provides EPA with a better
basis for reviewing and evaluating the
adequacy of specific plans. The Agency
also notes that the spill reporting
measures under the other statutes
identified above have limited scope and
obpectives. and in general. do not
specifically consider the potential of
pollutant discharges in storm water or
controls for such pollutant discharges in
a comprehensive manner. 27 25 The
Agency also notes that spill reporting
requirements have been developed
under section 311 of the CWA and under
section 102 of CERCLA. However, the
Agency notes that these requirements
only apply to releases of hazardous
substances or oil in excess of reportable
quantities, and that this reporting
requirement focuses primarily on
emergency response to such incidents
These reporting requirements do not
“Section 313 or the Emergency Planning and
Community Right’io’Know Act (EPCR.A) (also
known as title ill of the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthonzation Act (SARA) of 1988) requires
operators of certain facilities thai manufacture.
import process, or otherwise use listed toxic
chemicals to report annually their releases of those
chemical. tø the environment Only those facilities
that manufacture Import process or otherwise use
a listed toxic chemical in excess of applicable
threshold quantities of the chemical have a pnmary
SIC code of 20 through 39 and have 10 or more full.
time employees must report Section 313 of EPCRA
focuses on the annual reporting of releases, and not
on the control of such releases
sa Subtitle C of the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) authorize, EPA to establish
requiremsnts for facilities that generate, transport.
or treat, store or dispose of materials that meet the
regulatory definition of hazardous waste.. The
RcRA Subtitle C regulations include requirements
for certain generators and treatment, storage. and
dispoul fictlittes to develop and Implement
contingency plans and emergency procedures to
minimize hazard, to human health or the
environment from fires explosions or any
unplanned release of hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constItuents to air. aoii or surface water in
general. RCRA does not address matenols that are
not considered to be wastes, and does not address
wastes that are not regulated a, hazardous wastes
address releases of materials that are
not classified as hazardous substances
or oil, or releases of hazardous
substances or oil that are less than
reportIng quantities The Agency
believes that many spills, leaks dnd
releases that are not considered to be
reportable quantities of a hazardous
substance can still contribuie significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water
discharges.
One commenter indicated that
numerous local, State. and/or Federal
spill reporting requirements already in
place require spill reporting and
recommended that any spill reports
prepared in accordance with these
existing spill reporting regulations be
referenced or attached to the storm
water plan.
In response, the Agency agrees that
these spill reports can, in some cases,
provide useful information for
identifying potential pollutant sources.
and encourages perrnittees to review
such information when developing and
modifying plans. However, the Agency
is not specifically requiring that such
information be included in the plan in
order to allow the permittee to best
determine the appropriate form of such
information.
One commenter requested
clarification of whether the term
“significant spills” included spills that
were not in excess of reporting
quantities established under section 311
of the CWA or section 102 of CERCLA
In response, EPA notes that the
definition section of the permit contains
a definition of “significant spills that
includes, but is not limited to. releases
of oil or hazardous substances in excess
of reportable quantities under section
311 of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR
110.10 and CFR 117 21) or section 102 of
CERCLA (see 40 CFR 302.4). The Agency
believes that it is appropriate to include
certain releases that are not releases of
oil or hazardous substances in excess of
reportable quantities for several
reasons. The materials that are
considered hazardous substances do not
identify all materials that can cause
water quality impacts In addition.
discharges of hazardous substances in
amounts less than reportable quantities
can cause water quality impacts. Other
significant spills Include spills that could
potentially add significant amounts of
pollutants. Such listing should address
other materials in addition to materials
that are listed as hazardous substance
or as oil. In addition, instances of
chronically repeated smaller spills can
constitute significant spills if such spills.
taken together. add significant amounts
of pollutants to storm water discharges.
Another cornrnenter requested that
EPA clarify whether the list of so’Ils
-------
41270
Federal Register / Vol . 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
needed to be updated to identify
significant spills and leaks that occur
after the effective date of the permit. In
response. the Agency wants to clarify
that plans are to be updated to address
significant spills and leaks that occur
during the term of the permit. This
information is necessary to ensure that
major potential sources of pollution to
storm water discharges are identified.
One commenter indicated that
existing quantitative data describing the
concentration of pollutants in storm
water discharges may be
unrepresentative of typical events and
good sampling protocols may not have
been used. The commenter indicated
that the discharger may have conducted
the sampling in order to evaluate
potential problems without intending to
submit the data.
In response. the Agency believes that
existing quantitative data can in many
cases be a useful. readily available
source of information to identify
potential pollutant sources. The Agency
recognizes that often the discharger did
not intend to submit such data, but
believes that such data can still be
useful for evaluating potential pollutant
sources. The Agency also recommends
that, where possible. dischargers
provide a description of procedures and
protocols that were used when
collecting and analyzing samples. This
type of information can be useful in
evaluating the validity and accuracy of
the data It should also be emphasized
again that EPA is not requiring this data
to be submitted with the NOl. Rather.
today’s permits provide only that such
data be identified in the NO! and made
available only when the permitting
authonty requests it.
One commenter requested
clarification of whether sampling data
collected during the term of the permit
must be summarized in the plan. In
response, EPA is clarifying that
sampling data collected during the term
of the permits must be summarized in
the storm water pollution prevention
plan.
One commenter urged the Agency to
examine requirements for the narrative
description of significant materials that
have been treated, stored, or disposed.
The commenter suggested that a
requirement for a materials storage and
handling report for all chemicals and
compounds listed for the facility’s
effluent guidelines under the NPDES
program and for other chemicals used
and byproducts formed at the site be
added to the narrative description of
significant materials and to the risk
identification and assessment/material
inventory portion of the permit.
In response. the Agency wants to
clarify that the inventory of exposed
materials is intended to address
materials that potentially may be
exposed to precipitation. including
chemicals used and byproducts formed
at the site that may be exposed to
precipitation. Among the items that
should be included on the inventory
area materials related to chemicals or
compounds listed in effluent limitations
guidelines to which the facility is subject
or chemicals or compounds specifically
controlled or limited in any other
NPDES permit for the facility should be
addressed to the extent that such
materials may be exposed to
precipitation.
One commenter suggested that a
current list and description of materials
is adequate: a description of materials
that may have been exposed to storm
water and the management practices in
the past three years is excessive.
However, another commeniter indicated
that a three year period for this
requirement was to short, and that
many sites have been used for purposes
other than those for which the sites are
currently operated. This commenter
suggested that any historical acti’ ities
at the site that now contribute to storm
water pollution should be identified.
In response. the Agency agrees that
past activities may result in pollutant
sources for present storm water
discharges. and that it is appropriate to
address materials that may have been
exposed to storm water in the past three
years. EPA believes that the three year
penod is reasonable and does not
impose excessive burdens for collecting
information on permittees. The Agency
notes that the three year period is
consistent with similar requirements for
indivtdual applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(.1)(i) (B) and
(D) and general NPDES records
retention requirements under 40 CFR
122.21(p) and 40 CFR 112.7(d)(8).
The August 16, 1991 draft permits
proposed that the plan provide a
prediction of flow and an estimate of the
types of pollutants likely to be present
in the storm water for areas of the plant
that generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity with
a reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants.
Several commenters requested
clarification of what constitutes a
“reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants “ One
commenter recommended that the
“reasonable potential” language be
removed.
In response. EPA believes that
permittees can evaluate whether areas
of the facility have a reasonable
potential for containing significant
amounts of pollutants bdsed on a
consideration of structures ,jnd
activities in that area of ‘h ficilit
Activities such as loading and unloading
of materials, outdoor storage of raw
materials or products. outdoor process
activities, outdoor equipment or vehicle
maintenance activities, dust or
particulate generating processes. illicit
connections or management practices.
and waste disposal will generally have a
reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants in
storm water discharges Process or
storage equipment which is exposed to
precipitation or structures such as metal
roofs can hate a reasonable potential
for containing significant amounts of
pollutants. Significant amounts of
pollutants would include pollutant
concentrations or unit loadings above
those typically found in runoff from
areas where there is no industrial
activity or other significant sources of
pollutants exposed to precipitation and
minimal potential for deposition of
pollutants, or that had potential to
adversely affect water quality EPA is
retaining the “reasonable potential”
language, but has modified the
requirement to limit it only to areas of
the facility with a potential for
contributing pollutants to storm water
discharges.
One commenter indicated that the
requirement to predict the total quantity
of pollutants likely to be in storm water
discharges is unreasonable, and could
not accurately be based on one sample
per year. Several commenters also
recommended that a facility be required
to make data estimates only when there
has been a demonstration that a
facility’s storm water will be
contaminated.
In response. the Agency wants to
clarify that an estimate of the total
quantity of pollutants likely to be in
storm water discharges is not required
by this provision. Rather. the intent of
the language used in the August 16. 1991
draft permits was to require dischargers
to identify the types of pollutants likely
to be present in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Today s permits have been modified to
clarify this point. Since today’s permits
do not require all facilities to sample
their storm water discharge, the Agency
believes that this provision has
additional importance in ensuring that
information in the plan is evaluated and
potential pollutant sources and
pollutants are identified. EPA believes
that it is consistent with the objectives
of a preventive strategy that pollution
prevention measures be implemented in
situations where there is a potential for
a facility’s storm water to contain a
particular pollutant. For example. spill
prevention measures and/or good
housekeeping measures. which prevent
pollutants from getting pollutants into
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday . September 9. 1992 / Notices
41271
storm water, can be appropriate where
spills have not occurred or where good
housekeeping is currently preventing
pollutants from entering the storm
water Thus. EPA does not agree with
the comments that all dischargers
should be required to identify pollutants
in storm water only when there has
been a demonstration that such
pollutants are present Today s permits
establish monitoring requirements for
targeted industrial activities to provide
more detailed information regarding the
nature and extent of pollutants in storm
water discharges from these facilities
One cornmenter indicated that the
requirements to provide drainage maps.
a narrative description of material
management practices and control
measures, and a history of significant
spills were too extensive, and that some
dischargers would find it preferable to
submit individual permit applications in
response, the Agency has ,considered the
burdens associated with developing
such information and believes that the
requirements are necessary to begin to
identify potential pollutant sources The
Agency does not believe that the
pollutant source identification
requirements in today’s permits are
excessive. Much of the information
required in the description of potential
pollutant sources, such as the inventory
of exposed materials, can be obtained
from facility records, or site inspections.
A list of significarrt spills and leaks can
be obtained from facility maintenance
records, reporting records and
discussions with employees EPA
expects that many facilities will have
existing site maps indicating the major
features of the facility or will be able to
develop such maps based on site
inspections, Plant managers or other
employees should be readily able to
develop descriptions of potential
pollutant sources and use best
professional judgement in evaluating the
pollution potential of the various
activities A prediction of the direction
of flow can be based on site topography
and simple observations of drainage
patterns The identification of the types
of pollutants likely to be present in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity can be based on
knowledge of the plant activities and
processes. EPA has issued technical
guidance that will provide permittees
with additional assistance in complying
with these requirements. EPA also notes
that the source identification
‘equirements in today’s permits are
omparable with the source
identification requirements in individual
permit applications. in addition, the
individual permit applications
requirements for storm water discharges
require the submittal of sampling data,
whereas today’s general permits do not
require dischargers to sample their
storm water discharges as part of the
NOI application
Measures and Controls
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits requested comments on eleven
baseline pollution prevention measures.
The maasures addressed pollution
prevention committees: risk
identification and assessment/material
inventory; preventive maintenance: good
housekeeping: spill prevention and
response procedures: storm water
management; sediment and erosion
prevention: employee training: visual
inspections, recordkeepang and internal
reporting procedures, and non-storm
water discharges As discussed earlier
in today’s notice, these requirements
have been rearranged and reordered to
provide additional clarity and minimize
confusion.
One commenter suggested that the
permit specifically require and pollutant
generating material to be completely
sheltered from precipitation and wind.
in response. the Agency recognizes that
covering or sheltering pollutant
generating material can be an effective
means of reducing pollutants in storm
water discharges. However, the Agency
recognizes that in some situations, this
may not be the most cost.effective
approach to controlling pollutants For
example, the Agency has defined an
effluent limitation guideline for coal pile
runoff from steam electric facilities that
is typically met by collecting and
treating the runoff rather than covering
the piles. Thus, the Agency is not
prepared at this time to mandate that all
pollutant generating material be
completely sheltered from precipitation
and wind.
One commenter indicated that EPA
has not shown that existing plant
maintenance practices and
recordkeeping are insufficient In
response. NPDES permits for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity must establish
conditions in accordance with the CWA.
and the Agency does not have the
burden of showing that existing plant
maintenance practices and
recordkeeping are insufficient to
establish today’s permit requirements.
In fact, the Agency has considered
typical industry practices at well
operated facilities when establishing the
requirements in today’s permits. The
Agency believes that plant maintenance
practices and recordkeeping are an
important component to a storm water
pollution prevention strategy. The
Agency recognizes that some facilities
will have adequate maintenance
practices and recordkeeping that have
been successful in preventing pollutant
discharges in storm water Under
today’s permits. these facilities are only
required to document such practices in a
pollution prevention plan and continue
them
Several commenters indicated that
requirements such as good housekeeping
should be limited to areas with a
tangible connection to the storm water
discharge. in other words, the pollution
prevention requirements should not
apply to indoor locations with no
potential to contribute pollutants to
storm water discharges. in response. the
Agency agrees with this commenter The
Agency notes that under the August 16.
1991 draft permits. priorities for controls
in a plan were to reflect identified
potential sources of pollutants at the
facility Where indoor activities are not
a potential source of pollutants, good
housekeeping measures do not have to
be addressed for such areas. The
Agency has clarified today’s permits
with regard to this point
One commenter suggested that the
inventory of types of material handled
should be limited to those materials that
could impact storm water In response.
the Agency has clarified today s permits
to provide that the inventory of
materials handled at the site is limited
to materials that potentially may be
exposed to precipitation.
One commenter suggested that oil and
gas operations in arid areas should not
be required to develop certain plan
components, such as the certification for
non-storm water discharges. risk
identification, and assessment/material
inventory, because such operations do
not have conventional storm drains and
facilities have little potential to
discharge to navigable waters.
In response. EPA notes that a facility
that does not have a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity is not required to obtain permit
coverage. However, storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that occur as the result of
infrequent storms or as the result of
overflowing detention ponds must be
authorized by an NPDES permit. The
Agency believes that pollution
prevention measures identified in
today’s permits are appropriate because
they will reduce the potential for
sources to contribute pollutants to storm
water under various climatic conditions,
including arid conditions Pollution
prevention act:vlties such as risk
identification, and developing an
asBessment/material inventory are
important in arid regions to identify
-------
41272
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
potential sources of pollutants to storm
water. Improper non-storm water
discharges to storm water conveyances
can occur in arid conditions since most
sources of non-storm water are not
related to precipitation events but rather
are related to process waters from other
sources such as wash waters or
produced waters The Agency also
wants to clarify that dischargers may
seek alternative permit requirements by
submitting an individual permit
application or participating in a group
application.
One commenter indicated that the
requirement to perform a “risk
assessment” was not realistic for small
businesses In response. the Agency
noted that different commenters
appeared to be interpreting the
requirement for a risk assessment
differently, with some facilities
apparently assuming that extensive
monitoring and evaluation would be
required. In an effort to minimize
confusion. the language in today’s
permits has been modified by removing
the term “assessment’ from the risk
identification section. This provision
does not require a formal risk
assessment. but rather requires a
narrative description of the potential
pollutant sources at specified material
handling areas (loading and unloading
operations. outdoor storage activities.
outdoor manufacturing or processing
activities, significant dust or particulate
generating processing, and on-site water
disposal practices). an identification of
significant potential sources of
pollutants at the site, and. for each
potential source. an identification of
pollutants of concern.
Several industry commenters
requested that the requirements for
storm water management be clarified. In
response. today’s permits have been
modified to explain that storm water
management measures are used to
divert, contain, reuse, or otherwise
manage storm water runoff in manner
that reduces polli..tants in storm water
discharges from the site. In addition, the
permit has been modified to list several
classes of typically used storm water
management measures: vegetative
swales and practices. reuse of collected
storm water (such as or a process or as
an irrigation source), inlet controls (such
as oil/water separators). snow
management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices.
One commenter suggested that EPA
define a criterion for determining
whether the use of traditional storm
water management measures are
reasonable and appropriate When
evaluating whether the use of traditional
storm water management measures are
reasonable and appropriate. dischargers
should evaluate the costs of the
measure, the potential pollutants
removed, and the potential for ground
water impacts.
EPA requested comments on
providing facilities that reuse
substantially all storm water with an
exemption from certain storm water
pollution prevention plan requirements.
Several commenters supported this
option. arguing that by reducing
discharge volumes facilities pose less
environmental risk.
EPA believes that the collection of
storm water for later uses, such as
irrigation, dust control. or process water.
can in some cases reduce the immediate
potential for pollutants to be discharged
to waters of the United States by
decreasing the amount of storm water
that is directly discharged. In addition,
the use of storm water at a facility can
reduce the demand on other water
supplies and/or reduce energy
consumption. However, the Agency
notes that some forms of storm water
reuse lead to the ultimate discharge of
the pollutants in the storm water to
waters of the United States. For
example. use of storm water for dust
control. lawn irrigation, or washings in
outdoor areas may result in pollutants
migrating to waters of the United States
via wind deposition or subsequent storm
events. Use of storm water for cooling
water may allow pollutants to pass
through a process and be discharged to
waters of the Uoited States. In such
cases, pollution prevention measures
prior to reuse are still appropriate.
Therefore. EPA has decided against
adopting an exemption based on water
reuse.
EPA encourages facilities to
incorporate storm water reuse as a site-
specific pollution prevention practice
where such practices will result in the
reduction of the discharge of pollutants
to waters of the United States. Today’s
general permits have been modified to
specifically list storm water reuse as a
potential practice related to the
management of runoff. The Agency
believes that this approach will allow
facilities employing storm water reuse
management practices as part of their
pollution prevention plans to minimize
the costs associated with storm water
management measures where
appropriate water reuse is the most cost
effective stcrm water management
measure.
The August 16. 1991 draft permits
provided that permittees are to certify
that the facilitys storm water discharge
(or conveyance) has been tested for the
presence of non-storm water discharges
This provision is similar to a provision
in the requirements for individual permit
applications that requires a certification
that all outfalls have been tested or
evaluated for the presence of non-storm
water discharges (see 40 CFR
122.26(c)(1)(i)(C)).
One commenter recommended that
the certification requirement for non-
storm water discharges be consistent
with the language used for individual
permit applications for storm water
discharges Another commenter
suggested that permits should allow
certifications based on evaluations other
than testing (as provided in the
individual permit application
requirements). One commenter
indicated that requiring permittees to
check for and remedy possible entrance
of non-storm water discharges could be
more efficient and less costly than other
tests.
In response. the November 16. 1990
permit application regulations require
applicants to certify that storm water
discharges be tested or evaluated for the
presences of non-storm water
discharges. In the August 18. 1991 draft
permits. the Agency inadvertently
limited the certification to testing, and
did not specify evaluation as a method
for certification. although such
evaluations were discussed earlier in,
the fact sheet. The Agency has modified
today’s permits to make them more
consistent with the November 16. 1990
permit application requirements by
providing that a facility may certify
based on an evaluation of illicit
connections.
Two commenters raised concerns that
the requirement for facilities to certify
that they have tested for the presence of
non-storm water discharges to storm
sewers could be onerous. particularly to
very small businesses. The commenters
indicated that some facility operators
may not be able to locate floor plans.
drainage maps. and other materials
required to identify and remedy illicit
connections.
In response, as discussed above, the
Agency has modified today’s permits to
clarify that perrnittees may either test or
evaluate their facility for the presence of
non-storm water discharges. This
approach provides flexibility for
complying with the certification
requirement and does not require
permittees to locate floor plans. or
drainage maps where they can inspect
storm water discharge points or conduct
evaluations on another basis, The
Agency believes that most facilities can
evaluate or test for the presence of non-
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
storm water discharges in a manner that
is not onerous or overly costly. For
example. at many facilities, the
discharger can observe for flow in
downstream portions of storm drains
during dry weather conditions when
sources that generate non-storm water
are operating or when water from a hose
or other source is added to potential
entry ways. such as floor drains, to the
storm sewer system. 29 Today’s permits
also provides that where a certification
is not feasible, a certification is not
required. provided that the storm water
pollution prevention plan indicates why
the certification is not feasible and
identifies potential significant sources of
non-storm water at the site, and that the
discharger notifies EPA.
One commentei- suggested that the
permits contain a limited waiver for
small businesses faced with the costs of
removing illicit connections. Another
commenter suggested that costs to
correct improper connections may be
prohibitive for small businesses. In
response, the CWA requires that point
source discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States are illegal
except as authorized by an NPDES
permit. EPA cannot waive this
requirement for small businesses. Non-
storm water discharges to waters of the
United States that are not authorized by
an NPDES permit that establishes
appropriate technology-based and water
quality-based requirements are in
violation of the CWA Todays permit
only establishes requirements for a
specific set of non-storm water
discharges. Addressing requirements for
other classes of non-storm water
discharges in today’s permits is beyond
the scope of today’s permits. Although
todays permits authorize several
specific classes of non-storm water
discharges that are in compliance with
pollution prevention measures, today’s
permits cannot authorize all non-storm
water discharges from small businesses.
Thus, facilities with non-storm water
discharges to their storm water
conveyance system that are not
authorized by today’s permit are
required to either obtain an NPDES
permit for such discharge or eliminate
the discharge.
One commenter noted that EPA does
not require discharge permits for “total
retention’ systems and requested that
‘ SA more complete discusion of method. to
identify iIll t connection, can be found an the draft
‘Manual of Practice Identificanon of Illicit
Connections US EPA. September 1990.
EPA define a design storm to determine
whether a retention system could
qualify. The commenter noted that the
limitations in several effluent guidelines
for storm water do not apply to
discharges resulting from a storm event
greater than the 25-year. 24-hour event
EPA would like to clarify that any point
source discharge of storm water
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States (including
those through a municipal separate
storm sewer system to waters of the
United States) legally requires a
discharge permit. This includes any
potential discharge from a retention or
detention device, regardless of the size
of the storm. Discharges as a result of a
catastrophic event could be subject to
enforcement discretion by the permitting
authority, in consultation with the State
water quality agency. The Agency
recognizes that several effluent
limitations guidelines for classes of
storm water do not apply to discharges
resulting from events of greater
magnitude than a specified design
storm. This is primarily because these
guidelines are based on a consideration
of treatment techniques which typically
involve collection and storage of the
storm water prior to treatment. The
design storm threshold in the guidelines
allows dischargers to design the storage
ui its necessary in the treatment system.
The requirements in today’s permits for
storm water pollution prevention plans
do not require the discharger to provide
storage for storm water. Rather, the
pollution prevention measures that are
identified in today’s permits can be
implemented regardless of storm size,
and therefore, an exemption for
discharges that exceed a specific design
storm is not necessary.
One commenter requested
clarification of who certifies that storm
water discharges have been tested for
the presence of non-storm water
discharge and how the certification is
made. In response. part V.C of today’s
permits specify signatory requirements
for certifications, including the
certification regarding non-storm water
discharges.
Otie commenter suggested that EPA
should specify a frequency for testing
storm sewers for illicit connections and
recommended a frequency of more than
once per year. In response, the Agency
believes that conducting the testing or
evaluation required by today’s permits
once per permit term may be
appropriate for some facilities where
new sources of non-water are not added
41273
at the facility Thus, today’s permits do
not establish a frequency of testing of
once per year
One commenter suggested that smoke
tests should be listed as a method for
identifying non-storm water discharges
to separate storm sewers In response,
the Agency has specifically not listed
smoke tests because of the potential to
misapply such tests in evaluating the
presence of non-storm water discharges
to storm sewers. Smoke testing (blowing
smoke from a downstream point in a
pipe up through the pipe) can be a useful
technique for detecting storm drains to
sanitary sewers. However, smoke tests
are often ineffective at finding non-
storm water discharges to separate
storm sewers. This is because line traps
which are intended to block sewer gas
(and will prevent the passage of smoke)
are commonly used on non-storm water
drain systems. (Line traps are less
frequently used on storm drains)
Several commenters requested
clarification on which employees require
training One commenter indicated that
some industrial facilities would have
large numbers of clerical and
administrative personnel who would
have no opportunity to create or abate
storm water pollution. The Agency
agrees with this commenter Today s
permit has been modified to provide that
employee training programs are to
inform personnel responsible for
implementing act vities identified in the
storm water pollution prevention plan or
otherwise responsible for storm waier
management at all levels of
responsibility of the components and
goals of the storm water pollution
prevention plan
Several commenters recommended
that the pollution prevention measures
used for the conStruction industry be
used for the mining industry In
response. while many of the land
disturbing operations and subsequent
stabization measures at mining sites are
similar to practices and activities at
construction sites, the Agency notes
possible differences between the two
classes of activities, such as the greater
use of toxic chemicals at some classes
of mining sites. The Agency also notes
that there is an overlap between the
types of controls the August 16. 1991
draft permits required for construction
sites and those required for other
industrial activities, particularly with
respect to erosion and sediment
measures and storm water management
(or maanagement of runoff) measures
The Agency notes that the greater
-------
41274
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. Sept mber 9. 1992 / Notices
overlap between measures used at
mining sites and those used at
construction sites generally involves
erosion and sediment measures and
storm water management measures. The
Agency believes that the requirements
in today’s permits are appropriate for
storm water discharges from mining
operations that are covered by today s
permits. and recommends that where
such operations are similar to
construction activities plans emphasize
sediment and erosion controls and storm
water management measures Again, the
Agency wants to clarify that dischargers
may seek alternative permit
requirements by submitting an
individual permit application or
participating in a group application.
A number of State and local agencies
indicated that they generally opposed
diverting storm water to sewage
treatment plants as an option for
preventing pollutants in storm water.
These commenters indicated that efforts
should be focussed on controlling
p’ollutants in storm water at the source.
and that the option should be limited to
discharges containing significant
amounts of pollutants. Treatment plants
serving a separate sanitary sewer
system were not designed to handle the
large amounts of storm water volume
that can be produced in an urban area
These commenters requested that EPA
clarify that wastewater treatment
agencies have authority to approve or
reject any application to introduce storm
water into the sanitary sewer system. In
response. the Agency notes that
diversion of storm water discharges to
sewage treatment plants was only
raised as an option for consideration in
the fact sheet to the August 16. 1991
draft permits. Today’s permits do not
specifically require permittees to
discharge their storm water to sewage
plants As noted in the August 16. 1991
notice. such diversion must be
coordinated with the operators of the
sewage treatment plant and the
collection system to avoid worsening
any existing problems with either
combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
basement flooding, or wet weather
operation of the treatment plant. The
Agency agrees the operators of
treatment plants (or operators of
collection systems) typically have
authority to approve or reject the
introduction of storm water into the
sanitary sewer system.
Gwrprehens,t e Site compliance
E oluat:oni. !onitorrng
The August 16. 1991 draft permits
provided that storm water pollution
prevention plans are to include
provisions fur qualified plant personnel
to inspect designated equipment and
plant areas. In addition. the August 18.
1991 draft permits required an annual
site inspection to verify that the
description of potential pollutant
sources in the plan is up to date and
accurate and that the pollution
prevention measures identified in the
plan are being implemented and are
adequate.
On April 2. 1992. (57 FR 11394) EPA
published final regulatory modifications
at 40 CFR 122.44(i)(4) that require
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to require. at a minimum, the
discharger to conduct an annual
inspection of the facility site to identify
areas contributing to a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity and evaluate whether measures
to reduce pollutant loadings identified in
a storm water pollution prevention plan
are adequate and properly implemented
in accordance with the terms of the
permit or whether additional control
measures are needed. In addition. the
April 2. 1992 regulations provide that
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must require the discharger to
maintain for a period of three years a
record summarizing the results of the
inspection and a certification stating
that the facility is In compliance with
the plan and the permit and identifying
any incidents of noncompliance. Such
reports and certification must be signed
in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22. The
April 2. 1992 regulatory modifications
were made in response to comments
generally indicating that site inspections
are an appropriate tool for assisting in
evaluating compliance with pollution
prevention measures for storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters on the
August 16. 1991 notice supported the use
of inspections to ensure compliance
with storm water pollution prevention
plan requirements. Some commenters
indicated that routine inspections and
maintenance by qualified persons. along
with adequate records of such
inspections, were critical to ensuring
adequate and properly implemented
pollution prevention measures.
Several commenters encouraged EPA
to require annual. in.depth inspections
of facilities to identify the potential for
pollutants to enter drainage systems.
Some of these commenters suggested
that more frequent but less
comprehensive inspections could
supplement the detailed annual
inspection and would ensure that
potential pollution sources of significant
concern are detected. Howe er several
commenters requested that EPA clarify
the differences between the two
inspection provisions of the August 16.
1991 draft permits. Several of these
commenters tndicated that the
requirements appeared to be duplicative
and suggested that EPA eliminate one of
the inspection requirements.
In response. the Agency has renamed
the term “site inspection” as used in the
context of annual inspections to be
‘Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation” to clarify the difference
between comprehensive. in.depth
evaluations of all areas of the facility
that generate storm water associated
with industrial activity and more
frequent. less comprehensive
inspections that may focus specifically
on one or two potential pollutant
sources. such as inspecting drip pans for
accumulation of materials
The requirements in today s permits
for comprehensive site compliance
evaluations are consistent with the
minimum requirements at 41) CFR
122 44(i)(4) for inspections in NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
Evaluations conducted under this
provision are to be based on in.depth
inspections and are to evaluate the
discharger’s compliance with its storm
water pollution prevention plan and
with today’s permits As part of these
evaluations, the portions of the site that
generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity must
be inspected for potential pollutant
sources and for the effectiveness of
controls developed as part of the storm
water pollution prevention plan The
pollution prevention plan for the facility
must be revised where necessary to
address the findings and reflect the
recommendations of the inspection.
Additionally. an annual certification
must be prepared indicating that the
storm water pollution prevention plan
was evaluated as part of an inspection.
that the plan is adequate for control of
facility storm water discharges. and that
the facility is in compliance with the
plan
In addition to the requirements for
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations, today’s permits also require
inspections of designated equipment
and areas of the facility This
requirement recognizes that periodic
routine inspections of certain equipment
or areas of the facility are appropriate
pollution prevention measures The
Agency has included this provision of
the permit separately to ensure that
facilities conduct more frequent
inspections of certain activities (e g..
leak detection measures for specified
equipment or daily or weekly
-------
Federal Register I Vol 57. No. 175 / Wednesday . September 9. 1992 / Notices
41275
walkthroughs to ensure good
housekeeping) without the burdens old
more intensive comprehensive site
compliance evaluation
Several commenters requested
clarification of what constituted
qualified personnel for the purpose of
conducting comprehensive site
compliance evaluations and inspections
In response. the Agency is hesitant to
define specific plant officials that must
conduct either comprehensive site
compliance evaluations or more
frequent Inspections. The Agency
believes that qualified personnel must
have sufficient technical abilities to
conduct the inspection or evaluation.
With respect to inspections, the
personnel conducting the inspection
must be aware of the goals of the
inspection (For example. personnel
inspecting a site to ensure that good
housekeeping practices are being
implemented must be able to identify
potential sources of pollutants
associated with poor housekeeping
efforts Personnel Inspecting spill
response procedures must be able to
evaluate the readiness, accessibility.
and adequacy of equipment necessary
to respond to potential spills.)
In addition, the personnel conducting
the inspection must be familiar enough
with the portion of the industrial process
being inspected to appropriately
accomplish the goals of the inspection
With respect to comprehensive site
compliance evaluations, the personnel
conducting the evaluation must be
knowledgeable of the contents and
objectives of the facility s storm water
pollution prevention plan and the
permit. In addition, the personnel must
have sufficient knowledge of the
operations at the facility to evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures and to identify potential
sources of pollutants to storm water
discharges In addition, the personnel
should generally be key members of the
storm water pollution prevention team
identified in the pldfl.
Some commenters expressed concerns
about monitoring or inspection
requirements for inactive mining sites.
The ADril 2. 1992 rule provides that
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from Inactive mining operations
may. where annual inspections are
impracticable, require certification once
every three years by a Registered
Professional Engineer (PE) that the
facility is in compliance with the permit.
or alternative requirements Todays
permits provide that where annual site
inspections are shown in the plan to be
impracticable for inactive mining sites
due to remote location and
inaccessibility of the site.
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations are to be conducted at least
once every three years EPA has
selected this lesser frequency in
response to comments that inactive
mining operations are often in remote
areas that are not necessarily supported
by infrastructure that allows easy
access.
A number of commenters urged EPA
to require that a PE be required to
certify that plans “be prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practices” Some of these commenters
urged the Agency to model PE
certification requirements after similar
requirements under Spill Prevention
Countermeasure and Containment
(SPCC) requirements at 40 CFR 112.3 In
response, the Agency recognizes that a
PE certification can be a useful tool,
particularly when evaluating the
pollutant removal abilities of structural
controls or of spill control/response
procedures However EPA is concerned
about requiring PE certifications at this
time for all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity The Agency recognizes that
today s permits cover a significant range
of industrial facilities that will
emphasize different components of
pollution prevention strategies PE
certifications may not be useful for some
types of facilities because they manage
minimum amounts of toxic chemicals or
other potential pollution generating
materials, and have limited
opportunities for structural controls
storm water management or erosion
control. The Agency does recognize, as
discussed below in the context of
special requirements of EPCRA section
313 facilities, that suct PE certification
requirements can be useful tools in
ensuring that targeted facilities have
adequate and appropriate storm water
pollution prevention measures in place
One commenter recommended a
minimum frequency of inspection of
once per three years. as this frequency is
consistent with SPCC requirements In
response, the Agency disagrees with this
comment for a number of reasons First.
the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122 44(i)(2) require, at a minimum,
annual inspections of facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Second. it should be
noted that SPCC requirements primarily
focus on preventing and containing
major spills These requirements rely on
structural controls such as secondary
containment, which are generally less
likely to change with time than typical
storm water pollution controls, such as
material handling practices Third there
Is a wide variety of potential pollutant
sources to storm water discharges such
as material handling dct lvities dnd
loading/unloading activities that ran
significantly change with time at an
industrial facility
‘ ddiuona/ Requirements for EPCR -l
Section 313 Facilities
EPA identified storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
facilities that are subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA section 313
for water priority chemicals dS priority
discharges for targeted special
requirements in the August 16. 1991 draft
general permits The Agency requested
comments on two major approaches for
developing special requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from these facilities
Under the first approach. Option A the
general permit would establish special
semi-annual monitoring requirements
special pollution prevention
requirements, including secondary
containment for targeted areas and a
whole effluent toxicity (WET) effluent
limitation. Under the second approach.
Option B. the general permits would
establish a WET limitation, and special
monitoring requirements at a frequency
of greater than twice per year Under
Option B. the general permit would not
contain special pollution prevention
plan requirements.
Targeting EPCRA Section 313 Faciiitie,s
A number of commeniers addressed
the issue of whether storm water
discharges from facilities subject to
reporting requirements under EPCRA
section 313 for water priority chemicals
should be subject to special conditions
A number ofcommenters generally
supported the Agency s efforts to target
priority industries for more specific
permit requirements Some of these
commenters indicated that special
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities were appropriate because of
the toxic nature of chemicals handled by
the facilities and the significant amounts
of chemicals handled by these facilities
Several commenters suggested that the
special requirements should apply to all
facilities which manage toxic chemicals
regardless of whether they are subject to
EPCRA section 313
However, some commenters
questioned the appropriateness of
targeting storm water discharges from
EPCRA section 313 facilities for special
requirements A major concern of these
facilities was that facilities subject to
FPCRA section 313 requirements do not
necessarily have significant amounts of
-------
41276
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
toxic chemicals in their storm water
discharges. Some of these commenters
suggested that EPA be required to
demonstrate that these facilities have
more pollutants in their storm water
discharges than other classes of
industries or that special requirements
should be triggered where sampling of
storm water indicates that releases are
occurring
In response. the Agency believes that
the additional pollution prevention plan
requirements in today’s permits are
appr’,priate for facilities with large
amounts of EPCRA section 313 water
priority chemicals for several reasons.
First, the Agency has identified leaks
and spills of toxic chemicals associated
with material management practices as
a major potential source of pollutants in
storm water discharges (see August 16.
1991 (56 FR 40980)) Based on a number
of studies. the Agency believes that
storage systems. truck and rail transfer
facilities, and other process areas where
significant amounts of toxic chemicals
are used and e’cposed to precipitation
may release pollutants if basic accepted
engineering practices are not employed.
For example FPA’s “Hazardous Waste
Tank Risk Analysis”. EPA. 1986.
indicates that the principal causes of
reported tank failures are external
corrosion. installation problems.
structural failure, spills, and ovethlls
due to operator errors, arid ancillary
equipment failure, and that inadequate
practices. including those observed at
the time of the study. lead to a
substantial probability of releases to the
environment from such tank failures.
The analysis indicated that the major
causes of releases from tank systems
are usually unrelated to the
characteristics of the material stored in
the tanks. The analysis also indicated
that inadequate management practices
allow significant releases to continue
undetected until the release becomes
obvious. Information from the Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) data base and the Pollution
Incident Reporting System (P!RS) data
base indicates that operator error.
structural failures, and corrosion were
both significant causes of releases for
abovegrourid tanks and failures of
ancillary equipment is a significant
cause of releases from above ground
systems These data bases indicate that
85 percent to 90 percent of more than
2.000 reported incidents of the spills of
oil or hazardous substances from
ancillary equipment resulted from
failures of piping systems (including
failures of pumps. flanges. couplings.
interconnecting hoses. and valves)
Some of the most significant sources of
pollutants at these facilities can be
attributed to intermittent events, such as
significant spills or leaks. The Agency
believes that a preventive approach that
does not wait for large spills or leaks to
occur is the most sensible approach and
is consistent with the goals of the CWA
as well as the pollution prevention
emphasis of the storm water program.
Second. the Agency believes that the
management practices identified in the
additional requirements for EPCRA 313
facilities are typically employed at well
operated facilities that use large
amounts of toxic chemicals. The Agency
notes that industry practices have been
developed in response to concerns about
spills and other health and safety issues.
Based on the Agency’s evaluation of
material management practices. the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
identify specific types of management
practices that reflect the best available
technology for facilities which use large
amounts of toxjc materials. Today’s
permits are intended to reflect the Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable. The Agency believes that
the additional requirements in today’s
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
are consistent with the purposes.
objectives, and content of a significant
number of industry standards. 3 ° In
addition, these requirements are
consistent with practices identified
under other regulatory programs for the
management of other materials, such as
the SPCC program for oil and tank
requirements under subtitle C of RCRA
for hazardous wastes. 31 Many industry
30 Examples of industry standards evaluated in
this rulemaking include ASME/ANSI B31 3
(Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping I.
ASME/ ANSI 896 1 (Welded Aluminum-Alloy
Storage Tankel. ASME/ ANSI 896 (Welded
Aluminum-Alloy Storage Tankal. NFPA 30
(Flammable and Combustible Liquid Codeel. NACE
Recommended Pracitce (Standard Recommended
Practice—Control of External Corrosion on Metallic
Buried. Partially Buned or Submerged Liquid
Storage Systems). API Standard 620 (Recommended
Rube for Deeign and Construction of Large,
Welded. Low-Pressure Storage Tanks). API
Standard 650 (Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storagel.
API Recommended Pracitce 651 (Cathodic
Protection of Above-Ground Petroleum Storage
Tanka . API Recommended Practice 852 (Lining of
Above-Ground Petroleum Storage Tank Bottomet.
API Standord 553 (Tank Inspection. Repair
AlteratIon, and Reconsiructionl and API 2008 (Safe
Operation of Inland Bulk Plants)
I Examples of requirements under other Federal
programs evaluated in this rulemaking include
underground storage tank requirements (40 CFR
2801. Occupational Safety und Heslth
Administrstion general safety and health
regulations for flammable and combustible
surrounding tanks (49 CFR i910) Department of
Transportation requ.rernents for oil pipelines (49
CFR i95), the Department of Interior requirements
(or ihe containment and collection of oil discharges
from offshore drilling (30 CFR 250t
commenters indicated that, typically.
well run industrial facilities with large
amounts of toxic materials already
conduct the practices identified in the
August 16. 1991 draft permits. Although
many of these commenters argued that
permit conditions addressing these
controls were not necessary because
facilities are already conducting these
practices. the Agency believes that
facilities with large amounts of toxic
chemicals generally do take extra
precautions in handling their chemicals.
and that the special requirements for
EPCRA section 313 represents the best
available technology currently being
used at these facilities.
The Agency has selected the,, universe
of facilities subject to the EPCRA
section 313 program reporting
requirements to represent a “front end”
of the toxics program to which EPA is
already committed. This class of
facilities is appropriate for targeting for
better controls for routine toxics
releases and improved industrial
practices to prevent and respond to
releases involving toxics. The Agency
already has substantial data base which
identifies facilities subject to these
requirements and the type and amount
of toxic chemicals which are
manufactured, processed or otherwise
used at these facilities. EPA will
continue to evaluate the appropriateness
of applying these special types of
requirements to other facilities as more
information becomes available.
A number of commenters noted that
special measures for managing toxic
chemicals were already being conducted
by many industrial facilities. For
example. one commenter speculated
that heightened public scrutiny of
EPCRA section 313 facilities has lead to
enhanced reporting and training which
has already been implemented to
decrease contamination. Another trade
association thought EPCRA section 313
facilities pose a lower risk because
storage of large amounts of the section
313 substances is typically subject to
careful controls. including secondary
containment, that would prevent the
possibility of storm water
contamination. This commenter
indicated that such facilities generally
maintain control programs that include
release prevention procedures. training
in pollution prevention, spill prevention
and cleanup, and other appropriate
management practices. Several of these
comrnenters assumed that EPA was
targeting EPCRA section 313 facilities
because the Agency believed that they
were not careful with the materials they
handle
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57 . No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41277
In response. as discussed in more
detail above, the Agency agrees with the
commenters to the extent that it believes
that the management practices
identified in the additional requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities are
typically employed at well operated
facilities that manufacture, process or
otherwise use large amounts of toxic
chemicals. However, the Agency
disagrees with the commenters to the
extent that they are contending that the
additional requirements in today’s
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
(facilities that manufacture, process or
otherwise use large amounts of toxic
chemicals) are not appropriate. Rather.
as discussed above, the Agency believes
that the additional requirements for
EPCRA section 313 facilities represents
the Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable for these
facilities, and therefore are appropriate
for technology-based permits for these
facilities.
Some commenters suggest that special
requirements be limited to storm water
discharges from facilities that are
subject to EPCRA section 312. EPCRA
section 312 applies to any facility that is
required to prepare or have available a
material safety data sheet (MSDS) for a
hazardous chemical under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 and regulations promulgated under
that Act. EPCRA section 312 establishes
reporting requirements for facilities with
hazardous chemicals present at the
facility in amounts equal to or greater
than 10.000 pounds. or that are
extremely hazardous substances present
at the facility in an amount greater than
or equal to 500 pounds (or 55 gallons) or
the threshold planning quantity (TPQ)
for an extremely hazardous substance
as defined in 40 CFR part 355 (see 40
CFR 370.20). In addition, EPCRA
reporting requirements apply to facilities
where a local emergency planning
committee has requested the submittal
of a MSDS. EPCRA section 313
establishes threshold amounts for the
purposes of reporting of 25.000 pounds
of toxic chemical manufactured
(including imported) or processed at a
facility during a calendar year or 10,000
pounds of a toxic chemical otherwise
used at a facility during a calendar year
These commenters noted that the
applicability of EPCR.A section 313 is
based on the amount of toxic chemical
manufactured, processed or otherwise
used per year. and that it was possible
for some facilities to meet this
requirement with a relatively low
average inventory level of perhaps less
than 500 pounds.
In response. the Agency believes that
the threshold established by EPCRA
section 313 represents a group of
facilities that is better for targeting the
special requirements of today’s permit
than EPCRA section 312. Although
facilities that are subject to EPCRA
section 313 may have less than 10.000
pounds on site at any one time, these
facilities receive and handle significant
amounts of toxic chemicals during the
course of a year In addition. EPCRA
section 312 applies to any facility in any
SIC code required to prepare MSDSs,
whereas EPCRA section 313
applicability is limited to facilities with
a primary SIC code of 20 through 39.
EPCRA section 312 applies to a much
broader class of facilities, including
many not subject to storm water permit
requirements. The Agency believes that
establishing special requirements for
EPCRA section 312 facilities would
create additional confusion among
facilities which are subject to EPCRA
section 312 requirements, but do not
have storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. Furthermore, the
amount of hazardous chemicals present
at a facility which triggers section 312
requirements may be quite low, as noted
above. Thus. section 313 facilities may
not be appreciably different from
section 312 facilities in terms of the level
of chemicals present at any one time.
A number of commenters that
objected to certain special requirements
for all EPCRA section 313 facilities
suggested that any facility (regardless if
they are subject to EPCRA section 313)
that has had a release of a hazardous
substance or oil in excess of reportable
quantities under 40 CFR parts 110. 117 or
302 should be subject to special
requirements because of their proven
history of releases. Other commenters
indicated that only those facilities that
have reported releases of EPCRA
section 313 chemicals in their storm
water should be subject to special
conditions and that the Agency should
shield or exempt from special
requirements those facilities that report
zero or de minimis releases. However.
other comrnenters indicated that many
of the facilities that are currently
reporting zero or small releases of toxic
chemicals via their storm water
discharges have not monitored
pollutants in their storm water
discharge.
EPA disagrees with these
conunenters. First, the Agency believes
that large spills or releases that are
generally associated with releases of a
hazardous substance or oil in excess of
reportable quantities under 40 CFR parts
110. 117 or 302 are only one potential
source of pollutants at EPCRA section
313 facilities. Other poiential sources of
pollutants at these facilities include
chronic leaks, smaller spills
management of containers and storage
and/or use of chemicals in solid form
These potential sources can contribute
significant amounts of pollutants that
are nonetheless below reportable
quantities under 40 CFR parts 110 117 or
302 Second. as discussed abo e some
of the most significant sources of
pollutants at facilities identified in the
SPCC and PIRS data bases can be
attributed to intermittent events, and
will not necessarily be identified by
periodic monitoring. Withoui monitoring
data, releases of toxic chemicals could
go unreported, and therefore a report of
zero release may not reflect the true
pollutant potential of the storm water
discharge. Today’s permits establish
semi-annual monitoring requirements for
certain facilities subject to EPCRA
section 313. However, this low
monitoring frequency, while appropriate
for the limited purposes articulated in
today’s notice, are not intended to
sufficiently identify relatively infrequent
intermittent releases in a manner that
would ensure that other controls are not
necessary to minimize the discharge of
toxic chemicals in storm water
discharges. Rather. such low.frequency
monitoring requirements are only a part
of a more comprehensive approach to
controlling toxic pollutants in storm
water discharges from EPCRA section
313 facilities. Similarly regulations
developed under EPCRA section 313
allow facility operators to estimate the
amount of toxic chemicals in storm
water without the use of monitoring
data. Such estimates. while appropriate
for developing the TRI data. do not
provide adequate safeguards that toxic
chemicals are not being released in
storm water discharges. Third.
conditions at EPCRA section 313
facilities can change with time, and
operator errors, structural failures and
corrosion can lead to failures of process.
handling and storage equipment used for
EPCRA water priority chemicals which
result in the release of toxic chemicak
to storm water dtsch rges Such releases
can continue undetected until the
release becomes obvious 32 and are not
necessarily linked to past releases The
Agency believes that a preventive
approach that does not wait for spills or
other releases to occur is the most
sensible approach and is consistent with
the goals of the CWA as well as the
pollution prevention emphasis of the
II See ‘Hazardou. Waite Tank Riik An Iy,is
EPA. 1988 -
-------
41278
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
storm water program. Fourth. the
Agency believes that management
practices identified in the additional
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities are representative of well
operated facilities that use large
amounts of toxic chemicals even though
a facility may not have had a release of
a hazardous substance or oil in excess
of reportable quantities.
One commenter indicated that the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
database for 1989 indicated that only 6
percent (88 of 1.470 facilities reporting
storm water discharges) of the EPCRA
section 313 facilities reported releases of
more than 1.000 pounds per year of toxic
chemicals in their storm water during
the previous reporting year. This
commenter speculated that facilities that
reported these releases already had an
NPDES permit because they otherwise
would not have conducted the
monitoring required to support the
release estimates.
In response. EPA recognizes that 6
percent per year of the EPCRA section
313 facilities that reported toxic
chemicals in storm water reported
releases of over 1.000 pounds per ear of
toxic materials in their storm water.
However, the Agency strongly disagrees
with the commenter that this is an
indication that EPCRA section 313
facilities represent a low risk as a class.
First. the Agency believes that the
release of less than 1.000 pounds of toxic
chemicals via storm water can be very
significant. and that the 1.000 pound of
toxic chemical threshold limit does not
represent acceptable levels of pollutants
in releases Many of the EPCRA section
313 water priority chemicals can have
significant toxic effects at low
concentrations, even though the total
amount of toxic chemical released
annually is less than 1.000 pounds In
addition, facilities can have intermittent
releases of toxic chemicals of less than
1.000 pounds such as spills or
concentrated leaks that can have
significant water quality impacts.
Facilities that have released low levels
of toxic chemicals one year can have
significantly larger releases in
subsequent years due to spills, leaks
which have developed from older
equipment. or changes in management
practices Thus. over a longer time
period, such as five or ten years. more
than six percent of the facilities may
hau’ releases of greater than 1.000
pounds per year of toxic chemicals
reported in their storm water discharges.
The Agency does not believe that 6
percent of the facilities is a trivial
number when considering such large
releases of toxic chemicals The . gency
also recognizes that many. if not most.
EPCRA section 313 facilities did not
have actual monitoring data to establish
their 1989 estimates of releases of toxic
chemicals to storm water. The Agency
believes that this could have caused
significant under reporting of toxic
chemical releases. The Agency does not
agree with the commenter’s argument
that only those facilities which
monitored their storm water discharges
prior to 1989 pursuant to an NPDES
permit are of concern. The Agency
remains concerned about the potential
for releases from facilities that have not
been required to monitor their storm
water discharges in the past
Some commenters indicated that
Congress or EPA may expand the
criteria far coverage under EPCRA
section 313 after the permits were
issued. These commenters requested
that EPA clarify what storm water
general permit require.nents would
apply to facilities that would not be
subject to EPCRA section 313
requirement at the time of permit
issuance, but. due to the change in
defining the EPCRA section 313
universe, would be subtect to EPCRA
section 313 requirements in the future
Applicability to EPCRA section 313
could change in 3 ways (1) The
threshold amount of toxic chemicals
required to trigger reporting could
change: (2) requirements could be
expanded to facilities other than those
classified as SIC 20—39. and (3) specific
chemicals or classes of chemicals could
be added or deleted from the list of toxic
chemicals
EPA intends to base applicability of
the special requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from EPCRA section 313
facilities on the date of permit issuance
Thus. if the applicability of EPCRA
section 313 requirements is expanded to
include facilities that use less than
current threshold amounts. additional
chemicals. or facilities other than those
classified as SIC code 20—39. the special
requirements in today s general permits
would not apply to those additional
facilities.
If. on the other hand. the applicability
of EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements are restricted (e g a
chemical is deleted from the list of toxic
chemicals. the threshold amount of
chemicals is raised, or facilities within
SIC 20—39 are exempted), the ‘.gencv
wants to clarify that it will not require
facilities which are not subject to
reporting requirements under the newly
restricted requirements under EPCRA
section 313 to comply with the peciaI
requirernenis for storm v.itr’r di’ ch.ir cs
in today’s permits While the Agency
recognizes that discharges from these
facilities were considered in developing
today a permits. it believes that this
approach will minimize confusion and
address concerns that special
requirements would no longer be
required at such facilities The agency
also notes that it may consider the
factors that lead to the decision to
restrict reporting requirements under
EPCRA section 313 in the same manner
as it would with respect to the special
requirements of today a permits.
Other commenters requested that EPA
clarify the applicability of the special
requirements in the storm water general
permits for facilities that met the
threshold requirements of EPCRA
section 313 during some years. but did
not meet the requirements in other years
(even though the EPCRA section 313
thresholds did not change). One
commenter indicated that continuing
special NPDES requirements for
facilities thai have reduced their use of
EPCRA section 313 chemicals remo ed
the incentive for the facility to reduce
their toxic chemicals
In response. EPA wants to clarify that
perrnlttees that had to report releases
under EPCRA section 313. but during the
term of the permit have modified their
industrial practices such that they no
longer manufacture. process or
otherwise use EPCRA section 313 water
priority chemicals onsite in amounts
that exceed the applicable thresholds
under EPCRA section 313. are not
subject to the special requirements of
today s permit after reductions in use
have been made The Agency also
wants to clarify that facilities that meet
the EPCRA section 313 thresholds for
the first time during the term of the
permit will be required to comply with
the additional requirements in today’s
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
three years after the date they are first
required to report under EPCRA section
313.
Some commenters expressed a
considerable amount of confusion
regarding whether the additional
requirements applied to materials other
than section 313 water priority
chemicals For example. a number of
commenters indicated that containment
and other special requirements were
inappropriate for products which were
not made of section 313 chemicals. such
as products made of polystyrene
materials. Some of these commenters
correctly indicated that many
polystyrene products are intended to be
exposed to water and wdter resources
The Agency wants to clarify that the
spect il requirements in today s permits
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday September 9. 1992 I Notices
for facilities that are subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements only
apply to areas of the facilities where
EPCRA section 313 chemicals are
managed With rt spect to products
made of polystyrene, the Agenc wants
to clarify that the feedstock for
polystyrene. styrene is a EPCRA section
313 chemical However polystyrene.
which results from the polymerization of
the monomer styrerie. is not a EPCRA
section 313 water priority chemical. The
Agency notes there are significant
chemical and physical differences
between polystyrene and its monomer.
styrene The Agency agrees that
polystyrene has much less potential to
contribute pollutants to waters of the
United States I other than in the form of
floatables such as litter or improperly
disposed pellets) then styrene and
believes that styrene should be managed
in a way to eliminate contamination to
storm water.
One comnmenter indicated that many
facilities are required to report under
section 313 because they have ammonia
refrigeration systems or chlorine used
for disinfection, and the nature of the
use of these chemicals poses a very
limited potential for discharge of
pollutants through storm water In
response. the Agency notes that
significant spills or releases of such
materials can result in significant water
quality impacts As discussed in more
detail below, the Agency believes the
Agency has added sufficient flexibility
to the requirements of toda s permits to
allow facilities to develop and
implement pollution prevention
strategies that are appropriate and are
not overly burdensome for such
situations.
One commenter noted that comae
facilities may use one or more section
313 water priority chemicals in excess of
the 10.000 pound threshold, but use other
section 313 water priority chemicals in
amounts of less than the threshold. The
commenter requested that EPA clarify if
the special requirements for managing
EPCRA section 313 apply to all parts of
the facility where any toxic chemical is
managed. or only those parts of the
facility where section 313 water priority
chemicals that the facility must report
for (e.g. thuse toxic chemicals managed
in amounts in excess of 10.000 poundsl
are used. In response. the Agency want
to clarify that the special requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities in
todays permits only apply to those
portions of a facility where toxic
chemicals that a facility must report
releases for under EPCRA section 313
are managed. The Agency notes
however, that the other baseline
requirements of today s permits apply to
other parts of the facility that generate
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity
Some commenters e’pressed concern
that the special requirements placed
unnecessary burdens on facilities that
manage their toxic materials indoors.
Other commenters suggested that EPA
provide incentives for industries to
eliminate exposure of raw materials and
EPCRA section 313 toxic chemicals to
precipitation.
In response. the special requirements
for storm water pollution prevention
plans at facilities that are subject to
EPCRA section 313 for section 313 water
priority chemicals primarily focus on
areas of the facility where equipment
used for the management. storage and
processing of section 313 water priority
chemicals is exposed to precipitation or
can otherwise contribute pollutants to a
storm drainage system. The Agency
believes that the burdens associated
with the requirements of today’s permit
are significantly reduced for facilities
that manage (including loading and
unloading activities) their toxic
chemicals in buildings or under cover
such that there is no e’cposure to
precipitation and where the floor
drainage in the building is known to be
segregated from the storm water
collection system. The Agency believes
that this approach provides incentives
for facilities to manage toxic chemicals
in a way that ensures there is no
exposure to precipitation
EPCRA Section 323 Facilities.’ Types of
Corfl to/s
With respect to the two approaches
for establishing permit conditions.
Options A and B. conimenters expressed
a wide diversity of opinions Some
commnenters favored the design
standards ap’proach of Option A. These
commenters provided a number of
reasons for this support Some
commenters indicated that secondary
containment and other measures are an
essential part of storm water
management at facilities that use large
amounts of toxic materials Some
commenters stated that this approach
would encourage facilities to develop
additional measures to control potential
releases of materials into storm water.
Other commenters ridicated that this
approach would reward companies that
have already installed such controls by
reducing monitoring and reporting
requirements. Other comnmenters
indicated that this approach promoted
pollution prevention measures and
provided a check on runoff before it is
discharged. Another commnenter
indicated that requirements for
41279
containing storm water and monitoring
each discharge event were necessary to
ensure water quality standards were
met One conimenter indicated that
design standards were necessary
because the acute WET limitation b
itself, underestimated the true
environmental risks of storm water
discharges.
A number of commeniers favored the
performance standards approach of
Option B. These commenters indicated
that performance standards provide
flexibility to industry, and allowed
industry to pursue the most cost.
effective control approach. Some of
these commenters felt that this approach
would better allow for consideration of
local or facility specific factors in
developing controls. One commenter
thought performance standards were the
best way to encourage innovative
approaches Some of the commenters
indicated that the compliance
obligations under either of the two
proposed options could be substantial
Some commenters indicated that this
approach would allow some industrial
facilities to avoid the casts of secondary
containment. Several commenters
indicated that they viewed design
standards as inefficient, ineffective
methods for reducing pollutants
In addition, some commenters urged
the Agency to adopt an alternative
approach. A riumher of comrnenters
expressed their belief that both
approaches were excessive or other ise
inappropriate Some commeriters
indicated that they thought thai
pollution prevention measures (without
a WET limitation) were adequate and
that an effluent limitation defeated the
purpose of a plan to eliminate or reduce
sources of pollutants. Several
commenters suggested that dischargers
be given the opportunity to select either
a performance standard or design
standards. and that this approach
provided flexibility while at the same
time recognizing the advantages of both
approaches. One commenter favored
voluntary measures as providing the
utmost flexibility and representing the
lowest cost approach
After consideration of these
comments, the Agency has decided to
adopt an approach that is a hybrid of
Options A and B. Today’s permits
provide targeted pollution prevention
plan requirements that have been
designed to address storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activities that are subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements for
water priority chemicals. These
additional plan requirements have been
designed to provide a reasonable
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57 . No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41280 _____________________
amount of flexibility to address
concerns that specific design criteria.
such as containment for specified design
storms, were inappropriate.
In addition, as discussed in more
detail elsewhere in today’s notice.
today s permits establish targeted
monitoring requirements for EPCRA
section 313 facilities where storm water
discharges associated with industnal
activity come into contact with any
equipment. tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a truck or rail car loading or
unloading area where a section 313
water priority chemical is handled. In
this manner. additional data will be
used to identif the need for more
stringent controls and further pollution
prevention efforts will be targeted to
facilities where sampling data
demonstrates the need for further
scrutiny and controls.
The Agency feels that this approach
has several advantages and can lead to
the achievement of the goals articulated
in the August 16 1991 draft permits.
First. this approach establishes a
framework for facilities to develop and
implement site-specific pollution
prevention measures in a manner that
ensures appropriate flexibility Second.
the approach ensures that the facilities
develop methods and protocols.
including discharge sampling, that allow
for continued esaluation of the
discharge and potential pollutant
sources at the facility. Third. this
approach is similar to a performance
standard in that it establishes a
benchmark that triggers additional
evaluation of pollutant sources at the
facility and of pollution prevention
measures.
WET Limitation
Comments received on the proposed
WET limitation in the August 16, 1991
draft general permits were mixed.
Several commenters recommended the
use of chronic WET limitations instead
of acute limitations. These commenters
indicated that acute WET tests
underestimated the toxic impacts of
intermittent discharges such as storm
water One commenter indicated that
recent research indicates that organisms
subiect to periodic exposure of toxics
typically found in storm water suffer
greatly at concentrations much lower
than acute toxicity levels based on
continuous exposure One cornmenter
indicated that it was meaningless to
require secondary containment without
requirements for testing water
discharged from the structure or effluent
limitations This commenter implied that
even with a requirement to provide
containment, facilities could still
discharge contaminated storm water.
The commenter indicated that if a
facility properly implements an
appropriate storm water pollution
prevention plan. it will be virtually
impossible for pollutants from the
facility to contaminate storm water from
the facility.
Several commenters thought it was
premature and inappropriate that
technology-based effluent limits be
established for storm water discharges.
These commenters raised a number of
concerns about the WET limitation.
Several of these commeriters contended
that EPA did not have adequate data at
this time to demonstrate the proposed
WET limitation could be met in a cost
effective manner after application of the
model technologies. Several commenters
suggested that EPA had only considered
several technologies for reducing
toxicity. but had made an inadequate
showing that all dischargers could
comply with the limitation without
resorting to expensive treatment
schemes or alternative forms of
disposaL. Some of these commenters
thought that reducing toxicity would be
a complex undertaking at some
facilities, and that some dischargers
would have to develop extensive
treatment strategies rather than solely
rely on pollution prevention measures.
These çpmmenters contended that the
cost of compliance with the WET
limitation could be significantly higher
than was estimated by EPA.
Other commenters suggested that
whole effluent toxicity should be
addressed through best management
practices and pollution prevention
measures rather than through numeric
toxicity limitations.
Based on additional consideration.
today’s permit does not contain an acute
WET effluent limitation. The Agency
believes that acute toxicity is an
appropriate parameter for evaluating
priority storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
However. based on a consideration of
comments indicating that source
controls by themselves may not always
be adequate to control toxicity in storm
water discharges. and that reducing the
toxicity of storm water discharges from
some facilities may be a more difficult
task than was originally anticipated. the
Agency is not including the WET
limitation in today’s permits.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
The August 18. 1991 draft general
permits provided that facilities that are
subject to the Wet effluent limitation
that detected acute WET in their storm
water discharge and that where notified
by the Director were required to conduct
a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE).
Several commenters objected to the
requirement to conduct an expensive
toxicity reduction evaluations (TRE)
without more research into the methods
to identify sources of toxicity to storm
water, methods to reduce toxicity in
storm water and applicability of current
TRE procedures to storm water
discharges. Consistent with these
concerns, another cornmenter indicated
that industry has little experience with
conducting TREs for storm water
discharges. One commenter indicated
that if a discharge is found to fail the
WET test, it should be allowed the
opportunity to implement a storm water
pollution plan and/or conduct additional
WET tests before undergoing a formal
toxicity reduction evaluation.
In response to concerns raised about
conducting formal TREs. the Agency has
modified today’s permits to provide that
a formal TRE is not required at this time
where acute WET is detected. Rather,
the Agency recommends that if acute
whole effluent toxicity (statistically
significant difference between the 100%
dilution and the control) is detected in
storm water discharges after October 1.
1995, the permittee should review the
storm water pollution prevention plan
and make appropriate modifications to
assist in identifying the source(s) of
toxicity and to reduce the toxicity of
their storm water discharges. While
today’s permit does not specifically
require dischargers that detect acute
WET to conduct a formal TRE, the
Agency may request a formal toxicity
identification evaluation (TIE) or a TRE
pursuant to the authority of section 308
of the CWA
The Agency believes that this
approach provides additional flexibility
for facilities to evaluate their storm
water discharges for toxicity and to take
appropriate steps to reduce toxicity. The
Agency believes that this additional
flexibility is appropriate in light of
concerns raised in the comments that
the source(s) of toxicity may be difficult
to initially determine and that facilities
need an opportunity to evaluate whether
specific pollutant prevention measures
will successfully reduce toxicity, or
whether the facili y will need to pursue
a treatment strategy. In addition, the
approach taken in today’s permits
provides facilities with an opportunity
to develop and implement pollution
prevention strategies prior to the
October 1. 1995. This provides
discharges with an opportunity to
implement site-specific and innovative
measures to reduce toxicity In addition,
this approach recognizes the difficulties
-------
Federal Register I Vol 57. No. 175 / Wednesday , September 9. 1992 / Notices
41281
in ascertaining whether a specific
measure or approach will successfully
reduce toxicity at a given facility The
Agency believes that this approach will
provide additional opportunities to
evaluate pollution prevention measures
suitable for reducing toxicity and for
evaluating the role of treatment
technologies in such toxicity reduction
strategies.
The Agency also recognizes that
sources or activities other than handling
toxic chemicals to be used in the
industrial process may cause toxicity in
some cases. However, the Agency
believes that it is important to ensure
that these sources of toxicity have been
identified, and that the plan be reviewed
to identify any appropriate steps be
taken to reduce the toxicity of the storm
water discharges. Appropriate steps
may include diverting storm water flows
which originate from offsite. or
providing other appropriate storm water
management measures, However.
today’s permits do not require that such
offiste sources of pollutants be
eliminated The Agency believes that
the approach taken in today s permits
provide sufficient flexibility to address
these toxicity sources.
Containment Requirements
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits requested comments on
requiring secondary containment for two
types of areas where liquid section 313
water priority chemicals are managed
The first type of areas was where liquid
section 313 water priority chemicals are
stored and storm water comes into
contact with equipment, tanks.
containers or other vessels used for such
storage The second type of areas was
truck and rail care loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals. The provisions
of the August 16, 1991 draft general
permits required secondary containment
structures to be sufficiently impervious
to contain spilled section 313 water
priority chemicals until they can be
removed or treated The August 15, 1991
draft general permits requested
comment on specifying that secondary
containment structures for such areas
provide sufficient excess holding
capacity for the contents of the largest
container in the drainage area plus an
allowance for drainage from a 25 year.
24 hour storm.
A number of commenters supported
the’ concepts of secondary containment
for targeted areas of facilities which
‘tanage toxic chemicals. One
immenter urged EPA to require
1 econdary containment for water
priority chemicals at all sites, indicated
that earthen dikes are easily made.
relatively inexpensive, easily
maintained and can usually be created,
altered or removed within a day
Another commenter indicated that
secondary containment for toxic
chemicals is clearly a simple. easily
verifiable method for preventing spills.
and that too much flexibility would
result in industrial facilities avoiding
implementing appropriate requirements
Another commenter indicated that if the
containment of toxic materials is not
economically possible, the process
should not be in existence. One
commenter noted that an added benefit
of increased containment is the
reduction in fire hazards.
While most industry cornmenters
addressing the containment issue
recognized that secondary containment
was a commonly used practice. a
number of commenters noted that many
industrial facilities have already
installed secondary containment, but
that many existing secondary
containment units did not provide
sufficient volume to accommodate
runoff from a 25 year, 24-hour storm
event ‘ The concern raised by these
commenters was that they believed that
many existing containment systems
would not satisfy the 25-year, 24-hour
standard and would have to be replaced
or retrofitted, A number of these
commenters raised concerns about
facilities that, in good faith, had already
constructed containment requirements
would have to face the difficulties and
expense of expanding existing
secondary containment units. One
commenter recommended that facilities
with existing containment be allowed to
grandfather in their existing facility
Several other commenters indicated
that a requirement to provide secondary
containment could result in significant
economic burdens for facilities without
‘ Commenter, gave numerous example, of
alternative design volumes (or containment units
One commenter indicated thai industry often
develops iii own design siartdard, for example. ihe
petroleum industry ha, developed a number of
standard, including a standard that bermed areas
must coniatn liquid contents but riot be greater than
6 feet high A large chemical industry trade
association indicated that most company guidelines
require containment sysiPms thei are capable of
holding the contents of the largest tank within the
coritainmeni area A number of other industrial
Commenters indicated that they had similar
guidelines Commenters indicated that containment
systems (or flammable liquids were expressly
designed to conform to the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 30 code which staiss that dike
walls should coniain the potential liquid content,
and be less than 6 (eel tall Some commentera
anticipated that expanding existing containment
structures would create conflicts with the 8(001
maximum wall height specified by the NFPA 30
code Several commenters indicated that many
existing containment systems do not comply with
any specific volumetric requirements
containment systems but with
alternative control strategies These
commenters suggested alterndtives such
as requirements to develop and
implement spill response strategies to
reduce the size of the spill, provide
drainage systems to isolate spills or
other BMP requirements Some
commenters raised specific concerns
regarding containment requirements for
truck and rail car loading and unloading
areas for liquid section 313 water
pnority chemicals. Some comrnenters
indicated that drip and/or spill surnp
systems with high level alarms are in
common use and provide ample
protection against all but rare
catastrophic releases. Another
commenter. while supporting secondary
containment requirements for liquid
storage tanks indicated that the risk of
spills at a truck or rail unloading area is
not great where chemical transfers are
not frequent and trucks are only at the
loading station for a short time.
In response to a number of concerns
raised on the requirements in the draft
permits. today’s permits contain a
considerable amount of additional
flexibility with respect to the use of
secondary containment or other
equivalent management practices for
areas of the facility where liquid Section
313 chemicals are stored or loading and/
or unloaded. Today’s permit provides
that liquid storage areas and truck and
rail car loading and unloading areas for
liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals For
liquid storage areas, appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
section 313 chemicals may include
secondary containment provided for at
least the entire contents of the largest
single tank plus sufficient freeboard to
allow for precipitation, a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan
and/or other equivalent measures For
truck and rail car loading and unloading
areas, appropriate measures to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals ma
include the placement and maintenance
of drip pans (including the proper
disposal of materials collected in the
drip pans) where spillage may occur
(such as hose connections, hose reels
and filler nozzles) for use when making
and breaking hose connections, a strong
spill contingency and integrity testing
plan; and/or other equivalent measures
This approach ‘ill allow permittees to
select the most cost effective technology
for controlling releases of section 313
chemicals at their site consistent with
the requirement that the discharge of
section 313 water priority chemicals is
minimized. As discussed earlier in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41282
todays notice. todays permits also
require that a registered PE certify that
the storm water pollution prevention
plan. including controls to minimize the
discharge of section 313 water priority
chemicals from areas of the facility
where liquid section 313 chemicals are
stored or loading and/or unloaded, has
been prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices. The PE
certification will assist in ensuring that
good engineering practices are used in
selecting an approach to minimize the
discharge of section 313 water priority
chemicals.
In providing this additional flexibility
with respect to containment
requirements. EPA is particularly
concerned that many existing secondary
containment units would have to be
retrofitted in order to comply with the
requirement to provide sufficient storage
for the 25-year. 24-hour storm. The
additional flexibility provided by
today s permits will ensure that this
provision is attainable for facilities with
existing controls, such as secondary
containment, to minimize the discharge
of section 313 water priority chemicals.
and that such facilities will not have to
provide for retrofitting of existing
systems which currently meet the
standard. .At the same time, this
approach addresses concerns regarding
facilities where secondary containment
measures are not economically
achievable, Under todays permits. these
facilities may implement alternative
approaches to controlling pollutants in
their storm water discharges in lieu of
secondar containment.
EPCRA Section 313 Facilities: Other
Concerns
One commenter indicated that the
requirement in the August 10. 1991 draft
permits that permittees either take
immediate corrective action or shut
down a unit or process if a leak is
discovered which may result in a
significant release of a section 313 water
priority chemical to the drainage system
was an unreasonable requirement
because a release to the drainage
system may not result in a release to
waters of the United States.
In response. the Agency wants to
clarify that the requirements in today’s
permits do not apply to facilities that do
not discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity to waters of the
United States. The Agency has modified
the language in today s permit to limit
this requirement to leaks or other
conditions which may result in
significant releases of section 313 water
priority chemicals to waters of the
United States. The Agency has also
replaced the term “corrective action”
with the phrase “action to stop the leak
or otherwise prevent the significant
release of section 313 water priority
chemicals to waters of the United States”
to avoid confusion. The Agency also
wants to clarify that the temporary use
of drip pans. diversions to sumps. or
other measures that prevent toxic
chemicals from being discharged to
waters of the United States until
permanent repairs can be made may.
where appropriate, constitute
appropriate action within the meaning
of today’s permits. The Agency believes
that such requirements are reasonable.
are common industrial practices. and
are necessary to prevent discharges of
toxic chemicals to waters of the United
States.
One commenter indicated that
integrity testing of storage tanks is not
economically achievable and did not
reflect current industry practice. but
rather visual inspection of above ground
tanks and pipes is general industry
practice. One commenter indicated that
visual inspection was less expensive
than integrity testing. One commenter
indicated that integrity testing should
not be required for straight runs of pipe
without connections or joints or to
welded joints. However, other
commenters indicated that integrity
testing was a viable alternative to
containment. One commenter indicated
that integrity testing should be required
at reasonable intervals, and indicated
that such testing is not an alternative to
containment as most spills are the result
of human error. not mechanical failure.
One commenter indicated that many
local and State standards exist for
integnty testing for tanks and piping.
In response to comments. the Agency
recognizes that integrity testing can be
an important part of a sound spill
prevention program. However, to
minimize confusion and address
concerns raised about specific integrity
testing procedures. the Agency has
added flexibility to today s permits by
listing spill contingency plans and
integrity testing as one type of
management measure that is
appropriate for liquid storage areas or
areas of the facility that are used for
truck and rail car loading and unloading
of liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals.
A number of coinmenters supported
the requirement that plans for EPCRA
section 313 facilities be certified by a
registered PE. Some of these
commenters indicated that this
approach would allow the Agency to
incorporate additional fle’cibility into
some provisions of the permit. while still
ensuring that the objectives of the
permit are met. Several commenters
suggested that additional flexibility be
given to EPCRA section 313 facilities.
and that the Agency continue to require
PE certifications as a means to ensure
that adequate measures are being
implemented. One commenter requested
clarification on whether the PE
certification applied to the entire plan
for the facility or for only those portions
of the plan that addressed areas where
section 313 water priority chemicals are
managed.
However, some commenters raised
concerns about PE certifications One
commenter indicated that PEs hired by a
facility will not provide the appropriate
level of assurance unless penalties for
misrepresentation are possible Other
commenters stated their belief that
industries and Federal facilities have
historically been unable to monitor
themselves. One comrnenter indicated
that only a few registered PEs work for
the chemical industry or many
manufacturing industries, and suggested
that the permits provide that employees
other than registered PEs be allowed to
provide a certification in addition to
registered PEs The commenter
indicated that given their knowledge
and experience, employees that were
not a registered PE could result in
equivalent or better certifications than
those provided by a registered PE who
was not an employee. One commenter
suggested that the plant manager should
be able to certify compliance based on
information provided by his or her staff
in lieu of a registered PE certification.
One cornrnenter recognized that a PE
would be qualified to certify that
secondary containment is designed and
constructed in accordanci’ with good
engineering practices. However, most
PEa have no special qualifications to
certify certain other major elements of
the plan. such as training, and the
pollution prevention committee. Another
coinmenter indicated that a PE
certification could be expensive for
small businesses.
In response. the Agency believes that
PE certifications are appropriate for
EPCRA section 313 facilities with storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity for two reasons. First.
the nature of the storm water concerns
at these facilities dictates that storm
water pollution prevention plans should
be as reliable as possible. EPCRA
section 313 facilities manage large
amounts of toxic chemicals. and the
material handling equipment and
practices are a potential source of
pollutants to storm water EPA believes
that certification by a PE will add a
measure of independent reliability to
-------
Federal Register I Vol 57. No 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41283
ensure adequate implementation of the
plan requirements.
Second the Agencys experience with
the SPCC program indicates that PE
certifications can he a useful component
of a spill prevention program for
facilities that manage large amounts of
liquids and that PEs are particularly
well qualified to evaluate controls at
such facilities. Studies have indicated
that a principal leak prevention measure
for chemical handling systems and
ancillary equipment is proper design
and installation and that a quality audit
of storage and handling equipment will
prevent many leaks, particularly from
loose fittings. poor welding. and
maligned gaskets. 34
The Agency believes that PE
certifications will assist in ensuring that
chemical handling systems are properly
designed. installed and operated and
that permittees comply with the terms of
the permit and adequately implement
measures identified in their pollution
prevention plan. The Agency believes
that the costs of a PE certification are
achievable For facilities that do not
have an appropriate PE on staff to
conduct the certification, the Agency
encourages permittees to have
employees with appropriate knowledge
and experience assist a PE that is not
regularly employed by the facility in
making the certification
The Agency further believes that a PE
certification is appropriate for all plan
components at EPCRA section 313
facilities can involve various aspects of
the industrial process For example. the
training requirements of today’s permits
apply to all facility employees and
contractor personnel that work in areas
where SARA title Ill. section 313 water
priority chemicals are used or stored
These training measures must ensure
that such personnel are trained in and
informed of preventive measures at the
facility. The Agency believes that it is
cost effective to have a PE that has
begun to review parts of the plan to
review the entire plan
One commenter objected to the
requirement to maintain records of the
frequency and estimated volume of
discharges from secondary containment
areas. The commenter raised concerns
that this provision triggered testing
requirements. In response. the Agency
wants to clarify that this provision does
not trigger sampling requirements.
One commenter indicated that
providing curbing and roofing for many
forms of metals storage is not practical
and provides no environmental benefit.
and that roofs made of galvanized steel
‘ For example see Hazardous Waste Tank Risk
Analysis’ EPA 1986
or copper present a greater potential
source than industrial lavdown areas for
insoluble metals In response the
Agency wants to clarify that today s
permit (and the August 16. 1991 draft
permits) provide dischargers with the
option of either providing drainage
controls to prevent or minimize the
potential for storm water runon to come
into contact with Section 313 water
priority chemicals or to provide roofs.
covers or other forms of appropriate
protection to prevent storage piles from
exposure to wind and storm water. The
Agency recognizes that in some
situations where metal storage areas
pose little potential as a pollutant
source, roofs may not be necessary. In
such case, facilities should pursue
appropriate runon or drainage controls.
The Agency notes that such drainage is
typically provided for exposed portions
of industrial activities to pre .ent
ponding or flooding
Special Requirements for Salt Storage
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits contained a provision requiring
storage piles of salt to be enclosed or
covered to prevent exposure to
precipitation
Several commenters identified several
situations where storm water runoff
from salt piles did not lead to a
discharge of storm water to waters of
the United States. Examples cited by the
comrnenters included lined salt
impoundments (such as those used for
salt dome petroleum storage activities):
situations where runoff from salt piles is
used as a brine source in a
manufacturing process. and certain
storage piles associated with solar
ponds. These commerners requested
clarification as to whether salt piles
where storm water runoff is not
discharged to water of the United States
needed to be covered or enclosed.
In response. the Agency did not intend
to address these situat.ons. The Agency
has clarified today’s permit to provide
that salt piles do not need to he
enclosed or covered where storm water
from the pile is not discharged to waters
of the United States.
One commenter noted that economics
dictates that every effort is made to limit
the working face of salt piles to
exposure to precipitation, but that a
requirement that salt piles be covered at
all times was not feasible because
portions of the pile must be uncovered
during the time salt is being placed on or
removed from the pile, In response. the
Agency recognizes that it will not
always be feasible to ensure that
working faces of the pile are covered
when materials are being added or
removed from the pile. Accordingly.
today’s permits provide that salt piles
shall be enclosed or co ered to pre ent
exposure to precipitation except for
exposure resulting from adding or
removing materials from the pile
One commenter indicated that salt
piles should not be singled out and that
numerous other bulk commodities le g
potash trona. sodium sulfate) are stored
outside and are readil’ dissolved b
precipitation In response. at the time
thai the draft general permits were
published, the Agency had appropriate
information on the practices of the salt
industry and information on the nature
of pollutants in salt pile runoff that was
used in the support of the proposed
requirement. The Agency will continue
to evaluate industry practices for other
types of bulk commodities. and
pollutants associated with runoff from
storage practices
One commenter argued that covers for
very large stockpiles (such as piles of
400.000 tons) were not feasible. As
discussed below, the Agency has
expanded its cost model to evaluate
these discharges. and believes that such
controls are in fact reasonable for such
piles. The Agency also wants to clarif
the dischargers who want to seek
alternative permit conditions may
submit an individual permit application
with a description of why alternau’ e
requirements would be appropriate
Several commenters indicated that
additional time would be needed to
comply with this requirement.
particularly where a facility had a
significant number of piles In response
the Agency has extended the
compliance date for this requirement
until three years after issuance of the
permit. consistent with section 402(p)(4)
of the CWA
Effluent Limitation for Coal Pile Runoif
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits requested comment on an
effluent limitation for coal pile runoff of
50 mg/I total suspended solids and pH
within a range of 60 to 90 The draft
permit provided that any untreated
overflow from facilities designed.
constructed and operated to treat the
volume of coal pile runoff which is
associated with a 25-year. 24-hour
rainfall event shall not be subject to the
limitation.
A number of commenters indicated
their belief that the 10-year. 24-hour
storm was adequately protective for
coal pile runoff. as is evidenced by the
Agency use of the standard in the Coal
Mining Effluent Limitation Guidelines
One commenter complained that EPA
failed to consider the costs of
implementing a storm design system to
-------
41284
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
accommodate a 25-year. 24-hour storm
event. The commenter indicated that the
cost differential to construct a system to
accommodate a 25-year. 24-hour storm
event versus a 10-year. 24-hour storm
event would be significant. and the
incremental pollutant reduction
associated with the larger design system
would be small The commenter
indicated that the higher costs would be
associated with the number or capacity
of catch basins or inlet structures, the
capacity of the conveyance system (e g
the size of pipes or ditches). and
pumping station capacity
In response to comments. EPA has
modified the effluent limitation in
today s permits to be consistent with the
effluent limitation guideline for coal pile
runoff in the steam electric category (40
CFR 434). Therefore. the numeric
limitation for coal pile runoff in today’s
permits uses the 10-year. 24-hour storm
instead of the 25-year. 24-hour storm.
EPA recognizes that the initial analysis
used to de elop the proposed limitations
in the August 18. 1991 notice relied
heavily on coast data from the steam
electric guideline background document
The Agency believes that it is
appropriate to tie the limitation in
today s permit more closely to the
limitation that was evaluated in the
study until it can better evaluate the
incremental costs associated with
alternative approaches.
One comrnenter expressed concern
that the proposed limitations may apply
to coal pile runoff from steam electric
facilities which is already sub;ect to an
effluent limitation guideline In
response. the Agency wants to clarify
that the effluent limitation in today’s
permit for coal pile runoff is not
intended to apply to coal pile runoff
[ rum steam electric facilities As noted
in the August 16. 1991 draft permit. coal
pile runoff from steam electric facilities
are already subject to an effluent
limitation guideline (see 40 CFR 423). In
addition, todays permits (and the
August 16. 1991 draft permits).
specifically exclude from coverage
storm water discharges that are subject
to an effluent limitation guideline.
One commenter expressed their belief
that coal piles at mining sites and
preparation plants should not be subject
to the effluent limitation because such
piles are already subject to SMCRA
monitoring and performance standards
at 30 CFR 730 21(i). 30 CFR 816.42 and
818.45). and the proposed limitations go
beyond these requirements. The
commenter indicated that they thought
that dli activities presently permitted
under SMCRA at coal mining, ore
mining and dressing and mineral mining
and processing facilities are not subject
to the conditions of the general permit.
In response. the Agency wants to
clarify that today’s permits do not cover
storm water discharges which are
subject to an effluent limitation
guideline. Most coal pile runoff from
active mining sites and preparation
plants are subject to the coal mining
effluent limitation guideline at 40 CFR
434. and therefore can not obtain
coverage under today’s permit The
Agency notes that the imposition of
SMCRA requirements does not preclude
CWA requirements, 33 and that
generally such requirements are
intended to work together. For example.
30 CFR 818.42 requires that discharges of
waters from areas disturbed by surface
mining activities must be in compliance
with all application Federal and State
water laws and regulations. 30 CFR
816.45 establishes sediment control
measures that do not specifically
address toxic discharges from coal pile
runoff.
One commenter requested
clarification as to whether pre-SMCRA
disturbed coal mining sites were subject
to this requirement. The commenter
argued that Congress intended that pre-
SMCRA coal mining sites are to be
handled under Title LV of SMCRA which
established the Abandoned Mine Lands
Program. In response. the effluent
limitation for coal pile runoff in today’s
permits is intended to apply to all coal
pile runoff covered by the permit.
Today’s permit can cover storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from pre.SMCRA disturbed
lands where the discharger has
submitted an NOl to be covered by the
permit. While Congress intended that
Title IV of SMCRA addressed pre-
SMCRA coal mining sites, nothing in the
legislative history of the provision
suggests that it was intended as the
exclusive means of addressing these
sites. 36 Discharges that do not believe
that this requirement is appropriate for a
given discharge may submit an
individual permit application or
participate in an applicable group
application. The Agency expects that
inactive mining sites will generally have
fewer coal piles than active coal mining
sites, as it is expected that materials
with a commercial value will often be
removed from the site. In addition, the
Agency recognizes that additional
options are available to inactive sites.
such as removing the coal piles. or
reclaiming/stabilizing the site to ensure
‘ See ,Irner,can “lining Congress v EP.4. 963
F 2d 759 (gih C r 19921
“See 4mericon Cjnwress v EPA Supre
that storm water is not contaminated by
contact with a coal pile.
Several commenters indicated that
they believed that storm water permits
should not impose numeric effluent
limitations. EPA disagrees with this
comment in connection with coal pile
runoff. The Agency remains concerned
about imposing broad national numeric
effluent limitations which would apply
to all storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity However, the
Agency believes that numeric effluent
limitations may be appropriate when
applied to storm water discharges from
specific. priority unit operations or types
of industrial facilities For example. as
discussed above, the Agency has
developed a number of effluent
limitation guidelines for runoff from
various industrial categories. The
Agency intends to continue to evaluate
the use of numeric effluent limitations
for priority storm water discharges.
Several commenters thought the pH
limitation of between 8.0 and 9 0 was
unreasonable because the levels in
rainfall and receiving waters often
exceed the 8.0 to 90 range. Some of
these commenters suggested that the
Agency should consider allowing a
wider range of values when it can be
demonstrated that ‘natural” storm
water is outside this range. Another
commenter indicated that the p 1-I limit
was impossible to reach without
treatment in areas of acid rain.
In response. the Agency recognizes
that rainfall may have a pH of lower
than 6.0 (or higher than 9.0). In such
cases, dischargers will typically have to
provide treatment for coal pile runoff
prior to discharge. even where they are
using low sulfur coal. Such treatment is
anticipated and consistent with today’s
effluent limitation. The Agency also
notes that the pH and TSS parameters in
the coal pile limitation are indicator
parameters for other toxic constituents.
including a number of heavy metals. The
pH of the storm water affects the
availability and solubility of these
parameters. Storm water with a low pt-I
will leach metals from coal. Thus it is
appropriate to control pollutants in coal
pile runoff events where a low pH is
caused by low pH rain instead of sulfur
in the coal. In addition. metals in a low
p1-I solution will tend to be in a form that
is more available to organisms. Thus.
the pH typically needs to be controlled
to provide for appropriate control of
these constituents.
One commenter indicated that EPA
should only impose coal pile limitations
where site-specific impacts to receiving
streams are identified. The commenter
also noted that the pollutant
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992/ Notices
41285
characteristics of coal pile runoff can
depend on a number of factors, such as
the size of the pile, the type of
foundation under the pile, and the pH of
the precipitation. and that the Agency
should consider such factors at each site
before imposing a limitation on that site.
In response. the Agency notes that the
effluent limitations for coal pile runoff in
today’s permits are technology-based
reqwrements based on BAT
considerations, arid do not consider site-
specific water quality impacts. EPA
does not agree with the commenter that
it should be precluded from issuing
technology-based requirements unless it
specifically identifies water quality
impacts associated with a discharge
This approach as not authorized by the
CWA. which requires that NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
establish, at a minimum, technology-
based BAT/BCT requirements. The
Agency notes that it has considered a
number of factors, including size of
piles, type of coal, and other appropriate
factors in developing the limitation for
coal pile runoff in today’s permits.
One commenter suggested that any
modifications to numeric discharge
limits on coal piles be done through
changes iii the effluent limitation
guidelines, and that the establishment of
new effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in a storm water permit was
confusing.
In response. the Agency has authority
to establish effluent limitations in
NPDES permits on a case-by-case basis
outside of the effluent limitation
guidelines process Section 4OZta)(1) of
the CWA authorizes EPA to issue
permits imposing effluent Limitations
based on best professional judgement
for activities for which EPA.
promulgated effluent limitation
guidelines have not been developed.
Again, the Agency wants to clarify that
today’s permits do not modify
requirements for coal pile runoff which
are already subject to an effluent
limitation guideline.
Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
The August 18, 1991 draft general
permits provided that plans should be
completed within 180 days of the
effective date of the permit (and
updated as appropriate) and provide for
compliance within 385 days of the
effective date of the permit. The August
. 1991 draft general permits also
.quired that NOls be submitted within
180 days of the effective date of the
permit.
One commenter indicated that with
general permits. the effective date of the
general permit is not the date that the
discharger is subject to the permit.
Rather, with a general permit. a
discharger will need time to review the
permit and understand the alternatives
prior to selecting this option and
submitting the Notice of Intent Other
commenters expressed confusion over
plan deadlines and requested
clarification.
In response. the Agency has modified
the permit to provide specific dates for
plan preparation and compliance. While
the Agency does not agree that it cannot
establish compliance dates based on the
effective date of the permit. the Agency
believes that specifying specific dates
will minimize confusion regarding these
dates, particularly where EPA issues
permits for different States on different
dates,
A number of commenters indicated
that they thought that it was
inappropriate to require that plans be
developed at the same time that an NOt
was required In response, as discussed
above, the Agency has modified the
deadline for submitting most NOls to be
covered by today’s permits to October 1,
1992 to provide consistency with the
deadlines for individual permit
applications and for part 2 of group
applications. In addition, to reflect this
date for submitting NOls and to address
the concerns of the commenters.
pollutiQn prevention plans for
dischargers with facilities in operation
on or before October 1. 1992 shall be
prepared by April 1. 1993. and provide
for implementation and compliance with
the terms of the plan on or before
October 1. 1993.
However, the Agency believes that
operators of new industrial activity that
commence after October 1. 1992 will
have opportunities to prepare storm
water pollution prevention plans prior to
commencement of the industrial activity
Thus, today’s permits require that such
new dischargers be prepared to comply
with their pollution prevent on plan
upon commencement of their discharge
The Agency believes that this approach
will ensure that new facilities
adequately incorporate pollution
prevention concepts into their plans for
new industrial activities
Some commenters suggested different
times for complying with plans One
cornmenter recommended that facilities
be given 270 days after the effective
date of the permit to prepare the plan.
Some of these recommended that
facilities be given a full year to develop
the plan and an additional 180 days to
implement baseline requirements Other
commeriters suggested that perrnittees
be given one year from the effective
date of the permit to complete its plan
and one and one half years from the
effective date of the permit to comply
with the conditions of the permit One
commenter thought permittees should be
given one year from the effective date of
the permit to prepare plans. and an
additional year to comply with the plan
to allow facilities to incorporate storm
water management planning into the
normal budgeting and operation of the
facility Another commenter indicated
that the storm water control measures of
the draft permit may require significant
technical and management input for
testing and evaluation prior to final
implementation One commenter urged
EPA to stretch out compliance deadlines
based on their belief that such action
would provide industries with
additional opportunities to plan and
implement more comprehensive
solutions to storm water management
thereby increasing the effectiveness of
integrated pollution prevention methods
In response. EPA notes that today’s
permits provide that plans can be
modified after the initial compliance
date to address information that comes
from testing and the evaluation that
occurs during the term of the permit
Given this flexibility, and based on a
consideration of the requirements of the
permit. the Agency believes that the
time frames established in today s
permits are reasonable. To ensure
adequate flexibility and in response to
comments. today’s permits allow the
Director to establish a later date for
preparing and complying with plans
based on a showing of good cause
However, it should be noted that section
402(p)(4J(A) of the CWA requires that
any permit for a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity shalt
provide for compliance as expeditiously
as practicable. but in no event later than
three years after the date of issuance of
such permit
One corrimenter suggested that
permittees be given one year to comply
with the requirement to test for br
evaluate) illicit connections. In
response. today s permit has been
modified to provide that permittees have
one year to certify that they have tested
for or otherwise evaluated their storm
water conveyance system for the
presence of non-storm water discharges
This has been done to provide
consistency between the deadline for
certifying that storm water discharges
have been tested for the presence of
non-storm water and the deadline for
implementing the pollution prevention
plan
One commenter suggested that small
business be given 3 to 5 years to comply
with permit requirements In response.
-------
41286
Federal Register I VoL. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
the Agenc believes that the complexity
of the flexible. site-specific storm water
pollution prevention plans required by
today’s permits will to some degree be
related to the size of the facility, Thus.
EPA believes that the time frames
established in today’s permits are
appropriate for small businesses.
However, in response to comments.
todays permits provide additional
flexibility for the Director to establish a
later date for preparing and complying
with plans based on a showing of good
cause.
One comrnenter indicated that Federal
facilities %ould have unique problems
with the compliance dates in the August
16, 1991 draft permits because of the
complexities of the Federal budgetary
process. In response. the Agency notes
that the draft permits were first publicly
noticed on August 16. 1991. Federal
facilities have had since that time to
make planning decisions necessary to
support plan preparation. In addition.
today’s permits require that plans for
existing storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity be
developed by April 1, 1993. six months
after the beginning of the 1993 fiscal
year for the Federal government. Again.
the Agency wants to clarify that today’s
permits provide additional flexibility for
the Director to establish a later date for
preparing and complying with plans
based on a showing of good cause.
Some commenters indicated that it
generally would take additional time to
comply with the more complex
requirements of the permit. Many of
these commenters focussed on the
special requirements for EPCRA section
313 facilities For example. several
commeriters indicated the proposed plan
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities can require substantial
planning and design efforts. One
commenter indicated that it would
generally not be possible for many
facilities to provide measures requiring
significant construction, such as
secondary containment, within one year
because of the demand on
environmental engineering f’irms, the
time needed to prepare plans. the lead
time required for planning and designing
activities to construct secondary
containment structures. and the delays
that industrial facilities through the
North will experience due to winter
weather Several commenter’s. including
a large wdter pollution trade
organization indicated that three years
from the effective date of the permit be
provided for any measure. such as
installing secondary containment, that
requires construction Other
commenrers indicuted that they thought
four years would be needed by most
facilities to complete installation of any
required containment structures.
In response. the Agency believes that
it is appropriate to provide permittees
with more complex requirements which
may require significant construction
activities, such as those for EPCRA
section 313 facilities, salt storage. and
coal pile runoff, additional time to
comply with today’s permit
requirements. and has established a
three year compliance date for
complying with these special
requirements. In addition. facilities
which trigger EPCRA section 313
thresholds for the first Lime during the
permit term will have three years from
the time they first have to report to
comply with the additional requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities. This
deadline is consistent with section
402(p )(4)(A) of the CWA which requires
that any permit for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity shall provide for compliance as
expeditiously as practicable. but in no
event later than 13 years after the date
of issuance of such permit However, the
Agency wants to clarify that such
facilities must prepare a storm water
pollution prevention plan address the
baseline requirements (e.g. requirements
other than the special requirements) by
April 1. 1993. and provide for
compliance with this portion of the plan
by October 1. 1993.
One cornmenter requested that EPA
clarify requirements for oil and gas
operations that prior to October 1. 1992.
did not require an NPDES permit for
their storm water discharge. but that
have a discharge of storm water
resulting in the discharge of a reportable
quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
after October 1. .1992. In response.
today’s permits establish special
deadlines for certain oil and gas
operations. Oil and gas operations
having a discharge of a reportable
quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
after October 1. 1992 are required to
submit an NO( within 14 days after
knowledge of the reportable quantity
release and prepare and comply with
the terms of a storm water pollution
prevention plan within 60 days of the
reportable quantity release EPA
believes this shorter time frame is
appropriate because the potential for
spills associated with such facilities and
the additional expertise expected in the
oil industry that has developed to
comply with SPCC requirements.
Subsequent to the publication of the
August 16. 1991 draft general permits.
Congress established special permit
application deadlines in the
Transportation Act of 1991 for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from Facilities that are
owned or operated by a municipality
that has participated in a timely part 1
group appLication and where either the
group application is rejected or the
facility is denied participation in the
group application by EPA. As discussed
above, the deadline for such facilities to
submit NOEs to be covered by today s
permits is consistent with the
Transportation Act Today’s permits
provide that the plan for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from a facility that is owned or
operated by a municipality that has
participated ri a timely group
application and where either the group
application is rejected or the facility is
denied participation in the group
application by EPA must be prepared on
or before the 365th day following the
date on which the group is rejected or
the denial is made. (and updated as
appropriate) In addition, such
permittees must provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan on or before
the 545th day following the date on
which the group is rejected or the denial
is made. These deadlines will give
facilities that are part of a rejected
group application sufficient time to
comply with the pollution prevention
plan requirements of today’s permits.
Procedures for Reviewing Plans
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits provided that permittees were
not required to submit a storm water
pollution prevention plan to EPA unless
EPA requested the plan on a case-by.
case basis. The permit also provided
that EPA may notify the permittee that
the plan does not meet one or more of
the requirements of the permit. Unless
otherwise provided by EPA. permittees
would have 30 days after such
notification to make necessary changes
and submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
had been made.
Severdl commenters indicated that
they thought. depending on the extent to
which the Director required changes. 30
days could be an insufficient period of
time to make the required changes.
Some of these commenters suggested 90
days as a time period to make required
revisions.
In response. the Agency notes that the
permit provides flexibility for EPA to
establish a longer or shorter time period
for permittees to make and implement
modifications to their plans. In general.
EPA wLll consider factors such as
whether the change is procedural in
nature or will require structural
-------
Federal Register I, Vol 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41287
modifications, the extent of the
modifications, and the environmental
risk of the discharge when establishing
alternative time periods for modifying
plans.
One commeriter indicated that they
believed that plans should be dynamic
documents which are revised as
appropriate to reflect changes in the
facility’s operations. The Agenc agrees
with this comment The Agency has
modified today’s permits to clarify and
highlight this principle Today’s permits
require that the permittee shall amend
the plan whenever there is a change in
design. construction. operation. or
maintenance which has a significant
effect on the potential for the discharge
of pollutants to waters of the United
States or if the storm water pollution
prevention plan proves to be ineffective
in eliminating or significantly
minimizing pollutants In addition, the
requirements in today’s permits for
comprehensive site compliance
e aluations have been developed based
on the concept that permittees need to
inspect their sites and evaluate the
accuracy and effectiveness of their
plans and make plan modifications as
necessary.
Some commenters indicated that
requiring permittees to submit plans to
EPA upon request for review and
approval would decrease plan
effectiveness by discouragin 3 facilities
from revising their plans as necessary in
light of new information and to meet
changing circumstances They indicated
that this approach would also impose a
heavy burden on EPA’s limited
reviewing resources,
The Agency does not agree that
submitting plans to EPA upon request
for review and approval would decrease
plan effectiveness by discouraging
facilities from revising their plans as
necessary in light of new information
and to meet changing circumstances, As
discussed above, todays permit requires
permittees to evaluate the accuracy and
effectiveness of their plan, and to make
modifications as necessary. The Agency
believes that most disâharges will
realize that modifying their plan to make
it more effective and will decrease the
chances that EPA will require
modifications. Nonetheless, as
discussed below: plans must be
submitted to EPA only on request.
Some commenters suggested
submitting the storm water poliution
prevention plans to EPA for their
approval, thus avoiding compliance
problems later One comrnenter
indicated that they thought some
businesses will want their plans
approved by EPA prior to implementing
them, to avoid wasting money on a plan
which is Idler deemed inadequate
The Agency wants to clarify that it
does not intend to conduct detailed
reviews of all storm water pollution
prevention pldns prior to authorizing
storm water discharges under the
general permit because of limited
resources However EPA retains
authority to request and review storm
water pollution prevention plans and to
require changes to the plans and/or
submittal of an individual permit
application where appropriate. The
Agency wants to clarify that if plans are
voluntarily submitted to EPA for Agency
review, the Agency is not precluded
from requesting additional modifications
at a later date based on additional
information, changing conditions.
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
plan. or other relevant factors Neither is
the Agency precluded from requiring
plan modifications where a plan had
been voluntarily submitted earlier, and
the Agency did not respond
One cornmenter recommended that
the permit should provide that no
enforcement action could be brought
against a permittee for violation of
several provisions of the permit that
provided dischargers with flexibility in
selection of practices.
In response. the Agency will exercise
enforcement discretion where
appropriate when evaluating permit
compliance The Agency recognizes that
several provisions of the permit provide
flexibility for selecting controls to be
implemented, and will consider good
faith attempts at compliance when
exercising its enforcement discretion
However, the Agency is concerned that
specific language in the permit as
requested by the comrnenter would
create unnecessary confusion, and that
some permittees would inappropriately
argue that such language precluded EPA
from enforcing permit conditions in all
cases.
One comrnenter requested that EPA
clarify that when requesting
modifications to a storm water pollution
prevention plan. the Agency identify
with reasonable specificity which
provisions of the plan require change
and which of the minimum requirements
the existing plan violates. In response.
the Agency has made this clarification
One commenter raised concerns that
EPA has not provided administrative
procedures for reviewing plans and
requiring modifications, and it is unclear
whether the permittee has the right to
meet with the Agency. submit comments
on the required changes or file any sort
of appeal. The comrnenter indicated that
a discharger and EPA may legitimately
differ on whether a plan meets
appropriate requirements. and that
facilities should have the opportunity to
request review of the agency’s initial
determination that a plan does not meet
requirements. and explain exactk flh’.
particular element of a plan is
appropriate for a specific facility
In response. the ultimate resolution of
disagreements concerning the adequacy
of pollution prevention plans is a
compliance issue. However. permittees
always have the opportunity to make
their disagreements known to the
Agency and to resolve compliance
concerns on an informal or formal basis.
It can also be noted that EPA’s
regulations. and today’s permits provide
dischargers with the opportunity to
submit an individual permit application
In cases where the Agency decides to
issue an individual permit. dischargers
will have additional opportunities for
input
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
I. Overall Approach to Monitoring
Requirements
On August 16, 1991. EPA requested
comment on modifying the regulatory
provision at 40 CFR l22.44(i)(2).
addressing the establishment of
discharge monitoring reporting
requirements in NPDES permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity The regulation
existing at the time of the proposal
provided that NPDES permits including
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges. require discharge monitoring
reports at a minimum of once a year As
part of the August 16. 1991 notice EPA
specifically identified six options for
modifying requirements to report
monitoring results for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity
In addition. the draft general permits
in the same August 16. 1991 notice
requested comment on annual discharge
sampling of storm water discharges from
most classes of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity as
this approach was consistent with the
option EPA fa .ored in the August 16.
1991 notice for the regulatory change.
However, in the August 16. 1991 notice.
the Agency also indicated that the
monitoring requirements in the final
permits could be less stringent if the
regulatory change provided additional
flexibility with respect to minimum
monitoring requirements.
The draft baseline general permit
proposed on August 16. 1991. required a
minimum of annual monitoring for all
discharges of storm water associated
-------
41288
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 1 Notices
with industrial activity except those
from certain oil and gas operations.
Most facilities were subject to a
baseline monitoring requirement of eight
parameters plus any pollutant limited by
an effluent guideline to which the
facility was subject. Six classes of
industries were selected for more
e’ctensive semi-annual monitoring with
additional industry-specific parameters.
Oil and gas exploration or production
operations were given the option of
obtaining a PE certification that a
pollution prevention plan was being
implemented in accordance with the
permit in lieu of monitoring.
On April 2. 1992, 57 FR 11394). EPA
published final revisions to the Agency’s
baseline NPDES monitoring
requirements for storm water
discharges. Under the modified
regulatory framework, monitoring
requirements for NPDES permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity are to be established
on a case-by-case basis, with minimum
requirements relating to site inspections
rather than discharge monitoring.
II. Comments on Proposed General
Permit Monitoring Requirements
Several coinmenters thought that the
monitoring requirements in the August
16. 1991 draft permits should be retained
or expanded. These commenters
indicated that monitoring was necessary
to adequately identify pollutant sources,
determine the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures, and build a data
base to support future permit issuing
actl ities. However, the majority of
comrnenters addressing this issue raised
concerns regarding proposed
requirements for all permittees to
sample their discharges. A number of
these commenters suggested that it was
important to sample storm water
discharges from priority classes of
activities or facilities, but that across-
the-board monitonng requirements for
all facilities covered by the permit may
not be an appropriate or cost-effective
use of resources. While most
commeriters in the regulated community
supported the necessity for controlling
pollutants discharged via storm water
runoff, the expense and difficulties of
storm water monitoring were of major
concern. Some of these commenters
indicated that overly broad discharge
monitoring requirements at this point in
time could be counterproductive toward
the goals of the program. as significant
resources would have to be expended
collecting and analyzing discharge
samples. thereby limiting available
resources at some facilities to develop
and implement measures that would
result in the removal of pollutants in
their storm water discharges. Other
concerns raised by the commenters
included the difficulties in
characterizing storm water discharges
with sampling data, the belief that in
some situations, site inspections would
be more appropriate than monitoring for
determining permit compliance, and
EPA’s limited ability to effectively
review data. An underlying theme that
emerged from the comments was that a
number of factors, such as the potential
for discharges to contain significant
amounts of pollutants. the nature of
permit conditions, and the nature of the
operation of the facility should be
considered when establishing
monitoring conditions in NPDES permits
for storm water discharges.
In response. the Agency has modified
the monitoring requirements of the final
general permit to be consistent with the
flexibility afforded by the changes to
minimum monitoring requirements at 40
CFR 122.44(i)(2) made on April 2. 1992.
Monitoring requirements for discharges
from many classes of industrial facilities
have been reduced or eliminated,
Monitoring requirements have been
retained for selected industries or
industrial activities which, due to the
nature of industrial activities or
materials stored or used onsite. have
significant potential for contributing
pollutants to storm water, These
requirements are discussed in more
detail below.
As discussed in more detail earlier in
today’s notice, the Agency has also
added requirements to conduct
comprehensive annual site compliance
evaluations which have been designed
to evaluate the effectiveness of permit
implementation and identify pollutant
sources consistent with the April 2. 1992.
regulatory modifications. The Agency
believes that these compliance
evaluations can provide an efficient and
cost-effective approach for evaluating
the effectiveness of permit program
implementation.
In adopting this approach. the Agency
recognizes that discharge monitoring
data can play several important
functions, including assisting in
identifying pollutant sources, evaluating
the effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures, evaluating the risk of
discharges by indicating the type and
concentration of pollutant parameters in
the discharge, and provide information
which can be used in efforts to identify
water quality impacts. and supporting
future permitting activities, such as Tier
II. III and IV activities described in
EPA’s long-term permitting strategy. 37
However, the Agency also recognizes
that other types of information can be
used to supplement or in some cases
replace monitoring information. For
example. the requirements in today’s
permits for the narrative description of
potential pollutant sources, inspections.
testing for non-storm water discharges.
and comprehensive site compliance
evaluations will assist in identifying
pollutant sources associated with
industrial activity. In addition. the
Agency notes that the effectiveness of
some types of pollution prevention
measures can be observed without
monitoring, such as removal or
elimination of pollutant sources.
eliminating exposure of materials to
precipitation. and eliminating non-storm
water discharges to the storm sewer
system. Other measures. such as
maintaining vegetation to prevent
erosion, silt fences, and screens or other
devices to collect floatables can be
evaluated without sampling discharges.
The approach taken in today’s permits
represents an approach which uses both
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations and monitoring
requirements far targeted industrial
activities and facilities to pursue the
goals of the program. In accordance with
40 CFR 122.44. today s permits require
perinittees to conduct comprehensive
site compliance evaluations. In addition,
all permittees are required to develop
and implement pollution prevention
plans. These requirements establish a
baseline for ensuring facilities evaluate
pollutant sources and evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures for storm water discharges.
Today’s permits also establish
monitoring requirements for facilities
where EPA has identified targeted
activities that are potential sources of
significant amounts of pollutants. These
requirements will provide additional
information that will assist and
supplement efforts to identify pollutant
sources and evaluate the effectiveness
of pollution prevention requirements.
The Agency believes that this approach
represents a balanced approach that
addresses the concerns raised in the
comments. Those facilities that are not
required to conduct monitoring will be
able to dedicate their efforts at this time
to developing and implementing
pollution prevention plans which
involve identifying pollutant sources
CPA’e long term permit I uance ,trategy for
iorm water diecharge as ociatad with industria’
aciiviiy is described in the April 2 1992 Federal
Regular (57 FR i13 541
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41289
and evaluating the effectiveness of
pollution prevention measures.
Additional monitoring requirements
have been limited to facilities which
EPA believes, based on a general
evaluation of industry practices. may
have sources of significant amounts of
pollution that warrant further
evaluation.
Today’s permits provide an exemption
from monitoring requirements for
outfalls at targeted facilities that do not
have any materials, material handling
equipment. industrial machinery or
industrial operations exposed to storm
water located within the drainage area
of the outfall. In such cases, a discharger
must provide an annual certification
that material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials, intermediate
products. final products, waste
materials, by-products. industrial
machinery or operations, or. in the case
of airports, deicing activities, within the
drainage area of the outfall will not be
exposed to storm water. Where the
certification is provided, the permittee
will not be required to monitor storm
water discharges from the outfall.
(However, the permittee must still
comply with other applicable permit
requirements which do not address
sampling pollutants in discharges). This
approach is consistent with the general
monitoring scheme of today’s permits
which focuses monitoring requirements
on specific targeted sources of pollution.
The Agency believes that this approach
will provide an incentive for permittees
to eliminate exposure of potential
pollutant sources to storm water
Eliminating exposure of these materials
to storm water is one of the most
effective pollution prevention measures
available for these sources and is
consistent with the objectives of the
permit and the CWA. The Agency also
believes that this approach will lower
burdens on facilities that have taken
steps to eliminate exposure of materials
and equipment to storm water
discharges
In developing the monitoring strategy
in today’s permits. EPA recognizes that
it has other sources of information
available to assist in achieving the
broader national objectives supported
by monitoring data, such as developing
additional targetted controls for storm
water discharges from priority
industries. Examples of other sources of
monitoring data include, group
applications 3S, individual applications.
3 EPA has received over 1.200 Part 1 group
applications from a wide variety of industnai
group. Part 2 of the group applications which
contains representative monitonng data from the
tnduiinal group. are due on October 1. 1992.
information in State Storm Water
Permitting Plans 39 , and storm water
monitoring data required under other
EPA or authorized NPDES State permits
that are entered into the permit
compliance system (PCS) data base In
addition. EPA is authorized under
section 308 of the CWA to require
dischargers to. on a case.by-case basis.
submit sampling monitoring data
necessary to carry out the obiectives of
the CWA. This authority can he used to
obtain storm water monitoring data that
is not otherwise required under the
permit. For example. EPA could request
facilities from targetted industries that
have certified that they do not have
materials or equipment exposed to
storm water to report storm water
momtonng data in order to characterize
other potential pollutant sources or to
identify background levels of pollutants
from facilities that have been able to
eliminate exposure of these activities to
storm water.
Other commenters raised issues
regarding the appropriateness of the
proposed monitoring parameters to
particular industries. In general. EPA
has modified some of the parameters
associated with the monitoring
requirements in todays permits in
response to comments and to provide a
better relationship between the
monitoring requirements and potential
pollutant sources associated with
classes of industrial activities. These
concerns and changes are addressed
below.
Several commenters also requested
clarification on. or objected to. potential
overlap between the industrial
categories. While the comments were
directed at the EPCRA section 313
facilities, the Agency’s response applies
to all annual and semi-annual
monitoring categories in the final permit.
Generally. the industry-specific
monitoring requirements are additive
and not intended to be mutually
exclusive. Monitoring requirements must
be evaluated on a outfall by outfall
basis. If a particular discharge fits under
more than one set of monitoring
requirements. the facility must comply
with bath sets of sampling requirements.
This will ensure adequate data to
evaluate all of the appropriate pollutant
sources. The Agency notes that this
approach often will not result in
requiring dischargers to collect extra
samples. but rather to analyze samples
“State Storm Water Permitting Pians are to
contain a description of activities addressing
priority issuing permits for storm water discharges
from priority indusiria l facilities (see April 2. 1992
(57 FR 11394)).
that are collected for addttional
parameters
On the other hand, sampling
parameters often overlap between the
categories For example. an outfall
subject to the semi-annual EPCRA .ind
annual “Other Fdcility’ sampling
requirements could sample semi-
annually for EPCRA parameters drid
satisfy both sampling requirements by
analyzing for parameters in an
applicable effluent guideline to either of
the two semi-annual samples. However
coal pile runoff should be addressed
somewhat differently because it is
subject to a numeric effluent limitation
under today’s permit. Coal pile runoff
should be monitored before it is
commingled with flows from other
sources. Thus, coal pile runoff from a
primary metal facility. for example.
should only be monitored for the
parameters specified for coal pile runoff
The Agency believes that this approach
will adequately support the effluent
limitation of today’s permit
The monitoring requirements of
today’s permits can be broken into two
general classes, semi-annual monitoring
and annual monitoring Facilities that
are required to conduct semi-annual
monitoring are required to report data
annually, Facilities that are required to
conduct annual monitoring are required
only to report data if the data is
requested by the permitting authority
EPA believes that higher monitoring
frequency for facilities that are required
to report data will assist EPA in efforts
to establish program priorities and will
support future permitting efforts. dS well
as gives these facilities more data to
consider Not requiring facilities to
submit data unless it is specifically
requested will lower reporting burdens
on facilities where data is not
specifically requested. while still
providing facilities with a means to
evaluate pollution prevention plans
III. Certification of Testing For Non-
storm Water Discharges
The draft permit prohibited the
discharge of all non-storm water and
required certification under the pollution
prevention plan that all storm water
outfalls had been tested for the presence
of illicit connections If unable to
provide certification within the 180 day
pollution prevention plan development
period, the perniittee was required to
notify the Director. One commenter felt
the certification date should be changed
to correspond to the deadline for
pollution prevention plan compliance
The Agency concurs with this
comment and has modified the “Failure
to Certify” reporting requirement Any
-------
41290
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
facility that is unable to provide the
certification regarding testing for non.
storm water discharges. must notify the
Director by October 1. 1993 or. for
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1. 1992. within 180 days
after submitting a NOt to be coveted by
this permit. The October 1. 1993 date is
appropriate for e ’cisting facilities
because it is consistent with the timing
provided for these facilities to prepare
(April 1. 1993) dnd implement (October
1. 1993) a plan. The 180 days provided to
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1. 1992 is consistent with
the requirement that these facilities
must have their plan developed before
beginning the industrial activity that will
generate the storm water discharge
IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements for Classes of Targeted
Industrial Activities
Semi. 4nnua/ , Jon toang Requirements
In today’s permits. EPA has retained.
with some modifications, the semi-
annual (twice per year) monitoring
requirements proposed in the August 16.
1991 draft permits for certain storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from: EPCRA section
313 facilities with water priority
chemicals, primary metal facilities: land
disposal units/incinerators/boiler and
industrial furnaces (BIFs): wood
treatment facilities (wood preservers):
and coal pile runoff. As discussed
below semi-annual monitoring
requirements have been added for
‘ attery reclaimers. These facilities have
a significant potential to contribute toxic
pollutants to storm water due to the
nature of activities occumng onsite and
the types of materials handled.
In response to comments. EPA has
clarified the requirements as they
pertain to each industrial category. For
the most part. monitoring requirements
are limited to discharges associated
with specific industrial activities, and do
not necessarily apply to all storm water
discharges from a site.
EPCRA Section 313 Facilities with
Water Priority Chemicals Comments
were received both objecting to and
supporting additional monitoring
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities. In both cases. commenters
indicated that any EPCRA monitoring
conditions should be applied only to
those areas where section 313 water
priority chemicals were stored or
handled. Other comrnenters suggested
that sampling parameters be limited to
those section 313 water priority
chemicals actually stored within the
drainage area. Several individual
companies and trade organizations
argued that typical pollution prevention
measures at their facilities are already
stringent enough to prevent uncontrolled
releases into the environment and that
monitoring should either be eliminated
or reduced. Comments regarding acute
whole effluent toxicity testing are
addressed separately below
In response. as discussed above, EPA
believes that facilities that manufacture.
import or process. or other use of large
amounts of toxic chemicals can
potentially be a significant source of
toxic pollutants to storm water Failures
of process. handling and storage
equipment used for EPCRA water
priority chemicals associated with
operator error, structural failures, and
corrosion can result in the release of
toxic chemicals Such releases can
continue undetected until the release
becomes obvious. ° In such cases.
monitoring data can provide taluable
insight with respect to these pollutant
sources. For example. monitoring data
can show that leaks from seals. values
or piping are a source of pollution to
storm water The Agency also believes
that EPCRA thresholds are appropriate
for identifying priorities for the purposes
of establishing storm water monitoring
requirements, as these thresholds
identify a well known set of facilities
which manage large amounts of toxic
chemicals. One of the major purposes of
monitoring storm water discharges from
EPCRA section 313 facilities is to
provide data that can assist in
identifying pollutant sources associated
with the storage. use or management of
EPCRA section 313 water priority
chemicals. Dischargers will’also be able
to review monitoring data as a means of
evaluating the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures. Assessment of
data will also allow the Agency to
develop the controls and monitoring
requirements in the Tiers II. Ill, and IV
storm water permits.
In response to comments. the Agency
has limited special EPCRA monitoring
requirements to the areas where section
313 water priority chemicals are stored
or handled. The final permit clarifies
that these monitoring requirements
apply only to those facilities subject to
EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements for section 313 water
priority chemicals, and then only for
those storm water discharges associated
with industrial activities that allow
storm water to come into contact with
any equipment, tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
‘° See Haz.irdou, W,j ip rink RIsk naiysi,
EPA i988
section 313 water priority chemical, or
storm water discharges from a truck or
rail car loading or unloading area where
a section 313 water priority chemical is
handled.
Primary .‘4etaI Facilities
Primary metal facilities (SIC 33) are
engaged in the manufdc unng of ferrous
metals and metal products and the
primary and secondary smelting and
refining of nonferrous metals. In
addition, facilities engaged in the
molding. casting, or forming of ferrous or
nonferrous metals are included in this
group Due to the nature of processes
and activities commonly occurring at
these facilities, a number of sources can
potentially contribute significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water.
Sources of pollutants include outdoor
storage and material handling activities.
particulate and dust generating
processes. and slag quench processes.
Open air storage and handling of raw
materials, products. and wastes is a
common practice at many of these
facilities In addition, dust and
particulate-generating processes.
particularly at smelting and refining
facilities, are considered potential
sources of pollutants in storm water
discharges. Many of these types of
facilities also use a high volume of
water for operations such as spray
quenching. heat treating. and die
cooling, which when coupled with the
old age of many primary metals industry
facilities, can create the potential for
non-storm water to be discharged to the
storm water collection systems.
One commenter suggested that
monitoring requirements should be
limited to those in effluent guidelines
applicable to specific facilities. In
response, the Agency does not agree
with the commenter because the effluent
guidelines for process discharges may
not address all of the pollutants that
potentially can be found in storm water
discharges. In some cases. the effluent
guidelines use indicator parameters such
as TSS to characterize the removal of
other pollutants, such as metals. While
such an indicator can be appropriate for
evaluating the eff cti’ .eness of treatment
technologies, TSS will not differentiate
between inert solids and other
pollutants, such as heavy metals. EPA
has modified today’s permits by not
including total Kjeldahl nitrogen. nitrate
plus nitrite nitrogen. and total
phosphorus as parameters required for
primary metal facilities. High levels of
these parameters are not typically
associated with the activities of primary
metal facilities, and not requiring these
parameters will reduce the costs of
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No, 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41291
sampling for these facilities. In addition.
the Agency has added the requirement
that these facilities monitor any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subtect The
Agency believes tilat the addition of
these parameters is appropriate.
because they represent parameters
which have been identified as being
associated with the various
subcategories of primary metal
activities. In addition, the Agency notes
that it was an oversight in the August 16.
1991 draft permit to not require
monitoring of any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the facility is
subject. and that most other sampling
requirements for other categories of
industries addressed (including the
category of additional facilities
described below), required monitoring of
these parameters.
One company requested silicon
manufacturing and semiconductor grade
silicon manufacturing be exempted due
to lower heavy metal content of ores In
response. data indicates that raw silicon
metal for manufacture of silicones
begins with the reduction of quartz rock
which typically contains relatively
minor amounts of heavy metals relative
to other ores. In addition, the
manufacture of semiconductor grade
silicon begins with distilled
chlorosilanes which are free of heavy
metals and that heavy metals cannot be
in the starting material or they would
contaminate the product. Based on a
consideration of these factors, the
Agency has limited the monitoring
requirements for these facilities.
Two trade orgamza lions questioned
EPA’s legal authority to require
additional monitoring of the primary
metal industry and indicated that many
of their members already recover
particulate that can contaminate storm
water and that facilities that did not
perform primary smelting operation! did
riot generate dust One of these
commenters suggested that EPA wait
until it collects and reviews information
from other sources, such as gioup
applications, before requiring
monitoring.
The Agency has broad authority
under sections 308(a) and 402(a)(2) of
the Clean Water Act to establish any
monitoring conditions deemed
necessary to develop or insure
compliance with effluent standards or
cure protection of water quality. The
nitoring conditions in today’s permits
ye a number of purposes, including
providing informat on to identify
pollutant sources. and evaluating the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures. En addition. as summarized
above, the Agency notes that industrial
activities which typically occur at SIC 33
facilities can contribute pollutants other
than by dust generation
Land Disposal Un,ts/lnc nerators/S(Fs
Land disposal units and incinerators
and boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs) that burn hazardous waste may
receive a diverse range of industrial
wastes. Waste receiving, handling,
storage and processing. in addition to
actual waste disposal can be d
significant source of pollutants at waste
disposal facilities The surface water
impacts associated with land disposal
units are well characterized EPA has
summarized case studies documenting
surface water impacts and ground water
contamination of land disposal units
(see August 30. 1988) Evaluation of 163
case studies revealed surface water
impacts at 73 facilities Elevated levels
of organics, including pesticides. and
metals have been found in ground water
and/or surface water at many sites.
The August 16, 1991 draft permits
proposed special sampling requirements
for land disposal units Today’s permits
contains modified monitoring
requirements for land disposal units and
incinerators and boilers and industrial
furnaces (BEFsj that burn hazardous
waste and are at facilities with storm
water associated with industrial
activity. BIFs are those boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste for fuel that are subiect to
regulations promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRAJ and published February 21.
1991 (56 FR 7134). are similar to
hazardous waste incinerators in that
they burn hazardous matenals such as
spent solvents, contaminated fuels, etc..
but the primary purpose of the facility is
not waste disposal and the hazardous
material is typically burned to provide
heat, steam or generate electricity for
use in manufacturing processes
Incinerators and BIFs that burn’
hazardous wastes have been added to
this category because these facilities
will typically manage the same types of
wastes as landfills, and therefore
present similar risks with respect to
waste transportation. handling, and
storage. In addition. a wide range of
toxic pollutants potentially present in
fuel stocks. material accepted for
disposal. air emission particulate. and
ash at these facilities have the potential
to contaminate storm water runoff.
A number of comrnenters obtected to
the number of parameters associated
with the monitoring requirements
proposed for land disposal units. In
response. monitoring parameters for this
class were selected due to the wide
range of potential pollutants at land
disposal facilities The parameters listed
in the August 16. 1991 draft permits are
similar to the parameters addressed by
proposed ground water monitoring
requirements for municipal solid waste
landfills established under subtitle D of
RCRA (see August 30. 1988 153 FR
33372 . In developing the list of
parameters for the sampling
requirements for land disposal units and
Incinerators in today’s permits. the
Agency has deleted several parameters
which are monitored in a ground water
context primarily to detect plume
migration. and are not necessarily of
concern in and of themselves These
parameters include carbonate, calcium.
chloride, iron, potassium. sodium, and
sulfate Not requiring these parameters
to be analyzed will reduce monitoring
costs. Comments regarding acute whole
effluent toxicity testing are addressed
separately below
Several commenters felt landfill runoff
was already adequately addressed by
State regulatory programs In response.
the Agency notes that the criteria the
Agency has published for solid waste
disposal facilities under subtitle 13 of
RCRA does not inc)ude sampling or
treatment requirements for storm water
discharged from landfills (see October 9.
1991 (56 FR 51054)). In the October 9.
1991, notice establishing criteria for
solid waste disposal facilities, the
Agency noted that the NPDES permit
under the CWA would be the
appropriate mechanism for ensuring thai
point source discharges of runoff from
landfills are protective of human health
and the environment.
Several commenters requested
clarification on whether inactive or
closed land disposal sites were also
subpect to these monitoring
— requirements. In response. the Agency is
clarifying that today’s permits establish
monitoring requirements for storm water
discharge from an active or inactive
landfill, open dump or land application
site without a stabilized final cover that
has received any industrial wastes
(other than wastes from a construction
site)
In general. inactive land disposal sites
with a final cover that is consistent with
specifications for a final cover system
for municipal solid waste landfills
developed under subtitle D of RCRA
will satisfy the requirement of a
stabilized final cover for the purposes of
monitoring requirements under today’s
permits. The subtitle D specifications for
a final cover system are provided at 40
CFR 258.60 and include an erosion layer
underlain by an infiltration layer as
follows
-------
41292
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
• The infiltration layer must be
comprised of a minimum of lB inches of
earthen material that has a permeability
less than or equal to the permeability of
any bottom liner system or natural
subsoils present. or a permeability no
greater tharil < l0” 5 cm/sec.
whichever is less, and
• The erosion layer must consist of a
minimum of 6 inches of earthen material
that is capable of sustaining native plant
growth.
States may approve alternative final
cover designs that include an infiltration
layer that achieves an equivalent
reduction in infiltration, and an erosion
layer that provides equivalent protection
from wind and water erosion.
The Agency believes that inactive
facilities meeting these requirements
will generally not be a significant source
of pollutar.ts to storm water discharges.
Wood Treatment Facilities (Wood
Preservers)
Pollutants in storm water runoff from
treated material storage yards at wood.
preserving facilities were studied by
EPA in 1981 in support of effluent
guidelines development, and in support
of a proposed hazardous waste listing in
1988 (December 30, 1988 (53 FR 53287)).
Several organic pollutants were found at
significant concentrations, including
pentachlorophenol. fluoranthene.
benzo(a)anthracene. chrysene.
phenanthrene. and pyrene.
One commenter suggested combining
the two categories of wood treating
facilities identified in the August 16.
1991 draft permits into one category.
with monitoring requirements based on
the type of wood preservative used. In
response. the Agency has modified these
monitoring requirements so that there is
only one wood preserving monitoring
category in today’s permits. Under the
combined category, all wood treatment
facilities will be required to monitor for
oil and grease. pH. COD. and TSS.
Requirements for monitoring
phosphorus. nitrate plus nitrite. Kjeldahl
nitrogen, and BOD5 have been
eliminated. Nutrients are not expected
to be present in significant amounts at
these facilities, Metals or other toxic
materials in samples can limit the
accuracy of BOD5 analysis. Facilities
that use chlorophenolic formulations
must measure pentachiorophenol and
acute whole effluent toxicity; facilities
which use creosote formulations must
measure acute whole effluent toxicity;
and facilities that use chromium-arsenic
formulations must measure total arsenic.
total chromium, and total copper. In
addition, the final permit clarifies that
areas that are used for wood treatment,
wood surface application or storage of
treated or surface protected wood at
any wood preserving or wood surface
application facilities are subject to these
monitoring requirements.
Another cominenter suggested
reducing the monitoring frequency due
to material management regulations
established under other environmental
programs such as RCRA. In response,
the Agency notes that no provision of
RCRA or the CWA limits EPA’s
authority to regulate storm water
discharges from wood preserving
facilities under the CWA. EPA
published regulations addressing several
wastes from wood preserving facilities.
including storage yard drippage. on
December 6. 1990 (55 FR 50450). The
RCRA requirements do not require
monitoring of storm water discharges to
assist in characterizing pollutants in
such discharges. Rather. the RCRA
requirements establish a set of controls.
including certain management practices.
to control wastes addressed by the rule.
While several of these requirements.
where properly implemented. should
decrease pollutants in storm water
discharges. the Agency continues to
believe that a minimum of twice per
year sampling is appropriate for these
facilities to adequately characterize
pollutant sources and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the pollution control
measures required under RCRA and
today’s permits.
Comments regarding acute whole
effluent toxicity testing are addressed
separately below.
Coal Pile Runoff
Pollutants in storm water runoff from
coal piles are discussed in detail earlier
in today’s notice. Monitoring
requirements are necessary to support
the numeric effluent limitation in today’s
permits. Commenters did not emphasize
concerns regarding monitoring
requirements for coal pile runoff,
However. the final permit does modify
the coal pile runoff limitations to
correspond to those at 40 CFR part 423.
As a result, grab sampling of the
parameters will be required to be
consistent with the instantaneous
maximum limitations.
Battery Reclaimers
Today’s permit establishes special
semi-annual monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges from areas used
for storage of lead acid batteries,
reclamation products. or waste
products, and areas used for lead acid
battery reclamation (including material
handling activities) at facilities that
reclaim lead acid batteries. Based on an
evaluation of the battery reclamation
industry, the Agency has identified
handling, storage and processing of lead
acid batteries, as well as byproduct and
waste handling at reclamation facilities
as having a significant potential for
pollutants in storm water discharges.
Only those areas used for storage of
lead acid batteries, reclamation
products. or waste products. and areas
used for lead acid battery reclamation
(including material handling activitiesj
are subject to this monitoring
requirement.
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity
Monitoring Requirements
The August 16. 1991. draft permit
proposed acute whole effluent toxicity
(WET) monitoring for EPCRA section
313 facilities: primary metal (SIC 33)
facilities: land disposal facilities: and
wood treatment facilities using creosote
or chlorophenolic compounds. WET
testing was included as both an efficient
method of assessing the toxicity
potential of complex mixtures of
pollutants in storm water and as a
measure of the effectiveness of a
facilities pollution prevention plan.
A number of concerns regarding acute
WET testing were raised in the
comments. The usefulness of testing
storm water for toxicity without
allowing for instream dilution was
questioned. These commenters indicated
concerns that storm water discharges
that exhibited toxicity may not create
toxic conditions in receiving waters due
to the dilution provided by the receiving
stream.
In response. the Agency wants to
clarify a primary purpose of the WET
monitoring requirements in today’s
permits is to assist in the identification
of pollutant sources. particularly where
complex mixtures of pollutants in storm
water may result, and assist in the
evaluation of the effectiveness of
pollution prevention practices. not to
consider the ability of receiving streams
to dilute toxicity. The Agency believes
that testing 100 percent storm water
effluent (no dilution) is appropriate for
this purpose because testing 100 percent
storm water effluent is preferable to
testing diluted effluent where the object
of conducting the test is to detect the
presence of toxicity in the effluent. The
Agency also notes that tests conducted
on 100 percent effluent can serve as an
initial screen for evaluating whether a
discharge potentially contributes to
water quality impairment.
Several commenters questioned the
particular acute toxicity test proposed
(48-hr invertebrate and 98-hour
vertebrate) with regard to its use on
short, intermittent, and variable storm
water discharges. In response. todays
-------
Federal Register / vol. 57 . No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 I Notices
ermits have been modified to provide
for a 24-hour test period for the acute
WET parameter, EPA believes that in
certain situations, such as where several
storm events occur over a period of
several days. storm water discharges
can result in exposures to toxic
chemicals of longer than 24 hours, and
that in some situations, monitoring the
acute WET parameter using longer time
periods (such as 48..hr for invertebrate
species and 96-hour for vertebrate
species) will be appropriate. However,
the primary reasons for establishing
monitoring requirements for the acute
WET parameter in todays permit is to
assist in identifying pollutant sources
and to evaluate the effectiveness of
pollution measures. Since the WET
monitoring requirements in todays
permits are generally not intended to
directly evaluate toxic effects on
organisms in receiving waters, the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
allow for 24 hour testing of the WET
p rameter to reduce monitoring costs. 4 ’
This approach is consistent with the
EPA policy of allowing for shorter
toxicity testing time intervals when
conducting toxicity screening tests. 42
Several commenters suggested the use
•indigenous species. In response. the
ET monitoring requirements in many
.,c today’s permits allow flexibility for
the selection of appropriate invertebrate
and fish speci u. consistent with EPA
recommendations in “Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms”.
EPA, 1991. (EPA—600/4—go/027)
However, the permits for Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma. Texas.
Colorado. Wyoming, Montana. North
Dakota. South Dakota. and Utah specify
specific species to be tested. EPA
believes that specifying the species in
sEandardized test methods will allow
direct comparison to similar discharges
at different facilities, and is consistent
with WET procedures generally used in
other NPDES permits issued for
discharges in these States In addition.
the use of sensitive standardized test
species helps avoid problems that arise
when indigenous organisms may be
diseased or impaired. Many laboratories
across the country maintain healthy
Todays permits for discharges in CO. WY. MT.
ND and UT require 48 hour testing for invertebrate
species. and 96 hour testing for fish species. These
‘cedures are consistent wiih the procedure.
rally used in NPDES permits for WET testing
discharge. within these States Use of the
.e procedures wilt assist EPA in evaluating thie
uaia
‘ Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms , EPA. i991 (EPA-600/.—9o/027j
cultures of standardized toxicity test
organisms. A similar problem may arise
in using indigenous organisms when the
organisms may have built up a tolerance
to certain toxicants that they are
exposed to Again, the Agency wants to
emphasize that the primary purposes of
requiring WET monitoring is to dssist in
identifying pollutant sources and to
evaluate the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures, and is generally
not intended to directly evaluate toxic
effects on organisms in receiving waters,
Additional comments were received
questioning the usefulness of toxicity
testing prior to implementation of a
facility’s pollution prevention plan. In
response, the Agency believes that acute
WET monitoring data can be used to
assist in the development of storm water
pollution prevention plans by assisting
in identifying potential pollutant sources
which can be targeted for contrql, and
therefore monitoring for this parameter
before implementing plans is
appropriate. In addition, sampling data
obtained before storm water pollution
prevention plans have been
implemented can assist in developing a
baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of
pollution prevention measures.
Several commenters raised concerns
regarding the costs of analyzing samples
for the WET parameter. In response. an
informal survey of commercial
laboratories indicated 24-hour acute
toxicity tests conducted art 100 percent
effluent would be in the neighborhood of
$250 per species. or S500 total. Based on
a consideration of these costs and other
factors, the Agency mdintains that
monitoring for the WET parameter is
appropriate. The Agency has made
several modifications to WET
monitoring procedures to reduce the
costs of monitoring for the WET
parameter, including reducing the test
period to 24 hours and only requiring
testing on 100 percent effluent Since the
monitoring requirement is not designed
to directly measure water quality
impacts on the receiving water, use of
freshwater test species and
reconstituted dilution water will be
allowed for all discharges
Some commenters indicated that
monitoring the acute WET parameter
would not necessarily indicate the
source of pollutants causing the toxicity.
In response. the Agency agrees that
monitoring for the WET parameter, by
itself, will not necessarily indicate
sources of pollutants or the chemical
constituents affecting the WET
parameter Rather, the WET parameter
serves as a screen that gives a general
indication of the toxicity of the
discharge. One of the biggest
41293
advantages to the WET parameter is its
ability to characterize complex mixes of
chemicals with a single. easily
understood, parameter When using the
WET parameter, it is not necessary to
specifically identify and consider all of
the potential pollutants that could be
present in a discharge Once toxicity is
detected, the discharger can use a
variety of methods to identify sources of
pollutants causing the toxicity. including
evaluating information in the description
of potential pollutant sources required in
the storm water pollution prevention
plan, evaluating other information
regarding the nature of industrial
activities at the facility, and conducting
additional monitoring and analyzing for
specific pollutants.
However, in response to concerns
raised on this issue. the sampling
requirements of today’s permits for
wood preserving facilities, land disposal
units, hazardous waste incinerators or
BIFs. primary metals facilities, and
facilities subject to Section 313 of the
EPCRA for water priority chemicals (e g
those classes of facilities where the
acute WET parameter was identified in
the draft general permits) provide that
these dischargers. in addition to
monitonng for parameters specified for
the industrial class, can either analyze
samples for the WET parameter or for
the pollutants identified in Tables 11 and
III of appendix D of 40 CFR 122 that the
discharger knows or has reason to
believe are present at the facility site
Permittees that monitor for selected
pollutants identified in Tables II and Ill
of appendix D of 40 CFR 122 should base
their determination of whether a
particular chemical is known or believed
to be present at the facility site on a
consideration of the activities at the
facility.
The detei-rnination of whether a
chemical is knbwn or reasonably
expected to be present at a facility site
will involve the reasonable best effort of
the permittee to identify that significant
quantities of materials or chemicals are
present at the facility. The Agency’s
intention is to focus monitoring on
constituents (pollutants) that are pt’esent
in quantities large enough so that it is
likely that they may potentially be
present in storm water. The Agency
generally believes that, unless there ts
other evidence to suggest the likelihood
of discharge in storm water, where
quantities are less than 100 kilograms or
one barrel within the monitoring period
the likelihood of detection in storm
water is relatively low This
determination can be based on an
evaluation of information such as
material inventories, the industrial -
-------
41294
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
activities, raw materials, products.
waste materials, and other site specific
considerations. EPA does not intend
that dischargers know with an exact
measurement or absolute certainty
whether a chemical is present in
amounts that exceed this threshold. For
example. where the chemical is a minor
constituent of various materials and
products used at the facility, where the
chemical is present in various products.
such as cleaning supplies, or other
incidental materials not used in an
industrial process. or where it is held as
a small laboratory stock, there would be
no requirement for monitoring.
This change provides permittees with
two approaches for attempting to
identify sources of pollution to storm
water discharges. The first approach.
use of the WET parameter. focuses on
the use of a single parameter with the
ability to identify the potentially toxic
character of mixtures of chemicals in
water. This approach might be used, for
example. at industrial facilities where
the storm water may contain a wide
range of chemicals, or where the
chemicals used at the facility are not
well characterized. The WET parameter
can be used to provide an initial
indication of whether the level of toxic
constituents in a discharge reaches toxic
Levels.
The second approach focuses on
analyzing storm water samples for
specific chemicals that the discharger
knows or has reason to believe are
present at the facility site. This
approach might be used, for example.
where the discharger can characterize
the chemicals at the facility site. This
monitoring approach provides chemical
specific information that may provide a
more direct indication than the WET
parameter of specific pollutant sources.
EPA suggests that permittees consider
the following factors when evaluating
which approach to monitoring to pursue:
the types of chemicals present at the
site: the feasibility of collecting sample
volumes necessary to conduct WET
monitoring: and analytical laboratory
casts.
Toxicity Reductions
A number of commenters requested
clarification as to whether facilities that
detected acute WET in their storm water
discharge would be required to conduct
a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE).
Several commenters objected to the
requirement to conduct a toxicity
reduction e aluations (TRE) without
more research into the applicability of
current TRE procedures to storm water
discharges One commenter indicated
that if a discharge is found to fail the
WET lest. it should be allowed the
opportunity to conduct additional WET
tests before undergoing a formal toxicity
reduction evaluation.
In response, todays permits provide
that if acute whole effluent toxicity
(statistically significant difference
between the 100 percent dilution and
control) is detected after October 1. 1995
in storm water discharges required to
conduct toxicity testing under this
permit. the permittee must review the
storm water pollution prevention plan
and make appropriate modifications to
assist in identifying the source(s) of
toxicity and to reduce the toxicity of
their storm water discharges. The
Agency believes it is appropriate that
the permit require the permittee to
review the pollution prevention plan and
study ways to reduce demonstrated
toxicity. The Agency believes that the
approach taken in todays permits
provide considerably more flexibility
than requirements to conduct formal
TREs.
The Agency believes that this
approach addresses the need to reduce
demonstrated toxicity while providing
flexibility for facilities to evaluate their
storm water discharges for toxicity and
to take appropriate steps to reduce
toxicity prior to October 1. 1995. This
provides dischargers with an
opportunity to implement site-specific
and innovative measures to reduce
toxicity In addition, this approach
recognizes the difficulties in
ascertaining whether a specific measure
or approach will successfully reduce
toxicity at a given facility The Agency
believes that this approach will provide
additional opportunities to evaluate
pollution prevention measures suitable
for reducing toxicity and for evaluating
the role of treatment technologies in
such toxicity reduction strategies.
While today’s permit does not
specifically require dischargers that
detect acute WET to conduct a formal
TRE. the Agency may request a TIE or a
TRE pursuant to the authority of Section
308 of the CWA where toxicity is
reported. Similarly, where facilities
detect significant levels of other
pollutant parameters, the Agency may.
where appropriate, request additional
information, such as an additional
pollutant source evaluation or a
pollution prevention evaluation.
Annual Monitoring Requirements
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits required. at a minimum, annual
monitoring of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
except for certain storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations.
As discussed above, the Agency is
limiting monitoring requirements to
selected industrial activities with
significant pollutant sources. Annual
monitoring requirements have been
retained for certain discharges of storm
water associated with industrial activity
at Larger airports. coal fired steam
electric facilities: animal handling/meat
packing: facilities classified as SIC 30
(Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics
Products): facilities classified as SIC 28
(Chemicals and Allied Products)
facilities, larger automobile junkyards:
lime manufacturing facilities: oil fired
steam electric power generating
facilities: cement manufacturing
facilities and kilns: ready.mixed
concrete facilities; and ship building and
repairing facilities.
Permittees subject to annual
monitoring requirements are not
required to submit the results of their
monitoring unless EPA specifically
requests the information. However.
monitoring results must be retained for a
minimum of six years. Monitoring
results must be made available to the
Director upon request. or upon permit
renewal. The specific monitoring
parameters were chosen to provide
information on the overall quality of the
discharge. concentrate on industry.
specific pollutants of concern, aid in
determining the effectiveness of
pollution prevention plan controls. and
assist In development of Tier I I. III. and
IV permitting efforts.
Airports
Deicrng activities at airports can be a
significant source of pollutants to storm
water discharges. The amount of deicing
fluids used depend on temperature and
the amount and type of precipitation
(freezing rain may require more deicing
fluids than many snowlalls) as well.
Ethylene glycol. urea and ammonium
nitrate are the primary ingredients of
other deicing compounds used at
airports. These chemicals can have a
significant oxygen demand in water.
When deicing operations are performed.
large volumes of ethylene glycol are
sprayed on aircraft and runways. Data
from Stepleton International Airport
show that b2.986 gallons of concentrated
ethylene glycol were used during the
month of February 1988 (Denver Public
Works 1988). Data from Stepleton
International Airport indicate that storm
water discharges contained levels of up
to 5.050 mg/L ethylene glycol during a
monitoring period from December 1986
to January 1987 Deicing fluids have
been implicated in several fish kills
across the nation.
One State Agency specifically
identified airport deicing operations as
the area of most concern at airports. In
-------
Federal Register / Vol 57. No 175 I Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices
41295
response. the Agency agrees that deicirig
operations can be a significant potential
Source of pollutants in storm water
discharges Given these concerns, the
Agency is retaining monitoring
requirements for deicing activities at
large airports Facilities with storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas where
aircraft or airport detcrng operations
occur (including runways. taxiways.
ramps. and dedicated aircraft deicing
stations) are required to monitor for
parameters indicative of the overall
quality of the discharge and to identify
deicing materials used at the site that
are entering the storm water discharge.
Several commenters requested
reduced or eliminated sampling for
smaller airports. In response. today’s
monitoring requirements for airports are
limited to have been limited to airports
with over 50,000 flight operations per
year and apply only to those areas
where deicmg activities occur A flight
operation consists of a single takeoff or
landing by an aircraft The Agency
believes that the number of opera lions is
one of the key factors for determining
the amount of deicing activity and other
industrial activities occurring at an
airport. and that in general. airports
with a higher number of opera lions are
expected to discharge more pollutants iii
their storm water, In addition, some
smaller airports may not conduct
deicirig activities, and a requirement
targeting monitoring of deicirig activities
at such smaller airports may cause
confusion.
According to information obtained
from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA) and based on 1990
Federal Aviation Administration data.
there are approximately 5078 public use
airports in the United States. Of these,
approximately 376 airports (7 4%) have
50.000 or more flight operations per year
CooI.fzred Steam Electric Facilities
Coal ’fired steam electric facilities use
large amounts of coal. Coal handling
activities at these facilities can be a
significant source of pollutanis in storm
water discharges. Runoff from coal
handling areas can have pollutant
characteristics that are similar to coal
pile runoff. and can have high levels of
total suspended solids, sulfate, iron,
aluminum, mercury. copper. arsenic.
selenium and manganese. as well as an
-idic pH. 43 The Agency believes that it
See ‘Final Development Document For Efflueni
Limitaiton. Guidelines and Siandards and
Precreeiment Standard. for the Steam Electric Point
Source cete ory’ 1982. IEPA-44011. .e2I-29)
is appropriate to retain monitoring
requirements in these coal handling
areas to adequately quantify the effect
of these pollutant sources on storm
water discharges Monitoring
parameters will be the same as those
required sen’ii.annually under this
permit for coal piles. with the same
pus tification on their selection Because
this monitoring requirement does riot
support a numeric effluent limitation,
and due to the more diffuse nature of
coal in the coal handling areas. the
monitoring frequency of once per year
was deemed adequate Compared to the
basic monitoring required under the
August 15. 1991. draft permits. this
monitoring requirement focuses more on
the pollutants of particular concern and
should be less costly for the facility
Animal Handling/Meat Packing
The nature of potential pollutant
sources to runoff from animal handling.
manure management areas, and
production waste management areas at
meat packing plants. poultry packing
plants and facilities that manufacture
animal and marine fats with animal
waste and/or production wastes is
similar to runoff from confined animal
feeding operations (feedlots). Animal
waste products can be a significant
source of pollutants to storm water
runoff which can contribute high levels
of oxygen demanding pollutants.
nutrients and fecal bacteria. 44
Monitoring data can be used to detect if
these materials are entering the storm
water The monitoring requirements for
animal handling facilities in today’s
permit are more tailored than the August
18. 1991 draft permits Tailoring these
requirements is expected to reduce the
costs of these requirements relative to
the August 16. 1991 draft permits.
Additional Facilities
Today s permits retain monitoring
requirements for storm water discharges
from seven additional classes of
industrial activities. These storm water
discharges will have to be monitored
annually for a basic set of parameters
(oil and grease. COD. TSS. pH. and any
pollutant limited in an effluent limitation
guideline for which the facility is
subject) The Agency has identified
these industrial Llasses based on a
consideration of specific activities at
these facilities that have a significant
potential for contributing pollutants to
See ‘Proposed Guidance Specilying
Mans ement Measure. for Sources oF Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters May i991 EPA and
Development Document (or EFfluent Limitations
Guideline, and New Source Performance
Siandards—Feedisi , Point Source Category’ EPA.
1974 EPA-44011 /74—004—a
storm water If the listed actu’.itv does
not occur at a particular site. or the
runoff from that area is treated as a
process wastewater. is discharged to d
municipal sanitary sewer (with the
municipality s permission), or is retained
onsite. no sampling will be required The
sampling required for these facilities is
generally less restrictive than would
have been required under the draft
permit.
Chemical storage piles can have a
significant potential for contributing
pollutants to storm water discharges
Todays permits include monitoring
requirements for storm water that comes
into contact with solid chemicals used
as raw materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified as
SiC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products). In addition.
today’s permits require monitoring of
storm water that comes into contact
with lime storage piles that are exposed
to storm water at lime manufacturing
facilities. Lime can significantly raise
the pH of such discharges.
Automotive fluids and greases from
automobile drivelines are a significant
potential source of pollutants to storm
water discharges from automobile
jurikyards. Drivelines include the engine
transmission, differentialj transa le.
fuel, brake, and coolant (radiator)
systems. Automotive fluids/greases
from these areas would typically include
engine oil, fuel, transmission fluid or oil
rear end oil. suspension loirit and
bearing greases. antifreeze, brake fluid
power steering fluid, and the oil and
grease leaking from and covering
various components (for example. oil
and grease on exterior of an engine)
The procedures used for fluids capture
during the dismantling process will
affect the potential to contribute
pollutants to storm water
The Agency has attempted to reduce
the burden on the auto salvage industry
by retaining monitoring requirements
only from priority facilities with
dismantling or storage practices that are
generally thought to have a higher
potential for contributing significant
amounts af pollutants to storm water
discharges than other yards. Two
factors, the number of units stored, and
exposure of automotive fluid drainage
and storage areas, are used to determine
the applicability of monitoring
requirement. Facilities were f A) over 250
auto/truck bodies with drivelines. 250
drivelines. or any combination thereof
(in whole or in parts) are exposed to
“Summary of site inapectiona by CA State
Department of Health Services March 19 1992
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41296
storm waten (B) over 500 auto/truck
units (bodies with or without drivelines
in whole or in parts) are stored exposed
to storm wateri or (C) over 100 urnts per
year are dismantled and drainage or
storage of automotive fluids occurs in
areas exposed to storm waten will be
required to monitor storm water
discharges from these areas.
Spills and leaks from fuel handling
sites, including loading/unloading areas
and storage tanks, at oil fired steam
electric power generating facilities are
potential significant sources of
pollutants to storm water runoff 46
Monitoring data from these sites can be
used to identify pollutant sources and
allow the Agency to assess the
effectiveness of the facility’s material
management and spill prevention!
response practices.
Loading and unloading activities, raw
material storage. processing operations.
at cement manufacturing facilities.
cement kilns. and ready.mix concrete
facilities, can be a significant potential
source of pollutant to storm water. 47
Dust generating processes and air
deposition of pollutants from
smokestacks at cement kilns could also
be significant sources of pollutants to
storm water Discharges from cement
manufacturing facilities and cement
kilns and discharges from ready-mixed
concrete facilities could contain the
same constituents limited in the storm
water effluent limitations guidelines for
cement kilns material storage piles.
A number of industrial activities at
ship building and repairing facilities can
be significant sources of pollutants to
storm water discharges. including
improper controls on activities such as
ship bottom cleaning, bilge water
disposal. loading/unloading of fuels.
metal fabrication and cleaning
operations. and surface preparation and
painting. 4t
“Given the large amounts of ad managed at
these facilities many of the pollutant sources
associated with oil handling and storage are
eapected to be imiIar to those at petroleum
refiner.’, A more complete description of the
pollution potential of these types of operations is
provided in the Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
Pretrtatment Standards for the Petroleum Refinerse.
Point Source Category EPA 1979. 440/1I—791014b.
See Development Document for Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Cement Manufacturing Point
Source Category EPA. 1974. EPAI44O/1-79-OO5-4.
The effluent limitation guidelines for the Cement
manufacturing category addreaa runoff denved from
tat storage of materials used in or derived From the
manufacture of cement (see 40 CFR 411 30)
Discharges that are covered by the guideline cannot
be authorized under today s permits
“See Development Document (or Proposed
Effluent Limitations Cutijelines and Standards for
the Shipbuilding and Repair Point Source Category
EPA Dei.ember 1979 EPA 440111—’91078—b and
Ill. Sample Collection
One State agency requested a
requirement for more accurate flow
measurement to provide more accurate
flow proportioning for composite
sampling and pollutant loading
calculations In response. EPA agrees
there are more accurate flow measuring
methods than the flow estimation
methods required by the permit. Where
a State requires. or a particular facility
wishes, more accurate flow
measurement is certainly desirable.
However, the Agency also recognizes
that there is a variety of methods for
providing more accurate flow
proportioning for composite sampling. 4 ’
with different methods having very
different costs. The Agency is concerned
about possible confusion in the
regulated community leading to the use
of overly expensive techniques and
methods for measuring flow. In addition.
the Agency notes that the monitoring
data collected pursuant to today’s
permits will serve a number of purposes.
such as identification of pollutant
sources and possible contaminants,
which do not require flow estimates.
Therefore, today’s permits do not
require more precise flow measurement
techniques. such as pnmary flow
measurement devices, for all discharges
required to sample at this time.
Several c.ommenters questioned the
necessity for both first flush grab
sampling and composite event sampling.
Other commenters supported the
proposed sampling requirements. In
response. EPA believes that it is
necessary to require sampling that will
provide information on the typically
more polluted “first flush” as well as a
measure of the average concentration of
pollutants discharged during an event.
First flush sampling (a grab sample
during the first 30 minutes of the
discharge) is also necessary to evaluate
the effectiveness cf detention nd
retention devices which may only
provide controls for the first portion of
the discharge.
Commenters also questioned whether
the first flush must be collected during
the first 30 minutes of the storm event or
the first thirty minutes of discharge. The
Agency would like to clarify that first
flush sampling applies to the first thirty
minutes of discharge. rather than
rainfall. In some instances, particularly
where detention or retention systems
are used, there will be a delay between
“Propoaed Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Poliuiion in
Coastal Water,’, May i99i. EPA
“See NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance
Document ‘ EPA 833—8—02-001. July 1992. EPA
the start of a storm event and the first
measurable discharge.
With regard to the provision allowing
a single grab sample from detention
devices with a 24 hour holding time, one
commenter suggested establishing a
design storm to calculate holding times.
In response. the Agency believes that
defining the residence time of the
detention device (e.g. 24 hours) is
adequate to achieve the oblective of the
requirement. Devices with a 24 hour
residence time for a given storm should
provide adequate mixing to allow a
single grab sample to provide a
reasonably accurate characterization of
the average concentration of the
discharge and will mitigate first flush
effects. The Agency believes that by not
establishing a design storm to calculate
holding times, more flexibility will be
provided for applying this provision on a
storm-by-storm basis.
One commenter suggested that
composite sampling be eliminated and
only grab sampling of the first flush be
required in the baseline general permit.
with the results used to target industries
for more extensive monitoring at a later
date. In response. the Agency believes
that composite sampling will provide
more information for estimating
pollutant loads, evaluating certain
concentration-based water quality
impacts. and generally characterizing
storm water discharges. The permit
authorizes either time-weighted or flow-
weighted composite samples which may
be manually or automatically collected.
The use of pH paper rather than a pH
meter was recommended by many
cornmenters based on the cost
differential. In response. EPA approved
test methods at 40 CFR 136.3 require an
accuracy for pH measurements of plus
or minus 0.1 pH unit. The test method
only describes the electrometric method
using a glass electrode. pH paper
generally ranges in accuracy from plus
or minus 0.5 pH unit to 1.0 pH unit.
Other potential problems with pH paper
are that it is pudged subjectively by
comparison to a color chart, is affected
by humidity. age and method of storage.
and may be affected by turbidity or
suspended solids. The Agency notes that
some pH measuring devices which use
the electrotnetric method, such as pH.
can provide the required accuracy at a
reasonable price ($50.00 to $200.00).
Cominenters from arid regions and
those with unattended remote sites
pointed out the difficulties in conducting
sampling of representative storm events
in areas characterized by infrequent
storm events and/or when no personnel
were stationed onsite. In response.
under the sampling requirements
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41297
developed for the final permit. many
industries, including inactive remote
mining sites, will not be required to
collect monitoring data In addition.
monitoring from any event greater than
0 i inch is acceptable.
IV. Sampling Waiver
All comments on the proposed waiver
for sampling based on adverse climatic
conditions supported this provision.
Several cornmenters did request
clarification on the applicability. In
response. EPA would like to clarify that
the sampling waiver is only intended to
apply to unsurmountable weather
conditions such as drought or dangerous
conditions such as lightning, flash
flooding, or humcanes. These events
tend to be isolated incidents, and should
not be used as an excuse for not
conducting sampling under more
favorable conditions associated with
other storm events. The sampling waiver
is not intended to apply to difficult
logistical conditions.
V. Use of Representative Outfalls for
Sampling
The permit allows the use of
substantially identical outfalls to reduce
the monitoring burden on a facility. All
omments received on this issue
4upported this provision. EPA has
maintained this provision. However, the
permittee must develop justification on
why one outfall is representative of
others and keep this information onsite.
available to the Director upon request.
VI. Submittal and Availability of
Reports and Monitoring Results
The issue of whether monitoring
results should be retained onsite or
submitted to EPA (and how often)
received comments supporting both
positions. Several commenters
suggested that all monitoring data be
kept onsite. available to the Director
upon request. Other commenters
suggested all monitoring results be
submitted, with frequencies ranging
from twice per year to once per permit
term In the final permit. EPA has
adopted a monitoring approach that
targets selected industrial activity
Facilities required to monitor semi-
annually are required to report results
annually. Facilities required to monitor
annually are not required to report
information unless the information is
requested by the Director.
This approach maintains closer
‘versight of targeted facilities, while
ducing the overall burden on the
. gulated community and EPA.
Several commenters supported the
requirement to submit copies of
discharge monitoring reports to the
operator of municipal separate storm
sewer systems when at least one outfall
discharges to that system Several State
agencies also requested copies of all
discharge monitoring results. The final
permit requires those dischargers
required to submit monitoring
information annually to provide copies
to receiving large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems and
States that have requested this
information.
The location for submittal of all
reports is contained in the permit.
Facilities located on certain Indian
Lands in Arizona. Utah, New Mexico,
Idaho, Nebraska. Nevada and Oregon
and Colorado should note that
permitting authority has been
consolidated in one EPA Region or
another where a reservation crosses the
boundaries of the Regions. For example.
all NPDES permitting for Navajo lands is
handled by EPA Region 9.
V II. Retention of Records
The draft permit required retention of
all records for a minimum of three years.
Several commenters suggested that
records be kept for the entire permit
term. In response, the final permit
requires retention of monitoring records
for six years since not all facilities who
monitor will be required to submit the
results annually. In addition, pollution
prevention plans must be kept for the
life of the permit.
Costs
The August 16, 1991 draft notice
summarized EPA’s estimates of the
costs for compliance with the draft
permits. The Agency has revised these
estimates to reflect changes made when
issuing the final permits. and additional
evaluation made in response to
comment.
One commenter indicated that they
thought that to meet the conditions of
the permit most small companies will
have to hire a full-time engineer which
many small businesses cannot afford
and that other companies will use staff
with general technical backgrounds. In
response, the Agency has reordered and
simplified the requirements in todays
permit and believes that small facilities
will generally not have to hire a full-time
engineer to implement storm water
pollution prevention plans. In addition,
the Agency has developed guidance
entitled “Storm Water Management for
Construction Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices”. U.S. EPA. 1992
to assist facilities with limited storm
water technical expertise in preparing
and implementing their storm water
pollution prevention plan.
-------
Wednesday
September 9. 1992
Construction
Permit Language
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits For Storm
Water Discharges From Construction
Sites; Permit Language
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices 41209
Appendix B—NPDES General Permits
for Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Activities That Are
Classified as “Associated With
industrial Activity”
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No. NHRI0000IFI
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as ‘associated with industrial
activity”, for indian Tribes located in
the State of New Hampshire. are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
-------
41210
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Ronald Manfredonia.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
with stormwater discharges. for Indian Tribes
located in the State of New Hampshire
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
IPermit No MERI0000IFI
fri compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.: the Act), except as
provided in Part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, for Indian Tribes located in
the State of New Hampshire. are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX dnd for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
with stormwater discharges. for Indian Tribes
located in the State of Maine.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
IPermil No MARI0000 iF)
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U S.C. 1251 et seq. the Act), except as
provided in Part l.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, for Indian Tribes located in
the State of Massachusetts. are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part 11 of this permit Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia,
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
with stormwater discharges. for Indian Tribes
located in the State of Massachusetts
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
IPermit No MERI00000 IFI
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq: the Act), except as
provided in Part l.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located in the State of Maine.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accorddnce with Part
11 of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9 1992
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Ronald Manfredonia.
A cling Director. Water Management Di ision
This signaiure is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Maine
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Permit No NHR10000I
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S C. 1251 et seq. the Act), except as
provided in Part 1.8.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associdted with industrial
activity’, located in the State of New
Hampshire are authorized to discharge
in accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997
Signed arid issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Paris I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of New Hampshire
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
INPDES Permit Number PRRI00000 (
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S C. 1251 et seq. the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity.” located in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico are authorized to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41211
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water dishcarges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part U of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9. 1997
Signed and Is8ued this 28th day of August.
1992.
ICevin Bricke.
Acting Director. Water Management Division.
U.S. En v,rvnmentol Protection Agency.
Region!!
This signature is lOT the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Region IV
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(General Permit Number MSRI0000FJ
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S C. 1251 et seq. the “Act”) except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity.” located on Indian land in
Mississippi belonging to the Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians are authorized
to discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued August 28. 1992
Robert F McGhee,
A cling Director. Wale, Management Di vision
Thus signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and For any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to Facilities
located within the general permit area
Region IV
IGeneral Permit Number FLRI000IFJ
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.. the “Act”) except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located on Indian land in
Florida belonging to the Miccosukee
Indian Tribe of Florida are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall e ’ pire at midnight.
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued August 28. 1992
Robert F McGhee.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area
Region IV
IGeneral Permit Number FLRI0000FJ
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.. the “Act”) except as
provided in Part I B 3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located on Indian land in
Florida belonging to the Seminole Tribe
of Florida are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized b this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued Augusi 28, 1992
Robert F McGhee
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to Facilities
located within the general permit area.
(General Permit Number NCRI0000FJ
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 el seq.. the “Act”) except as
provided in Part I.B. 3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as associated with industrial
aclivitt ” located on Indian land in
North Carolina belonging to the Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians in the State of
North Carolina are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
11 of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued August 28. 1992
Robert F McGhee
Acting Director Water Management Division
This signature is For the permui conditions
in Parts I through IX and For any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to Facilities
located within the general permit area
-------
41212
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday , September 9. 1992 / Notices
(Permit No. T X R100000J
Under the National Pollutant Discharge
liminAtion System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.: the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of stormwater discharges from
construction activities that are classified
as “associated with industrial activity”,
located In the State of Texas, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued thIs 27th day of August,
1992.
Myron 0. Knudson. P.E.. -
Water Management Director, Region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through LX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Texas
[ Purnut No.0 K R100000j
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Pert I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located in the State of
Oklahoma, are authorized to discharge
In accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part 11 of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and Issued this 27th day of August.
1992.
Myron 0. Knudson,
Water Management Director, Region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Oklahoma.
lPermlt No. NMRI00000J
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.: the Act), except aa
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located in the State of New
Mexico, are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities Within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992,
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued thIs 27th day of August.
1992.
Myron 0. Knudson,
Water Management Director, Region VI.
This signature Is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located In the State of New Mexico.
(Permit No. LAR100000J
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge £limlnntion
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part LB.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located in the State of
Louisiana, are authorized to discharge In
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 27th day of August.
1992.
Myron 0 Knudson.
Water Management Director. Region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana.
(Permit No. WYRI0000FJ
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq; the Act), except as
provided In Part LB.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located in the Wind River
Indian Reservation in the State of
Wyoming, are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent In accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Kerrigan Clough.
Acting RegionalAdm,n,strotor.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions In Part X which apply to facilities
located in the States of Wyoming.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday , September 9. 1992 / Notices
41213
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Filminatjon
System
IPermit No. UTRI0000FJ
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq: the Act), except as
provided In Part l.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located In the following Indian
Reservations in Utah (except for the
portions of the Navajo Reservation and
Goshute Reservation located In Utah)
Northern Shoshoni Reservation
Paiute Reservations—several very small
reservations located In the southwest
quarter of Utah;
Skull Valley Reservation; and Uintah &
Ouray Reservation.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent In accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Kerngan Clough.
Acting Regional Administrator
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Utah
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
IPermit No. SDRI00000I
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located in the entire State of
South Dakota including the Indian
reservations noted below (with the
exception of the portion of the Standing
Rock Reservation located in South
Dakota). and the portion of the Lake
Traverse Reservation located in North
Dakota
Cheyenne River Reservation: Crow
Creek Reservation:
Flandreau Reservation; Lake Traverse
Reservation—Also known as the
Sisseton Reservation. Includes the
entire Reservation, which is located in
North Dakota and South Dakota;
Lower Brule Reservation;
Pine Ridge Reservation—Includes only
the portion of the Reservation located
in South Dakota; Rosebud
Reservation; and, Yankton
Reservation.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent In accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued thIs 28th day of August,
1992.
Kemgan Clough,
Acting Reg.onal Administrator
This signature Is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
loca’ed in the State of South Dakota and the
portion of the Lake Traverse Reservation
located in the State of North Dakota
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
IPermit No. NDR10000F)
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq: the Act), except as
provided In Part l.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, In all the Indian Reservations
located in the State of North Dakota
including the following (with the
exception of the portion of the Lake
Traverse Reservation, also known as the
Sisseton Reservation, located in North
Dakota)
Fort Totten Reservation—Also known
as Devils Lake Reservation:
Fort Berthold Reservation;
Standing Rock Reservation—Includes
the entire Reservation, which is
located in both North Dakota and
South Dakota: and,
Turtle Mountain Reservation.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part U of this permit Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent In accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Kemgan Clough.
Actz,zg Reg:onolAdm,rns cgor.
This signature Is for the permit conditions
In Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions In Part X which appiy to facilities
located in the State of North Dakota and the
portion of the Standing Rock Reservation
located In the State of South Dakota.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
[ Permit No. MTRI0000FJ
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, in all Indian Reservations in
Montana including the following
Reservations:
Blackfeet Reservation:
Crow Reservation;
Flathead Reaervatj n;
Fort Belknap Reservation;
Fort Peck Reservation;
Northern Cheyenne Reservation: and,
Rocky Boys Reservation.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part 11 of this permit. Operators of storm
-------
41214
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Kerngan Ciough.
Acting Regional Administrator
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Paris I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Montana.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No. CORI0000FI
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.: the Act), except as
provided in Part l.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activ1ty” in applicable federal facilities
located in the State of Colorado, and in
the following Indian Reservations
Southern Ute Reservation: and.
Ute Mountain Reservation—Includes the
entire Reservation, which is located in
Colorado anc t New Mexico
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Kemgan Clough.
Acting Regional Administrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Colorado and the
portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation
located in the State of New Mexico
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Piimination
Syetam
(Permit No. AZRI000IF(
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S C. 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part LB 3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located on
Indian Lands in the State of Arizona.
Including Navajo Temtory in the
States of New Mexico and Utah
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W McGovern,
Regional Adnnn,strctor. Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located on the Indian lands specified above
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No, AZRI00000J
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located in the
State of Arizona (Excluding Indian
Lands)
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992
Daniel W McGovern.
RegionalAdm,nistr’ator. Region 9
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Arizona (excluding
Indian lands)
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No NVR1000IFJ
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located on
Indian Lands in the State of Nevada.
Including Goshute Territory in the
State of Utah, and the Duck Valley
Reservation in Nevada and Idaho
are authorized to discharge in
ai cordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday , September 9. 1992 / Notices
41215
Signed and i8sued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Daniel W McGovern,
Reg:onolAdministrrjzor. Region 9.
This 8ignature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through LX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located on the Indian lands specified above.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge FIi,nii ntion
System
(Permit No. CARI000IF]
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S.C.. . . 1251 et. seq.: the Act),
except as provided in Part 1.8.3 of this
permit. operators of storm water
discharges from construction activities
that are classified as “associated with
Industrial activity”, located on
Indian Lands In the State of California
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
mdustrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authonzed under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern.
Reg:onolAdm,nistrotor. Region 9
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located on Indian lends in the State of
California.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No. MWRI00000J
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S.C.. . . 1251 et. seq.; the Act).
except as provided in Part 1.8.3 of this
permit. operators of storm water
discharges from construction activities
that are classified as “associated with
industrial activity”, located on
Midway Island or Wake Island
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
11 of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern.
Regiona!Adirnn,strvtor, Region 9
This signature is for the permit conditions
In Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located on Midway Island or Wake Island.
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
[ Permit No. JARl00000J
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.: the Act), except as
provided in Part l.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located on
Johnston Atoll
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by this permit must submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued this 28th day of August
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern.
Reg,ono/Adtninistrotor. Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
In Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located on Johnston Atoll
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
From Construction Activities That Are
Classified as Associated With Industrial
Activity
(General Permit No.. ID—R —1O —000FJ
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators engaged in
discharging storm water from
construction activities that are classified
as “associated with industrial activity”
which are located on Indian lands in the
State of Idaho. except for those sites
identified in Part I hereof, are authorized
to discharge to waters of the United
States, in accordance with effluent
limitations. monitonng requirements,
and other conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the site where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authonzation to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E Ceren.
Acting Director, Water Division. Region 10,
US En viroarnentol Protection Agency
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to activities
located on Indian lands in the State of Idaho.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
From Construction Activities That Are
Classified as Associated With Industrial
Activity
(General Permit No.: AX—R—iO-000F
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. P.L 100-4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators engaged in
discharging storm water from
construction activities that are classified
as “associated with industrial activity”
which are located on Indian lands in the
State of Alaska, except for those sites
identified in Part I hereof, are authcrized
to discharge to waters of the United
States, in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements.
and other conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the site where the discharges
occur.
-------
41210
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
This permit shall become effective
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
September 9, 1997.
Signed this 27 day of August 1991
Harold & Ceren.
Acting Director. WoterD,v,s,on, Region 10.
US. En vironmental Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through LX and for any additional
conditions In Part X which apply to activities
located on Indian lands In the State of
Alaska.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
From Construction Activfties That Are
Classified as Associated With Industrial
Activity
IGeneral Permit No.: WA—R—1O-OoiFj
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. P.L 100—4. the “Act”.
Owners and operators engaged in
discharging storm water from
construction activities that are classified
as “associated with industrial activity”
which are located on Indian lands in the
State of Washington. except for those
sites identified in Part I hereof, are
authonzed to discharge to waters of the
United States, in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements. and other conditions set
forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the site where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on
September 9, 1997.
Signed this 27 day of August 1992.
Harold E. Geren.
Acting Director. Water Division, Region 10.
U.S. &ivimnmenta/ Protection Agency
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to activities
located on Indian lands In the State of
Washington.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
from Construction Activities That Are
Classified as Associated with Industrial
Activity
ICeneral Permit No. WA-R-1O-000FJ
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 el
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. P.L 100-4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators of federal
facilities in the State of Washington
engaged in discharging storm water from
construction activities that are classified
as “associated with Industrial activity”,
except for those sites identified In Part I
hereof and except those sites located on
Indian lands within the State of
Washington. are authorized to discharge
to waters of the State of Washington
and waters of the United States
adjacent to State waters, in accordance
with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements, and other conditions set
forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the site where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on
September 9, 1997.
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E. Geren.
Acting Director. Water Division. Region 10.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to federal
facilities in the State of Washington.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
from Construction Activities That Are
Classified as Associated with Industrial
Activity
(General Permit No: ID-R-10-0000i
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. P.L 100—4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators engaged in
discharging storm water from
construction activities that are classified
as “associated with industrial activity”.
except for those Bites identified in Part I
hereof and except those sites located on
Indian lands within the State of Idaho,
are authonzed to discharge to waters of
the State of Idaho and waters of the
United States adjacent to State waters,
in accordance with effluent limitations.
monttonng requirements. and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the site where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on
September 9. 1997.
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold C. Geren.
Acting Director. Water Division, Region 10,
US. En vironmanlol Protection Agency
This signature is for the permit conditions
In Parts I through IX and any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to federal
facilities in the State of Idaho.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System for Storm Water
Discharges From Construction
Activities That Are Classified as
Associated With Industrial Activity
(General Permit No AK—R— lo-00 00l
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 el
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. P.L 100—4, the “Act”.
Owners and operators engaged in
discharging storm water associated with
construction activities that are classified
as associated with industrial activities,
except those sites identified in Part I
hereof and except those sites located on
Indian lands within the State of Alaska
and waters of the United States
adjacent to State waters, in accordance
with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements. and other conditions set
forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the site where discharges occur
This permit shall become effective
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
September 9, 1997.
Signed this 27 day of August 1992
Harold E. Geren.
Acting Director. Water Division. Region 10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to activities
located in the State of Alaska.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
IPermit No — P100000 or __RI0000F (for
only Indian lands and/or Fed. fac}
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industrial
activity”, located in the State(s) of
________ are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities within the
general permit area who intend to be
authorized by these permits must submit
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9, 1992 I Notices
41217
a Notice of Intent in accordance with
Part II of this permit. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity who fail to submit a
Notice of Intent in accordance with Part
II of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
Signed and issued this — day of _______
1992.
(Signature of Water Management Director or
Regional Administrator)
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of _______
NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges From Construction
Activities That are Classified as
“Associated With Industrial Activity”
Table of Contents
PART I. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT
A Permit Area
B. Eligibility
C Authorization.
PART II. NOTICE OF INTENT
REQUIREMENTS
A. Deadlines for Notification.
B Contents of Notice of Intent
C Where to Submit
D Additional Notification
E Renotification
PART III. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A Prohibition on non-storm water
discharges
B Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
PART IV. STORM WATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLANS
A Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance.
B. Signature and Plan Review
C. Keeping Plans Current
D Contents of Plan.
E. Contractors.
PART V. RETENTION OF RECORDS
PART Vi. STANDARD PERMIT coPiDmoNs
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
C. Signatory Requirements
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
I. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Property Rights.
K. SeverabIlity.
L Requiring an Individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
M. State Laws.
N Proper Operation and Maintenance.
0. Inspection and Entry.
P. Permit Actions.
PART VII REOPENER CLAUSE
PART VIII. NOTICE OF TERMINATION
A. Notice of Termination.
B. Addresses.
PART IX. DEFiNITiONS
PART Z. STATE SPECIFiC C0NDmONS
A. Puerto Rico.
B. Colorado (Federal facilities and Indian
lands).
C. Arizona.
D.Alaska.
E. Idaho.
F. Washington (Federal facilities and Indian
lands)
Preface
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides
that storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from a point
source (including discharges through a
municipal separate storm sewer system)
to waters of the United States are
unlawful, unless authorized by a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The
terms “storm water discharge
a ,psociated with industrial activity”,
“point source” and “waters of the
United States” are critical to
determining whether a facility is subject
to this requirement. Complete
definitions of these terms are found in
the definition section (Part IX) of this
permit.
The United Slates Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
established the Storm Water Hotline at
(703) 821—4823 to assist the Regional
Offices in distributing notice of intent
forms and storm water pollution
prevention plan guidance, and to
provide information pertaining to the
storm water regulations.
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area
The permit covers all areas of:
Region I—for the States of Maine and
New Hampshire: for Indian lands
located in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire. and Maine.
Region Il—for the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
Region IV—for Indian lands located in
Florida (two tribes). Mississippi. and
North Carolina.
Region VI—for the States of
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas: and for Indian lands located in
Louisiana. New Mexico (except Navajo
lands and Ute Mountain Reservation
lands), Oklahoma, and Texas.
Region VIU—for the State of South
Dakota; for Indian lands located in
Colorado (including the tJte Mountain
Reservation in Colorado), Montana,
North Dakota, Utah (except Goshute
Reservation and Navajo Reservation
lands), and Wyoming: for Federal
facilities in Colorado, and for the Ute
Mountain Reservation New Mexico.
Region tX—for the State of Arizona:
for the Temtories of Johnston Atoll, and
Midway and Wake Island; and for
Indian lands located in California. and
Nevada; and for the Goshute
Reservation in Utah and Nevada, the
Navajo Reservation in Utah, New
Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley
Reservation in Nevada and Idaho.
Region X—for the State of Alaska.
and Idaho: for lndian lands located in
Alaska, Idaho (except Duck Valley
Reservation lands). and Washington.
and for Federal facilities in Washington
B. Eligibility
1. This permit may authonze all
discharges of storm water associated
with industrial activity from
construction sites. (those sites or
common plans of development or sale
that will result in the disturbance of five
or more acres total land area i),
(henceforth referred to as storm water
discharges from construction activities)
occurring after the effective date of this
permit (including discharges occurring
after the effective date of this permit
where the construction activity was
initiated before the effective date of this
permit), except for discharges identified
under paragraph 1.8.3.
2. This permit may only authorize a
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity from a construction
site that is mixed with a storm water
discharge from an industrial source
other than construction, where:
A. the industnal source other than
construction is located on the same site
as the construction activity:
b. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from the areas of
the site where construction activities are
occumng are in compliance with the
terms of this permit: and
c. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from the areas of
the site where industrial activity other
than construction are occurring
(including storm waler discharges from
dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated
concrete plants) are covered by a
different NPDES general permit or
On lane 4. 1992. the Uniied Slates Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded ihe
exemption tot conauiictton sites of Ieu than five
aces to the A for further rulemaking (Nos. 90 —
70871 and 91-70 Ol
-------
41218
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
individual permit authorizing such
discharges.
3. Limitations on Coverage
The following storm water discharges
from construction sites are not
authorized by this permit.
a. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that originate
from the site after construction activities
have been completed and the site has
undergone final stabilization.
b. discharges that are mixed with
sources of non-storm water other than
discharges which are identified in Part
lIl.A of this permit and which are in
compliance with Part IV.D 5 (non.storm
water discharges) of this permit.
c. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are subject
to an existing NPDES individual or
general permit or which are issued a
permit in accordance with paragraph
VI L (requiring an individual permit or
an alternative general permit) of this
permit Such discharges may be
authorized under this permit after an
existing permit expires provided the
existing permit did not establish
numeric limitations for such discharges.
d. storm water discharges from
construction sites that the Director
(EPA) has determined to be or may
reasonably be expected to be
contributing to a violation of a water
quality standard: and
e. storm water discharges from
construction sites if the discharges may
adversely affect a listed or proposed to
be listed endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat
C. Authorization
1. A discharger must submit a Notice
of Intent (NO!) in accordance with the
requirements of Part 11 of this permit.
using a NO! form provided by the
Director (or a photocopy thereof), in
order for storm water discharges from
construction sites to be authorized to
discharge under this general permit. 2
2. Where a new operator is selected
after the submittal of an NO! under Part
II, a new Notice of Intent (NO!) must be
submitted by the operator in accordance
with Part 11. using a NOl form provided
by the Director (or a photocopy thereof)
3. Unless notified by the Director to
the contrary. dischargers who submit an
NO! in accordance with the
requirements of this permit are
authorized to discharge storm water
from construction sites under the terms
and conditions of this permit 2 days
after the date that the NO! is
postmarked. The Director may deny
‘A copy of the epproved NOl form ia provided in
Appendix C of ihis noitce
coverage under this permit and require
submittal of an application for an
individual NPDES permit based on a
review of the NO! or other information
(see Part VI.L of this permit).
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
A Deadlines for Notification
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
II A 2. Il.A 3. and ll.A.4. individuals who
intend to obtain coverage for storm
water discharges from a construction
site (where disturbances associated
with the construction project commence
before October 1, 1992), under this
general permit shall submit a Notice of
Intent (NO!) in accordance with the
requirements of this Part on or before
October 1. 1992:
2. Individuals who intend to obtain
coverage under this general permit for
storm water discharges from a
construction site where disturbances
associated with the construction project
commence after October 1. 1992. shall
submit a Notice of Intent (NO!) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part at least 2 days prior to the
commencement of constiuction
activities (e g. the initial disturbance of
soils associated with clearing, grading.
excavation activities, or other
construction activities),
3. For storm water discharges from
construction sites where the operator
changes. (including projects where an
operator is selected after a NO! has
been submitted under Parts II.A.1 or
lI.A 2) a NO! in accordance with the
requirements of this Part shall be
submitted at least 2 days prior to when
the operator commences work at the
site: and
4. EPA will accept an NOl in
accordance with the requirements of
this part after the dates provided in
Parts ll.A.1. 2 or 3 of this permit. In such
instances. EPA may bring appropriate
enforcement actions.
B. Contents of Notice of Intent
The Notice(s) of Intent shall be signed
in accordance with Part V1.G of this
permit by all of the entities identified in
Part ll.B.2 and shall include the
following information:
1. The mailing address of the
construction site for which the
notification is submitted. Where a
mailing address for the site is not
available, the location of the
approximate center of the site must be
described in terms of the latitude and
longitude to the nearest 15 seconds, or
the section. township and range to the
nearest quarter section:
2. The name, address and telephone
number of the operator(s) with day to
day operational control that have been
identified at the time of the NO!
submittal. and operator status as a
Federal. State. private, public or other
entity. Where multiple operators have
been selected at the time of the initial
NO! submittal. NOls must be attached
and submitted in the same envelope
When an additional operator submits an
NO! for a site with a preexisting NPDES
permit. the NOl for the additional
operator must indicate the number for
the preexisting NPDES permit.
3 The name of the receiving water(s).
or if the discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer
and the ultimate receiving water(s).
4. The permit number of any NPDES
permit(s) for any discharge(s) (including
any storm water discharges or any non-
storm water discharges) from the site.
5 An indication of whether the
operator has existing quantitative data
which describes the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges
(existing data should not be included as
part of the NOl). and
6 An estimate of project stdrt date
and completion dates, estimates of the
number of acres of the site on which soil
will be disturbed, and a certification
that a storm water pollution prevention..
plan has been prepared for the site in
accordance with Part IV of this permit.
and such plan provides compliance with
approved State and/or local sediment
and erosion plans or permits and/or
storm waler management plans or
permits in accordance with Part IV D 2.d
of this permit (A copy of the plans or
permits should not be included with the
NO! submission)
C Where to Submit
1. Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NOI form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof) The
form in the Federal Register notice ri
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821—4823. NOIs
must be signed in accordance with Part
VI.G of this permit. NOIs are to be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program in care of the following
address. Storm Water Notice of Intent.
P0 Box 1215. Newington, VA 22122.
2. A copy of the NO! or other
indication that storm water discharges
from the site are covered under an
NPDES permit. and a brief description of
the project shall be posted at the
construction site in a prominent place
for public viewing (such as alongside a
building permit)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41219
0. Additional Notification
Facilities which are operating under
approved State or local sediment and
erosion plans, grading plans. or storm
water management plans shall submit
signed copies of the Notice of intent to
the State or local agency approving such
plans in accordance with the deadlines
in Part Il.A of this permit (or sooner
where required by State or local rules),
in addition to submitting the Notice of
Intent to EPA in accordance with
paragraph lI.C.
E. Renouficauon
Upon issuance 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 UI. Special Conditions.
Management Practices, and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
A. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Dischai es
1. Except as provided in paragraph
I.B.2 and Ill A.2, all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water.
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
llI.A.2.(b). discharges of material other
than storm water must be in compliance
with a NPDES permit (other than this
permit) issued for the discharge.
b The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit provided the non-storm water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.5
discharges from fire fighting activities;
fire hydrant flushings; waters used to
wash vehicles or control dust in
accordance with Part IV.D.2.c.(2);
potable water sources including
waterline flushings; irrigation drainage;
routine external building washdown
which does not use detergents;
pavement washwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
have not occurred (unless all spilled
material has been removed) and where
detergents are not used: air conditioning
condensate, springs; uncontaminated
ground water and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents.
B. Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities
1. The discharge of hazardous
substances or oil in the storm water
discharge(s) from a facility shall be
prevented or minimized in accordance
with the applicable storm water
pollution prevention plan for the facility.
This permit does not relieve the
permittee of the reporting requirements
of 40 CFR part 117 and 40 CFR part 302
Where a release containing a hazardous
substance in an amount equal to or in
excess of a reporting quantity
established under either 40 CFR 117 or
40 CFR 302, occurs during a 24-hour
period.
a. The perrnittee is required to notify
the National Response Center (NRC)
(800-424—8802: in the Washington. DC
metropolitan area 202-426—2675) in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 as soon as he
or she has knowledge of the discharge;
b. The permittee shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accord nce
with Part IILB.3 of this permit to the
appropriate EPA Regional office at the
address provided in Part V.C
(addresses) of this permit; and
c. The storm water pollution
prevention plan required under Part IV
of this permit must be modified within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release to. Provide a description of the
release, the circumstances leading to the
release, and the date of the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
identify measures to prevent the
reoccurrence of such releases and to
respond to such releases. and the plan
must be modified where appropriate
2. Spills This permit does not
authorize the discharge of hazardous
substances or oil resulting from an on-
site spill.
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
A storm water pollution prevention
plan shall be developed for each
construction site 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
expecled to affect the quality of storm
water discharges from the construction
site. In addition, the plan shall describe
and ensure the implementation of
practices which will be used to reduce
the pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity at the
construction site and to assure
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit Facilities must
implement the provisions of the storm
water pollution prevention plan required
under this part as a condition of this
permit.
A Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
The plan shall
1. Be completed (including
certifications required under Part IV E)
prior to the submittal of an NO! to be
covered under this permit and updated
as appropriate,
2. For construction activities that have
begun on or before October 1. 1992.
except for sediment basins required
under Part IV.D.2.a(2) (structural
practices) of this permit. the plan shall
provide for compliance with the terms
and schedule of the plan beginning on
October 1. 1992. The plan shall provide
for compliance with sediment basins
required under Part IV D.2.a (a) of this
permit by no later than December 1.
1992.
3. For construction activities that have
begun after October 1. 1992. the plan
shall provide for compliance with the
terms and schedule of the plan
beginning with the initiation of
construction activities
B Signature and Plan Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part Vl.G, and be
retained on-site at the facility which
generates the storm water discharge in
accordance with Part V (retention of
records) of this permit.
2. The permittee shall make plans
available upon request to the Director, a
State or local agency approving
sediment and erosion plans. grading
plans. or storm water management
plans. 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.
3. The Director, or authonzed
representative, may notify the permittee
at any time that the plan does not meet
one or more of the minimum
requirements of this part. Such
notification shall identify those
provisions of the permit which are not
being met by the plan, and identify which
provisions of the plan requires
modifications in order to meet the
minimum requirements of this part.
Within 7 days of such notification from
the Director, (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized
representative, the permittee shall make
the required changes to the plan and
shall submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made.
C Keeping Plans Current
The permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design.
-------
41220
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday , September 9. 1992 / Notices
construction, operation, or maintenance.
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States and
which has not otherwise been addressed
in the plan or if the storm water
pollution prevention plan proves to be
ineffective in eliminating or significantly
minimizing pollutants from sources
identified under Part lV.D.2 of this
permit, or in otherwise achieving the
general objectives of controlling
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. in
addition, the plan shall be amended to
identify any new contractor and/or
subcontractor that will implement a
measure of the storm water pollution
prevention plan (see Part IV.E).
Amendments to the plan may be
reviewed by EPA in the same manner as
Part IV.B above.
D. Contents of Plan
The storm water pollution prevention
plan shall include the following items:
1. Site description. Each plan shall.
provide a description of pollutant
sources and other information as
indicated:
a. A description of the nature of the
construction activity;
b. A description of the intended
sequence of major activities which
disturb soils for major portions of the
site (e.g. grubbing, excavation, grading);
c. Estimates of the total area of the
site and the total area of the site that is
expected to be disturbed by excavation,
grading, or other activities;
d. An estimate of the runoff coefficient
of the site after construction activities
are completed and existing data
describing the soil or the quality of any
discharge from the site;
e. A site map indicating drainage
patterns and approximate slopes
anticipated after major grading
activities, areas of soil disturbance, an
outline of areas which not be disturbed,
the location of major structural and
nonstructural controls identified in the
plan, the location of areas where
stabilization practices are expected to
occur, surface waters (including
wetlands), and locations where storm
water Is discharged to a surface waten
and
f. The name of the receiving water(s),
and areal extent of wetland acreage at
the site.
2. Controls. Each plan shall include a
description of appropriate controls and
measures that will be implemented at
the construction site. The plan will
clearly describe for each major activity
Identified in Part IV.D.i.b appropriate
control measures and the timing during
the construction process that the
measures will be implemented. (For
example, perimeter controls for one
portion of the site will be installed after
the clearing and grubbing necessary for
installation of the measure, but before
the clearing and grubbing for the
remaining portions of the site. Perimeter
controls will be actively maintained
until final stabilization of those portions
of the site upward of the perimeter
control. Temporary perimeter controls
will be removed after final
stabilization). The description and
implementation of controls shall address
the following minimum components:
a. Erosion and sediment contro/s—(1).
stabilization practices. A descnption of
interim and permanent stabilization
practices, including site-specific
scheduling of the implementation of the
practices. Site plans should ensure that
existing vegetation is preserved where
attainable and that disturbed portions of
the site are stabilized. Stabilization
practices may include: temporary
seeding, permanent seeding, mulching,
geotextiles, sod stabilization, vegetative
buffer strips, protection of trees,
preservation of mature vegetation, and
other appropriate measures. A record of
the dates when major grading activities
occur, when construction activities
temporarily or permanently cease on a
portion of the site, and when
stabilization measures are initiated shall
be included in the plan. Except as
provided in paragraphs IV.D.2.(a).(1).(a),
(b), and (c) below, stabilization
measures shall be initiated as soon as
practicable in portions of the site where
construction activities have temporarily
or permanently ceased, but in no case
more than 14 days after the construction
activity in that portion of the site has
temporarily or permanently ceased.
(a). Where the initiation of
stabilization measures by the 14th day
after construction activity temporary or
permanently cease is precluded by snow
cover, stabilization measures shall be
initiated as soon as practicable.
(b) Where construction activity will
resume on a portion of the site within 21
days from when activities ceased, (e.g.
the total time period that construction
activity is temporarily ceased is less
than 21 days) then stabilization
measures do not have to be initiated on
that portion of site by the 14th day after
construction activity temporarily
ceased.
(ci. In and areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches)
and semi-and areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches), where the initiation of
stabilization measures by the 14th day
after construction activity has
temporarily or permanently ceased is
precluded by seasonal arid conditions.
stabilization measures shall be initiated.
as soon as practicable.
(2). Structural practices. A description
of structural practices to divert flows
from exposed soils, store flows or
otherwise limit runoff and the discharge
of pollutants from exposed areas of the
site to the degree attainable Such
practices may include silt fences, earth
dikes, drainage swales, sediment traps.
check dams, subsurface drains, pipe
slope drains, level spreaders, storm
drain inlet protection, rock outlet
protection, reinforced soil retaining
systems. gabions. and temporary or
permanent sediment basins. Structural
practices should be placed on upland
soils to the degree attainable. The
installation of these devices may be
subject to Section 404 of the CWA.
(a) For common drainage locations
that serve an area with 10 or more
disturbed acres at one time, a temporary
(or permanent) sediment basin providing
3.600 cubic feet of storage per acre
drained, or equivalent control measures,
shall be provided where attainable until
final stabilization of the site. The 3,600
cubic feet of storage area per acre
drained does not apply to flows from
offsite areas and flows from onsite areas
that are either undisturbed or have
undergone final stabilization where such
flows are diverted around both the
disturbed area and the sediment basin.
For drainage locations which serve 10 or
more disturbed acres at one time and
where a temporary sediment basin
providing 3.600 cubic feet of storage per
acre drained, or equivalent controls is
not attainable, smaller sediment basins
and/or sediment traps should be used.
At a minimum, silt fences, or equivalent
sediment controls are required for all
sideslope and downslope boundaries of
the construction area.
(b) For drainage locations serving less
than 10 acres, sediment basins and/or
sediment traps should be used. At a
minimum, silt fences or equivalent
sediment controls are required for all
sideslope and downslope boundaries of
the construction area unless a sediment
basin providing storage for 3,600 cubic
feet of storage per acre drained is
provided.
b. Storm water management. A
description of measures that will be
installed during the construction process
to control pollutants in storm water
discharges that will occur after
construction operations have been
completed. Structural measures should
be placed on upland soils to the degree
attainable. The installation of these
devices may be subject to Section 404 of
the CWA. This permit only addresses
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No . 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41221
the installation of storm water
management measures, and not the
ultimate operation and maintenance of
such structures after the construction
activities have been completed and the
site has undergone final stabilization
Permittees are only responsible for the
installation and maintenance of storm
water management measures prior to
final stabilization of the site, and are not
responsible for maintenance after storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
from the site.
(1). Such practices may include: storm
water detention structures (including
wet ponds); storm water retention
structures; flow attenuation by use of
open vegetated swales and natural
depressions; infiltration of runoff onsite;
and sequential systems (which combine
several practices) The pollution
prevention plan shall include an
explanation of the technical basis used
to select the practices to control
pollution where flows exceed
predevelopment levels.
(2). Velocity dissipation devices shall
be placed at discharge locations and
along the length of any outfall channel
for the purpose of providing a non-
erosive velocity flow from the structure
to a water course so that the natural
physical and biological characteristics
and functions are maintained and
protected (e.g. no significant changes in
the hydrological regime of the receiving
water).
c Other controls—(i) waste disposal
No solid materials, including building
materials, shall be discharged to waters
of the United States, except as
authorized by a Section 404 permit.
(2) Off-site vehicle tracking of
sediments and the generation of dust
shall be minimized.
(3) The plan shall ensure and
demonstrate compliance with applicable
State and/or local waste disposal,
sanitary sewer or septic system
regulations.
d. Approved State or local plans (1)
Permittees which discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity from
construction activities must include in
their storm water pollution preventioi
plan prccedures and requirements
specified in applicable sediment and
erosion site plans or site permits, or
storm water management site plans or
site permits approved by State or local
officials Permittees shall provide a
certification in their storm water
pollution prevention plan that their
storm water pollution prevention plan
reflects requirements applicable to
protecting surface water resources in
sediment and erosion site plane or site
permits, or storm water management
site plans or site permits approved by
State or local officials. Permittees shall
comply with any such requirements
during the term of the permit. This
provision does not apply to provisions
of master plans, comprehensive plans.
non-enforceable guidelines or technical
guidance documents that are not
identified in a specific plan or permit
that is issued for the construction site.
(2) Storm water pollution prevention
plans must be amended to reflect any
change applicable to protecting surface
water resources in sediment and erosion
site plans or site permits, or storm water
management site plans or site permits
approved by State or local officials for
which the permittee receives wntten
notice. Where the permittee receives
such written notice of a change, the
permittee shall provide a recertification
In the storm water pollution plan that
the storm water pollution prevention
plan has been modified to address such
changes.
(3) Dischargers seeking alternative
permit requirements shall submit an
individual permit application in
accordance with Part VI.L of the permit
at the address indicated in Part V.C of
this permit for the appropriate Regional
Office, along with a description of why
requirements In approved State or local
plans or permits, or changes to such
plans or permits, should not be
applicable as a condition of an NPDES
permit.
3. Maintenance. A description of
procedures to ensure the timely
maintenance of vegetation, erosion and
sediment control measures and other
protective measures identified in the site
plan in good and effective operating
condition.
4. Inspections. Qualified personnel
(provided by the discharger) shall
inspect disturbed areas of the
construction site that have not been
finally stabilized, areas used for storage
of materials that are exposed to
precipitation, structural control
measures, and locations where vehicles
enter or exit the site at least once every
seven calendar days and within 24
hours of the end of a storm that is 0.5
inches or greater. Where sites have been
finally stabilized, or during seasonal
arid periods in arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches)
and semi-arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches) such inspection shall be
conducted at least once every month.
a. Disturbed areas and areas used for
storage of materials that are exposed to
precipitation shall be inspected for
evidence of, or the potential for.
pollutants entering the drainage system.
Erosion and sediment control measures
identified in the plan shall be observed
to ensure that they are operating
correctly Where discharge locations or
points are accessible, they shall be
inspected to ascertain whether erosion
control measures are effective in
preventing significant impacts to
receiving waters. Locations where
vehicles enter or exit the site shall be
inspected for evidence of offsite
sediment tracking
b Based on the results of the
inspection, the site description identified
in the plan in accordance with
paragraph IV.D.1 of this permit and
pollution prevention measures identified
in the plan in accordance with
paragraph IV.D.2 of this permit shall be
revised as appropriate, but in no case
later than 7 calendar days following the
inspection. Such modifications shall
provide for timely implementation of
any changes to the plan within 7
calendar days following the inspection.
c. A report summarizing the scope of
the inspection, name(s) and
qualifications of personnel making the
inspection, the date(s) of the inspection,
major observations relating to the
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan, and actions
taken in accordance with paragraph
IV.D.4.b of the permit shall be made and
retained as part of the storm water
pollution prevention plan for at least
three years from the date that the site is
finally stabilized. Such reports shall
identify any incidents of non-
compliance. Where a report does not
identify any incidents of non-
compliance, the report shall contain a
certification that the facility is in
compliance with the storm water
pollution prevention plan and this
permit The report shall be signed in
accordance with Part VI.G of this
permit.
5. Non-Storm Water Discharges
Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed in Part lll.A2 of this permit that
are combined with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must be identified in the plan.
The plan shall identify and ensure the
implementation of appropriate pollution
prevention measures for the non-storm
water component(s) of the discharge
E. Contractors
1. The storm water pollution
prevention plan must clearly identify for
each measure identified in the plan, the
contractor(s) and/or subcontractor(s)
that will implement the measure. All
contractors and subcontractors
identified in the plan must sign a copy of
the certification statement in Part IV.E,2
-------
41222
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 I Notices
of this permit in accordance with Part
VLG of this permit. All certifications
must be included in the storm water
pollution prevention plan.
2. Certification Statement. All
contractors and subcontractors
identified in a storm water pollution
prevention plan in accordance with Part
N.E.1 of this permit shall sign a copy of
the following certification statement
before conducting any professional
service identified in the storm water
pollution prevention plan:
1 certify under penally of law that 1
understand the terms and conditions of the
general National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit that
authorizes the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from the
construction site identified as part of thus
certification
The certification must include the
name and title of the person providing
the signature in accordance with Part
Vl.G of this permit; the name, address
and telephone number of the contracting
firm; the address (or other identifying
description) of the site, and the date the
certification is made.
Part V. Retention of Records
A. The permittee shall retain copies of
storm water pollution prevention plans
and all reports required by this permit,
and 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 that the site is
finally stabilized. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at
any time.
B. The permittee shall retain a copy of
the storm water pollution prevention
required by this permit at the
construction site from the date of project
initiation to the date of final
stabilization.
C. Addresses. Except for the submittal
of NOEs (see Part II.C of this permit). all
written correspondence concerning
discharges in any State, Indian land or
from any Federal Facility covered under
this permit and directed to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
including the submittal of individual
permit applications, shall be sent to the
address of the appropriate Regional
Office listed below:
1. CT MA. ME. NH. RI, VT
United States EPA, Region I. Water
Management Division (WCP—2109),
Storm Water Staff. John F. Kennedy
Federal Building. Room 2209. Boston.
MA 02203.
2. NJ. NY. PR, VI
United States EPA. Region II, Water
Management Division (2WM—WPC),
Storm Water Staff, 26 Federal Plaza.
New York, NY 10278.
3. D DC. MD, PA, VA, WV
United States EPA. Region III. Water
Management Division (3WM55).
Storm Water Staff. 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia. PA 19107
4 AL FL.CA.KY.MS,NC.SC. TN
United States EPA, Region IV, Water
Management Division (FPB—3), Storm
Water Staff, 345 Courtland Street.
N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365.
5. IL, IN, MI, MN. OH. WI
United States EPA. Region V; Water
Quality Branch (5WQP). Storm Water
Staff, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago. IL 60604.
6. AR. LA. NM (Except See Region IX
for Navajo Lands, and See Region V//I
for fife Mountain Reservation Lands),
OK. TX
United States EPA. Region VI. Water
Management Division (6W—EA),
Storm Water Staff. First Interstate
Bank Tower at Fountain Place. 1445
Ross Avenue. 12th Floor, Suite 1200,
Dallas. TX 75202.
7. IA. KS. MO. NE
United States EPA. Region VU, Water
Management Division, Compliance
Branch. Storm Water Staff. 726
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City. KS
66101.
8. CO. MT. ND. SD. WY. UT (Eiccept See
Region IX for Goshute Reservation and
Navajo Reservation Lands)
United States EPA. Region VIII, Water
Management Division, NPDES Branch
(8WM—C). Storm Water Staff. 999 lath
Street, Denver, CO 80202—2466.
Note—For Montana Indian Lands.
please use the following address:
United States EPA, Region VIII.
Montana Operations Office. Federal
Office Building. Drawer 10096, 301
South Park. Helena. MT 59620-0026.
9. AZ GA. HI. NV Guam. American
Samca, the Goshute Reser.’ation in UT
and NV, the Nova/a Reservation in UT.
NM, and AZ, the Duck Valley
Reservation in NV and ID
United States EPA. Region IX. Water
Management Division (W—5—1). Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105.
10. AK. ID (Except See Region IX for
Duck Valley Reservation Lands). OR,
WA
United States EPA. Region X. Water
Management Division (WD—134).
Storm Water Staff. 1200 Sixth Street,
Seattle WA 98101.
Part VI. Standard Permit Conditions
A Duty to comp/,
1. The permittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of
CWA and is grounds for enforcement
action. for permit termination.
revocation and reissuance, or
modification: or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions
a. Cnminal
(1]. Negligent V,olauons The CWA
provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302. 306. 307
308. 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to 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 both
(2) Knowing Violations The CWA
provides that any person ho
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306. 307
308. 318, or 405 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 3 years.
or both.
(3). Knowing Endangerment The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306. 307,
308. 318. or 405 of the Act and who
knows at that 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.
(4). False Statement The CWA
provides that any person 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 the Act
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to
be maintained under the Act, shall upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000 o ’ by imprisonment
for not more than 2 years. or by both. If
a conviction is for a violation committed
after a first conviction 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. (See
Section 309.c.4 of the Clean Water Act)
b. Civil Penalties—The CWA
provides that any person who violates a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 /_Notices
41223
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 for each
violation
c. Administrative Penalties The
CWA 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
an administrative penalty. as follows:
(1). Class I penalty Not to exceed
$10,000 per violation nor shall the
maximum amount exceed $25,000
(2). Class II penalty Not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues nor shall
the maximum amount exceed $125,000.
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit -
This permit expires on October 1,
1997. However, an expired general
permit continues in force and effect until
a new general permit is issued.
Permittees must submit a new NOl in
accordance with the requirements of
Part Ii of this permit, using a NOl form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereofl between August 1, 1997 and
September 29, 1997 to remain covered
under the continued permit after
October 1, 1997. Facilities that had not
obtained coverage under the permit by
October 1. 1997 cannot become
authorized to discharge under the
continued permit.
C Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not
o 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.
E. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Director an authorized representative of
the Director’ a State or local agency
approving sediment and erosion plans.
grading plans, or storm water
management plans: 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,
any information which is requested to
determine compliance with this permit
or other information
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 medium municipal separate
storm sewer system. or that this permit
requires be maintained by the permittee.
shall be signed as follows:
1. All 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 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 $25,000,000 (in
second-quarter 1980 dollars) if authority
to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
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 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 or authorized representative of
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 equivalent
responsibility. or an individual or
position ha ing 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 outhonza (ion If an
authorization under paragraph ll.B.3. is
no longer accurate because a different
operator has responsibility for the
overall operation of the construction
site, a new notice of intent satisfying the
requirements of paragraph II B must be
submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports. information.
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative
d. Certification. Any person signing
documents under paragraph VI C shall
make the following certification
I certify under penally of law that this
document and alt attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gathered
and evaluated 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
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 moncompliance
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
I. 0 ,1 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 permittee is or
may be subject under section 311 of the
CWA or section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
J. Property Rights
The Issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort,
-------
41224
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
nor any exclusive privilieges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property
nor any invasion if personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal. State of
local laws or regulations.
K. 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.
L Requirin 8 an Individual Permit or an
Alternative General Permit
1. The Director may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and/or 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. Where the Director requires
a discharger authorized to discharge
under this permit to apply for an
individual NPDES permit, the Director
shall notify the discharger in writing
that a permit application is required.
This notification shall include a brief
statement of the reasons for this
decision, an application form, a
statement setting a deadline for the
discharger to file the application, and a
statement that on the effective date of
issuance or denial 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.
Applications shall be submitted to the
appropriate Regional Office indicated in
Part V.C of this permit. The Director
may grant additional time to submit the
applciation upon request of the
applicant. If a discharger fails to submit
in a timely manner an individual NPDES
permit application as 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 by the Director for
application submittal.
2. Any discharger authorized by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this permit by applying
for an individual permit. In such cases.
the permittee shall submit an individual
application in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.28(c)(1)(ii),
with reasons supporting the request, to
the Director at the address for the
appropriate Regional Office indicated in
part V.C of this permit. The request may
be granted by issuance of any individual
permit or an alternative general if the
reasons cited by the permittee are
adequate to support the request.
3. When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to a discharger otherwise
subject to this permit, or the discharger
is authorized to discharge under an
alternative NPDES general permit, the
applicability of this permit to the
individual NPDES permittee is
automatically terminated on the
effective date of the individual permit or
the date of authorization of coverage
under the alternative general permit.
whichever the case may be. When an
individual NPDES permit is denied 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 NPDES
permittee is automatically terminated on
the date of such denial, unless otherwise
specified by the Director.
M. State/Environmental Laws
1. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the perlnittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of the
Act.
2. No condition of this permit shall
release the permittee from any
responsibility or requirements under
other environmental statutes or
regulations.
N. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The perinittee 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 and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and 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 compliance
with ths conditions of the permit.
0. Inspection and Entiy
The perniittee shall allow the Director
or an authorized representative of EPA,
the State, or, in the case of a
construction site 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 wider the conditions of this
permit;
2. 1-fave access to and copy at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit; and
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities or equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment)
P. 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.
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
discharger may be required to obtain
individual permit or an alternative
general permit in accordance with Part
IC of this permit or the permit may be
modified to include different limitations
and/or requirements
B. Permit modification or revocation
will be conducted according to 40 CFR
122.62. 122.63. 122.64 and 124.5.
Part VIII. Termination of Coverage
A. Notice of Termination
Where a site has been finally
stabilized and all storm water
discharges from construction activities
that are authorized by this permit are
eliminated, or where the operator of all
storm water discharges at a facility
changes, the operator of the facility may
submit a Notice of Termination that is
signed in accordance with Part VI.G of
this permit. The Notice of Termination
shall include the following information:
1. The mailing address of the
construction site for which the
notification is submitted. Where a
mailing address for the site is not
available, the location of the
approximate center of the site must be
described in terms of the latitude and
longitude to the nearest 15 seconds, or
the section, township and range to the
nearest quarter section;
2. The name, address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Termination;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41225
3. The NPDES permit number for the
storm water discharge identified by the
Notice of Termination;
4. An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges has
changed; and
5. The followrng certification signed in
accordance with Part VLG (signatory
requirements) of this permit:
I certify under penalty of law that all storm
water discharges associated with industrial
activity from the identified facility that are
authorized by an NPDES general permit have
been eliminated or that I am no longer the
operator of the facility or construction site I
understand that by submitting this notice of
termination, I am no longer authorized to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity under this general permit.
and that discharging pollutants in storm
water associated with Industrial activity to
waters of the United States is unlawful under
the Clean Water Act where the discharge is
not authorized by a NPDES permit I also
understand that the submittal of this notice of
termination does not release an operator
from liability for any violations of this permit
or the Clean Water Act
For the purposes of this certification.
elimination of storm water discharges
associated with industrral activity
means that all disturbed soils at the
identified facility have been finally
stabilized and temporary erosion and
sediment control measures have been
removed or will be removed at an
appropriate time, or that all storm water
discharges associated with construction
activities from the identified site that
are authorized by a NPDES general
permit have otherwise been eliminated.
B. Addresses
All Notices of Termination are to be
sent, using the form provided by the
Director (or a photocopy thereof).3 to
the following address: Storm Water
Notice of Termination, P0 Box 1185,
Newington, VA 22122.
Part IX. Definitions
Best Management Pmct ,ces (“BMPs”)
means schedules of activities.
prohibitions of practices, maintenance
procedures, and otherinanegement
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
lisposal, or drainage from raw material
.torage.
Commencement of Construction—The
initial disturbance of soils associated
‘A copy of the approved NOT form is provided tn
Appendix D of ihis notice
with clearing, grading, or excavating
activities or other construction
activities.
CWA means the Clean Water Act or
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Dedicated portable asphalt plant—A
portable asphalt plant that is located on
or contiguous to a construction site and
that provides asphalt only to the
construction site that the plant is
located on or adjacent to. The term
dedicated portable asphalt plant does
not include facilities that are subject to
the asphalt emulsion effluent limitation
guideline at 40 FR 443.
Dedicated portable concrete plant—A
portable concrete plant that is located
on or contiguous to a construction site
and that provides concrete only to the
construction site that the plant is
located on or adjacent to.
Director means the Regional
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or an authorized
representative.
Final Stabilization means that all soil
disturbing activities at the site have
been completed, and that a uniform
perennial vegetative cover with a
density of 70% of the cover for unpaved
areas and areas not covered by
permanent structures has been
established or equivalent permanent
stabilization measures (such as the use
of riprap, gabions, or geotextiles) have
been employed.
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 discharge.
Large and Medium municipal
separate storm sewer system means all
municipal separate storm sewers that
are either (i) Located in an incorporated
place (city) with a population of 100,000
or more as determined by the latest
Decennial Census by the Bureau of
Census (these cities are listed in
Appendices F and G of 40 CFR part 122);
or (ii) located in the counties with
unincorporated urbanized populations
of 100.000 or more, except mumcipal
separate storm sewers that are located
in the incorporated places. townships or
towns within such counties (these
counties are listed in appendices H and I
of 40 CFR part 122); or (iii) 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 II of this
permit.)
NOT means notice of termination (see
Part VIII of this permit).
Point Source means 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 discharges
This term does not include return flows
from irrigated agriculture or agricultural
storm water runoff
Runoff coefficient means the,fraction
of total rainfall that will appear at the
conveyance as runoff
Storm Water means storm water
runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage
Storm Water Associated with
Industrial Activity means the discharge
from any conveyance which is used for
collecting and conveying torm 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
paragraphs (i) through (x) of this
definition, the term includes, but is not
limited to. storm water discharges from
industrial plant yards; 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 401);
sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling
equipment; 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 paragraph (xi) of
this definition, the term includes only
storm water discharges from all areas
(except access roads and rail lines)
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
-------
41226
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
product. The term excludes areas
located on plant lands separate from the
plants 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 (i)—(xi)
of this definition) include those facilities
designated under 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 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) of this
definition):
(ii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 24 (except
2434). 26 (except 265 arid 267). 28 (except
283), 29. 311. 32 (except 323), 33, 3441.
373;
(iii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 10 through 14
(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 reclamation
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!
operator
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment.
storage. or disposal facilities, including
those that are operating under interim
status or a permit under Subtitle C of
RCRA;
(v) Landfills, 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 scrap
yards. battery reclaimers, salvage yards,
and automobile junkyards, including but
limited to those classified as Standard
Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093;
(vii) Steam electric power generating
facilities, including coal handling sites:
(viii) Transportation facilities
classified as Standard Industrial
Classifications 40, 41. 42 (except 4221—
25), 43, 44, 45 and 5171 which have
vehicle maintenance shops, equipment
cleaning operations. or airport deicing
operations. Only those portions of the
facility that are either involved in
vehicle maintenance (including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs,
painting. fueling, and lubrication).
equipment cleaning operations, airport
deicing operations. or which are
otherwise identified under paragraphs
(i)—(vii) or (ixj—(xi) of this subsection are
associated with industrial activity:
(ix) 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, including land
dedicated to the disposal of sewage
sludge that are located within the
confines of the facility, with a design
flow of 1.0 mgd or more, or required to
have an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CFR 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 503.
(x) Construction activity including
clearing, 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
larger common plan of development or
sale:
(xi) Facilities under Standard
Industrial Classifications 20. 21, 22, 23,
2434. 25, 285, 287, 27. 283. 285, 30, 31
(except 311), 323. 34 (except 3441), 35, 36,
37 (except 373), 38. 39, 4221—25, (and
which are not otherwise included within
categories (i)—(x)). 4
Waters of the tizuted Stoles means:
(a) All waters which are currently used.
were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters which
‘On lune 4. 1992, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
exclusion for manufacturing faciitties in category
(Ci( which do not have materials or activities
exposed to storm waier to the EPA for further
rulemaking (Nos 90—70671 and 91—70200)
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide:
(b) All interstate waters, including
interstate “wetlands”.
(c) All other waters such as interstate
lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams). mudflats,
sandflats, wetlands. sloughs. praire
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 whtch 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.
(d) All impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States tinder this definition.
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
deft ni (ion:
(f) The territorial sea, and
(g) Wetlands adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)
through (I) of this definition.
Waste treatment systems. tncluding
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirements of CWA are not
waters of the United States.
Part X. State Specific Conditions
The provtsions of this Part provide
modifications or additions to the
applicable conditions of Parts I through
IX of this permit to reflect specific
additional conditions identified as part
of the State section 401 certification
process. The additional revisions and
requirements listed below are set forth
in connection with particular State.
Indian lands and Federal facilities and
only apply to the States, Indian lands
and Federal facilities specifically
referenced.
Region II
A Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part l.A of the permit is revised to
read as follows’
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area The permit covers all
areas admintstered by EPA Region 2 in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
2. Part Ill of the permit are revised to
read as follows:
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41227
Part III. Special Conditions,
Management Practices, Commonwealth
Special Conditions, and Narrative
Effluent Limitations.
C. Commonwealth Special Conditions
1. Prior to the construction of any
treatment system of waters compose
entirely of storm water, the permittee
shall obtain the approval of the
engineering report, plans and
specifications from the Environment
Quality Board (EQB) of Puerto Rico.
2. The perinittee shall submit to EQB
with copy to the Regional Office the
following information regarding its
storm water discharge(s) associated
with industrial activity: The number of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity covered by this permit
and a drawing indicating the drainage
area of each storm water outfalls:
a. For construction activities that have
begun on or before October 1. 1992, the
permittee is required to submit the
information listed above no later than
November 15, 1992.
b. For construction activities that have
begun after October 1, 1992. the
permittee is required to submit the
information listed above within forty
five (45) days of submission of the NO!.
D. Narrative Effluent Limitations
1, All discharges covered by this
Permit shall be free of oil sheen at all
times.
2 The storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
construction activities covered by this
permit will not cause violation to the
applicable water quality standards
3. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read as follows’
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
. . * . .
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
The plan shall: 1. Be completed prior
to the submittal of an NOl to be covered
under this permit and updated as
appropriate:
2. For construction activities that have
begun on or before October 1. 1992, the
plan shall provide for compliance with
the terms and schedule of the plan
beginning on October 1. 1992. On or
before November 1, 1992, the permlttee
shall submit to EQB with copy to the
Regional Office, a certification stating
that the Plan has been developed and
implemented In accordance with the
requirements established in this permit.
The certification should be signed by the
person who fulfills the signatory
requirements in accordance with Part
VI.G of this permit.
3 For construction activities that have
begun after October 1. 1992, the plan
shall provide for compliance with the
terms and schedule of the plan
beginning with the initiation of
construction activities. Within thirty (30)
days of submission of the NO!. the
permittee shall submit to EQB with copy
to the Regional Office, a certification
stating that the Plan has been developed
and implemented in accordance with the
requirements established in this permit.
This certification should be signed by
the person who fulfills the signatory
requirements in accordance with Part
Vl.G of this permit.
C. Keeping Plans Current. The
permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design.
construction, operation. or maintenance,
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States and
which has not otherwise been addressed
in the plan or if the storm water
pollution prevention plan proves to be
ineffective in eliminating or significantly
minimizing pollutants from sources
identified under Part IV.D.2 of this
permit. or in otherwise 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 lV.B above If events have occurred
which require the modification of the
Plan, the engineer who performs the
corresponding revision must submit to
EQB with copy to the Regional Office, a
certification stating the modifications
performed to the plan. As soon as the
modifications performed to the Plan are
implemented. the person who fulfills the
signatory requirements in accordance
with Part VI.G of this permit shall
submit to EQB with copy to the Regional
Office, a certification stating that the
modifications of the Plan have been
implemented
D Contents of Plan
2. Controls.
• • • • .
d. Approved State or Local Plans
• • • • a
(4) Compliance with the Plan
requirements does not relieve the
permittee of his responsibility to comply
with the provisions of the Sediment and
Erosion Control Plan IPlan CEST. as
referred to in Spanishj required by EQB
4. Part VI N of the permit is revised to
read as follows
Part VI Standard Permit Conditions
N. 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 and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropnate 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 compliance
with the conditions of the permit Also,
proper operation and maintenance
includes, but is not limited to, the
effective performance based on
designed facility removals, adequate
funding. effective management. qualified
operator staffing. adequate training.
adequate laboratory and process
controls including appropriate quality
assurance procedures
Region VIII -
B Colorado (Federa/facilities and
Indian lands) There are no special
conditions pursuant to Colorado 401
certification in this permit for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities located on Indian lands in
Colorado Colorado 401 certification
special permit conditions for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities from Federal facilities is
revised as follows:
1 Part l.A of the permit is revised to
read as follows.
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
Federal Facilities and Indian Lands
administered by EPA Region 8 in the
State of Colorado
2. Part III of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part III. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on non-storm water
dischw es.
-------
41228
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
2.
. . a a a
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit providec 1 the non-storm water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV D.5’
Discharges from fire fighting activities.
fire hydrant flushings: waters used to
wash vehicles or control dust in
accordance with Part IV.D.2.c (2):
potable water sources including
waterline flushings: irrigation drainage:
routine external building washdown
which does not use detergents or other
compounds, pavement washwaters
where spiiis or leaks of toxic or
hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been
removed) and where detergents are not
used; air conditioning condensate that
has not been contaminated by industrial
activity and no chemicals have been
added to it: naturally occurring springs
which have not been altered by the
industrial activity: uncontaminated
ground water and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents.
. . a a .
B Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities
. a . a a
I.
b. The permittee shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a wntten description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph llI.B.3 of this permit to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office at
the address provided in Part V.C
(addresses) of this permit and to the
Colorado Water Quality Control
Division at the following address’
Colorado Department of Health, Water
Quality Control Division. 4300 Cherry
Creek Drive South. Denver, Colorado
60222—1530, Attention: Permits and
Enforcement.
3. Part IV.B.2 of the permit is revised
to read as follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
B. Signature and P/an Review
2. The permittee 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, to the operator of
the municipal system. Federal Facilities
located on non-Indian lands in Colorado
shall make plans available upon request
to the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division.
• • a a I
4. Part VII.A of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part V I I. Reopener Clause
* I • • •
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
discharger may be required to obtain
individual permit or an alternative
general permit in accordance with Part
l.C of this permit or the permit may be
modified to include different limitations
and/or requirements. If EPA develops
new regulations which specifically
impact storm water permit requirements
or there is a change in statute which
imposes additional requirements, this
permit may be reopened and modified
(following administrative procedures) to
include the appropriate requirements.
• a I I I
Region IX
C. Arizona. Arizona 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part LA of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 9 in
the State of Arizona, excluding all
Indian lands.
2. Part II of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
* I I *
F. Special NOl Requirements for the
State of Arizona. NOIs shall also be
submitted to the State of Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality at
the following address: Storm Water
Coordinator, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality P.O. Box 600,
Phoenix. Arizona 85001—0600.
NOIs submitted to the State of
Arizona shall include the well
registration number if storm water
associated with industrial activity is
discharged to a dry well or an injection
well
3. Part III of the permit is revised to
read as follows
Part III. Special Conditions
C. Compliance with Water Quality
Standards of the State of Arizona.
Discharges authorized by this permit
shall not cause or contribute to a
violation of any applicable water quality
standards of the State of Arizona (A.G.
Rule No. R92-006)
4. Part VIII of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part VIII. Termination of Coverage
C. Special NOT Requirement for the
State of Arizona NOTs shall also be
submitted to the State of Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality at
the following address:
Storm Water Coordinator. Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality.
P.O Box 600, Phoenix, Arizona 85001—
0600.
5. The following definition has been
added to Part IX of the permit’
Part IX. Definitions
• . • I I
Signthcant sources of non-storm
water includes, but is not limited to:
Discharges which could cause or
contribute to violations of water quality
standards of the State of Arizona, and
discharges which could include releases
of oil or hazardous substances in excess
of reportable quantities under section
311 of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR
110.10 and 40 CFR 117.21) or section 102
of CERCLA (see 40 CFR 302.4).
• a • . a
Region X
D. Alaska. Alaska 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part LA of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 10 in
the State of Alaska
2. Part II.C of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
• • • * •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No . 175 I Wednesday, September 9 1992 I ‘.otices
41229
C. Where to Submit.
. t S S •
3. A copy of initial Notice of Intent
(NOl). any NOl for the continuation of
the general permit, and any Notice of
Termination shall be submitted to the
appropriate State regional office.
attention Storm Water Coordinator, as
follows:
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Northern Regional
Office, 1001 Noble Street, suite 350.
Fairbanks. Alaska 99701, (907) 452—
1714, Fax: 451—2187.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Southeastern Regional
Office, 410 W. Willoughby, suite 105.
Juneau, Alaska 99801. (907) 465—5350,
Fax: 465—5382.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Southcentral Regional
Office, 3601 “C” Street, suite 1334.
Anchorage. Alaska 99503. (907) 563—
8529, Fax’ 582—4028.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Pipeline Corridor
Regional Office. 411 W. 4th Ave.. suite
2C, Anchorage, Alaska 99502, (907)
278—8594, Fax’ 272-0690.
4. With the NOl to the State. a brief
iescription of the activities to be
covered shall be submitted. This shall
be on a single sheet and shall describe
the area to be disturbed to the nearest
acre, the primary pollutants expected
from the activities and the type of
treatment to be provided
3. Part lll.B 1.b is revised to read as
follows.
Part III. Special Conditions,
Management Practices, and Other Non-
Numeric limitations
S S S S
B. Re/eases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
1.
* S S S
b. The permittee shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with Part llI.B.3 of this permit to the
appropriate EPA Regional Office at the
address provided in Part V.C
‘addresses) of this permit and to the
appropriate State regional office (see
section Il.C for addresses.
4. Part IV.D 4 of the permit is revised
to read as follows
Part lv. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
• • • S S
D. Contents of P/on.
4. inspections. Qualified personnel
(provided by the discharger) shall
inspect disturbed areas of the
construction Bite that have not been
finally stabilized, areas used for storage
of materials that are exposed to
precipitation, structural control
measures, and locations where vehicles
enter or exit the Bite at least once every
seven calendar days and within 24
hours of the end of a storm that is 0.5
inches or greater. Where sites have been
finally stabilized, or during seasonal
arid periods in arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches)
and semi-arid areas (areas with an
average annual rainfall of 10 to 20
inches) such inspection shall be
conducted at least once every month.
Monthly inspections shall be conducted
for areas finally until a Notice of
Termination (NOT) has been submitted
for the area.
E. Idaho. Idaho 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part LA of the permit is revised to
read as follows.
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A.Perrn,t Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 10 in
the State of Idaho
2. Part III of the permit is revised to
read as follows.
Part UI. Special Conditions
• S S S S
C. All storm water shall be treated
and disposed of in such a manner that
the ground water standards of Idaho are
not violated. Such standards are
specified in Section 1.02299 of the
“Idaho Water Quality Standards and
Wastewater Treatment Requirements.”
F. Washington (Federalfacilities and
Indian lands). Washington 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
I Part I A of trie permit is revised to
read as follo s
Part I Coverage Under This Permit
A Perni,: 4rec The permit covers all
Federal Facilities administered b EPA
Region 10 in the State of Washington
2 Part Ill of the permit is revised to
read as follows
Part III. Special Conditions
C Washington State Standards
1. This permit does not authorize the
violation of ground water standards
(Chapter 173—200 WAC). surface water
standards (Chapter 173—201 WAC). or
sediment management standards
(Chapter 173—204 WAC) of the State of
Washington The point of compliance
with surface water standards shall be
determined after consideration of the
assignment of a dilution zone as allowed
under Chapter 173—201 WAC The point
of compliance with ground water
standards shall be determined by
applying the provisions of Chapter 173—
200 WAC The point of compliance with
sediment management standards shall
be determined in accordance with
Chapter 173-204 WAC.
2. Diversion of storm water discharges
to ground water from existing
discharges to surface water shall not be
authorized b this permit if this causes a
violation or the potential for violation of
ground ater standards (Chapter 173—
200 WAC) Such discharges below the
surface of the ground are also regulated
by the Underground Injection Control
Program (Chapter 173—218 WAC)
3. Washington Department of Ecology
(WDOE) is currently developing a
“Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan’ which will require facilikies to
assess the potential of their storm water
discharges to violate the Washington
State surface water, ground water, or
sediment management standards. Those
discharges with a high potential to
violate standards will be required to
develop and implement a monitoring
program.
Upon issuance of the “Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan” by WDOE,
EPA may reopen this permit to require
facilities to assess their storm water
discharges and to require additional
monitoring.
BiW 40 CODE 65 50-60-U
-------
41230 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
Appendix C — P101 Form Instructions
Form
S.. Riv•rs. for Instructions
Approv ous . so ’ms
, • u’.,
Unl d S s Envforsnenai Pro on Ager y
fDEB Wl I q1on, DC 20460
FORM W NotIce of Intent (NOl) for Storm Water DIscharGes Associated with Industrial
Activity Under the NPDES General Permit
Submls_ion of Plm Nodes of intont esnedtstos noses Pial tie par ty Idendfied In Seceon I of tie ionn In nde to 59 a 0urge,J by a NPOES permit hued for storm
* didwges essodatod wIth Indusvlai ecd ty In Pie St idendited In Secdon II of this toni, Becen,tng $ pemttoo odigass sisdi dhdwgor to npfy wIt
Pie iemw aid cendibons of tie pennit AU. NE CESSARY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON This FORM
I Faauty Operator Infoirnabon
P a.’a . .itIE’ .•’•’ ’• I I I I I I I I f1Q1$ I I i I i I
Siebis of
Address I t i I i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i i I O*nerlOperator
City I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIZe I I ZiPCode I I I
ii Faollry/SEle L rabon InfolTr iaboni
Is tie Faahry Locatod on
I i i i i I I I I I I Ir idiaa ’ IL.arids ”(’ i’orN)
Address I I I I I I I I i I I I I
City I I I I I I I I I I I s I i I ZIP .odo I I I I I I I
L e do I I I I Lalgibide I i I i luarter [ ..I Secbon ________ To nsh ,p I . . . I R ig I
III Site Acev y Inforrnabon
f *S4Op e ra t4a T io I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Rees.vulg Water8ody I I I I
II Yoj ae Filing es a Co -penniSee. Are There Exiseng Is tie Faoiity Requved to Submit
Enter Storm Water General Permit Number I 1 Ouenbtawe Da& (V or N) Moistcnng Dais’ (1,2. or 3)
SICor Oee* iated - ,
Acw ityCode PTvna Iy I I 2nd II II 3rd 11111 4 5 ’s liii
if This F htyisstiWnberofaGroup
i pp i i c ason.En &oupApØicaDon Number I________
IfVor ikwreOdwE xtsdngNPDES I
Pem ,EnterPsrmitNumbers I t I I I I I I I I I I I
IV Mdi0on Infonnaxn Reqused tar Corwmjc3on ACOVI3IS Only
is tie Storm Water PoCudon Prevendon Plan
i a Area to be hi Com$anes with S and r L
I I . I I I 1 i I I Da 9 Qfl o $) I I I I SedimentaridErceaonP lasn?(’forN)
V. Car1f don I cerdfy under penaity of isw thaI this d Insrt tmerito re epasd under my direCOon or supervision in a rdanee with a
designed to esswe that qu Ified personnel opedy gatier end tie wdbrmaDcn submibed Besed on my ,nquey of the person on persona wIio
tie system on those persona dite y nespomible for g edng tie edormabon. tie u,fonnadon submitted a. to tie best of my lincerfedge end boOst, Pus.
aid nplete I an eeae that tiers as signifIcant penalses ton submceng false edormabon, Inducing the possibility of fine aid Ullpnsonment far
Pnnt Nans
I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
EPA For , ,, 33104(0.92)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 1 \U11es
41231
Wbe N P . A Ibiflo. Of bsutt (NOt) Porn
Fodstif — . 140 CFR P .st IV piUt t. pur t sowo. dt.dwg.. of sam nsa
nith r isSt.1 ty t. a o.a body(.s) of Cis U S . .CLit S tbos . 1
POSj*M Ot.dwg. E .am S .nm (NPOES) 5UITIL ml cc. sa of an
ey 51.1 P1.s SIrn S lt.Iiii o.* ns,st s b?vt a NOt 0 obt.n
1..1 C. $0€S Sent C.t.i Girnai Psn,vt. P you bess gusslon. o.JI W i .C.,
701 1 I S —, Mnd I’se POES Sam Waa cgnon. eq ii 01a issd k berneon
am 0 wSa a , 5Cijw o wn Is .*vuu1.’.d by EPA s s sssty. cont.ct
P. Sesin W.t.r HoC.. at (7 53) 14I
t. ui. Ti PU. Not Porn
NO anoC be sort. C i. ss
Gain Waw HoC. of 11.11
P0 Do s 1215
VA
Yo,, nest lyps n prnt uani uppss.ssss tilts , .. n s apeqopnst. S iam, only Pisas.
— s . .Si ciwamis, b.tw . , C. nwU. Abbosiat. it r01su ’ 0 st.y s.0vn 01
of dwscists sitosad seq sadi en Us. ons spsa I o t.C.s Uil .ln WOICL
tiji not Or pui abon ,n.*s viWam C.y e nsodsd 0 dlii$y yew rampotni It you
ben. any i.sCono or Cu bin. J Cs Sam Wsw HoCus at (753) e2I .4
Ssodam I PsaUI7 Opss r h,P tbn
0.. Pn ti i v an, of Cii pusan. ben. pubic orpurizuton. Cf any Sri. Inoty 5*1
Ci. Oofty or s i t . dssalbsd I I Css apolioslor liii non. of C ls opuot., n.y
or n.y rot be C. sore am Ci. rat. of C* Oobty Thu ‘ouponoot. puny cC. Igot
udty C L caniols C. Oof s opsrs3on. mC i . P .r C. port or sit. snon.g.r Do rot
uss 5 noe tp non. Era C. osmofut. oddr.ss vot elaplsir . ,uiOur of C.
Era C i, sporoCfsa isa ’ t. rd t. Ci. tipul St.SJS olCi. opsiua of Cis y
Samibi U PsclStylSII. Location iICun gIOSI
Era C. Oclitys Or sits s offcal or I. J rgrT i . and osftv IV. saat bidinsi. CLuding
Oty. St.t.. slid ZIP C . It C. be i?y Cf Sit. Isdis S cast odOr ’s ’ V osS 015 st.x..
Cii Ubtida id Iorçto ide of C. Isofiry 0 C. nwt 15 suosrids. eq Cii qusrtv
sacion. amino. slid range (0 , 1 . nuariat 4s 51t.r suc$Cf1) of C. apoIoJst.ts csvntsr
P15 5*
V ats oCisthu 015 fsot ty is Iocs!sd O s ’ tfld1.r Issida
lubion I I Sai LoUsily tn$ofn.tfon
C C. son. ..tsr disdi.gss S S iremoosi ssgamt. ann sw.r syst.ni (MOd) sri.
P. . of C i . ocsor of Cii 1504 (sg. vvw ahIy ran.. osunly rat ,.) v .001.
,scaw w.w of 01. cra1ssç. tan 015 1554 (A 1554 is CoCn.O as a wiwnyuzIos
eq mi.m Of 01fl.WWi i (souCuig 10505 5101 01 1mg. .ycams. risjncpal 50 1St..
05L 1 ban.. aitbi, pisirs, diL iss. nwi-nbe . dwvi.ls. or sam drono) 015115
— or opo.I50 by a isa .. top. am borough. county. parnh. dispici. assoaaOon.
or aPi. pubic body Wscfl c d.s.gn.d or uiad for xAbcong on osr.nyl!ç sam sac)
C 015 Obi Usdagus sam o.i. drscCy S mosrmp .si.(s) ira Ci. rain of C.
ama
C you ar. ibig us os-vistas id a storm sat.’ gsnsiul punit rartT . PSI bian
lasted. utor PSI rsavVu ii C. spuos provided.
bu t. edisea or rot C. ewwr or opsraa of P. IsoIdy PSi soap glanSt.Iv.
055 Pt.X . ..cl VS dwama slid osrcurPSton of poOuan1. ii sani waSr
P. NoUty 0 r.ya,d 0 ssbidt imldLi ig dasby .tostw’ç oti. of C.
I • Not i rnd 0 stAridt n.s,ibir.g *
2. R tba t . t.....isutrç 055.
3- Not rpunisd 0 sit.Wt , ., ..lLlL 055. 5 Tf01r osriPocCor be
ioduster
TPm5. beAb Ccl nest Sibiut rrastoru dab (sQ oos 2) Sr. S.ctori 313
EPCRA Odes.. pvitcciy musi P.. lsVSs. WO 01*00551 siu it.lrOrwWrslBfF s. saod
Viab,wit ODISuS. biba. 5101 ost pds erotl arid. batary r.05mva&
List r 0ssosr ord. of sl fams. up 0 i ou 4-d it sW d iridusptd
d siC.Xn (SIC) cod.. C L blat dssanb . Ci. p’vlapsi proQu eq s i s d.d
at C. Odify or at. IswtC . 0 S.cdon 1101 Pie SOdbeDOrL
For r I50U1 .011vU.s dednid ( i i 40 CFfi lfl .2e(b)(14X 1).(zI) Oct 05 rot Pal SIC
Cod.. C.Iusouvit.ly d.WIb. p. pmapai product. produosdor ssrsosspovld.d. 015
0SaVi 5 2 .da.dr cods, wit. be stud
HZ — H. ti. .is 0551. ptnsr lt. 5 5r 555 O’ ds o.d Isof 5sa. ir i cliidrg Co.. 5st
sin opruang isidu saim s 5 pariTit isidu ui bdOs C of (40
GFR lfl.20 (bfll4XN)(.
I! • Lsiidbls. Orid S ason ida. and op.n dumps PSI rico.. or ‘ c vi m s. d
any sidlisoot san... mdudlrç P055 CL at. sub id 0 r.gutibon utid
si ibCbs 0 of RA (40 CFR 1 .26 (b)(14)(v)(
SE • Sssani . 1 5cC. 05r gunuiSsne Isoim.,. undudirg toll PSndbng sits. )40 CFR
lfl.26 (bXl4Xvo) (.
1W — T,.ssn.v* wbis 555015 dafnsStc sasags or any OP.r s Qs sludQ. eq
.amt sr Csapnunt danc. or systsrlt used ni Cii 10 1 1g. osaSYnnit.
r.cydr15. arid rs05mnoton of nercpsl on damsstc g. 140 CFR 12Z26
(b)(14K11) (. eq.
Co • CoinsOucion sc1.lbuS (40 CFP 122.20 (b)(l4Ri) ( -
501. Odity hated n Sucoon U PSI pwtapst.d Pvl¶ of sri 51Crov.d sam wit.
group opØcooori and S 901* nuTisu PSi ban sas.yi.d unit. 01. group SOphosson
mann. ’ ri C. opaco
If thur. St. solar NPOES purist. prusunoy isouod for thu fuCubry 0? 54115150 n Sucoon
(I. 0* C. purist runb.’i. C an apcC.bon Or Cls fucility 1.5 ban ouben’ttsd but no
perr y nwnbur Pi.i ban usignud. .ntsr Ii. appliosioni nuvndev
Soron IV Addisional 0I ... . ..alL. . . No utrsd Or Consonuctlon Acidvitios Only
CotniVuctor sdivi55a n.e Wfldits S.COOII IV in addiSOn U S.ctorti I through (II
Oldy osnltuciOr atovm.S vised U ossiof ste Secton IV
Ems, Cis oro,.ct abut dat. and Pie .abmatsd co InpIsSo ’ dab fun .C. .qttr.
dseuioeqn.nt pOn
Prwid. si saSmint. of C. Otsi rspnbir of ac ’s. of tie silo on stuch soti wO 5,
disturbed (rOund U Cii rt.amst ucrs)
bidicot, .fisP.r C. sam 55*5 1 pofluton prevencon plan fo ’Pie iilefu s cornpisncu
with a ovsd it. ts atGot food s.drn,qtt arid .coaon piano permits or Sam nat.
n.nopsn.nt pIs
Ssction V Cirtlflcislon
Fedu.-J Sa s I tsa provids 0, sara punatbos be subewor ig Otis .if rn.Sori Sri Cs,
apsi05tor torn. F.d .sl rsgiutiions sQuss Cu. applicator S 5. signud as follow.
Far a m...en by a rusponnibis os,00rut. sf 5 0 5 ,, stuch risarn () prusident.
•iaWy. sa ar or vn.-prss iOirz of ris tonpotuion am cn.rg. Of S percipsi
tsasvisaa rurstoaL or any oVa psr’cr wro puloims simfv pdcy or ewson n1.fung
Iur n.. eq (I) C. nw ur of an. or more ranutactinng . produciori on porutiig
OaImsairptoyuç me,. Cat 250 psrscns eq Piswmrç gross arrtusl amiss 0, iupsndiS irsa
$25 notion (in us aisulor 1953 d.Uzs). ii autmomity U sign doci utnsnt.
PS. blur assigned or dulsguad S C. fnonog.r in a ren with torposuta
Fore .rsiiwofi, . a’ s , aIi 5 . by a grail pa uthsr ot P. prpon.Or. eq
Far. nua a5pu F.daraL or oCl pubic b cify by liOns, a pmucipul szw.Jlvs
officor or 15 ,5019 .lssad offioni.
P. ,... .. ..aL Noduotlon
Pubic . , .ua g Djfdan Or Cu spgiosCon is ssOffS55 0 evuag. 05 Pairs pu
apy n . iod ip Cr. Or , wi - ig beCuciol.. swdaig sastnig dat. sowosa.
wid n. .e).nig CieU rssded. and sarvofsoig or rsa C. coCucion
of bdsvn.flon. Gird . ........ru rsgald.g C. bolder 5u01st.. any cPa aspuct of 055
of Obnsbin. or uir po. ’-ro Or PS . bin. including snip
saa s,P- . dads n.y baiSsa Or lidso. Pss icudsn 0 CPsV. k*ncubon Policy
Gaids. PU.m U S Ei.I. ..... . ..J Piot. t ) .,rt Agurcy 401 15 Sissut. SW.
W. .05l. DC 204CC. or Of C. of lidurn.ton arid Rugutit.ry Ailnul. Of C.
of Msnogsn .m aid Budget. Wainidigor. DC 20503
IrL r uctlO I i S - EPA Form 33104
Notlos Of snarl (7404) For Storm Waist Diacharigia ‘ ‘ud WItS Induil l Isi Adlvviy
To S. Coawid Undsr Thu NPVES Q.nsrsl P,rwdt
F • F idsrsl
S • S w.
U - Public (SC.? pan Odin) or St.ts)
P • Pisat.
-------
41232 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
Appendix D — NOT Form Instructions
Form Ap e . o
Pt.. .. S.. Instnictions Osfors Completing This Form uSss $414 5
$ s &wtu ne otu on frqe
p.oEs ___ DC 20460
FOAM w Notice of Termination (NOT) of Coverage Under the NPOES General Perrntt
for Stonii Water Discharges Associated with Industilal Activity
Sub...h.k ,. , c en Nodee of Tu. , 1l6U , eeno t,ors nodee en Vie cort Ideoddud i’i Seodon II of en form no bnoer outh iteed b d thor e RbeTfl
1th t d aOti iiy ii er Vie NPOES pi n . ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION P.0 . 1ST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM.
I. POITod rdaiui.Uen
NPOES Sloim Well, , Chsd Here V You —_ No Lovçer fli Chedi Here V Vi , Sll ,m Wtllr
I I I • I I Vis41...L..ofVl.Faodty: L....J 0 h0e çTem d.
U. F ty Opoi k&....a&. .
Nns: I I I I I I I I I 4 I lPP i o r 1 1 i I
Ad ses:l i i I
cIty: II!!I I I S : I LI PCodoI .
III. F ll th
PIWTIO. I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I
‘ ‘ I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I
CJty: I I I I I I I a a I I I I S : PCode:t I I I I a
_________ I I I t I L tido: I i i I I I I I Ote 1 _ .. .. _ ] s n 1_._j..__J T idi I . . I I
IV. CaUIk iI,,. : I fy isder pw y of w I d J. .t. .. f Vi Wild vtty from Vie Ide.dfIed ty we wd tz by a
NPO€S ounoid PSIIVi t e been eO *i d or en I WT no CnQer Vis of Vi i llatty or n.ou on sill I w dere d Viel by u llln9 fr Nodoe of
Twirdcn, I eni no WinQor w.0 d or slim elVi It slid wfry urder en Qonerol peiTTdT. end en d%s,UVI0 poluben Wi
slim ll rs ol Vii (MId I wenft u er Vii Cleen Walt Ad eliom Vii edligs I riot aiew d bye
NPDES pumit. I o i A..li d en Vii ulbTItli of en Nodorof T....I..U.. . doss not mens ai from beblity for a ’ vWileloror of fr poin t or Vie
Cf i Welur Ad.
I I I I — I I I I I
kisluelons CompfeUn Neao. of Tsnnlnuaon (NO’fl Form
liii y mu a N SOIT.IU*liIDn (NOI Foren lien, to mu NOT Foss
IiS,Uel.u otis we p.. Wp isd ardor Vie EPA suud P orl Pclkssit Bird , a Inn is Vie Vii tuIosll elslsu:
01C1g GLL.J . . . Sputum (NPCES) G.nurU PiaNO li StuIrn WStuI
# - d sla IelavW A 4 ,, sabel a Pli ot TwmU a$... . m ’i Wore, NoOos dlermtiiOon -
(NOT) but u*tin $tu InlOus no be -qur I storm P .O. 1185
NOt Itela$II e en dSOtud Ii Is ewe rI ilora 40 N..ap L. 1 , VA fl1
C m in.a (b)(14). or Went no biqw 5w .,.. . _or to
Fe eenstu t ms. . ornl .. , ot el ewe —-‘-—-d 4 . 1.jØ.bu 5 Do Foss
sla WiOwsiS oseje ellen Doaesd uels I to eereit t
been Belly l’md erd Nfl1,., i n ord lId i e n TYPS or W. uubio i øe ,. s Nh, WI ft. . 1 W h Oily. Rh
Ih busi J or NO be or en too , or tend ewe . i elsentor b. .an ft. mots. tn. . , 0 NOln
— dlio, ... sli torn SI, eeIOSI Do ten tie lull., or dosud s I turn. LI. oily ens we
iaS .alsld by . PCES oureror piaNO Pens di ,... .L . been aumssd. bs . de. bid NO I. pastaslon not. iat.sa toy tue nendud I Dolly
Flu newe en or ee$’l.utIor or tie lii Ph bun pua, t)w P wiy g brn. tie Done
een$iud , NO ens urlbut Jl.I Doto NOt a dui or 70% of How. or (7 ) 4014 3.
Su . li — tuno NO — rut wed by luttassu len
been . Wod, or elpdYluri ........t nenenu. (audi en It.
sE ‘ o, or Pno bssn..,.l..,.4 .
(PA Porn, lito7 (..
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / \otices
V,uctI oe i . . EPA Form 3510.7
NVI.. of 1.,mbmf Ion (NUT) 00 ,ur.g . LMdsr T) NPDU Oseemi P.,mj
5 orn W.I.r DIoc*wgs. A __ I _ l.d With Iodi I A Mly
41233
S. he I
5 .x Vç NPOES Seem WUr G.nrmj Pervth runb. , .uçMd 01.
or ebe bon01sd Io SscXn UI S you do n.I Io th penilt maIt.r,
01. Scnn Wiar bothm (7w) 0214520
g mon b st IW S Os (COos of Ten,WCOon by d 1 .dU ’ç fl
PS . .. P.. been a of..g. of oporw end you —. no Ienpsv S.
ofS. or ebe Iosnd¼d Io SCOon UI , the osns.pcI np box.
S V wm r4.U1 .s e. iy or S n5flsd 01 SsVon III I s bun
JNII 4 disdi P osns bee.
U P IIy Cp k . bdo...A .
a . S.Io I non.ofS. person, finn. pitIci dun. orenyoS.rsnlIyS.t
op.’aa . ths Iod1 or sbe dee00bsd in thU apØ.- Th nw of the o zr
mm beS.an.n.n .or S.Udthy Tho noru*wofflis 1ry1a
U sn0ty u$id osn. the Iodthy. lather l 1 the pbofl or 11.
not a. a ,w.. Eros ’ Ste n 1 Ute adS.U d
telpitoite minCer 0001. cp.mter
3.00 Ion ii Fsd y1I. l’ i b n ion
EturS. f fl ft or • cilad or Ugd nente erd oun Ie1e .dthsos. Ii00u rç
dty, S erId ZIP ord. it S t e fsdrny Isd. a s,sot 00Ce. I00 te the sate.
fits Ieri 0 of S. V fits fleororl 15 or 01. ierw.
u00cn, nd.p. end iw s (a Its oserest ,aw usoson) of fits prcxIms2s
0 1W oils abe
S Ion I V CeiVlo00Ion
F.b. i.) s oss p .wIo. Ur sorors psnaibos Ui sUbiTo g I L .. tnbmaxn on
Si. k o 1 born. F.d.vU mg Utior . rsqi ,ers Die Wpbc.Xn V be sipvisd..
Fae di. . bys issoor is 1Is omosr. tettidI mona. (1) pr.slosm.
sea, y . nonaor, or vIoe.prssldsrn ci the i dler9s ala prVi oi
budoona ki it. or .iiy odter per n alto perbom, aisder pdcy or deasion
mUdn bmcdon.. or UI) the nw.aer of one or “tore ntsmit axino . p.Oth 00on.
or opersb’ç isdIbee ntors then 250 p.reora or horVç gloss . iviiaJ
(Cu or eepsrd$tss u .dw19 $25 mflhon (01 seound .qiorler 1950 baler.), U
V d t doarsrm P been ..Lgnod or dsisgsad a the , n.i.ger It
0001 .U preos ma
For a pemt . i00 or enOs . . 5 .J. I4, . by a gorier.) pelter or 01. pupbewr or
For a mtm1 td . F.dwat. or other pitlc t.dlry ’ by iith . i a prVidp&
sxeatdve officer or rw*Jç .leond off ioxti
P . __ . _ *00 ICelos
Pi Ie , .,...iU . bidet Ui Di . sopleelon U ssdinatsd V uvsr e 0.5 howe per
sopleelon. Ii.)udr Ste. for reitontig btstnib.cia, Nardung sLang baa
gath.rtng Nd menosimo the da. fleedid, Nd i?lplS3lQ .iid
noieestg the oflec t of lnb, n Send eermiena ieglrding file bwden
ss0iv . eny other eepea 00 the IcOon of Uba. jtoi . or siqgsuors Ui
ItiwwItg D I. born. Itdudng ety auggesbons wf id mey Ina aae or is ior dIe
buidsn to Chef, fr Uim.L Pob Bisnth. P%$ . . US E .tL
Pto isCdun Agency. 401 U Srs.t. SW. Wav0ngan. DC 20450. or oio
of bffi &m.Ii.. . end Rsguisasy Aftera, Olhce ci I ( Ct emsifl end Budget.
W ( C* Vn. CC 35603
IFR Doc 92—21385 Filed 9—8—92. 845 amj
BILUNG CODE 6560-50-C
-------
3n
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No.160 / Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Notices
Use/Production. (C) Paint vehicle.
Prod. range: Confidential.
V 02-17g
//vIanufacwrer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) S1yrene-aa yIic
polymer, sodium salts.
Use/Pr ducgjon. (C) Printing ink and
coatings vehicle. Prod. range:
ConfidentiaL
V
importer. ConfidentiaL
ChemicaL (C) Fatty acid polyester.
Use/Import (C) Printing ink. Import
range: Confidential.
V 02—let
Manufacturer. Eastman Chemical
Program.
Chemical. (C) Aliphatic polyester.
Use/Production. (C) Coating
intermediate. Prod. range: Confidential.
V —I
Mon ufac: urer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Aliphafic polyurethane.
Use/Production. (CJ Coatings. Prod.
range: Confidential.
V 02-183
Manufacturer. Henkel Corporation.
Chemical. (C) Polyester.
Use/Production. (S) Plaaticizer for
polyvinyl chloride resin. Prod. range:
ioo.000-.isoooo kg/yr.
Dated: August 12. 1
Staveti Newbor .Rin ,
Acting Director, Informcion Management
Division. Office of Pollution F)eventjon and
Toxics.
[ FR Dc z 92-19650 Filed &-17- ft45 amJ
•5IO4 I
(AMS-FRL-4 296..fl
TransportatIon arid Air Quality
Planning Gulde$b’ies Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
acno Notice of availability .
SUMMARY: ‘Iliis ar.tion Is announcing the
availability of a g.iidance document
regarding the trac.sportation and air
quality planning çrocess. This guidance
Is intended to provide State and local
governments with an overview of the
transportation/air quality provisions of
the CAAA of 1990. This action is
published in reep irise to the
requirements of S’:ction 108(e) of the
CAAA of 1990.
DA1E9 The guidn. ce document will be
available August ‘8. 1992.
ADORESSE The Cocumenta are
available to federiti, Slate, and local
governmental Ag ’ncles and may be
requested from Ms. Norma Gray.
Emission Control Strategies Branch. U.S.
EPA National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory, 2585 Plymouth
Road. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
Telephone: (313)—741—7884. Facsimile:
313—888-4388. 11 is suggested that
request be made by facsimile. Copies of
the document will be available for
public viewing In the National Vehicle
and Fuel miq ions Laboratory Library.
at the same address. The document will
be available to non-governmental
requestors through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS).
6285 Port Royal Road. Springfield.
Virginia 22181. Telephone: (703)-487-
4850. Request Document PB 92-201458.
FOR FURTHER INFO ATION CONTACT:
Mr. Richard L Williams II . Emission
Control Strategies Branch. U.S. EPA
National Vehicles and Fuels Emission
Laboratory. 2565 Plymouth Road. Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48105. Telephone’. (313)
688-4419. Facsimile: 313—868-4368.
SuPpL rranv INFORMATIOSr Section
108(e) of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) of 1990 directs the
Administrator of the EPA to update the
1978 Transportation-Air Quality
Planning Guidelines and publish
guidance on the development and
implementation of transportation and
other measures necessary to
demonstrate and maintain attainment of
national ambient air quality standards.
This document is designed to assist
State and local government officials in
planning for transportation-related
emissions reductions that will contribute
to the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. It has been prepared In
consultation with the Department of
Transportation. Public comment was
solicited in a Notice of Availability,
published in the Federal Register on
September 4. 1991 at (56 FR 43758).
This Guidelines document provides an
overview of the air quality planning
process. the transportation planning
process and the ways in which they
overlap In light of the CAAA. An
overview is also provided of the
transportation-related provisions of the
CAAA. Considerations in the planning
process are addressed. These include
planning procedures as required by
Section 174; consideration for
developing inventory and vehicle miles
traveled data: consideration for
developing transportation control
measures: considerations for addressing
PM—10. Conformity; funding: and public
participation. Examples of Slate actions
concerning planning procedure. are also
included.
Datcd August 10, 1002.
Mlth..l Sh.püo
Ass stantAdministretor, Offrce of Air and
Rod,ot ,ori.
IFR Doc. 92-19644 FIled 8-27-92. ft45 n’I
BaL O COOt $Ms.
IFRL-4195-aJ
RevIsion of the Iowa National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Program To Authorize the issuance of
General Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOSt Notice of approval of the
national pollutant discharge elimination
system general permits program of the
State of Iowa.
SUMMARY: On August 4. 1992. the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Region 7. approved the State of Iowa’s
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPD ) General
Permits. This action authorizes the State
of Iowa to issue general permits in lieu
of individual NPDES permits.
FOR FURTHER iNFORMATION CONTACT
Donald C. Toensrng. Chief. Permits!
Compliance Section. Water Compliance
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7. 726 Minnesot .
Avenue. Kansas City. KS 66101.913-
551—7 4.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT?0N
I. Ok rvwiI
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate discharges of
wastewater which result from
substantially similar operations, coita:ri
the same types of’wastes, require the
same effluent limitations or operati tg
conditions, require similar monitoriitg,
and are appropriately controlled under a
general permit rather than individuai
permits.
Iowa was authorized to administer the
NPDES Permit program in 1978. As
previously approved, the Slate’s
program did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
are several categories of discharges
which could appropriately be rc u!. Ii-d
by general permits in Iowa, indhidlrR
storm water. Therefore, the Iowa
Department of Natural Rc ourccs
requested a revision of its NPDFS
program to provide for issuance of
general permits.
Each general permit will be iibjitt to
EPA review as provided by 40 CFR
123.44. P iblic notice andopporturmy :o
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 I Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Notices
—
request a hearing is also provided for
each general polmit
U. Discussion
The State of Iowa submitted. in
support of its request. a Program
!?escriptlon and revised NPDES
Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA and the State. as well as copies of
relevant statutes and regulations. The
State also submitted a statement by the
Attorney General certifying, with
appropriate citations to the statutes and
regulations. that the State has adequate
regal authority to administer a general
permit program consistent with the
applicable federal regulations. Based
upon 1owa s submission and its
experience in administering an
approved NPDES program. EPA has
concluded that the State will have the
necessary approved procedures and
resources to administe 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
Iowa of general permit authority Is a
non-substantial revision 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
similar point sources:
Moreover, under the approved
program. the State retains authority to
issue Individual permits where
appropriate, and any person mny
request the State to issue an indivtdu.iI
permit to a discharger otherwise eligible
for general permit coverage. While not
required under 40 CFR 123.62. EPA is
publishing notice of this approval action
to keep the public informed of the status
of its general permits program
approvals.
IlL 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 o State NPDES permitting
authority throughout the country.
Todays Federal Register notice is to
announce the approval of Iowa ’s
authority to issue general permits.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
Api,ro ed
State NPDES
pormd
program
Approved to
reg ate
Fedecal
acd,tes
Arved

program
general penTut

10/19/79
11/01188
05/05f73
10/19/79
11/01/88
09/22/89
M w Yo&.........
Rt,q fl. ..
Morn Oakote
Oroeon.
10/19(79
11/01/88
05/14/73
03127/75
09/26/73
04/01/74
06/28/74
11/28/74
10/23/fl
01/01/75
8A 110179
06/28 /74
09/30/63
09105/74
10/17/73
06/30/74
05/01/74
10/30/74
06110/74
06/12/74
09/19(75
04 /13/82
10/28/75
10/19/75
06/ 13/75
03/11/74
09/28/73
06/30/78
09/17/84
06/10/75
12/28/77
07/07/87
03/11/74
06/30/76
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
02104174
0 1l30/ 7 5
39
01/09/89
06/00/81
12/08/80
06/01/79
03/12/81
08/12/83
09/20/79 —-
.
12/09/78
06/10/78
08/28/85.
061 Y”81
.-._
09/30/82
11/10/87
12/09/78
12/09/78
01/26/83
36/26/79
06/23/81
11/02/79
08/31/78
04/13/82
06/13/80
09/28/64
01/22/90
01/28/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/26/80
09/30/88
07/07/87
06/26191
iiioiic6
09/22/99
03/04/83
03/10/92
01/28/91
09/30/91
01/04/54
04/02/91
c3 -.’ —2
-- - . -
09/30/91
12/15/87
09/27/91
12/12/35
04/29/33
07/20/89
07/27/92
C4/ 13 ’ 32
09/08/91
01/22 30
02/23/82
C8/02. 9’
09/17/54
04/18/91
07/07:0?
05/70’9l
09/ 189
051lO. 2
12/ 19/ ”8
CQ/24I 1
1
09/30/83
09/30/85
06107/83
07/16/79
05/13/82
06/03/61
09/07/84
04/13/82
06/14/82
07/27/83
03/12/81
09/17/84
04/09/82
08/10/83
07/07/87
03/16182
04/14/69
09f 30/08 I
05/10/82
12/24/60
27
02/09/62
05/10/82
11/26/79
05/18/61
34
-------
37164
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. Au st 18. 1992 I Nottcts
Number of Fully Authonzed (Federal
Facilities, Pretreatment General permit)
22.
IV. Review Under ocuthe Order
i i and the Regulalosy Flexibility Act
Thc Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12201
pursuant to section 8(14 of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is requtred 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 Stale Ceneral
Permit Program will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Approval of
the iowa NPDES State General Permit
Program establishes no new substantive
requirements, nor does it alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. Approval of the Iowa NPDES
State General Permit Prograxn merely
provides a simplified administrative
process.
Dated: August 7.1 592
0flie Kay.
poaoL4dministxvtor. Region 7.
d Doe. 92-196 52 Filed 8-l7- 845 am
coos
rilrr . . ... n.m.....— .. —
. -. . ria
cOMMISSION
Pub9c Infomiatlen CollectIon
Requirement Stibinitted to OtZce of
Management and Budget for Review
August 10. 1
The Federal Communications
Commission has snbm.it ed the following
Information collection requirement to
0MB for review and clearance under
the Paperw ,rk Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C 3507).
Copies of this submission may be
purchased from the Comxnission s.copy
contractor. Do ntown Copy Center.
1990 M Street NW.. suite MO.
Wa. hthgon. DC ZlXfl6. (202) 452—1422.
For further information on this
submission contact Judy foley. Federal
Communications Ccmrmsaion. (202) 632-
7513. Persons wishing to comment on
this information collection should
.nntact Jonas Neihardt. Office of
agement and Budget room 3235
B. Washington. DC 20503. (202) 395—
dM8 Number 3060-0072
Title: Application fo: Individual
Airborne Mobile Radio Telephone
License in the Public Mobile Radio
Service.
Form Numberr FCC Form 409.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respônden s: Businesqes or oth ’ for-
profit (Including small businesses).
Frequency of Respoi se: On occasion
reporting.
F ti,n uteri Annual Burden: 3.0W
responses: .084 hours average burden
per response: 252 hours total annual
burden.
Needs ond Uses: FCC Form 409
reporting requirement is necessary For
the Commission to fulfill Its regulatory
responsibilities under the
Communications Act of 1 4, as
amended. The FCC Form 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 carrier service.
The form is also used for the
modification and renewal of such
licenses. FCC 409 is required by 47 CFR
part fl. The applicant may be subject to
requirements in addition to those
specified on the form. Section 22.15(i)(3)
requires applicants te indude en
affirmative representation that he/abe
has made definite arrangements with a
wireline common carrier for service and
billing The data Is used by FCC staff to
determine the qualifications of the
appiicanL
Federal Communications Commission.
P. Catan.
Acting Secretary.
(FR Doe. 92-19566 Filed 8-V--02 &45 aml
coot
(General Docket No. 91-2 DA 92-1084)
Information on ApplicatIon Filing
Procedwea for the Interactive Video
and Data Service
Released August 14. 1992.
On January 18. 1992. the Commission
adopted a Report and Order R&O) in
G 4 Docket No. 91-2 establishing an
Interactive Video and Data Service
(IVDS) under part 93 of its Rules (47 CFR
part 95). in the R&O the Commission
stated that it would announce by Public
Notice the date on which it would begin
accepting applications for IVDS system
licenses as well as other pertinent
information concerning licensing IVDS
systems. The purpose of this Public
Notice is to establish an 1 1 /OS
application fi!ing window and ecplatn
the filing procedures necessary for filing
applications for an IVDS system license
In service areas 6 (Boston. MA). 7
(San Francisco. CA). 8 (Washington.
DC). 9 (Dallas, TX). aud i0 (Houston.
TX). For a description of tlw ‘rv’ce
areas see the Commi ion’a J miary 24.
3992. Public Notice. R ’por1 No. 92-40.
Applications for an IVDS license for
these five service areas must b e
rrroived at the official filing location
lict d herein during the three-day ihng
penod beginning Septe.’nber 15. 1992.
and ending September 17. 1992.
Applications received before September
15. or after September 17. 1992. will be
dismissed as untimely filed. The back-up
filing procedure and the extra day policy
do not apply to IVDS applications.i
Note Applicants may have an Interesi In
only one applicabon In each service area.
All applications must be filed on FCC
Form 255 (a separate application Is
required for each serv ce area) and each
application must be accompanied by a
separate check made out to the Federal
Communications Commission or FCC in
the amount of S1.400.0O. Failed payment
or postdated checks will result in the
application being dismissed with
prejudice. In section 1 f Form 155. the
‘Applf cant Name’s block must Include
the applicant’s name (either typed or
printed) followed by the aignaturv
(original) of an individual authorized to
sign the application. The mailing
address should be addressed to which
the applicant wishes off1c al
correspondence sent. The rnzmnber of the
service area being applied for (either
007. cE8. • . or “0l0 ) must
be specified In the box labeled “Call
Sign”. The fee type code entered in
Column (A) must be “PAr, the fee
multiple in Column (B) must be “40”.
anti the fee due n column (C) must be
$1.400.OC Each indIvidual application
(Form 155) and accompanying chetr t
(51.400.00) must be in an individual’
sealed envelope and properly addressed
(see mail In address). Multiple
applications. roper )y packaged. may be
delivered in one larger. properly
addressed container.
The Commnission s official filing
location for these applications is Mellon
Sank in Pittsburgh. Pa. Applicitions may
be delivered to Mellon Bank in .ne of
two ways. either mailed in or walL .c ’d i’
The boo-up ft1Lri proced ire e iab ccyt t
apt cant3 to tUe Late if lbcy f LIow r.e,t.in
prooedio . sod If their .pplcalioita are k at w
to earwi to Pttt.bw t 1 ’enrUy1l...Ma. T’.
ezOl day policy allows c 5risin e ’ . .hcsn ’e to r
or di .. after 1’ e flbn teadlhe T —ir ic..,
h,.r vtr . n v e ’pty to rt -e iri.l. lm il ’ .r
OpplicIltiGni pre ,cuaIy fUed to W i I 14.Ifl. I) (
aid PIDS .pihc.i.flons. which me hi.vi . .“ ..
bee” fleet In e ’ gtnn fl f
a pI’ tton I. re tved fl Piiitbur h ,,
Ia 1 ’ . 5 . th. day after the flI nq w,nilcw rk. -s
th ’, e!Irr lreenrdlt’ . of the 11 r’ur ‘. r ‘ 4 •
eppl.ritkn, will be th iaeeeJ . , , -d —,.Ii . .,‘
-------
35774
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 155 / Tuesday , August 11. 1992 / Proposed Rules
overall emission reduction for other
rotogravure presses, and 60% overall
emission reduction for flexographic
presses. Each of these overall emission
reduction requirements are reductions
from the VOC input to the press, rather
than an emission reduction from a
historical baseline. Presses used to
check product quality and which do not
emit more than 400 pounds of VOC in a
30 day running period are exempt from
this regulation. This regulation Is
consistent with EPA’s CTG document
for the graphic arts industzy.
Section 129.65—Manufacture of
Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products
This regulation is changed to require
that the overall emission reduction from
air dryers and production equipment
exhaust be 90% rather than 85%. In
addition, the 50 ton per year exemption
is deleted. These changes are consistent
with EPA’s CTG document for the
manufacture of synthesized
pharmaceutical products.
EPA’S Evaluation of the SIP Revision
The changes being made with this
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP make
significant Improvements in the
applicability and enforceability of the
regulations. These changes. pertaining to
Stage I vapor recovery, surface coating.
graphic arts, recordkeeping, gasoline
marketing. pharmaceutical products.
and compliance schedules, are
submitted by Pennsylvania in response
to EPA’s SIP calls. A detailed evaluation
of these SIP revisions has been
performed by EPA in a Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this action.
A copy of this TSD Is available, upon
request, from the EPA Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice.
EPA is proposing to approve the
changes in the Pennsylvania VOC
regulations. Chapters 121 and 129.
pertaining to Stage I vapor recovery.
surface coating, graphic arts,
recordkeeping. gasoline marketing.
pharmaceutical products, and
compliance schedules because they are
consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. These changes represent
Pennsylvania’s partial response to the
May 28. 1988 and the November 8, 1989
SIP calls.
Nothing in this action should be
construed as permitting or allowing or
establishing a precedent for any future
request for revision to any state
implementation plan. Each request for
rrvlsion to the state implementation
plan shall be considered separately in
light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
Administrator certifies that SIP
approvals under sections 107. 110. and
172 of the Clean Air Act will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SIP
approvals (or redesignations) do not
create any new requirements but simply
approve requirements that are already
State law. SIP approvals (or
redesignatloris), therefore, do not add
any additional requirements for small
entities. Moreover, due to the nature of
the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of a
flexibility analysis for a SIP approval
would constitute Federal inqwry into the
economic reasonableness of the State
actions. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA
to base its actions concerning SIPs on
such grounds.
This rulemaking action, proposing to
approve changes to Chapters 121 and
129 of the Pennsylvania regulations
pertaining to Stage I vapor recovery,
surface coating. graphic arts, deletion of
the generic hubble regulation.
recordkeeping. gasoline marketing.
pharrnaceutjcaj products, and
compliance schedules, has been
classified as a Table 2 action by the
Regional Administrator under the
procedures published in the Federal
Register on January 19. 1989 (54 FR
2214-2225). EPA has submitted a request
for a permanent waiver for table 2 and 3
SIP revisions. 0MB has agreed to
continue the temporary waiver until
such time as it rules on EPA’s request.
The Regional Administrator’s decision
to approve or disapprove the SIP
revision will be based on whether it
meets the requirements of sections
100(a)(2)(AHK), 11Q(a)(3) and Part D of
the Clean Air Act as amended, and EPA
regulations in 40 CFR part 51.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Hydrocarbons.
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations. Ozone.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authoi4ty U.S C. 7401-7671g.
Dated: June 28, 1992.
Edwin B. Ezickeoc,
Regionali4dmrnistrvtor. Region I!!.
(FR Doe. 92-10061 Filed &-1O-Ot &45 Arni
LW 006 u
40 CFR Part 122
(FRL 4190—11
RIM 2040-AA7I
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity on Indian
Lands in Oregon and Water Quality
Certification
AGENCY: Enironmental Protection
Agency [ EPAJ.
ACT1CIC Proposed rule and draft general
NPDES permit
SUMMARY: This document announces
EPA-Region 10’s proposal to issue a
general National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
facilities on Indian Lands in Oregon that
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activities, and a certification
that the discharges will comply with
section 401 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). This general permit when
issued, will authorize storm water
discharges in accordance with the CWA
section 402 (p).
DATESI Written comments must be
received by September 10, 1992. Persons
wishing to request that a public hearing
be held. may do so in writing, by
September 10, 1992. A request for a
public hearing shall state the nature of
the issues to be raised as well as the
requester’s name, address, and
telephone number.
ADDEESSESI The public should send an
original and two copies of their
comments on the general permit to
Kevin Weiss, Permits Division [ EN-330J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460. This
public record is located at EPA —
Headquarters, EPA Public Information
Reference Unit, Em. 2402, 401 M Street
SW.. Washington. DC 20480. A
reasonable free may be charged for
copying. Comments on EPA-Region 10’s
water quality 401 certificatIon must be
sent to Steve Bubnick. EPA-Region 10.
Water Permits Section (WD-134). 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Jeanette Carriveau, EPA-Region 10. (2061
553—1214.
su ctz eiii’aay INFORMAnOpc Section
405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987
(WQA) added sectIon 402(p) of the
CWA which requires EPA to develop a
phased approach to regulating storm
water discharges under the NPDES
program. EPA published a final
regulation on November 16. 1990 (55 FR
47990), establishing permit application
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 155 / Tuesday , August 11.
1992 I Proposed Rules -- 35775
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 industrial activity” In a
comprehensive manner to cover a wide
variety of facilities. This definition
greatly expanded the number of
mdustnal facilities subject to the NPDES
program.
On August 16. 1991 (59 FR 40948). EPA
proposed a general permit to authorize
the discharge of storm water associated
with Industrial activities In several
states where EPA has permitting
jurisdiction. EPA inadvertently omitted
to include permit coverage for facilities
on Indian lands In the state of Oregon.
The purpose of this notice Is to clarify
EPA’s intent to extend this permit to
Indian lands in Oregon. Therefore. EPA
incorporates all provisions of the draft
general permit and accompanying fact
sheet as published on August 10. 1991
(58 FR 40948). ThIs notice Is not
soliciting additional comments on the
general permit conditions, but rather on
its application to Indian lands in
Oregon.
EPA-RegIon 10 has certified pursuant
to SectIon 401 of the CWA that the
subject discharges will comply with the
applicable provisions of CWA sections
208(e). 301, 302, 303, 306. and 307.
Copies of the draft general permit are
also available from EPA-Region 10.
Dated: July 22. 1992.
Dana A Rasmussen,
RegwnaiAdnurnsLrozor.
(FR Doc 92-18948 Filed 5-10-92.8:45 amJ
SIUJNG S5IO-5O-
ACTION
45 CFR Part 1224
Implementation of the Privacy Act of
1974
AGENCY: ACTION.
*cnoic Notice of proposed rulemaking .
SUMMARY: ACTION proposes to exempt
a system of records from certain
provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. 5
U.S.C. 552a (“Privacy Act”), to the
extent that the system contains
investigatory material pertaining to the
enforcement of criminal laws or
compiled for law enforcement purposes.
The system of records to be exempted
contains the investigative files of the
Office of the Inspector General of
ACI’ION.
DATE Written comments must be
received on or before September 10,
1992.
aooaes& Written comments should be
sent to Thomas C. Buchanan. Counsel to
the Inspector General. ACTION. 1100
Vermont Avenue. NW, Suite 12100,
Washington. DC 20525 To ensure
prompt attention, please indicate
“Comments to Proposed Privacy Act
Exemption” on the outside envelope.
FOR FURTH!R INFORMATION CONTACT
Thomas C. Buchanan, Counsel to the
Inspector General, at the above address,
or by telephone at (202) 606-4804; or
Edward F. Carey. Privacy Act Officer,
ACTION. 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW,
Suite 3200. Washington, DC ‘ fl52& (202)
600-5242.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIO#C
L Biackground
On December 31, 1991, ACTION.
published a ‘Notice of Systems of
Records” In the Federal RegIster (56 FR
67576). Included In this notice Is system
number “ACTION-is,” the Office of the
Inspector General Investigative Files.
This system contains Investigatory
material pertaining to the enforcement
of criminal laws and compiled for law
enforcement purposes. ACflON
proposes to exempt this system of
records from specified provisions of the
Privacy Act. (A clarification of one of
the system’s routine uses Is provided In
section III, below.)
U. Discussion of Proposed Exemption
SectIon (fl(2) of the Privacy Act
provide, that the head of an agency may
promulgate rules to exempt any system
of records within the agency from any
part of section 5524 except subsections
(b). (c)(1) and (2). (e)(4)(A) through (F),
(e)(6) , (7), (9), (10), and (11). and (1), If the
system of records Is—.
maintained by an agency or component
thereof which performs as Its principal
function any activity pertaining to the
enforcement of criminal laws • and
which consists of (A) Information
compiled for the purpose of Identifying
Individual criminal offenders and
alleged offenders and consisting only of
Identifying data and notations of arrests,
the nature and disposition of criminal
charges, sentencing, confinement,
release, and parole and probation
status: (B) Information compiles for the
purpose of a criminal investigation,
Including reports of informants and
Investigators. and associated with an
Identifiable lndlvidual or (C) reports
identifiable to an Individual compiles at
any stage of the process of enforcement
of the criminal laws from arrest or
Indictment through release from
supervision.
Section (k)(2) of the Privacy Act
provides that the head of an agency may
promulgate rules to exempt any system
of records within the agency from
sections 552a(c)(3), (d). (e)(i), (e)(4)(G)
through (I), and (F), If the system of
records Is “Investigatory material
compiled for law enforcement
purposes.”
If a system of records Is not exempted
from these sections. the Privacy Act
generally requires the agency to:
Account for disclosures: permit
individuals access to their records;
permit Individuals to request
amendment to their records; collect
information directly from the subject
individual; publish Information in the
Federal Register about access to
records; and promulgate rules that
establish procedures for notice and
disclosure of records. The exemptions
that may be asserted with respect to
Investigatory systems of records permit
an agency to protect Information when
disclosure would Interfere with the
conduct of the agency’s investigation.
The Office of the Inspector General
Investigative Files contain Information
of the type described in the above
mentioned exemptions to the Privacy
Act. The Inspector General Act of 1978.
as amended. 5 U.S.C. app. 3, authorizes
the Inspector General of ACTION to
conduct Investigations to detect fraud
and abuse In the programs and
operations of ACTION and to assist in
the prosecution of participants in such
fraud or abuse. The Office of the
Inspector General of ACTION maintains
Information In this system of records
pursuant to Its law enforcement and
criminal Investigation functions.
Exemptions under section 552a(j)(2) and
(k)(2) are necessary to maintain the
Integrity and confidentiality of the
investigative files and to protect
Individuala from harm. Disclosure of
information In these Investigatory files
or disclosure of the identity of
confidential sources would seriously
undermine the effectiveness of the
Inspector General’s Investigations.
Knowledge of such Investigations also
could enable subjects of the
Investigation to take action to prevent
detection of criminal activities, conceal
or destroy evidence, or escape
prosecution. Disclosure of this
information could lead to intimidation
of. or harm to, informants, witnesses,
Investigative personnel, or their families
The imposition of certain restrictions on
the manner in which information Is
collected, verified. or retained could
significantly Impede the effectiveness of
-------
35586
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 154 / Monday, August 10. 1992 1 Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
(FRL ..4192-T]
Agency Information Collecdoq
Activities Under 0MB RevIew
AQENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACnOIt Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act t44 U.S.C.-
3501 et seq.). this notice announces 0MB
responses to Agency PRA clearance -
requests. - - -:
SUP LEMENTARY INFORMAT1O*
0MB Responsà to Agency PRk
Clearance Requests ‘ - -
pentoxide (p205) stored.. 0MB No. 2060-
0037; expires 06/30/95.
ConditionalApprvvoJ
EPA ICR No. 1158.04; Standards of
Performance for new Stationary
Sources, Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Industry was approved 0?/10J92 0MB
2060-0158; expires 07/31/95. This
.collection of information received a ‘ -
conditional approval from 0MB. For a
copy of the notice containing the
conditions, please call Sandy Farmer on
(202) 260 ’-V4tL
0MB Extensions of Exp rotion Dates
EPA ICR No. lVti Reporting and ’ ”
Recordkeepthg for Asbestos Ban and,
Phase-Out Rule; 0MB No. 2070-0C92
expiration date extended to 12(31/92.
EPA ICR No. 0138 Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requfremeri for
Discharges into Marine Waters; 0MB
No .2040-0088; expiration date.extended
1 008/31/92. - --
DAT!* Access to confidential data
submitted to EPA will occur no sooner
than August 15. 1992.
FOR FURTHER IWFORMATON CONTACT’.
Gene W. Smith. Document Control
Officer, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (MD-13 ) . U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research mangle Park. North Carolina
27711. (919) 541—5439.
SUpPtEMEW ARY INFORMATIO$ The EPA
is issuing this notice to inform all
submitters of Information under section
114 of the CAA that EPA may provide
the above mentioned subcontractora
access to these materials on a need-to-
know basis. The contractor with the
assistance of the subcontractors will-
provide technical support to the Office
of Air Quality Planiting and Standards
(OAQPSJ In source assessment or’with a
source category survey and pioëeed
through development of standards for a
Federal Air Pollution Control Regulation
or Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTC). - .
In accordance with 40 CER 2.305(h).
EPA has determined that each
subcontractor requires access to CDI
submitted to-EPA under sections 112
and 114 of the CAA Ln order to perform
work satisfactory under the above noted
contracts. The subcontractors’ personnel
will be given access to Information
submitted under Section 114 of the CAA.
Some of the information may be claimed
or determined to be CBL The
subcontractors’ personnel will be.
required to sign nondisclosure .
agreements and will be briefed on -
appropriate security procedures before
they are permitted access to CD I. All
access to CAA CDI under these
contracts will take place at the
subcontractors’ facility. Clearance for
access to CAA CDt under each contract
is scheduled to expire on August 1, 1996.
DateéAugust 3. 2992.
Michasi Shaplro , .
Acting Assistant Ad iaistrctârforAtr and
Roth ao on. . . - - . —
(FR D c c. 92-18934 FlIed 8-7-6 &45 ami
MO Coec .
0MB Approvals . - -
EPA ICR No.1082.04; NSPS
Monitoring for Coal Preparation
Plants—Subpart Y: was approved 00/ -
01/920MB No. 2060-0121 expires 06/.
30/95. ,. . Agency Withdrowal
EPA ICR No. 1607.Olt Survey of Wood. EPA ICR No.1567.01; Duplication of
- Furniture Manufacturers; was approved Work was withdrawn at the request of
08/03/9 10MB No. 2060-0238; expIre..., the Agency.
06/30/95.. - - . Datedi July 21, i9 .
EPA ICR No. 1569.01 Development . p, j
ad Approval Guidance for CoastaI- Dfrectoi Regulatory Management iv:si ii. - -
lcnpoint Pollution Programs 1 .ARA.
Section 6217); was approved 06/10/01 (FR Dec. 93-18033 Filed 0-7-92 845
0MB No. 2040-0153; expires 06/30/95. - 151P19 COOC S5SG4O.
EPA ICR No. 1572.01; Hazardons—. . . - ... . . . - -
Wute Specific Unit Requirements and-
- IFRL-4192- el -
Special Waste Processes and Types;- ’ .
was approved 06/22/91 0MB No. 2050- Clean Air Act; Contractor Access To-
0058; expires 06/30/93., ConfIdential Buslnes Information
EPA ICR No.1612.01; Low.Coit. Small ,,, . -
System Technology Data Collection *Gawcv: Environmental Protection -
was approved 06/24/92 0MB No. Z040. Agency (EPA). - - - -,
0154: expires 06/30/95.’. - - - ACfloi Notice. - -
• EPA ICR No. 0827.05 Construction- - - ,
Grants Program Information Collection SUMMARY: The EPA has authorized that.
Request was approved 06/30 (920MB ,two subcontractors receive access to-.
No.2040-0027; expires 06/30/95 - .. information that has been, or will be,
EPA ICR No. 0596.04; Applicatl n anC submitted to EPA under section 114 of:
Summary Report for an Emergency . - the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended.
Exemption for Pesticides; was approved. The R anCorporatlon. 3200 S. Chapel
07/07/91 0MB No. 207 0031 lexpire - Hill Road. Research Thangle Park,-
07/31)95.-- - North Carolina Is the primary ... -
EPA ICR No. 1063/05 NSPS for -- - confracton The following ere
Sewage Treatment Plant Inclnaralibn.. subcontractors that will provide
tSubpart 0) ReportIng and - technical assistance to Radian. (1)’
Recordkeepng Requfrements was -. - . . - Energy Environmental Research ‘-
approved 07/09/920MB No. 2000-0035 Corporation. 3710 UnIversity Drive.
expires 07/31/95.- - SnlteI80 . Durham. North Carolina.- -
contract number 68D10117: (2) Alpha-
0MB Parlia) Appi o vol CJT?nIItIl Technologies; Inc. 900. . -.
EPA ICR No. lOeii)5 Standard of. Ridgefleld Drive, Suite 350, Durham.
formanca for the Phosphate Fertilirer North Caroline, contract number
estry (NSPS subparts T.U, V. W, X);’ 88010117. , . - - -
a collection of Information was -, Some of the information may be -
approved except for the reqnrementio; l i 4tobe conDdandal buslnew-’
- record daily the amount of phosphors - -lnformation (CDI) by the submitter. -.
(FRL-41932) -
Revision of the Nevada National
Pollutant DIscharge EliminatIon -
System (PIPDES) to Authortas rh-
issuance of General Permits - -
*aauc’r. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC1IOI Notice of approval’ oft ec.
National Pollutant Discharge.... - -
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 154 / Monday. August 10, 1992 / Notices
Elimination System Ceneral
Program of the State of Nevada. .
SUPPLEMENTARY 1NFORMAT1O April 24. 1992. by the Attorney General
1. Background . certifying. with appropriate citations to
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28 the statutes and regulations that the
provide for the issuance of general State will have adequate legal authority
permits to regulate the discharge of to administer the general permits
wastewater which results form program as required by 40 CFR 123.23(c).
substantially Bunilar operations, are of In addition, the State submitted a
the e type wastes, require the same program description supplementing the
effluent limitations or operating . - original application for the NPDES
conditions, require similar monitoring program authority to administer the
and are more appropriately controlled general permits program. including the
under a general permit rather than by.. authority to perform each of the
individual permits, activities set forth in 40 CFR 123.44. The
Nevada was authorized to administer State has also submitted, an Amendment
the NPDES program in September. 1975. to the Memorandum of Agreement
As previously approved, the State’s’ between the State of Nevada DCNR and
program did not include provisions for. - EPA. Region 9 specIfying the procedures
the Issuance of general permits. There - through which general permits will be -
are a number of categories of discharges issued and administered by the State.
which could be appropriately regulated Based upon Nevada’s program
by general permits. For these reasons, description and upon its experience in.
the Nevada DCNR requested a revision administering an approved NPDES . -
of the State’s NPDES program to provide program. EPA has concluded that the
for the issuance of general permits. State will have the nece ary
Storm water discharges are the procedures and resources to administer
discharges. which are currently under - the general permits program.
consideration for the general permit . -
However, additional categories Ifl. Federal Register Notice of Approval
could be considered in the future.. - . of State NPDES Programs or
Each general permit will be subject to Modifications
EPA review and approval as provided EPA provide Federal Rag star’
by 40 CFR 123.44. PublIc notice notice of any action by the Agency
opportunity to request a hearing is also approving or modIfying a State NPDES
provided for each general permit. program. The following table provides
U. Discussion - the public with an up-to-date list of the--
•
- -
SUMMARY On July 27, 1992. the Regional
Administrator for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA]. Region 9. .
approved the State of Nevada’s National
PoUutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permits Program. On
April 24. 1992. the Nevada Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources
(DCNR) submitted a formal request for
approval to revise Its NPDES Permit ’
Program to authorize the Issuance o(
general NPD permits. This action
authorizes the State of Nevada to Issue.
general permits In lieu of Individual
NPD permits. EPA has determined
this program modification to be
substanlial because general permit .
program modifications have .
traditionally been viewed as non - .
substantial, and In addition. during the -
development of the State’s regulations
for implementing the program.’ ‘
conimenter were supporthie of th
pru am modification. The nAlI ntlO .
of this program approval should also, be-
expedited in order to facilitate ‘
implementation of the NPDES stârm’
water program In the State of Nevada
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTAC1 . The State of Nevada submitted In’
Eugene Bromley, U.S. Environmental, support of its request. copies of the
Protection Agency. Region 9 (W—5-1).. 73 relevant statutes and regulations for
Hawthorne Street. San Francisco, CA implementing the program. The State
status of NPDES permitting authority a
throughout the country. Today’s Federal
Register notice Is to announce the
approval of Nevada’s authority to issue’
io 415-744-i90&--
has also submitted a statement dated
general permits.. -
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
Ap xoved to ‘ . -
— stow
— pmgam..
io,ia s
- .
io,iwis.
.
o oI28Jar
11/01/86
“
11101188
11/01188’
05/05/78
.
09/fl /89
.
09/22/8
03/04/83
03/10/fl
O1IO9 8 5
.,
06103/81
12/08/88
08/01/78
09/20f7 5
12/09/78
/10/78
08/28/65
09/30183
11/10/87
12/09/78
12 /09!78
01 28/83
06/28/79
O OlflI S l
,l1/02I78
08131F78
04/13/82
06/13/60
00128/84
01/fl/SO
01128183
a.
09/12/61
08112183
-, 00/0310*
09 1 3 0F63
09/30/85
- 06/07183
- -, 07 16/79
: ‘ - 05/13/03
t 06/03/01
00/01/04
04/13/82
L : 0S W03
07/27 1 03
01128,91
- 09/30/91
01(04/84 -
04/02/91
08/04/03-’
09130/63
09130/91
- 12,13/or-.
-- “ 09(27/91’
12/12/86
- ,. 04/29/83
07/20/89
“ 07/27/92
-. 04113182
09/06/$1
01/fl/SO
35587
-------
35588
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 154 / Monday , August 10 1902 / Notices
IV. Rail..,, Under F utjve Ord
12291 1 the Regulatory FlaxibiRty Ad
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
L went of Executive Order i
pursuant to section 8tbJ of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Ad,
EPA Is required top a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for a rules which
may have a significant Impact on a
substantial “eber .1 mali entitles ;
Purs tte sec t ian0o5(d)of the
Regulatory Flexl&lity Ad (5 USC. e
et seq.). 1 certify that this Slate General
Permits will sot have a
signthonnt impact on a enbitantial
nineber of email ontities. Approvalof
the Nevada NPDES State General -
Permits Pro m establishes so new
substantive requirements, ne i does it
alter the regulatory control over any
Industrial category. Approvaj of the
Nevada NPflF State General Permits
Program merely provides $ simplified-
ad iatrative pru _ .
Dated: Tidy 21. 19 .
Daaisl W. McGo,em,
A JAdmirp g, , a
(FR Doc. 92-18835 FlIed 8-7-Q 8 sail
FEDERAL MARITIME COMM1SS$o
Marytend Po A nletration and•
Premier Automo S.rW e M
Agreenent(s) Faed
The Federal Marltim Com igiao.
hereby gives notic, of the f lling dt h e-
following agreePi. 4(s) pursuant ?o.
sectIon 5 of the Shipping Act .12981
biterested parties may Inspect and
atsin a copy of each agreement at-the
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commismon, 1100 L Street,
MW., ioo 1c 25S la uneted perties may
euhe .4$ on each agreement to
Seu t y . Federal Maritime
1 ’nelsilar , W -igton. DC 20673,
wthinlfldaysaf$ertbe dale dth.
Federal R.gis to which this aotion
app s. 1 leenionts for
comu., t are leond in 52 of titla
48.1 the Coded Federal Regnlat ..
Interested pemeris chouki consult this
d baler. b ating with the
Ca.”-’—” ,n u iuiLg a pending
-.
29C—2 eeV -
— TftJer Maryland Pert Anthdstra&m
and Premier Automotive Servines.
Marine Tee thta1
Pariiem The Maryland Post -
Administration ( ‘MPA’) , Premier
Automotive Services. Inc. ( “PremieV ’).
Spnopsw The Agreement provides for
Premier to rent from MPA 6.53 a es In
Ares 90 end appionlmately iftig aeree
nA2andg4loi ntprlattha
Dundalk Mann . TerminaL The term of
the Agreement is for five years.
232—O11184-00
77L er Evergreen Marine Corporation
rraiwan) Ltd., Italia d l Navagn w .e,
S.p.A . and Compagni. Maritime Spec. -
h .,,t , end Sailing Agreement
- rI Compagnie Generale
Maritime (“CGM”). Evergreen Marine
Corporation (Taiwan) Ltd., Italia d l
Naviganirme S.p.A.
Synnprzf.t -The proposed amendment
will revise the Membership and
Wlththawaj provision of the Agreement
to provide that CCM may withdraw -
from the Agreemer4t upon ten dayu’ -
written notice to the other parties, as
long as ruth notice is not tendered
before S 4ernber 1, 1 .. - -. -
Agreem No.. -
71iM Agreement for Settlement and
Releeseof Columbus Line ‘ “
Relattog to the Argentina/U.S Atlantic
Pag er Amthonn Transport L
Inc.. Hamburg Sndamericanlscb. -.
Dampf8ehiff .t Ceesellethaft
(Col irnhus Lint).
Syiisp . The proposed Agreement
worald settle disputes between the
parli s o revenas pool .crounhing
paymonis for the years 1990—1961 under
pooling Agreement No. 212- .O388 (the
AzgrntfrisfTJ . S Athinflr r t
Agreement).
DMsdlA u .i ..
By .1 the Fed....l Mmi
Comml.slo .
jç. Pdfl isg,
FR Doc. .-188Z4 Ffled 5-7- -q 5.45 aaij
ccc . m a
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Granting of Request for Early -
Termination of the Waiting Period
Under the Premerger t’n’ tk,’i
Rules - - -
Section7A ofthe CIøytm Act. 15
U.S .C I8addedbyTftIej of
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antifr at
1inprovem nt. Act of requires
person, contemplating certain merger.
or a qu1 1t1ons to giv, the Federal Trade
Commission and the Assistant Attorney
General advance notice and to wait
d aignntgd periods before
conenmw.setion of such plans. Section
?A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies,
In Individual cases, to terminate this
waiting period prior to Its expiration and
reqorres that notice of this action be
published in the Federal R . .gl.he
The following transactions we ,_. , ,
granted early tPrmInatjofl of the wnit
period provided by law er4th. - -
sotificetion rules. The grants
were mails by the Federal flede -
STATE NPDES PHoGa u STATUS.-C0, 1I1ed
‘
Avowed es
c s —
,—
Appro’ied
Md$al
4-
Aed

pio wa
Ap WG Sd general
—
uç o ’—
Penn s 4 _
erimirj
5613017$
09/I7 84
08/1O 75
12129177
O7 O7lS7
03111174
om
esistns
1usall3
ostioaer
- 02 104/74
erne
06 / 3 0 1 7$
09 , 17 1 5 4
Q912 6 /
0 5F30/
O7iW /$7
03172181
01117/84
04109182
08110/Si
IW1$7
OV l S2
CW /,1
09117I54
- 04/18/ 51
0fl 07 / S7
— -
Rt Ie Iit*n _____________________________________________
-
Sot C
Tennai ,..i. . .
Ut& _
-.
-t
wgrs
s 1øI , ,
orios,er
0 1 /14/ 8 8
- OV iO / S 5
osnoiar
12J24 /a 5
05120191
09 126188
oanoier
12 / 19186
c& oise
11129 / 75
-
Wl. . . . . -
Wy i i 9
- -
ToS
— 01/30/75
05 /1 6 /8?
_
09124/SI
FiD i fr4sa1oIu. flW w’ . ru FacJ’ , Pr01anw rdL General rerffiltsl -
-------
Friday -
July 24, 1992
Part U
Environ mental
Protection Agency
4OCFR Parts 122, 123andl3G
Surface Water Toxica Control Program,
Water Quality Planning and Management
Program, and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination SystenT Rule and
Proposed Rule
-------
Federa} RegIster fi Vo 57 No 443 - Pr4day J 199 d1evr - 33O5t -
os PA will aecept corn twhv pro sm The p posofsectfnn 3040) 1
the public on this proposal until to Identify and to control ‘toxichot -
September & 199 -.. spot&’ 133 Cong. Rec..1287 (Jan. 14.
am .gsr Submit commaule td Roho* - 1WHItmt olSen. MO3IT Ian ).
K. WoOd. Water Quality a tndn.trlal —. In order to identify these ‘toxic hot
Permlta Branch. Office of Wastswetsr . spOts.” section 304(l)reqnfred.each
Enforcement and Campl1ance ( 4-33e , State within two years after February 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. to submit to EPA three lists of
401 M Street, SW.. Washington. D€ waters. The first list required an
20460. The public record for this -. inventorj of those waters which are ot
proposal Is available at the EPA library reasonably expected to attain or
M 0I, U.& EnvironmentaL Protection maintain the new water quality
Agency. 401 M Street SW., Washington. standards developed under section
- .... . 303(c)(Z)(B) for toxic pollutants. (See
• RJ ThE eectiofl 304{fl(1)(A)(IJ.) The second list
• RobeitK. Wood Waler Quailty encompasses c l i waters thof are not
duathal PerultI e Iz of -: reazonab(yanhldpsted to attain The
wastewater Enforcement an goal of the Act he.. to ‘assure-
Compliance. (EN-338). - p otect1on of public health, public water:
Environmental Protecttow Igeney so M supplies, agricultural and Industrial
Street, SW. Washington. uc zotee Uses . and the protection and
(202)280-1985. - .. . .. propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish. fish and wildlife. and allow
recreational actlvftles in and on the
Preambl. Outline water.’ Waters on the second list, while
- meeting State water quality standards.
ii . ac oun .j might not be fully achieving the goals of
A. Clean Water Act Section 3040) -, the Act. (See section 304(I)(1 )(A)(ii).)
a Definition of Individual Conuol Strat s These fitst two lists are known as the-’.
(1CSI - . ‘A lists.’
C. The Ninth Circuit Decision, and Today i. The third list includes those waters
that the State’ “does not expec1 to
Pies not WatsI QUQIIty .b 5$ ê achieve appilcal?]. water quality
Permits and l( s -
1. Water besed p - standards. after application of
Requenta- .Backgreund - - technoI ,gy.based controls,. due to
2. The Listing Proc . . . Conducted - dlscEmges’from point sources of section’
1955-1890- . 387(e) toxic pollutants. (See section
- 3. Information about Supplemented Stats c., 304(l)(1)LB).) For a water to be listed on
List, - the-Bliss the failure tu attain water
-ULOpticiw’ qua l ltystandardahadtobeentlrelyot
A. Statutory . - substantially due to the point source -
8. No Additional . discharge of toxic pollutants. This list is
C.Some New 1 a at the Discretion of thè ’ ’
conimonly referred to an the “B ltht. ’
0. ICS for All Newly Listed Pafnt -3our ’ , .- ‘- The statute also required the States to
IV. Todays Proposal submit a list.of point sources -
V. Regulatory Analysis . discharging toxic pollutants believed to
- A. Executive Order t i be preventing or Impairing” the
B. Paperwork Reduction Act aüainnient of applicable water quality.
- C. Regulatory Ple,dbdIty Act 33 U .5.C 1314ffl(1)(C3. ibis list is
common ly referred to as tha”C list..”
- . - - On January 4. 1989, EPA promulgated
These regulations are issued under the a rule Interpreting the C list to include
authority of the Clean Water Act. 33. pJy point squrces discharging toxic -
• U . S.C. 125181 a - - - - pollutants Into waters on the Bust. 40
( R 130.113(54 FR 258) Under this rule.
oncs theState1dentlfled such point
sources; they were to prepare ICSa for
• thenL On June z 1980. EPA promulgaten.
• final regulations Implementing section
304(1) of the CWA (54 FR 23888). Under
EPAs June 2, . 1989 regulations. the
linkage between the C list sources arid
the B llstwaters which was to result in
- - ICSs for point sources discharging to B
list waters, was unique to the B list.
EPA ’s rules did not require Identification
of point sources discharging to we tern
listed on the A lists, nor did these rules
ENVERONUEMAL PROTECflO*
AGENCY
40 CFR Pert 123
IFRt $97I -71
National Pollutant O$sctiarg.-
Elknkmtfon S)ralerrç Surface Water
Tonics Control Program .
*anscv Environmental Protection.
Agency.
acnoIc Proposed rule. -
eu seaRv Today’s action proposes e’
response to a recent decision of the US
Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit InNRDC
v. EPA. 915 F.2d 1314(9th Cir. 1900). -
interpreting section 304(1) of the Clean-
Water Act (CWA). The Court’s decision
requires states to identify all fadilitled.
discharging toxic pollutants believed to
be preventing impairing water quality
of waters on any of the State lists of
impaired waters previously Identified
ii uler sectIon 304(1) and to identify the
pollutants discharged. The Ninth Circuit.
decision also requires EPA to reconsider
whether all facilities newly Ideritifieth -
nder3O4(l) are required to have -
- 1 ndividual control strategies (lCS . The
rst action Is completed elsewhere In
the Federal Register today as part of - -
final 4mendment*tO EPA regnlatIons. -. ___
The second action is initiated4oda , -
uoughthiaproposaL - -
Todays action proposes. two optldna.
ike first option is to continue to require
ICSs only for point sources originally
tabletS o such a requirement under -
EPA’. earlier Interpratatlon of section
304(1). The second option is to provide’
the State the discretion to determine’
wbether , on a case-by-case basis, newly
listed fadlitles will be required to have-
t s. in proposing these options, EPA
also considered a third option—a
requirement for ICSs for all newly-Rated
point sources. Today’s proposal -
disaiste, and solicits public comment
* ill three options. Section III below -
dlsuiuej the three optionu no
d1IIana1 L( ssome new lCSe at the •
disreetfon of the Dlrector ami, ICSS for” -
tll s ealy tisted point 4 A. Clean WotarAct Section 304(1 ) ’ ,.
onbatim g public comnierit* and the - in enacting the Water Quality Act al
sed Stot C lists, EPA may finalize 1087 (WQA) which amended the CWA
OptiOflrequith1gno new ICSs or the Public Law No. 100-4,101 SIaL 7, -
* rnithonzu,g acme additional ICSs Congress placed greater emphasis on
UI seeking further public comment attaining State water quality standards,
to the lack of Information to support In particular. sectIon 308 of the WQA
Gpdon described under section. amendments added several provisions
1uw. CSs for all newly listed ‘ - to focus attention on attaining water.
EPA does not expect to quality standards for toxic pollutants.
uiat Option without seeking. The st c mP0 a t was the
P iUUC Comnjen s, establishment of the section 304(l).
-------
‘Federal RgFste .fV L 57 Nö 149 . f Pridà July’ 24, 199Z / Propo.ed Rul
3305! --
KP11IIIrP1nPfl1 .1
require development oflCSs for point 3o4(1 1)(q a8d thereby required St.tev
sources dIschar tng to A list watere. - to expand their Chats to tncludepoint;
Upon the State’s submittal of the llets sources discharging toxic polletanta to
and ICSs. EPA wee to approve or’ waters en the Atist* the Court also”
disapprove the State ’s .thmissions of requhed EPA to reconsider whether aa
the lists and ICS. byJune4. 1981. In the - point soure. . on the expandedC lists
event of a State’s failure to submit the shaU be required to have ICSa.
lists or ICSa, or If EPA disapproved a list In its decision, the Ninth Cir zit-
or ICS. EPA was to work in- cooperation explicitly left for EPA to-consider
with the State In order to develop the whether to Increase-the number of-’
lists and’ ICSby June 1900. facilIties required to have ICS.. The
Ninth Clratit’e reqwrement that EPA
B. Definition of IndividuoLCojib ’o! -. reconsider It, lntcqnis$ation of which’
Stmtegy (ICS) - - . facilities must have ICS Is not a
EPA!s Jun. 2. 1989. naI rgst e- jj rtjy tO1Dt& Tat the stat ts Ian.. -
implementu eecttsm 304(1) of the CWA- cort f , way. On the cont ary. the Court
(54 FR 8)restabhshed the asked EPA to determin, the best course
and procedures Let State-listing of ‘. of action. i.e., to ormi II whether ali,
waters and facilities ewL ’v section..... io or none of the facilities which wilL-
304(1) as well an the’ requirements foe’— be added to Slates’ C Hate ehauld be:
ICSs. In these re ulatlonaEPA .deflaed .- required toliave ICSs. Therefore..--
the term “Individua} conlrok 5tr t 8Y” as today’s preamble discusses In some
NPD Permit detail three optlons.that EPA has
supporting eDtatIOO owi thM, considered forreinterpreting the
the effluent limits are consistent with an... reqwrenients at §123.48(4 ‘r
approved wasteload allocation. 0t principal proposal Is to leave the
dociini mtjit1oe.which ° ‘ ‘ - - regulations at f 12346(a) unrhang d and
applicable water qualily ard ’ thereby not require ICS. for any newly
be mat not later than three Yuan after - listed facilities. EPA is also propoain
the individual control strategy Ii and soliciting public comment on.
established. Where a State Is unaWeta— other option.. -
issue a final permit on or before
February 4.1989. an individuaLcontrol
strategy may be a draft permit with an
attached schedule- indinnth .g that _____
the permitwill be issued on or before
February 4.1990.’ • .“ 40 CFR
123.46(c)..
ICS. as utberNPOES p nait .-
Therefore. all NPDES permits that m
the water quality-based permitting
requirements at § 122.44(d) ’wIR als-’-.
ultimately meet the-requirements of an
ICS. Thus. EPA may approve the.
existing permit as the ICS If the effluent
limitations for the pollutant(s) of -
concerwta the existing permitaiready
meet the requirements-of sectisa 304(1).
There are some distinct differences
between NPDES permits that conxain ’.
ICSs and NPDESr permits that do not..
First, the requirements for an
approvable ICSare narrowly focused on
achievlng watnr quality standards for
toxic pollutants. To eapproved by
EPA an ICSia wpiired caly to contain
llniltat1oae’foi CWA .e itlnn l07(a) toxic
pollutants where necessary to protect -
State water quality standards. in
contrast. ail-NPDES permits-are also
required to-contain. necessary,
limitations for individual section 307(a)
toxic pollutants. as well as on all other
pollutants oz pollutant parameters. -
-including whole effluent toxicity. where
necessary to protect State water quality
standards. Limitations for non-307(a)
pollutants, such as chlorine and
ammonia. and limitations for whole
effluent toxicity are additional wi itrols
designed to protect State numeric and
narrative-water quality criteria. these.
are not rerpz ized.be€OTe EPA may
approve an IC& Thea, the requirements
for water quality-based NPDES permits
are broader than the requirements that
apply to the ICS portion of an NPDES
permiL All permits that are issued in
compliance with the CWA will
ultimately be at least an protective of
water quality .stsaderd as. and macme
cases mere protective of water quality
standard. than. ICSa lssned’pursuant to
section.30t(1 ) .
Another difference pertains to the
timing of Issuance of and compliance
with NPDES permits. as compared to
ICS requirements In permits. NPDES
permits expire and are reissued every
five years. With a few, limited
exceptions. NPD permits are not
modified -within this five-year cycle.
Conversely. lCSs are intended to be
implemented on an accelerated basis,
I.e.. within the five-year permitting
cycle. Furthermore. in some
circumstances NPDES permits may’
allow a reasonable time; which can -
ndver exceed the five year permit term
for compliance with water quality-based
limitations. while ICSs must meqmre
compliuntt wIthin ee years from—
establishment of the lC
‘ICS* wei e.iabllahed beginning In
npproxI ately 9ebm ary 1989 and ,bould have been
C. The Ninth Circuit Decision and-
Today’s Final Amendment, -
A portion of EPA’s regulations
implementing section 304(l) Cfthe CWA -
was remanded in NRDC v. EPA. 915
F.2d 1314(9th Cin 1900). The Nlntfr
Circuit invalidated EPA’s Interptetation ’-
of section 304(l)(1)(CJ and reqáed EPA -
to amend its regulations at 40 CFR -
130.10(d)(3) to reflect the Court’, - -
interpretation that facilitie, discharging-
toxic pollutants into waters on the A -
lists (not just the B lists) should be
included on the C Lists. In response to-
the Ninth Circuit decision. elsewhere In
today’s Federal Regmter EPA Is
amending I 130.10(dK3) to require States-
to supplen tent their C lists to include
point sources discharging toxic
pollutants to waters on the A lists.
The Ninth Circuit also required EPA
to reconsider its interpretation of section
304(l)(1)(D) found at 40 CFR 123.46 (a) of
EPA regulations. EPA e original’
Int erpretation of section 304(1}(1)(DY
require. only facilities discharging to’-
waters on the B lists (every facility on
the original C list) must have ICSs.
When the Ninth Circuit Invalidated
EPA’s Interpretation of section
D. .Implejnentation of Water Quciitp.
based Permits and ICS&
1. Water Quallty-base&Pernift ’
: _.._ ickground -
This section provides background -
regarding some of the water quality - -
requirements that apply to NPDES
permits. and explains what distraguiehe.
permits that contain ICSs for other-
permits. All NPDES permits must
include water quality-based effluent —
linut”tioua where necessary to protect .
State water quality standards. CWA.r’
section 301(b)(1)(C). EPA regulatiouzat
40 CFR 122.44(d) define thi. requirement
and clarify how the permitting authority
shell determine when water quatity-.--
based effluent limitations are neceseery. -
All NPDES permits being Issued should
now reflect the requirements of
* 122.44(d). In general. § 122.44(d)
requires effluent limitations for
pollutants and pollutant par1unM ve that’
“are or may be discharged at a level
which will cause, have the reasonable
potential to cu ,iee. or contribute to an
excursion above any Slate water qualit
standard, including State narrative
criteria for water quality.” 40 CFR -
122.44(dJ(1)(i). The fundamental purpose
of an ICS is to “achieve the applicable-
water quality standard” for toxic
pollutants “as soon as possible thr h-
limitations Imposed in permits. 40 CP’R
123.46(a). The end point of attainment of
water quality standards is the same for
-------
Federal Aenjatea . VOL. 57 No 143 1 Prjd2y r July-24,. 1993 1’ PrOposed Rulee. . 33053 .
Wbet , and to what extent there - regulations become finaL l( s lesuedSn point ourcee discharging to the we’
wo iZd be an actual difference In the. 1892 or 1993 would require compliance.. wasnot required for such waters ii
ultimate compliance dates between the as soon as pouible but no later than,. 1989. Similarly, EPA reviewed each
normal NPDES permitting process and a 1995 or 1996 EPA does not b ve ... , State’, hats to ensure that, where a State
zmw râund of lCSs is unclear. EPA does Information regarding how many- had Information showing that a ‘water
not have precise data regarding either additional ICSs might be developed was not meeting water quality
how many additional permits need under the various options described (a standards entirely or substantially due
water quality-based permit limits or this proposal—thus EPA cannot make a to point sour-ce discharges of toxic
when such permits expire. EPA has dependable estimate of how long pollutants, the water was liBted on the B
made Increasing efforts over the last few development and establishment of the list, the responsible point sources were
years to ensure that permits contain additional ICSa would take. Given the Identified, and ICSa were prepared for
appropriate water quality-based above analysis, there may not be a them.
limitations. On March 9. 1984 EPA. significant time difference between EPA apd the States evaluated all
published a national “Pollcy foc ,the- . . requiring new ICS on the one bandand’ available data. Including both waler
DvelopmfWaterQnaflty-base& - relyingon the pormal parmfttlngproceu quafttyrelated data and discharge data
Permit Limitation, for ToxEc.PoIlutants!. on the other . - indetermining whether an ICS would be
(49 FR 9016) ‘This notice eonifrmed ? thIrd difference between NPDE requlred The public had an opportunity
EPA ’s policy of requiring that NPDES permits amid (CS relateslo EPA’e ability to participate l ii the ,liating decisions In
permit limitations assure compliance ’ te take over a State’, authority to feeua each State. EPA’ and States made every -
with all State water quality criteria for. ; a permit. Undercurrent reguiatlaisj EPA- effort to flat all point sources preventing
toxics. In 1985. EPA Published the cannot assume a State’s authority to- orimpalrthg the attainment of
‘l’echnlcal Support Document for WaIer Issue the permit on the basis of thee.. applicable water quality standards for
Quality-based Toxics Control.” EPA ’- State’s failure to Issue the permit toxic pollutants. if a particular point
440/4-85-032. September 1985. This “ However, where an ICS Is required. EPIc source was not included on a State’s
gwdance document provided specific may take over a Stale’s authority to’ final C list, EPA has Implicitly found
technical procedures to translate State Issue the permit based on the Stale’s- . through approval of the lists that an ICS
numenc and narrative water quality. failure to implement the 1CS - . was not needed. The bases for this
criteria for toxlce Into NPDES permit requirements consistent with thai .‘ - finding were that the data do not show
numerical effluent limitation,. Following requirements of section 304(11. 4OCFR - that the water quality standard is not
this policy and guidance. EPA and- 123.48(1). . . ‘ ‘ expected to be attained for toxic
States began to issue more permits
which Included effluent limitations for 2. The Listing Process cnduttedfrâm” pollutants or that the date-do not show
Igog-isgo ,,. - . -.. that attainment (or substantial progresP
toxics designed to meet Stale water’ . . . . toward attainment) can be achieved
- quality criteria. EPA. Me cantiiiued tar- -. EPA considers din listing praceas.that ’ . from ftirther controlling point sources..
expandand emphasize the water -• Statesand EPA have-akeadycomp(ited - toxic poliutanti equIrlzig ICSs for such -
quality-based permit program to aune- under section 304(1 to be edi il polnt.sourcee will require permitting
-that permits include all necessary- - Under section 3044 1).-the Staie.’were; -. - authorities to divert fixed resources to -
- limitationa In Febniai’y. 1987, EPA began. requiretto submit to EPA.three Hate of;’ Immediately evaluate the need for such -
Implementing the.far-reaching programs waters and a list of facilltI s tor EPA .. . pointiource controls. If the extensive
of the-Water Quality Act of 198?. In- review and approval. EPA was re qu redr; listing p ocesra1ready conducted is
response to one of the new.progrums to make approval or disapproval;. - credible, then this use of resources
created by the 1987 Amendments, EPA decision. on the lists. The listing process. would be unwise and unnecessary in
pimnulgated final regulations err June 2. was based on all available Information, meeting the’ statutory goals and
1989 which strengthened EPA’s Surfece EPA and the States spent considerable requirements..
Water Tonics Control Program under - time and effort to cast a broad net in the , information About Supplemented
NPD ( 4 FR23888 ) ,lnMarchofl9Th- llatlngprocess toenaurethatallwaters -
after over five years of experience i for which there was sufficient -
Implementing the surface water tuxica- supporting Information were listed. In ‘The Ninth Circuit decision requires
control program. EPA published the addition there was an opportunity for that in addition to the facilities that the
revised ‘l ’echnicál Support Documem* - the public to comment on every SIatá States have already Identified pursuant
- for- Water Quality-based Tox1cs. - list (the comment process was h eM to section 304(l)(1J(C1. a point source
ControL” EPA f5os/z .-eO-tJo1. PB9I— either by the State or by EPA. or in some must be listed If, as stated In 40 G’R
1 415. March i9 -- care. by both . Because of th . extensive 13o.2Old)(3) it I. discharging a toxic
All NPDES permits shouid.hava been . process the States and EP& went. - . . pollutant “believed to be preventing or
terewed since EPA issued the 19M. - through to develop the lists of water.’ -. Impairing” waterqualtty for each
National Policy, and, by 1994. .11 permit&. and . facilities. EPA has confidence in the -segment ofwateroa all lists (not just the
iUaed before the.1B89 regulations.. - - -quality of the Lists. . - - ‘-. - - B IIat1. .UnderEPA’s original
should have been renewed. Because.- - ‘ In prepnratioi for developing the ‘—‘ - ‘ interpretatIon-of sectIon 304(1), State
most permits contain complIance - 304 (I) lists required by February 4. 1989.- facilitIes lists were tied directly to
Ichedule . of three years or fewen - EPA advised the Sthtes that where a - waters not meeting applicable water
PRS C . would likely be requu’ed.no State had information showing that the quality standards, due entirely or
later than 1997 for permits issued as late fishable swimmable goals of the CWA substantially to the point source
• 1 $19k If EPA requires new (CS., the were not being met in a water, but discharge of toxic pollutants (the B list).
ICSS will be developed as soon as i992. - lacked Information showing that ucl The Ninth Circuit ha. broadened this
1l Pendlng on when today’s proposed impairment was entirely or substantially- link between listedwaters and facilities.
—....._.... due to the point source discharge of States must now list. facilities
w fw e. ( ItbO J cs toxic pollutants. the State should list discharging section 307 (a) toxIc
S!1I*Ie*teahedby Ihe ,i . that water on the A list. The lden*it of pollutants to waters where some uses
-------
33O5
Federal Register / VoL 57. ! o. 143 Friday, July 24, 1992 1 Proposed Rules -
IILOptinaI
The Ninth arcuit recpured EPA to
reconsider its interpretation of CWA
section 304{lJ(1)(D). EPA has considered
threeprincipal options in deciding
whether to require additional ICS ..
A. S1otutoyBocA rwr -,-
EPA ’s starting point Edt today’s
proposal Is the Language and purpose of
the statute. U the statute provides an
unambiguous reqwrexncnt regnrding
which waters need ICSa . EPA is bound
to implement that requirement If. on the
other hand, the s’ ” ” La amhigiwus.
EPA may choose a rational
nterpretatioe of the statute in view of
Itapurposa. Section 3O4(1) i)(D) provides
for “each suth.segmenL ” an individual.
control strategy which the State
determines will produces reduction in
the di d sirgs of toxic pollutants from
point sources idpniifLad by the Stala
under this para aph through the
establishment of 0 ffl n4 1ima Lcjin .
under , ec qn . 402 of thin Act and water
quality atandatds under secti
3031c)f2)fB) of this Act, which reduction
Is sufficient. In OonthinAhnflwilh .
e oa Wig cantrvia on paint arid iwnpoint
sources of poflirtion. to achieve the
applicable ws quality standard as
soon es possible, butnot later than 3
years after the date of the establishment
of suchalratngpv. When this provision is
eadaaawliuleath ignoue.The
referet to “each such segment” could
mean sev _thlngs.. First. “each
such ee it” ceuldrefer broadly to all
seg inantaHl.ntifiul In section 304 l).
meaningthat each and evrsy segment
identified oaany of the-lists muatha e
an ICS. Se d. ?each such segment ’
amid refer specifically to the segments
affected by paragraph C. implying that
each segment identified as receiving
discharges of section 3(Pta) pollutants
from point sources must have an ICS .
Thinl.lhe provision could require ICS.-
for water segments for which an ICS -
will producs a reducton in the
discharge of toxic pollutants sufficient
to achieve-the applicable water quality
atandard Last It could mean that the
States and/or EPA are to ox n rnP
listed segments of ter to determine
whether an is needed to improve
water quality. This Last approach could
be accomplished on a case-b .case
basis, or if data am available, groups of
water segments csnid be indudied in or
excluded from. the ICS requued ienL
The Legiulativa history does not
illuminate the precise meaning of this
provision. Clearly, Congress intended
the section 304 (1 ) program to be
narrowly focused on -the “toxic hot
spots? rather than to be broadly applied
to all waters. See-, fer arnple. 133
Cong Rae. S17 -45, 24 daily ed. Jan. 0
1987). statement of Senator Moynihan.
The only discussion in the Conference
Report indicates that the C list would
consist of diachargeen to the B list
‘ipaired due to any type of source dlsthargera are likely to again challenge
.iding nonpoint sources) of such their permits when they come up for
toxic pollutants whether the water reissuance to include additional water
quality standard will or will not be quality-based limits (e.g.. hinit8 for
achieved, whole effluent toxicity or WET). Thus, a
EPA does not at this time have likely result of requiring additional ICS.
information from the States about the• is an increase In evidantlary hearing
number of point sources that Will be requests. This too is a significant drain
added to State C lists as a result of on limited State- and EPA. resources.
Ninth Circuit decision end EPA’s of resources has
amendment to I 130.1O(d )(3) resulted In. an Increased number of
implementing that decision. Nor does- expired permits that have not bean
EPA have Information regarding-.
whether those discharges will be to. rpe m’t backlizs”l. EPA..
watert w annuaUy tracks the number of expired
standards are t,eing achieved -er . permits which EPA Regions and- -
the point source contribution is. - - authorkzod States have bean unable ta
mimmali 5 EPA does not anticipate- reissue. The umnber of backlogged.
obtaining such Information until the - perm In the States has Increased from
Stales-submit It to EPA In 1992.. Thus. . 12% In 1988 to2Z% in 1990. ThIs perio&
EPA does not know what the quantity or of Uioa corresponds to the period during
importance of the newly added poinfr which the States Warn developing ICSs.
sources will be. The result of thi. increased backlog I,
This uncertainty raises the qeestion of that some permits needing new effluent .
whether there will be sufficient limitations-to protect water quality are
environmental benefit from requiring ‘not being Issued, EPA’s tnformati
LCSe for newly listed print .ourena given, based on a sample of two regions,.
that the next permits issued.to each’-. shows. that approximately 35%of
point sources are-required to he as facilities that discharge wastewater
protective as ICSs. and that ICS ‘ exhibit WET at levels which have the.
development can be - aigrifirantly mane’ - re’ ”’ potential to cause an
-esource intensive th.a .thereby - excursion above a water quality
elay, other permit Issuance under lb. . criterion. EPA does not believe that
normal five-year cycle. EPA’s : - 307th) toxic pollutants are the sole cause
experience from the first round of ICS - of WET in addition. section 304(1) of the
issuance was that a large penuit. CWA doee not require ICSe to - -
workload was created. There were two - speciflcall limit WET. Therefora
principal reasons. First, the normal fi ’ diversion of resources away from’
year cycle was Intomipted and normal permit reissuance, during which
unexpired permits were reopened that a limit for other than a 307(e) pollutant
would have otherwise not been
reopened imni the permit - could be Imposed. will allow some
Second. a larger number of p __ facflifles to continue to Impair wales
to be issued in a short period of time, quality.
This caused available resources to l By adhering to the five-year permitting
directed toward addressing the peak r cycle instead of requiring new ICSs.
workload and 4iarupted other State and. EPA believes that point source controls
regional permitting activities. Furth protective of water quality statidarda-
ICS. azii their requiremeab’ will be established where necessary in.
have been challenged in evidantiary the near-term. and thaL EPA will at tha
hearings much more frequently than same U e avoid unnecessarily diveseing’
other NPDES permits. EPA believea.that fizedEPA and State resources away.
dischargers have challenged them from activities that n y provide n .d I -
permits containing ICS conditions- moru environmental protection. Based on.
irequently than the norm in part these factors. EPA believes that it may---
because, as a result of ICS requirements. be more environmentally beneficial ta
they are seeing water quality-based adhere to the normal five-year
limits in their permits for the first time. permitting cycle when establishing
EPA believes that many of the same water quality-based effluent limitations
_________ to protect applicable water quality
‘The reletiw, cenethotlm of tin potet 5tiMUIJIWIS .
only reieveiit in tin qu .aon of win± th,-
dn ek,paenLo( nsw InsIWtan . stonld in
priority. not whether there should be Unittittea at
alt. EPA r, ulaUons at 40 CPR Im.44 d) reqons
NPOES limitations br eM dl.dtur era wbe,.
necestary to protr spiiicable water quality
tiendards. Them aegiM in sot
‘minimal’ contributions from conicbueons ta
gatermaqultuda.-
-------
e 5 ;i r / Vol. r No. i J L i 2 f e 6’ -
wat s aid I( s wno d be rnd fes
ewth -dheher no the C list Becauan i
the eese of that die. ’vino (i.e,. tbet
theC list wueldeon .fof the
dlschar e,s te the a list) has afr..dy-
been rejected by the Ninth Circui&
does not bakeis that the Conferenoe
Report alone Is determlnath,e. SisU1ar1y
section 304{l) did pot codify either the
House of Representatives or the Senate
version of the pravi cn. The House
provision wou’d have requlied a for-
thefilist while thaSeriate
pro iaion would have-required an ICS .
type wutwi mechanism foe at least,
some of the wat on-the A(1) at
Neither the IL imr the S nate
pefonwenid hew requited speclel
limitatlono fórwntem o a list
equivalent to (be Api) Hot
As howa ehe , the language otthe
statute and the tegielati hietoiy do not
— dear guidance fe ono distinct
in on Thvefnoe. EPA wiltake-
in aix mt the poepo s of aectino
304(1J aid the Cean Water-Act
gen nlIy 1. de(u.w t ..r the scepe of the
No Mdittoswll a -
EPA La prepcemg wider this op asr
that new ICSs aiM be developed foe
facilities I d 4 A r
_____ ad oa the coachelour
that (1) the .te*uta-doesao1roqui.r. w
S aad(2 thap the stetats,
pdI iiar the enimemnot -that ailer
quatity Mareisith bernet. lI he served
without new 5CS&. - - ‘- -
BypropeUi thp oa PAla
adhPiine to its nriglnol view that L .
should be required for these wate : - -
when the solution hieshea with th
problem. hpartienler the ,vIutle
of pelt eetu wulwls fur to
• po utants fits prob4e of the w tc
• onthe9 t7hosewuteg5htg l iJeB - -
wnt i that are enftrelyer eahemrtiafl
aes nm6ated by poist i ce -.
dLsdi 15 5 oftocpo&The8 j
adesnwlde,pethmsefwatsre
me wat sigu cno -
,u!ut1noemd me -
wtm with aigu icsat de ’ade1+no froie
orpotk tta. Whet i AuzuOI to
water, t that pelat of- --
tedc pollutants are a significant
uhIetL A iw siihig2hut
Sbeie1 1 d
thSCllatwMch - --t wa on
the B list.

IC11It 5 mt jheMnth
1o A and Sts10
‘ ‘ino’ . sad ip Icsliy -
t tLte cfiJ 5 4 i
stwnnthcj th.ti tc
• palIut ite fur wLiuL1b facility wus’ -. oppsati &fty 10 tnkeavar per mit-t n
front the State for newC list facøittes
to where the Stoti falls t act on those--
eppI wa quajlty ‘- . -- . • p Iti.EPks notheelty to object toe
Therofme ib. nerrp ut4 henedtOlhef - State permit airdasiurne watherity to
facility by .ã.Ilan. be at t Lamar each a perm would be u anged
as protective naai ICS would. under this opti
As desarbed abevo. here me cedul
charactmiathe af an i me There is a significant advantage to
wider . this option. ft wenid take advantage of-
issuanoe of a permit the- significant wock aheadyrornp ated
bO f t t x.. repeating oat the waters that urgently
____ j ij need paint-veuree vontrals or torte-
that this time nsbg P .a a L PO$1U1UUIII Instead oftequinrig the-
As discumedi mnac Statee and EPA to s t over In-that-
evaluatlon.!ecause EPA believes that
not be h iporetoIthIo feel N S -. moat of the Impaired waters for which
puiiuits s U9g fallewiag. , - ‘- facilltlaswifl be identified on the
promtdMaofsfandrelem ,. expandedCllsts are dominated by
State nsbndttals of new ihe lCSs m nonpoznt sowees of toxica. or are
t9 , ami caurpleticeoftbe A tate already mee g water quality n an’ rde
revlesw and pu*a1ic. - .m .ent pmiod. for tamgz. this option is likely to provide -
contrast. NPL Siiettelts ‘ ‘ a level of novironmental protecbon
on or before similar to what would l achieved
effluent limitatIo e nery at ,tisne. mua. thin option
wa quality ataizhe he osderte - - 5110W ç rmitt1ng authorities to
comply with the j ae Z 1989, regulation.
at 4O( 144(d)(1) . Meat atitherlnoi penuita.that aclueve State water quality
States elveld have bemi i6ai 5 pelmiti atancheds—iemany ws for higher
to camply with the wiementa 0*40
d t1Jby Ju no 1890 b.i- o i. , OatTwo2Bm where. for example,
• imder4O CFR 3 fi f ) noncoaventlonal pollutants are the
have up to one r to -adoptvegelations probl - -
to reflect pr miilg.tl1ou hiewfader J - - Th 5 OPtluu would r quir no change
regulations. States ave-i te t - to 4O 123. u)-as amended today
years If State law must bframnodgd . — - by e nalatt1on-desrribed above. The
howaver EPA bell ves that mn.( St a- re datfen* at I 123 eata) would
did not need dt ng to State law to- • maintain their adginat meaning ICSs
Implement the requirem nt2 o14O are required for-each point source
,22.44 dX1). Be f OESpRraMa . . ... 1den ed pursuant to section
cannot extendfo, rno tho i &wye 3O4 l)f1) which disckaxgei to a water
O 5* Gitlil 1IWD p aiedf Identified Inp iI t4a sectom
Water q H’y-baaa4 efllueaLUm fas 3o4VJ{l LB4. --- - -
toxins Will have base I PJ5R1P l) 19M• EPAoeM c ”et a
Furthwmome, In most Sta1 water” - -
quality standards or lmpleiflenflngs.- —
reguladoga that expressly auoriner - - would be
compliance schedules allow up to thme mew me ether options
years as a reasonable compliazica .— ‘
schedaale three yea Iratso th . ° the- -
maximum lime allowed by aectfofl.- . - auempthest an which this ttoii Is
3o4n ) 1)m) for thrnplianc. wttk the - - beedi sensp(Ieno hedede that
requirements of an ICS. Therefore, the- - the aa eui s 4iotfrtg pr erwas
tfmefrrnne for compliance wlth the • 9O4 l} -
rvqthemnents of any new-ICSs would o c r lmplementetfoehuId ut 1 fled the great
be slgrdflcautty diffeseni from thet msjorfty f’wstem-and facilitIes in need
compllenno thn’rframe for flnal petmits of ?CSb to adthvs. point source-misted
that w eld normally be levuedendor th toxtc hotapute ’ that waler quality.
five-yew cycle of exphatlcu elT ‘ based permits lamed In the nomial
ieurtce. permitting cycle will be at least as
A accusal c true o4 an S protect iveof water quality as ICSs that
Is lost under tIne optioo releteoto EPA’, some permits-moat in need of new water
anthanty to take over and lesee State- - fl 1t- fm non. )7(a
p riult. . C rvontty. EPA ’ S aethontyte toale “wiU eat be timely
take e’ver ft Issuance irma the ate- reissued as-a\tasult at an expanded
(4o 1 .4e(fl) does not apply to sO e
NPDES purserto—only ICS.. Therefore,
under this optios where no new (CS. -- 1 5 h1yi o..ece interuh.e.
w eId be required. EPA would forge the
-------
33056 - FedórI Registr VoLSI.Nb. 143 [ PñdayJuly 24. . 199 ( ?Prcpoeed’Rule ’
Same New JCSÔ at the Diwet on of actIona State determinations of - opliloflth edwfll’dlieàd have the
ie Suite. - -. facilities need ICS Statesebmlttolof waters Identified-but will need to decide
EPA Is proposing analterr atlve DOW ICSa to EPA. EPA review of Slate- -whlth’addfttoflal facilities need ICS.
option described In ffi.L above Vnder. lCSs public review of draft permits - and then to develop ICS. EPA believes
this second optlon each State would “ ‘v ICS and EPA public that one year provides a reasonable--
have the discretIon to determine, .. notice Of Its final approval/disapproval thne to-complete theta activities given.
case-by-case basis, whether ICSs should decisions. In proposing an that the number of new ICSs Is presently
be established for newly listed facilities, administrative process. EPA-Is undeterminablei - -
The resulting State determinations. attemptIng to consolidate actions
would be reviewable by EPA and would wherever possible anci maice tie process —Within four months of the State -.
be made available for-public comment.. of Implementing this option clear and submittal of each lCS the Regional
An ICS would not be requiredior a . ‘° ‘ Thus;whe u ble, : - Mmielstrator shalli (a) Approve any
listed facility where ththe ud mvutq f. P °P° relyins on the normal.. ICS EPA beU?ves Is adequate-lfthe
the Stats. aftar.EPA rev evs and. .. .f im anoe process fur pubJin Provided pub)lc
otimity 3bn fl$l 5 -reriew ofJCSs. p sir this - .-- : rt1cJ pat1oz and it ib èglon l
comment. anJCS Is i ot -. 5tiVs.p!oces$, EP waesain - Ad a I4t i atC iIeterin ln9 t that -
EPA realizes that the liti oqeu - obj e are to estabhah lCS&quIckly I a o p comment Isirot
under section 3q4(1)LIL(B) where they arm necisaar .an4 oensw*’ d 5th blt ’ r ’efttD appwve an
that ICS determinations , zandsi,. - .. . lC EPA be11e31 &ade iimte and. -
not have Identified au waters o d,
facilities where additional ICSe wouI iNtal3i EPA solicits public co thmit’ eIther thsStatn hnkn *pro!lde&
be warranted. EPA will rely, I p . on-whetherthe proposeeatimim trative. adequate-public paz t1dpalion or the
the Information submitted by the 9T0 will be effiClcflt and accurate. Re Admh IRfratOT determines
In their-new C Beta to make the al partacolar EPA solicita cominentom that adUIti naI public comment Is -
deterzn lnationofwbetherto require - - . whe public review of .ICS .. - deub l e 1c)pupOeetothsapprove
more ICSa. If the new State liste - miflátlOl &t* ‘ Y• - any ICS EPA believes IsInadeqnate. .
Identify a significant number of . - The proposed process Is as follows;. and (d) propose to disapprove any
on waters exceeding water qn lity..:.. - —Each Stats shall deter mIne. ’basêdo . . - Implicit determination not to submit -
standards br toxic pollutants; _:iI he following ritexIe. w hlch facilitfet— an ICS for-a facility If EPA believes,
be more.lIkely to selecUhia second - on the section ot(l )jl)(C) 3Is ‘ based on the criteria In paragraph (I),
option and thereby reqwzeat tea t - - discharge to waters not en tk lu an ICS Is needed. An [ CS Is adequate
new ICS.. - ,- - . - re 4 u d by section 304(14(iJ(B} sb i1d J if It conforms to the- definition of ics
At present. EPA’s preferred way of- • -‘ be required to have ICSs - -: - . , - it 40 CFR 123A8(c) contains
.ructuring such a , requirement- would be- (a) ther’appllc ble-water ãjielity ” limjtationa fo the relevant toxic -
(0 require the State to evaluate li pe 4y standards for toxic poItui$f fàribe poUuraot 4-4 Fequlred In 1 .44(d
listed poit &thei receiylng listed recelvln water e correntI - an4 8 date-fo, compllanér
watersiodcneUdevel in e beingmel —- - - . •‘ -.
ICS would be war ited E ’li : - ) Whet en iet dIn -’ • là adthreeyeamfrom thrdated
proposing at 12348(a)(I). underihis - Causes. has th afonable - eItabllsbn1en ’of the ICS. EPA shall 4
option. a set of criteria that the States’ - - potential to caâse, orcontributes’to j - make Its proposed decisions regarding
would use to decide whether to submit exceedance of applicable water qi lity approval/dIsapproval of State ICS.
an ICS for a particular facilityand standards for toxic pollutants; and available for public comment for a
which the Regional Administrators . (c) Whether a decrease In discharge - PeriOd Of 60 days. - -
would base their reviews of tb - from all listed point sources of the toxic- EPA belipves that four months is a -
decisions. The proposed criteria’ pollutants of concern to the listed water reasonable time for EPA to review the . ,
fundamentally based on the section - - would significantly improve water - - submitted [ CS. and decide whether ta
304(1) requirement to establish ICS that q ia1ity - - approve or disapprove them. The four
will reduce-the point source discharge-of —Each State shall submit to EPA. by — months- la the same amount of Urns that
toxic pollutants, and EPA ’S regeIations September 22. 1993, the ICS. for each:’ Congress allowed for review of the ICS
at 40 CFR 122.44(d) which require that— — facility the State has determined. hIth were submitteclon or before-
permits contain water quality-based,. - should be required to have anIC ’ ‘ ‘ February , 1989 EPA believes that thrna
effluent limitations wherever iy Where a State ii authorlze&to.. - same-amount of time Is needed becau
to protect water quality standards. m administer the NPD Prograni. that ‘ EPA may be reviewing a large number II
basis for these determinations would . State should make draft permits that - ICS* during any four months peiiod
include the following whethei , areICS availableforpu Bc comment
applicable water quality standards fo ’ , - - prior to submitting the ICSs to EPA- - rev1ew. qould becprnPl&ed’Ifl’8 -
toxic pollutants for the lis ted recelvlng. & ptember 22.1993. Ia one ypai from tithe. -
water are currently being. met whether the date EPA Is recommending thai-” EPA also believes that a 60-day
the newly listed point source causes, - States submit their revisedjiste of - comment ei4ctdIa sufficientto prcvI
has the reasonable potential to cause, or faciliftee under section 304(l)(1)(C). EPA for full p blic participation in the revI
contributes to a exceedance of believes that one year is necessary to of ICSs and EPA’s proposed decsl ,
applicable water quality standards for allow the States sufficient time to - - regarding ICS .. In the first roufl
toxic pollutants; and. whether a - ,. develop well-documented ICS.. For the - ICSs. the statute allowed for a
decrease in discharge from all listed - first set of ICSs submitted on or before?”' publfc comment period for review
oint sources of the toxic pollütantsof - - February 4, i989 the States had two - l$sting dethioñs on waters u weI
.oncern to the listed water would years to Identify which waters needed 1 review ofiCSs. In the action Pro
significantly Improve water quality. listing, to identify which faniuities - under thIs’ option, the public will lrea
Under this option. EPA Is proposing a needed ICSà and then to develop the -- know whi ch waters were listed based
process and deadlines-for the followln* ICSa. In the action proposed under this-. - on the Fèbr iary 4, 1989. submitta11 5
-------
Fed % 1 erL 57 ‘ Nø 143 fi Pridayt Jufr-2L 1Q Z f Prep ed R
• quelI yheeed limitations for toxic This propeaed en it is
pofluteni. era reqt ed under t, ensure that ICSs erdi be es*nbhabea o*
1fl .44 d nd wb the ICS.ls e cted soon anpsseible whtteta ag ar— ” of
• to result In improved water alit - the length o1 sieded t dm’dw
Umitlng the1C ce ihn eM to onip - comply per .. .
some tflachargem Is approprisle bee EPA solicits comments on this optlen
ics. te limitOtI ‘to C0I’ OU4Zt$ Paint lndnding whether ft should be ftnali d.
90U100 5 of tOXIC pOHUt td IC 0 whet different critevo rrnght be
the eOrMrfled may not. be ap ro ,rtate for date mining when lC e
impatred by either. This option. are what proceraie
coraplatas that’the may be soms appropri ate for-implementing thts
newly listed aclldiea whose thechergea option, and what deadIiu shoeM
have tbereasoisalds potential onuse .
or contrthage to e , .Loae of the -.
applicable water quality i*i.. ’d-cdi - - 0. ICSS forMi/Vewty Li .c d Point
though the w’ateos are net dtbe . S QUf *
This option wuuldzequire ICS; for all
newly listed facilities. The obvfons
result of this option would be that
acelerntsd review of the need for new
waterquah!y-based controls. In the form
of ICSe. would be required for all point
so wces on the C hat. In the discussions
• above. EPA has already identified at
least two categories of waters for which
LCSs would not accomplish the statutory
goal of attaining water qialdy
• standardn watera that are already
expe ed to achieve applicable
standards and wateis with minimal
point osron amtrthutZons. Yet, under
this o$oa. fixed EPA and State
reso ves would be expended on
______ e t b hU U o even is cases where
_____ thsiofo(ien .aws dat there will be
littleoraoosviroameot al benefit from
an ICS . this resukof this expenditure of
reseeroos. EPA hen earned. may be that
the pennabs 1.q (pemvte that have
expiend and eat yet been reissued)
wauldinaesee.PrtherUiere. as noted
abase. A hsevesy little mformaboa at
thin tfmesbeaHheenmber of facilities
that Stal wtlI add to theitC lists as a
result of the Ninth Ciscint decision. if a
sma ssi ef lacdItier is added, the
resouwa in ether parts of
the w qse1ity pso!raine( this option
wouMhemim J UsreVer. ifs large
numbeaoffa in added and if
those fac se. . .d e aiarge
prp tioU of facilities
d ” n ss wal nts of toxic
polkoc s..a n onnt expendrtere
could be req sed tedevelcrp ICS.
withouta osacmrzrtant eavlro*imeiutal
benefit. The esaeutla4 point is that the
listing a i dse (listing of point
sources discharging toxin pothitants to
the A hat wsters4 may i in many cases
pravide the lijumiatkm necessary to
show that ICSswmdd result in improved
wa qeality fur e given facthty yet.
under this ptis* . an ICS would always
be required for a listed facility.
regardlem of whether available
informaliesi shows that an ICS wauld be
environmentally beneficial. It is
will onlyneedteierlewthe ICSrnnd
any proposed decisiona r 5 dIng _____
approval or dlaa v,ca4 of 1CSe. ICS,
are in content equal leMPOES perailsi- ____
EPA normally allow, for a30.day
comment period fer pablic review of
J 1PDES permits. Therefore. EPA believe.
that 60 daye is sufficient for full public
• review of the new IC s a ul proposed
decisions regardingiCSs.
The proposed regulations under this
option would not require EPA to take
public camuientvn those ICSsibat the
Regional Adrutntatroter dp PWV and - _____
determines that the State pruvidad
adequate pubflcparticlpaliou. EPA —
ge g ionaIO cen may thoo.etopuU ldy
notice seth final davh sus at the mane substantially to the p soume • -
time theyrç tpnMscw w nlair di’ ’th u of thxICpullntan .
• proposed a ,val/dlsuj4tuval • Under this apftoa. the State wouIid
decisions. have to ad whether the .ontnbuliec.
Within four months after theulose of - of toxic poflutants hose s
the .day public ment perled en discharger is either aigsiflcint r -
EPAs proposed ep owa4Fdiseppw’i’ -- minimal. The question of wheshrelbe- -
of State ‘tCSs EPA shall enisaider all recthvisg water is impaired entirely or
public. .__ - make linel ubstas ally due to the point seu
approvalldleepprevel decis ons’ discharge of teals poUutarsLs , hewover,
iucluding decisions en whether has already been answered. If the Slate
additional ICS. ehoelibe reqiiimd: EPA and EPA did not list the water -os the B
shall publicly notice there final - list. then they have fouodthatth. .
decisions. At any point where EPA - principal e of im airssaat of the-
publicly eo a 1 isaIâf ’a Stats water, based on avadable isfoonstios..
ICS. the A lniirti Ii.- Is . is jie the point neuron 4iacb.r e’of toxic
with veth Stats walof itati - - pollutants. •
oppo*a*!T ferpub i - ----ast thall . - A si i&ant drawback of this option-
- is that Staias would have to imder l e
304 (1 ) In neck St e’w. : - large nambers c i evaluatiou that could
Follow the da is dthe&sepçxo ’vak. be essentially redundant hi deciding
EPA believes that four ma isa whether ICS . are warranted.- the States.
reasonable time forEPA to review any and EPA (in reviewing State deci.ien*)
conirnents submitted by the public nod might be essentially revisiting the.
make final approwal/disappiaiial - - determinations that were-already made
decisions. The four is the aa - - when the S lists were decpeIThls
time EPA allowed far t aiinui Los. could be trio even though the • -
the first setci 1C whisk were..... - terminology conuielling- the decisions
subintitad osar baLer. Ieb”uary 449 - would be soiaewbut different —In r a1it
A bdhmves that the a.wna .aaswint ak available water quality information In
time Is needed because.asny of these.. • not usually precise enough to make finn
decisions could be cemplitand.aL - distinctions, and the State and EPA -
il dicaat interest-ta the public. EPA... • must rely In part on their ecmtmulated
believes t Luw’aoathaia the ahertes - expertise to make reasonable decisions.
teanbis tim. to adequ.1al evahiats. Thus. this option could Impose a
____on such decisions. • repetitive declairm making harden
The Chief bami .fil af his option is that without a corresponding envtmnmeszl*
it would support tha development of - benefit
l . where they ama . ry. La..,, EPA is also pruputingan additional ‘
where the State and EPA make the regulatwy ameridmentunder tide optlmr
ludgineni that water quality- to amend the defmeiton of indisldeul
inprovement will result At the same Control Strategy u i 50 CFR 1Z3.46(C)
tbitoptbrn would enable the States The existing reguletorj d finutlon of ICS
iiid EPA to forgo developing an 1CS is not deer on the conditions wider -
‘hete the ICS would not require new which 8 draft pmmit can be an ItS. EPft
or where the environmental intends to continue to approve theft
“ eiit would, on balance, be - permits an lCSs tinder this option and Ia,
• therefore, proposing to athend the
would eat reqene that definition of ICS to clarify that ICSs cs
—..be developed for all facilities be dmft permits where the final permit
to StaleC lists instead. lCSs will be issued within one year after the
be limited to where water State submits the draft permit to EPA.
-------
33O58 v . Fedm R f:VoLJ7,No 14L-j rIday july 24, io a / 4’roposeè Rules
questionable wbether ehoel ’:., determination, oul L be subject to EP& ,tberefore not today proposing any,
autorna*lc.ll)I be required for newly and public review. An l would no be. rag atorylanguage that would
listed fádilIties particularly, In light of required for a listed facility where in. the. Implement this third option.
the virtual absence of Information judgment of the State. and altar A
concerning the likely contents of the. and public review, an 1 V. Regulatory Aflslyslr
new Cilats. - - warranted. EPA Is. today. proposing A. Order i i
This option .would require an under the second option, a set of criteris
amendment to 40 R 123.464a) au on which the States would base their Under section 3(b) of Executive Order
amended elsewhere In this Federal ‘ ICS determination, and on which EP A , 12 1 the Agency must judge whether a
Register, to establish the requirement for. would base It. reviews of State ics - regulation Is major and thus subject to
new ICSs and the administrative determInations. The proposed regulation the requirements of a Regulatory Impact
process and schedule for developing. - would be an addition to 40 CPR Analysis. Today’s proposal will not
reviewing, and Impleme nting thenew 123.46(a),às set out In the p p d - reeult.In any additional regulatory
ICS .. The adminIstrath e procesa.under- regulations below. Today’s proposed ., requirements. Today’s proposal.
this optloiu#ould be simile to the S- regulatory language at f 0 therefore, In not major, It will not result,
procçu pruptised undet the aeauaE this second optlon only. No regulatory. ln aneflecl on thIe economy of $1O0
option above except that IC s thuldbe. laz guag is either n essaryor million o It will not .re.uft In
subméd’oEP sidaj provedor -- •7 -• asedcoatrorpr lcesftwt lrnot
diiapprovedl PA for EPA baijeve. at ü have elgutilc it adverse effects on.
listed point SOUT X th - the Agency ‘option may both. beetcours. •‘ .COE3peftUOfl emplo !nent. Investment.
solicits comment on all spects of th1s : of actidn. In proposing this option EPA. productivity. and Innóvatlon and It will
option and, sPe flY, on the ‘ Is poitulating that the original Bileta’ -. not .lgnlfltantly disrupt domestic or
advisability of fiflalizing thu OI)tIOfl fld ‘Identified the vast majority of waters for kats Therefore, the Agency
on what changes to existing procedural which - has not prepared a-Regulatory Impact
regulations would be necessary to ‘ environmental benefit. The lir,t option - Analysis under the Executive Order.
lmplemeñL this option.:’ - - ‘ - - would avoid the resouros-lntenslve and submitted thlrpzoposal.to the
IV. Todays ProposaL- -. ‘ inherently redundant process of -. Office of Management and Budget
Today. EPA Is ’prcpoeing two option., developing limits on toxic pollutant( ,, , (0MB) for review ae required by
First. EPA Is proposing’ to not amend - seperatS from other permit limits. EPA’ ‘ 1V 5OTdO1 1229t
* 123.48(a). ThIs proposal Is described In also believes that the benefits of the first- ezwoth Rethrction
detail as the first c mn “option outweigh the possibility that.,,’
Under thWoption, the regulations at some newly bsted point sources that’ are The Office of Management and Budget
123.48(a) woWd m lntain In need of high.prlorlty attention wlll’not’ -(0MB) ha.. approved (he Information
meanngasátabbshedonJune2 ,-198 , ‘ receive new water quality.based - ‘C -coilectionreqnlrementecontalnedlnthls ,.
ICSe are q jy controls immediately, but rather *1ll - ‘ proposed nIe under the provisions oL
on the C list that discharge. to-a watei -. re etve water quallty.based e üênt - - The Pa work Reduction Act. 44 U.&C.
on the B list. Even though.no 1CSs would’. ‘li niltallops at the time of the next p rmit ,. ’3S01 etseq and ba assIgned 0MB
be required for the point sources edded -. ‘ ‘ ° - . - control-numbers 2040-00572040-0068. -
toStateClistsaearesultof ’theNlnth lfafterrevlewingthereviiedStateC’ : i -
Circuit decision, the next permit Issued;. lists and the public comments on today’s
to the facility pursuant to EPA and state-i proposal. EPA determines that , C Rotorylle.zibiJiiyAct
NPDES reguiations-ani, sp caUy -: original B lists did not Identify a -“ Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
c 122.44(d). must contain -substantial portion of waters for which of 1980 (5U.S.C. 601 c i seq.), Federal
limitations protective of applicable IC would provide significant agencies must, when developing
standards for all polhatants where- environmental benefit. EPA will be more regulations. analyze their Impact on-
necessary, Including each (if t e t tic ’ likely to consider finalizing the second, small entities (small bumlnessee. small -
pollutants br which the facility was- , -j - oralternative option, described-In m.c., government furledlctlons. and small
listed. Such permits would also need ta’: above, , organizations). This analysis Is
meet all other r ent of 4OCFK EPA Ii today soliciting commenti : - unneessary, however, where the
122.44(d). Therefore, the next permit’-..- from the public on all aspects of this - agency’s athnlnfstrator certifies that the
issued to the facility would, by. — proposal. EPA will carefully consider all- ‘rule will not have a significant economic
regulation, be at least as protective ae,. public comments on this proposal b.fore effect on a substantial number of small-
an ICS would. Under hi, first option nor making a final decision. EPA 8189 - : . entltle.. The ’Agency has concluded that
regulatory change to Ii .46(a3beyond Intends to evaluate the revised C lists In. today’. proposal will not have a -
that made by final elaewhure.rn. , making its final determination of th ,-‘ significant economic effect on a -
today’s Federal Register, would be ’ - best course of aclion. Aftcr evalue (log substantial number of small entities’
necessary. EPA Is. therefore,n$ ,‘- ‘, public comments and the revised State : because today’s action proposes no new,
proposing any additional regulatory’ : C lists. EPA may finalize either of ite • -‘ requirements for the regulated -
language under this optioni ‘ proposed options without seeking. comm inlty. Today’s proposal merely
EPA is also proposing today an further public input Due to the lack of affirms a final regulatory amendment
alternative option. This second option I i Information to support the third option also made today and described above
described In detail under section IILC., described under IILD. above. and EPA’ and solicits public comment on this
above. Under this option the regulations-, belief that there will be some newly. proposal as well as possible altern8b ’e
at * 123.48(a) would be amended toe. listed facilities for which an ICS will not courses of action.
provide the State the discretion to Improve water quality and therefore Ust of Subjects in 40 GR.Part 1 -
determine, on a case-by-case basis,- , should not be required. EPA does not
whether ICSs are required for newly - anticipate finalizing that option without State Program Requirements, water
listed facilities. The State . - - seeking further public Input. EPA i . - pollution controL.
-------
Fedeaj *e f fá Vor57, 4o 3/ ’P#fd y JüI IO fPv oae& Rules ’’
3o5g ’
Dateé uIy i igm.
William I C Reilly,
Ad ministrator.
For the reasons set out In the
preamble 40 CFR part 123 is prOpO8ed to
be amended as follows.
PART 123-STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 123
continues to read as follows.
Autbodty Clean Water Act, 33 U.S .C 1251
et seq.
2. SectIon 123.46(a) Is amended by
adding paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)f 3)
and (a)(4) (and by revising paragraph (4
to read as followar
* 123.48 indivtduM contrel *.t.gIs
(a)
(1) Each State sball.deteimine. based
on the following criteria, which facilities
on the section 304(l)(1)(C) list that
discharge to waters not on the list
required by section 304(1)(1)(B}, should
be required to have ICSs
(I) Whether applicable water quality
standards for toxic pollutants for the
listed receiving water are currently
being met;
(Ii ) Whether the newly listed point
source causes, ban the reasonable
potential to cause. arctmthbutes to an-
exceedanca of applicable water quality
standards for toxic pdllutants and-.
(iii) Whether a decrease In dlscharge.
from all listed point sources of the toxia
pollutants of concern to the listed water
would significantly Improve water
quality.
(2) Each State shall submit to EPA. by
September 23, 1993, the U for eacfr
facility the State has determined should
be required to have an ICS. Where a
State is authorized to administer the
NPDEa Program, that State should make
draft permits that are LCSs available for
public comment prior to submitting the
ICSs to EPA.
(3) Within four months of the State
aubmittal of each ICS , the Regional
Administrator shath (I) Approve any ICS
EPA believes is adequate If the State
has provided adequate public
participation and If the Regional
Administrator determines that
additional public comment is not
desirable. (ii) propose to approve any-
ICS EPA believes is adequate; and
either the State has not provided’
adequate public participation or the
Regional Administrator determines that
additional public comment is desirable,
(iii) propose to disapprove any ICS EPA
believes is inadequate, and (lv) propose
to disapprove any Implicit determination
not to submit an ICS for a fbcIlIty if EPA
believes, based on the criteria In
paragraph (a)(1) of this section an. ICS is
needed. An ICS Is adequate if it
conforms to the definition of ICSat 40
CFR 123.46(c) contains limitations for
the relevant toxic pollutant(s) as
required In *122.44(d) and it contains a
date for compliance that La as soon as
- possible. but not later than three years
from the date of establishment of the:
1CS. EPA shall make tin proposed-
decisions regarding approvat
disapproval of State ICSs available fort
public comment for a period of 00 days.
(4) WithIn four months after the cloee -
of the 60.day public comment period on
EPA ’s proposed approval/dlsapprovafr-
of State ICSs, EPA shall conaldur all
public comments received, make 1
approval/disapproval decisions
Including decisions on whether
additional ICSs should be required. EPA
shall publicly notice these final
decisions. At any point where EPA
publicly notices a disapproval of a State
ICS. the Administrator in cooperation
with such State, and after notice and
opportunity for public comment, shall
implement the requirements of section.
304(l) in such State within one year
following the date of the disapprovaL
I .‘
a • a
(c) For the purposes of this section the
term individual control strategy as set
forth In section 304(1) of the CWA,
means a final NPDES permit With
supportlngdocwnentation showing that
effluent limits are coris a tent with an
approved wasteload allocation, or other
documentation which shows . that the
applicable water quality standards will
be met not later than three years after
the individual control strategy La
established. Where a State Is unable to
isadè a final permit within one year after
submitting to EPA Its revised list of
facilities pursuant to section
301(a)(1)(1 )f C), an individual control
strategy may be a draft permIt with an
attached schedule Indicating that the
permit will be issued Within one year
aftarjheStatnsubmitted to EPA the
draft permit u theiCS.
a a.- a a
[ FR Dec. 92-170W FIled 7-13-02 e,45 am!
ism
-------
t V SZ . id$ q i I
boating shall no be aIlo d wt$h thg.
sutcted aru . Ccmmer y IuLat
. hor will be permitted to mu
..4e restricted area while at
dunng tide change.. -
(c) EnforvemenL The regula in
this section shall be enIorcedb th.
Commanding Officer, Naval Station
Ingleside and such agencies ae he/she-
shall designate.
Dated: July 5,
Approved:
Herbert H.
Deputy Director of Civil Work ,.
(FR Dec. 9Z-17 5 Flied 7-21-c t4&enJ
Attendance at * atie1u opee to
the Interested pshlic but ilted to the
sp. availabli . Persona plannfi g to
attend thould contact Whittaker Joses,
at the number provided above, to
registeL The discussion will be limited
to tUnes and concerns pertaining to
second-cl_au pallet xeparstlon only.
Items to be discussed may include, but
are not limited tat
tta uInafgsvsar s.
2. Minina_pellet wszjts.
sta l double
4. PhysIcal pallet preparation.
5 P el sd.aU,ober..c,. Qsfl.Is based
dIff we .’.tb opd
Foflaw1ngth.mestin if the Postal
Serviosdstu,mlnn that sfgpifta .nt
chan ç to existing .ecoad.clau pellet-
regulation. seq wonani.d the Postil
Service will develop a proposed rule far
publ1on$s in the Federal Register and
-
a c. . io, P9e47-Zs-se &41 amJ
1 ’
aIe generated b -
piedpltatlon. This plariP. feedlot. In the.
category of NaHnu .sl nent Cuidelines
for storm water. All tflatharger, covered
by the November 19 poblication must
apply for a permit or gain coverage
under a promulgated permit for storm
water.
This notice request. comments on the
separate general permits for
concentrated nimel feeding operation.
in fouz States (Louisiana. New Mexico.
Oklahoma, and Texu).wlthcut
authorized N1V Stat. program. and
an Indian land, in New Mexico and
Oklahoma. Separate general permits are
oticedforssth$tate. -
DATum C in nts on the proposed
permit. amsi-be received or or before
the date 10 days føflowing the date of
last public heseiiig inihat Stale. The
O 1waut period for the pc sdL in Stat.
of Tex andaSeptomber 11.io . The
parliM for the permit In the
StaWolLoulsiag* onde September 4,
1 for the penn*
Sspt 1 c - ..nt perio
-- M 2 . See
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFRPert iii
Pallet Discount for Second.CIa.s
Aon.cv Postal Service.
ACnOIt Notification of public meeting .
5*NMARY The Postal Service is holding..
a public meeting to discuss changes to
the Domestic Mail MmwaJ( 4)
regulation, concerning preparation of t phb0TECTb0N ..
cond-clau mail on pallet. that may be..
rranted if discounts for such 4SCFR14i
r Parati0fl are approved. --———-— I sD1JsIdiend an
DAT The meeting will be held on - sndtw PMs’ef their
Tuesday. July 28. from 10a.m. to 2p.m.- IuiW DIsclwgsS -.late anpUpect of this
aooeessum The adckess of the meeting Gensr Peruilt and R.per g - nodce.in lon CafdweLPermits &anch
is U.S. Postal Service Nbedquarters, 475 R TISOt* Dlscti.rgs. p of Wiite’ Division (6W ’-PS U.S.
LEnfant Plaza, SW. Washington. DC. In Co&snb.lsd Animal Feeding EnVfrOnni iti1 Protection Agency
the Ben Franklin Room. srati Paglon 8, 1445 Ross Av, Suit, 1300w
D t1 aa. /& ( 4wigoi
Mr. WhittakerJ. Janet Offitie of Pro t
roe ruemue nwoe *nou coser*cr - 1 IL.........entaj Protection- -
Management. 475 L’Enfant P!aza. SW.
Washington. ;- f èaft-generai NPDF -- -
o eration . . -
( ) 9g - 3 54 - . -. 4 shha:ges from crejflned .. iui1 permit
suE eNrARv aIAn -
September 25. 1991. pursuanU& Punt to section. 301.
U.S.C 3622 and 3623, the POS - (b) d r4 dIOe (bJ and (c) of the
filed a request for a recomm W ACLEPA regulation. defile ° ° The
decision by the Postal Rat. iviitiI feeding operafi
for second-class mailpi
permit program, M the txlterla fo,
(PRC) on the eats bhs as pdtea .a-tu s subject to the Nsv
d
dom Ic.n ated An al
pallet.. The PRC sub , . . (CAFOsJ, and- - it
designated this filing as .Mc
b4 zeummnb1e fee
91-3. (hereafter referred to sliaply as MC eetsbiisb ..ffloent lhiutation-
91-3). The Postal Service is issuing this gutd.lhies for Feedlots pursuant IG - SS IW(L 1IO1lUMICsttor
notice to advise the public that a section (bJ and (c) of the Clean OD onbeUlM.SCIdreU .ra.
meeting has been scheduled to discuss Water : - —. -
issues relating to the implementation of 1 F ’uf Register pubhshed - S il COuITACT
these discount. assuming the PRC’1 - N ,v jb1 18, iase cofltains application - F flZther L&iuui&tfon the proposed
recommended decision in MC 91-3 Is- - re. 5 ..e ts kr all storm water è1ft8eOI,S&P k, sentect 1un
consistent with the Postal Service’s c ther8 sse isteâ wits CaidwelL PurtM &anch of Water
west and the Governors of the Postal acfl,fllev. which Includes facilities with (RW..PS), U.S. Revtronmentgj
acting pursuant to 39 U.S.C National Effluent Guidelines for storm Protection Agency RegIon 61445 Rosa
jo25. approve that recommended - water. The e luant hmitations apply to Ave.. suite 1 )0. Daunt Texas 75
decision. all wastewaterefrom feediot (214) 655-7lOa -
-------
32476
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No . 141/Wednesday. July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMEIITARY INFORMAT1O1C
Hearings
Meetings and Public Hearings will be
held in each of the states to provide
information on the permit condftl one
and allow for public comment on the
permit. Informal meetings with question
and answer sessions are scheduled prior
to each of the Public Hearings where the
public can make formal statements and
comments for the public record. The
meetings and public hearings to allow
for comments on general permits for the
State in which the hearing is held are
scheduled as follows:
(1) September 1. 1992. Tuesday.
question and answer session from 3
p.m.. to 5 p.m.. and hearing from 7 p.m.
to 10 p.m.. in the Civic Center. 401 S.
Buchanan (3rd and Buchanan). Amarillo.
Texas 79188.
(2)August 21. 1992. Friday. question
and answer session from 3 pm. to 5 p.m.
and hearing from 7 p.m. to 10p.m..
Regency Ballroom. Hyatt Regency San
Antonio on the Riverwallc. 122 Losoya
Street San Antonio. Texas 78205.
(3) August 24. 1992. Monday. question
and answer session from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
and hearing from 7p.m. to 10 p.m..
Tucker Building. 8919 World Ministry
Avenue. Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810.
- (4) August 27. 1992, Thursday.
question and answer session from 3 p.m.
to 5 p.m. and hearing from 7 p.m. to 10
p.m.. Central Plaza Hotel & Convention
Center. 112 S.Martln Luther King.
Junction of 1—35 & 1-40 (Eastern Exit
127). Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73117.
(5) August 28. 1992. Thursday.
question and answer session from 3 p.m.
to 5 p.m. and hearing from 7p.m. to 10
p.m.. Hyatt Regency. 330 Tljeras NW.
Albuquerque. NM 87102.
Contents of this Preamble
1. flackground
II. Framework of N’PDES System
A State Programs
B. Requirements in NPDES Permits
IlL Permitting
A. Pr.or Permitting
B. Permit ApplicatIon Regulations
C. Burdens on Permithng Agencies
D. Storm Water Permitting Strategy
E. Wastewater Treatment Strategies
IV Draft General Permit for Concentra ted
Animal Feeamg OperatIons
A. Tcdays Nctice
8. Fact Sheet for Draft General Permit
1. Authority
2. Coverage Under the Propised General
Permit
3. Lunita (ions on coverage
4. Permit conditicns
5. Reopener Clause
8. Definitions
V Economic Impact
VI. Compliance with other Federal
Regulations
A. National Environmental Policy Act
8. Endangered Species Act
C. Eieaitlve Order izmi
a Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Baáground
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water pollution Control Act (FWPCA.
also referred to as the Clean Water Act
orCWA).’ 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 traditionally
focused on reducing pollutants in
discharges of industrial process waste
water and from municipal sewage
treatment plants. Sewage outfalls and
industrial discharges were easily
identified as being responsible for poor.
often drastically degraded water quality
conditions. Section 308(b)(1)(A) of the
SWA required EPA to establish
standards of performance for the 27
industrial categories listed in this
section of the CWA. Feedlots are
Included in the 27 categories of
industries listed.
The Code of Federal Regulations was
amended February 14, 1974 to include
effluent guidelines for Feedlots (39 FR
5706); and to include application
requirements for concentrated animal
feeding operations (40 CFR 122.23) In
addition, the regulations requiring
applications from dlschargers of Storm
Water Associated With Industrial
Activity includes all industrial activities
which have National Effluent Guidelines
for storm water. The effluent guidelines
published in 1974 include requirements
for any waste water or precipitation
(storm water) which comes in contact
with products from the concentrated
feeding areas in feedlots. The
technology standard established in the
effluent guidelines for feedlots is No
Discharge unless a result of the 25-year.
24-hour storm event
II. Framework of NPDES System
Congress established the NPDES
program with the 1972 Amendments to
the FWPCA. Section 402 of the Act
requires EPA to admirustcr a national
permit program to regulate point source
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States and sets Out the basic
elements of the program.
A State Prvgrvins
The Act allows States to request EPA
authorization to administer the NPDES
program instead of EPA. Under section
402(b), EPA must approve a States
‘Federal Weter Pollution Control Act, as
amended. 33 US C. 2251. 1311 1314(b) and (c i. 1310
(b) and (c). and 1317(c) 86 Slat 816 at eq . Public
Law W2-500 92 Slat 15567 Public Law 95-217
request to operate the permit program
once it determines that the State has
adequate legal authorities, procedures.
and the ability to admtniaiter the
program. At this point In time, one State
In Region 6 Ia authorized to. at a
minimum, Issue NPDES permits for
municipal and industrial sources and is
currently authorized by EPA to issue
NPDES general permits. EPA Region 8
issues all NPDES permits in the four
States (LA, TX. OK, and NM) without
NPDES authorized programs.
B. Requirements in NFDESPerniIs
The CWA establishes two types of
standards for conditions in I\PDES
permits. technology-based stanaards
and water quality-based standards.
These standards are used to develop
effluent limitations, special conditions.
and monitoring requirements in NPDES
permits. Section 402(a)(1) authorizes 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).
1. 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 feedlots: (1) Best practicable
control technology economically
achievable (ECI’): 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 306 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
BAT/BCr effluent limitations guide!ines
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 arid (2) on a case-by-case
basis under section 402(a)(1) of the Act.
using the best professional judgement
(BPJ). for pollutants or classes of
discharges for which EPA has not
promulgated national effluent
limitations guidelines.
Note: EPA only establishes new source
performance standards under section 306 of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules
32477
the CWA when developing national effluent
limitation, guldehne.. and not when
etsbl1ehlng permit conthtlons on a ca.e-by.
‘ba,iu.
ater Quality-Based Standards for
Controls
In addition to technology-based
controls, section 301(b) of CWA also
requires that NPDES permits must
include any conditions more stringent
than technology-based controls
necessary to meet State water quality
standards. Water quality-based
requirements are established under this
provision on a case-by-case basis.
flL Permitting
A. Prior Permitthig
Between 1974 and 1982, EPA
promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines for wastewater and storm
water discharges from ten categories of
industrial discharges:
• Cement Manufacturing.
• Feedlota.
• Fertilizer Manufacturing.
• Petroleum Refining.
• Phosphate Manufacturing.
• Steam Electric.
• CoalMining.
• Ore Mining and Dressing.
• Mineral Mining and Processing.
• Asphalt Emulsion.
Site specific perxxuttlng efforts were
ed on facilities with the greatest
.itial to impair or Impact water
quality.
B. Permit Application Regulations
1. Regulations Requiring NPDES
Coverage
In accordance with the 1972 FWPCA
and 40 CFR Part 122 all dischargers to
waters of the Urn ted States are required
to apply for a NPDES permit. 40 R
part 122.23 establishes concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as
point source dischargers subject to
NFDES permitting.
On November 18, 1990, (55 FR 47990),
EPA published NPDES permit
application requirements for facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial actlvfly. Among these
designated facilities are those which
have national effluent guidelines for
storm water. Under these regulations all
feedlots must apply for an NPDES
2ermit Feedlot facilities must at a
:nimum obtain coverage under a
promulgated general permit for storm
water.
2. Scope of NPDES Concentrated Animal
eding Operation (CAFO) Permitting
- “ram
animal feeding operations listed in
44i JR part 122 appendix Bare
considered to be concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) and which
must be permitted under the NPDES
permitting program:
New and existing operations which
stable or confine and feed or maintain
for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-
month period more than the numbers of
animals specified In any of the following
categories;
a. 1,000 slaughter or feeder cattle
b. 700 mature dairy cattle (whether
milkers or dry cows);
C. 2.500 swine weighing over 55
pounds:
d. 500 horses;
e. 10,000 sheep or lambs;
L 55000 turkeys;
g. 100,000 laying hens or broilers when
the facility has unlimited continuous
flow watering
hi 3 0OO laying hens or broilers when
facility has liquid manure handling
system
L 5,000 ducks; or
J. 1.000 animal um s from a
combination of slaughter steers and
heifers, mature dairy cattle, swine over
55 pounds and sheep;
New and existing operations which
either discharge pollutants into
navigable waters through a man-made
ditch, flushing system, or other similar
man-made device, or directly into
waters of the United States, and which
stable or confine and feed or maintain
for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-
month period more than the numbers or
types of animals in the following
categories:
a. 300 slaughter or feeder cattle:
b. 200 mature dairy cattle (whether
milkers or dry cows);
C. 750 swine weighing over 55 pounds;
d.150 horses;
e. 3000 sheep or lambs;
f. io.ooo turkeys;
g. 30,000 laying hens or broilers when
the facility has unlimited continuous
flow watering systems;
hi 9000 laying hens or broilers when
facility has liquid manure handling
eystem
1. 1,500 ducks; or
j. 300 animal units (from a
combination of slaughter steers and
heifers. mature dairy cattle, swine over
55 pounds and sheep).
However, no animal feeding operation
is considered by EPA to be a
concentrated feeding operation or a
point source if such animal feeding
operation discharges only in the event of
a 25 year, 24-hour storm event.
This regulatory definition is meant to
encompass all animal operations which
have industrial characteristics. The
definition “concentrated animal feeding
operation” includes the number of
animals confined; the length of tune the
animals are confined at the facility and
the type of the confinement If the
facility confines WOO animal units or
more, or 300 animal units and the
facility has any manner of conveyance
for waste or storm water runoff which
allows the water to be discharged to a
water of the U.S., then the facility is
subject to NPDES permitting
requirements. Operations smaller than
the regulatory number are usually
agricultural in nature and are not
subject the NPDES permit program
unless the Director has designated them
as a “concentrated” animal feeding
operation affecting water quality.
Also, it Is not the intent of EPA to
regulate facilities through NPDES
permitting if animals are on the facility
for less than 45 days out of a 12 month
period. Some persona have expressed
the opinion that this relieves animal
transfer facilities of permitting
requirements because the animals are
transferred after only a few days.
Region 8 believes strongly that It is
clearly the intent of the regulation to
Indude transfer facilities, as they house
animals almost continuously. It is
irrelevant whether they are the same
animals for the 45 day duration.
Although the definition was not meant
to Include obviously non-point source
operations where the enimabi are
confined in pasture situations, the
discharge from areas of concentrated
animal feeding or housing must be
permitted if the facility meets the
regulatory definition. Region 8 wants to
clarify that even though some of the
facility areas may have livestock and
pasture crops co-existing during the
normal growing season (e.g. at a dairy
facility), this does not exempt the, areas
of concentrated animal activity (pens.
barns and houses. etc.) from
consideration as a point source with
NPDES permit responsibilities.
In addition to the concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) which have
permitting requirements as “point
sources”, this permit encourages any
animal feeding operation which
determines it discharges pollutants to a
water of the U.S. to establish voluntary
compliance with the terms of this
permit.
The NPDES permit programs only
addresses point source discharges.
Section 503(14) of the C’.VA defines the
term “point source” broadly to include
“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
-------
32478
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 141 I Wednesday, July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
“point souice’ has been interpreted
broadly. For example, the holding in
Sierra Club v. A baton ConstrucUon Co..
lnc . 820 F.2d 41 (5th CIr .. 1980) IndIcates
that cha igiu ig the surfaceof land 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
States. The Agency will 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 waters of the
United States.
3. CAFOs With Expired Permits or
Pending Applications
Au facilities which have expired
permits and have reapplied in
accordance with 40 CFR 12121(d): and
all facilities which have submitted
applications in accordance with 40 CFR
122 21(a) are automatically covered by
the terms of this permit. A pernuttee can
request to be excluded from coverage by
this permit by applying for an individual
permit in accordance with 40 CFR
122.2B(b)(3)(iii). If the reasons cited are
adequate to support the issuance of an
individual permit. the Director shall
grant the request by the issuance of an
individual permfl. Submission of an
application does not authorize the
permittee to discharge.
Some regulated concentrated animal
feeding operations which are smaller
than the levels specified in 40 CFR
412.10 may wish to consider requesting
an individual permit (as discussed in
part V of this fact sheet). However.
Region 8 believes that biological or
other treatment for these facilities will
be excessively expensive. We expect.
therefore, few of these smaller facilities
to utilize this option. In any case, this
reason for requesting an individual
permit will to apply for any feedlot with
effluent guidelines establishing a no
discharge to waters to the U.S.
requirement.
4. Feediot Discharge Through Other
Sewer Systems
The November 18. 1990 notice clarifies
that industrial discharges to waters of
the United States, including those
through storm sewers to waters of the
tJxuted States, must obtain NPDES
permit coverage. However, discharges
associated with industrial activity to
sanitary sewer systems (i.e. those
systems which are part of a Wastewater
Treatment Plant collection system),
including combined sewer systems,
generally do not need to obtain NPDES
permit coverage, although they may be
subject to pretreatment requirements.
5. Permit Application Requirements
Feedlots are subject to the application
deadlines required of storm water
dischargers with storm water associated
with industrial activity as defined in the
November ie, 1990 Federal Register. 40
CFR 12221 excludes persons covered by
general permits from requirements to
submit individual permit applications.
Coverage under this general will
eliminate the operators need to apply for
an Individual permit.
a. Application of general permit.
General permits are an important tool
for assuring adequate environmental
safeguards for large numbers of similar
facilities without the administrative and
resource burdens involved in individual
permit issuance. 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 monitoring 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 dischargers. The general permit
program has been available to authorize
NPDES States since its inception in 1979.
Most general permits utilize a Notice of
Intent (NO!) as a mechanism to register
covered facilities. The administrative
burdens on the permit issuing agency
and the costs to diachargers can be
reduced by replacing more complicated
permit application reqwrement with
simplified requirements. The public
notice for a general specifies whether a
Notice of Intent (NO!) is required prior
to coverage.
There are two situations where an
NOl would not have to be submitted to
authorize discharges under a general
permit are authorized by 40 CFR
122.26(b)(Z)(v). The first situation is
where the Director notifies the
discharger that the discharge is covered
by the permit. The second situation is
where the Director decides that an NO!
is inappropriate for a general permit. To
make the latter decision, the Director
considers the type of discharges. the
expected nature of the discharges, 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. Where this
approach is pursued, the Director is
required to describe the reasons for
requiring an NO! in the fact sheet of
general permit
This public notice specifies that a
Notice of Intent (NO!) is not required for
coverage under this general permit A
Notice of Intent (NO!) En general permits
is a mechanism which can be used to
establish an 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. This type of
information is appropriate when there is
a discharge being monitored and
tracked, however, in situations where
there is to be no discharge. via
requirements to contain all wastewater
and storm water, it is unnecessary for
the Agency to track these non•
dischargers. Region 8 estimates that
there are over 1000 concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) in the
regulated four state area. Tracking
activities and inspections would be a
severe drain on the Region’s resources.
and would increase the work load on
the existing program. Region 8 believes
that violations of the permit will be self
reported by the permittee or the
concerned public. In addition, the States
in Region 8 have an compliance track
and inspection system which is alxea
established, and will provide the
Director with information concerning
any water quality violations.
Where a violation is not reported by
the operator of the facility, the
concerned public will bring such
violations to the attention of the.
Director. Upon the resulting inspection
of the site and a review of the pollution
prevention plan and other required
documentation, EPA will be able to
determine if the permittee has violated
the permit conditions by reviewing the
required documentation to be kept on
site. This will allow the Agency to focus
its inspection and enforcement efforts
toward the water quality problems and
violator,, and will afford Region 8 the
same enforcement potential to insure
compliance with the permit as it would
entoy with a Notice Of Intent. Due to the
opportunity for public scrutiny, all
permittees will develop adequate
documentation of compliance with this
permit For these reasons it will not be
necessary to register the permittees
under the general permit via a notice of
intent Therefore, in accordance with 40
CFR 122.28(b)(2)(v) a notice of intent
shall not be filed by the operator to gai-
coverage under this permit. This penn.
will apply to all CAFOs covered by
permitting requirements under 40 CFR
122.23.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 141 1 Wednesday, July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
32479
b. In di viduoi permit opplicotion
requirements. Facilities which the
Director determines are causing or
contributing to a violation of water
quality standards may be required to file
an individual permit application. The
requirements for an individual permit
application are reflected in Form I and
Form lB. These forms require the
development and submission of detailed
site-specific information. The
information I s Intended to be used to
develop the site-specific conditions
generally associated with Individuals
permits. Individual permit applications
may be needed under several
circumstances. Examples Include:
General permits where the owner or
operator of a discharge authorized by a
general permit Is requesting to be
excluded from the coverage of the
general permit by applying for a permit
(see 40 CFR 122 .28(b)(2(lii) for A-
issued general permits); or the Director
requiring an owner or operator of a
discharge authorized by a general
permit to apply for an individual permit
(gee 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(ii) for EPA-
issued general permits).
Advantages of a General Permit
• General requirements and
recommended management practices
will be established for discharges
covered by the pernilli
• Facilities whose discharges are
covered by the permit will have an
opportwutyto corn ply with the CWA.
and will therefore, be afforded some
protection from third-party litigation;
• The public will have the opportunity
through the Agency to review reports
and to comment on permitting activities
for concentrated aruinal feeding
operalions
• Many Facilities without art existing
permit will automatically have
reçwrements to comply with
Technology and Management
requirements.
C. Burdens on Permitting Agencies
The focal issue in developing a
general permit for CAPOs under the
NPDES permitting program is to provide
an expedient and economic permitting
option for both the regulated community
and the permitting Agency.
Implementing the NPDES permitnzig
program is a complex process. The steps
in developing individual permits are
very resource intensive. The issuance of
a general permit to reduce the
administrative burden benefits the
lency. the tax payer, and the
vironment. Major steps to Issue a
rmit 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 wider a general permit) that are
received Initially must be screened and
reviewed for completeness. When this
review indicates that necessary
information has not been provided, the
applicant must be notified and an
explanation of the deficiency provided.
Applications that are complete must be
assigned to a pernut 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. uiomtoring requirements,
and any special conditions need to be
developed.
• Public Notice of the Draft Permit.
Draft permits must undergo appiupriate
public notice. In same cases public
hearings must be held.
• Permit Issuance. Public comments
must be received, evaluated, and
responded to l.a developing a final
permit Any request for an evidentlary
hearing must be addressed.
• Compliance Monitaring/
Enforcement. 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,
enforcement actions lead to litigation.
In addition to these steps. a number of
arImtni ative functions, such as
responding to public inquiries, can
create burdens for permit issuing
agencies. The number of such inquuies
can be particularly high when a general
pernut covering a large regulated
cominunity 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 POTWa. EPA and
authorized NPDES States have issued
more than 48.600 NPDES permits for
industrial process discharges. 15.600
NPDES permits for POTWs. and
approximately 59 general permits have
been issued covering at least 7.200
facilities. The Agency estimates that
there are over 1000 concentrated annual
feeding operation facilities in Region 6.
Most feedlot facilities have not been
addressed under the NPDES program in
the past. Today’s notice incorporates
several elements of EPA’s u’utial
attempts to establish a workable NPDES
program that reflects the realities of
these administrative burdens.
0. Storm Water Permitting Strategy
Feedlot facilities are subject to the
established storm water permitting
program. The Agency plans to address
permitting for those facilities listed in
the November1990 FR with the
following priority based etrategy
• Tier 1—Baseline Permitting: One or
more general permits will be developed
to Initially cover the ma ortty of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial acdvity
• Tier lI—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.
• 7 ’ier Ill—Industry-Specific
Pemnwng: Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific general permits; and
• Tier IV—Faci lity .Specific
Permitting: A variety of factors will be
used to target specific facilities for
Individual permits.
1. Tier I
Although facilities with National
Effluent Guidelines for storm water are
included as one of the categories which
must apply under the November 1990
FR, those facilities were excluded from
coverage under the proposed Tier I
Baseline General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
Industrial Activity, and therefore, no
permitting opportunity is provided for
CAFOs.
2. TIer fl
Where watersheds are shown to be
impacted EPA will be issuing Tier U
Watershed General Permits. These
permits will apply to all discharges of
storm water in the watershed; this will
include the discharges from CAFOs.
3. Tier U I
Specific industry categories will be
targeted for individual or industry.
specific general permit.s. These permits
will allow permitting authorities to focus
attention and resources on industry
categories of particular concern.
uidustries with effluent guidelines. and/
or industry categories where tailored
requirements are appiupriate. 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(pfl5) of the CWA. This
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57. No . 141 / Wednesday, July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
permit is one of the first Tier III industry
specific general permits developed by
Region 6 under this strategy.
4. Tier IV
Individual permits will be issued
where warranted by: the pollution
potential of the discharge, the need for
individual control mechanisms, water
quality concerns, and where reduced
administrative burdens exist. Where
water quality concerns warrant the
development of site specific individual
permits for any CAFO facility, Region 8
will develop these permits on a priority
basis.
£ Wastewater Treatment Strategies
1. End-of-Pipe 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. For many types of
industrial facilities, it may be a
requirement to collect and treat the
runoff from targeted areas of the facility.
Th1s approach was taken with 10
industrial categories with national
effluent guideline limitations. There are
several basic similarities among the
national effluent guideline limitations:
• To meet the numeric effluent
limitation, most. if not all, facilities must
collect and temporarily store onsite
runoff from targeted areas of the facility
• The effluent guideline 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
2. Best Management Practices
The term beet mRnagement practices
(UMPs) 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 surface water,
of the United States, BMPs also include
operating procedures, treatment
requirements and practicer to control
feedlot runoff, drainage from raw
materials, spills or Leaks. OMPe can be
established in two ways: BMP plans and
cite or pollutant-specific BMPs. EPA
often establishes NPDES permit
ccndltfona that require generic BMPs to
be identified and implemented through
BMP plans. General permits often
require BMP plans to insure compliance
with the effluent limitations of the
permit Many of the BMPe in a typical
liMP plan involve planning, reporting,
training. preventive maintenance, and
good housekeeping. Many facilities
currently employ BMPs as part of
normal operation. 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 non compliance. Experience has
shown that liMPs can be used
appropriately and BMP plans can
effectively reduce pollutant discharges
in a cost-effective manner. liMP plans
should reflect requirements for spill
prevention. liMP plans should also
ensure that solid and hazardous waste
is managed in accordance with
requirements established under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) where appropriate. In these
cases management practices required
under RCRA should be expressly
incorporated into the BMP plan.
Where specific pollutants have been
identified as associated with a
particular industrial activity, more
advanced site or pollutant-specific liMP
requirements can be developed. The
following four categories describe these
site or pollutant-specific liMPs:
• Prevention.
• Containment.
• Mitigation.
• Ultimate Disposition.
This general permit requires that each
permittee covered by this permit
develop a BMP plan to Insure that the
facility will remain in compliance with
the effluent guidelines; and will provide
the Agency with an opportunity to
review documentation of the facility’s
“No Discharge” status. Pollutant specific
BMPs will be developed for CAFOs if
water quality violations identify specific
pollutants which must be addressed for
the protection of surface waters. These
activities are most appropriately
employed In individual site specific
permits.
3. TradItional Management Pnictlces
Many management practices have
been employed by industry for many
years and have gained acceptance as
appropriate operation and maintenance.
Because these practices enjoy
widespread use they are considered to
be “economically achievable”. For
example, lined retention or detention
basins, water reuse, and land
application practices can be used to
contain waste and precipitation waters.
However, care must be taken to
evaluate the potential of many of these
traditional devices for ground water
contamination.
4. Eliminntfon of Pollution Sources
In the case of CAFOs, the elimination
of a pollution source may be the most
effective way to control pollutants In
discharges and to eliminate discharges.
Options for reducing pollution sources
include chAnging chemicals used at the
facility, and modification of material
management practices such as moving
storage areas into buildings. Some
options for reducing pollutants in
discharges from feedlota indude
Building better contairunent structures:
Implementing Best Management
Practices to prevent pollution: Using
traditional management practices: and
Eliminating pollution sources.
Development of comprehensive control
strategies should include controls from
each of these categories.
IV. Draft General Permit for
Ccentrated Aninial Feeding
Operations
A. Today’s Notice
Today’s notice proposes a general
permits for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in four
States (LA. ‘I’X, OK. NM). The following
portion of this notice provides notice for
draft NPDES general permits and
accompanying fact sheets for CAFOs in
LA. N) t OK. andiX These draft
general permits are Intended to cover
concentrated animal feeding operations
with NPDES permitting requirements.
The proposed permit contains The
Federal guidelines; the best management
practices to Insure that the permittee
compiles with the effluent requirement
of “no discharge” to waters of the U.S.
and the technology standard set for
storm water (La. the Pollution
Prevention Plan). The final general
permits will include all more stringent
State Standards for CAFOs in that State.
Effective Date of Requirements
This permit shall be effective upon
issuance,
EPA Contacts
LA .N!iLOK,TX —
United States EPA. Region VI. Water
Management DivIsion. (6W-PM), First
Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain
Place. 1445 Rosa Avenue, 12th Floor.
suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202.
Proposed Schedule for General
Permits Issuance
Draft Permits Transmitted to State
requesting SectIon 401 certification: July
22. 1992.
Notice of Draft Permits in Federal
Register July 22. 1992.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No . 141 / Wednesday, July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
32481
Comment Period Closes
On the date 10 days after the last
public hearing In that State. The
comment period for the permit In the
State of Texas ends August 28. 1992. The
comment period for the permit in the
State of Louisiana ends September 4,
1992. The comment period for the permit
In the State of Oklahoma ends
September 8. 1992. The comment period
for the permit In the State of New
Mexico ends September 8. 1992.
B. Fact Sheet for Draft General Permit
Publication of this draft general permit
and fact sheet Is designed to comply
with the requirements of 40 CFR 124.10
(Public Notice of Permit Action and
Public Hearing) simultaneously for all 4
draft general permits being noticed
today. The language of the draft general
permits is provided at the end of 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
conditions in different permits vary.
these differences are indicated In the
draft general permit
1. Authority
In 1972. the Federal Water Pollution
ontrol Act (also referred to as the
lean Water Act (CWA)) was amended
to provide that the discharge of any
pollutants to waters of the United States
from any point source is unlawflil.
except if the discharge Is in compliance
with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 40
CFR 122.23 and 122 Appendix B
establish concentrated animal feeding
operations as a point source subject to
NPDES permitting requirements.
2. Coverage Under the Proposed General
Permit
Types of Discharges Covered. In 1978
(FR 11458). EPA promulgated the
regulatory definition of Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations which
addresses discharges of waste and
precipitation waters from feedlots. (This-
definition Is reprinted in the definition
section of the draft general permit (part
VII. 5.) found In today’s notice). The
permits that are being proposed are
intended to cover all CAFOs with
NPDES permitting requirements in the
four States (TX. LA, OK, and NM),
except duck facilities established prior
to 1974. The effluent guidelines for these
duck facilities are for biological
‘eatrnent which is Inconsistent with the
.io discharge” requirements of the
proposed permits. These discharges are
best addressed with site specific, water
quality permitting. The effluent
limitations established for existing duck
CAFOs limit total biological oxygen
demand discharged per 1000 ducks to
1.66 kg as a daily maximum and 0.91 kg
as a 30 day average. Pathogen
requirements in the permit limit fecal
coliform discharged to 400 coloniea/100
ml of discharge. Facilities with new
source performance standards (those
facilities established after 1974) are
required to meet the effluent limitation
of “no discharge” to waters of the U.S.
Duck facilities established alter 1974 are
covered by the proposed permits.
Designated Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations. Where the Director
becomes aware of facilities which do
not fit the definition of “concentrated”
in 40 CFR part 122 Appendix B, but are
considered by the Director to be
contributing to a water quality problem,
the Director may designate the animal
feeding operation as a point source
subject to the terms of this permit.
CAFOs With Expired Permits or
Pending Application. Many existing
CAFOs have submitted applications in
accordance with NPDES requirements
and have remained unpermitted due to
the adnththtratlve work load ant-
prforitie& All of these applicants will
gain coverage under the NPDES program
through the issuance of this permit
RegIon 6 believes this benefits those
applicants without an NPDES permit
Any pernuttee which desires an
individual permit may petition the
Director in accordance with Part L D. 2.
of the permit
Additional Coverage Requirements
for (Z4FOs Established After Permit
Issuance. All CAFO established after
the issuance of this permit will be
subject to a full environmental review
by this Agency to insure compliance
with the National Environmental Policy
Act. New CAFO facilities shall, prior to
constructing, complete the form
provided in Appendix D of this permit
The permittee will be required to have
documentation of “No Significant
Impact” or a completed Environmental
Impact Statement. In accordance with
an environmental review conducted by
this Agency, for coverage under this
permit Completed documentation of the
Agency’s review and findings must be
on site prior to any operations as a
CAFO, and must remain on site as a
condition of coverage under this permit.
3. Limitations on Coverage
The Director may deny coverage
under this permit to any Animal Feeding
Operations, that the Director determines
Is contributing to a water quality
standard violation. The permittee will
be notified that the Director has made
such a determination, and will be
required to submit an indivIdual permit
application on or before a date specified
In the notification. The permittee may
petition for more time if the permittee
can show just cause for the delay.
Where discharges contain significant
amounts of pollutants that can be
removed by a sewage treatment plant,
the discharge can be discharged to the
sanitary sewage system. Such
diversions must be coordinated with the
operators of the sewage treatment plant
and the collection system to avoid
compounding problems with either
combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
basement flooding or wet weather
operation of the treatment plant It is
unlikely that Wastewater Treatment
Plants wiil be considerate of discharges
from the CAFO facilities due to the
volume of storm runoff which would
accompany such a discharge. Where
CSO d1scharges, loodIng or plant
operation problems can result. onsite
storage followed by a controlled release
during dry weather conditions may be
considered. 11 the discharge Is made to a
Wastewater Treatment Plant which
discharges in accordance with an
NPDES permit no permit is required.
however, the discharge must be
compliant with the pretreatment
standards listed in 40 CFR part 412.
4. Permit Conditions
a. Description of draft permit
conditions. The conditions of these draft
permits have been developed to be
consistent with the technology-based
standards of the CWA (BAT/BCT) and
the technology standard for storm water
pollutant source controls. Based on a
consideration of the appropriate factors
for BAT and BCT requirements
discussed in this fact sheet for
controlling pollutants from feedlots. the
draft general permit proposes effluent
limitations, prohibitions, a set of tailored
requirements for developing and
implementing best management
practices and pollution prevention
plans.
The draft permit conditions reflect
EPA’s decision to select a number of
beet management practices and
traditional management practices which
prevent discharges. The draft permit
conditions applicable to these facilities
are not numeric effluent limitations, but
rather are requirements for developing
and implementing site specific controls
to eliminate discharges except in the
case of the 25 year, 24-hr. storm event
EPA Is authorized under 40 R
122.44(k)(2) to impose BMPs in lieu of
numeric effluent limitations In NPDES
permits when the Agency finds numeric
effluent limitations to be inappropriate.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules
EPA may also impose B?vWs which are
“reasonably necessary • to carry
out the purposes of the Act” under 40
CFR 122.44(k)(3J. Both of these
standards for imposing BMPa are
recognized In NRDC versus CostIe. 568
F.2d 1369. 1360 (D.C. Cu. 1977). The
conditions in the draft general perrnit.s
are proposed under the authority of both
of these regulatory provisions. The BMP
and pollution prevention requirements
in these permits operate as limitations
on effluent discharges that reflect the
application of BAT/BCT. This is
because the BMPs identified require the
use of control technologies which, an the
context of these general permits. are the
best available of the technologies
economically achievable (or the
equivalent BCT finding). See. e.g. NRDC
versus EPA. 822 L2d 104, 122-23 (D.C.
Cu. 1987) (EPA has substantial
discretion to impose non uant1tative
perirut requirements pursuant to section
402 aJ(1)).
b Effluent limitations. Discharge
limitations for all CAFOs except Duck
Facilities Established prior to 1974.
The effluent limitations In this permit
are established to be consistent with the
BAT requirements for feedlots
established In 40 CFR 412. The
permittees wall be required to contain all
wastewaters and all precipitation runoff
from the CAFO areas in the amount of
the 25 year. 24-hour storm event This
source control of wastewater and
contaminated storm water Is considered
to be both an Industry standard and the
most effective water quality control
available to CAFO facilities. Region 6
requests comments on the effectiveness
of this control measure, as well as.
alternative Industry standards used
today to control the discharge of
pollutants Into waters of the United
States. In addition the permit includes
requirement for the permittee to
document how the facility controls
runoff in compliance with the permit
c. Non-numeric limitations, best
n’ianageme.nt practices. and other
conthtzona—(1) Prohibitions. The
permittee wail be prohibited from
discharging any wastes into the waste
contaminant system which are not a
product of proper operation and
maintenance of the CAFO. This will
effectively prohibit the facility from
accepting outside wastes or from
dumping other potentially hazardous
materials Into the retention system. This
is necessary because any materials
introduced into the containment
structures have the potential to be
discharged to a Water of the U.S.
whenever a rainfall event exceeds the
25 ,ear. 24-hour storm.
• (2) Proper Operation and
Maintenance Requirements. (A) Proper
Operation and Maintenance Record.
The permittee will be required to record
the operation and maintenance of the
facility. This information will provide
the opportunity for the Agency or
authorized agent to determine if the
facility is in compliance with the permit
conditions and the pollution prevention
plan. This wall also provide the
perinittee with information on the
effectiveness of the BMP’s established
and the terms of the pollution plan.
Included in this record are: (a)
Calculations required For application
rates and retention facility capacity (b)
documentation of existing retention
facility capacity: (c) date log indicating
date that pens, lot, fence lines, feed
lanes, and feed storage areas are
cleaned, (d) date log indicating monthly
inspection of retention facility for
structural Integrity and maintenance.
Including mowing and vegetation
maintenance: (e) date log indicating
weekly inspection of wastewater Level
in retention facility, including specific
measurement of wastewa tar level: (f) if
the waste (manure) is sold or given to
other persons for beneficial use.
maintains log ofi date of removal from
the feedlot name of haWer and amount.
in dry tons, of waste removed from the
feedlot.
Region 6 believes that these records
are required to determine if the facility
has been compliant with the “no
discharge” effluent limitation. The
Agency must be able to determine when
wastes have been removed and where
they were disposed of. to determine that
the wastes were not discharged into a
water of the U.S. Region B requests
comments on the appropriateness of the
Information required in the Operation
and Maintenance Record, and
suggestions of any additional records
which the public believes are necessary
to insure compliance with the
requirements of the permit
(B) Required Best Management
Practices. the BMP’e required in the
permit Include requirements for (a)
Retention structure design. capacity,
operation and maintenance. These
required BMPa insure that the design
and maintenance of the retention
facilities will be sufficient to prevent
any discharge to a water of the U.S. that
is not in compliance with the terms of
this permit
(b) Location reqtirernents. Retention
facilities and waste storage areas must
not be located in areas oi flooding, or
where the storage of such wastes
endangers public health.
(c) Waste removal. Wastes must be
stored and removed in such a manner as
to prevent discharge of the wastes to
waters of the U.S.. Where waste
disposal Includes land application, the
BMPs included require that the land
application be at agronomic rates.
Where wastes are applied in excess of
plant uptake rates, the excess has the
potential to enter surface waters through
leaching and/or runoff.
(d) Pesticide use. The Region believes
that there is reasonable potential for
pesticides from CAFO facilities to be
discharged to surface waters through
runoff, and through discharges from the
retention facility during storm events
beyond the design retention. Proper use
and storage of pesticides, and reuse of
“dip vat” residues to spray pens will
reduce the amounts of pesticide residues
which runoff to the retention facility.
Also the operator should evaluate the
use of pesticides which are toxic to
wildlife and aquatic life, and which do
not break down readily into less toxic
components.
(e) Dead animal removal. Dead
animals must be disposed of in a way
that prevents contaminated discharges
to surface waters, and does not
endanger public health.
The Agency requests comments from
both the regulated community and the
public on the BMFs required in the
permit. Information Is solicited
regarding the potential effectiveness of
the required BMPs as components of
proper operation and maintenance of a
concentrated animal feeding operation.
It is important to the Agency in Its
efforts to protect the environment, and
to determine the economic achievability
of the required BMP’s.
It is common for State Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) to develop
plans for operators of CAFOs, outlining
requirements for retention structures
and facility management practices,
particularly with regards to the land
application of the facility wastes. Where
provisions In the SCS plans are
equivalent to the BMPs outlined in this
permit, the permittee may use the plan
developed by the ScS for compliance
with the permit. The Region believes
that the SCS site specific evaluation will
provide the facility with a plan that will
be protective of the federal standards
required. In developing the
documentation required by this permit.
the permittee may refer to the section of
the SCS plan which satisfies that
particular pernut requirement. This
simple reference will allow the
perrnittee to avoid redundant
documentation. The Agency requests
comments from both the regulated
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 I Wednesday. July 22 . 1992 I Proposed Rules
community and the public on the
appropriateness of using SCS plans to
:ornply, in part, with the OMP’s required
in the permit.
(C) Pollution Prevention Plan. The
pollution prevention plan is considered
to be the BAT standard requirement for
the regulation of storm water, CAFOs
with national effluent guidelines for
storm water are subject to the
requirements of the National program to
regulate the pollutants discharged in
storm water runoff. Facilities In
compliance with the requirements of this
permit will, in case of catastrophic. or
chronic rain events, discharge to surface
waters. The Pollution Prevention Plan
will reduce these occasions, and reduce
the pollutants these discharges will
carry with them. All facilities covered
by these general permits must prepare.
retain and implement a pollution
prevention plan. These tailored
requirements have been developed to
allow the implementation of site-specific
measures that address features and
activities, for the control of pollutants
associated with feedlots. In 1979, EPA
completed a technical survey of industry
best management practices (BMPs)
which was based on a review of
practices used by industry to control the
Ion-routine discharge of pollutants from
non continuous sources includ ing runoff.
drainage from raw material storage
areas, spills, leaks, and sludge or waste
disposal. This review includes analysis
and assessment of published articles
and reports, technical bulletins, and
discussions with industry
representatives through telephone
contacts, written questionnaires and site
visits.
The review identifies two classes of
pollution control measures. The first
class of controls includes those
management practices which are
generally considered 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 concludes that
these controls are 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
includes management practice controls
which provide a second line of defense
gainst the release of pollutants arid
.ncludes prevention measures.
containment measures, mitigation and
cleanup measures, and treatment
methods.’ Since that time, EPA has, on a
case-by-case basis. Imposed BMP
requirements in NPDES permits.
Major classes of water management
controls for feedlots include: Land
application of runoff onsite; water
retention structures and artificial
wetlands and water detention
structures. For many sites, a
combination of these controls may be
appropriate. The Agency is using the
term “pollution prevention plan” In the
context of these control 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
the retention basin,
The plan requirements are based
primarily on traditional management.
pollution prevention and EMP concepts
which have been tailored to feedlots,
These permits establish the framework
and the basic elements required for
feedlot “Best Management Practices”, in
addition, the pollution prevention plan
and suggested management practices
provide flexibility to allow the
development of site-specific measures.
At a given site, specific measures
incorporated into the pollution
prevention plan will reflect the sources
of pollutants that have been identified at
the site. For example, a facility that has
identified particular pesticides as
potential sources of pollution will
Incorporate appropriate good
housekeeping and management
practices to address these sources.
However, a facility not using pesticides
would not have to incorporate measures
to address these pesticides in their plan.
The permittee has the flexibility to
develop the plan themselves, to hire a
professional, or to use components of a
site specific SCS plan. At a minimum the
following nine specific requirements
should be addressed in the liMP plan to
reduce pollutants in runoff from the
facility:
• Pollutant Sources.
• Management Controls.
• Employee training.
• Visual Inspections.
• Preventive maintenance.
• Reporting and notification
procedures.
• Housekeeping.
• Sedimentation and erosion.
• Spill response.
The Agency requests comments from
both the regulated community and the
public on the appropriateness of the
‘car. complete description of the B’.IP sur ey.
see NPDES Best Management Practices Cuidance
Docu,nenr, U.5 ‘A, December 1979, EPA-GaO/a-
components of the pollution prevention
plan. Information regarding the potential
effectiveness of the pollution prevention
plan in preventing the discharge of
pollutants from CAFOs is of great
interest to the Agency.
Plan Requirement, for Feed/ct
Facilitres—{jJ Source Identification,
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
the side. The permit proposes that the
source identification components of the
plan identify all activities and
significant materials which may
potentially be significant pollutant
sources. Plans must Include: (a) A site
map, or topographic map indicating, an
outline of the drainage area of the
concentrated animal feeding area; each
existing structural control measure to
reduce pollutants in wastewater and
precipitation ninoff and surface water
bodies, (b) A written description of
materials that are used, stored or
disposed of at the CAFO (such as
pesticides, cleaning agents, fuels etc.).
(c) A list of spills and leaks of toxic or
hazardous pollutants that occurred at
the facility after the effective date of this
permit and have the potential to
contribute pollutants to runoff waters.
(d) A summary of any existing sampling
data describing pollutants In overflow or
bypass discharges.
Other information to consider, if
applicable, include the manner and
frequency in which pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizers or soil enhancers
are applied at the site and an evaluation
of significant spills 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 remediatlon or cleanup
measures taken. The Agency requests
comments on what other types of
information may be appropriate for
source identification purposes.
(ii) Practices and Program Elements
to Control Pollutants. The second major
section of the pollution prevention plan
addresses practices and program
elements to reduce pollutants in areas
identified as having high potential for
runoff contamination. Potential ground
water impacts should also be considered
by operators when designing storage
devices, Operators designing storage
devices, such as ponds. should be aware
of federal requirements for the
protection of groundwater and comply
with those requirements.
Waste water Management Controls.
Each facility covered by this permit
-------
4p4
Fedetal Register / VoL 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July22 . 1992 / Proposed Rules
must develop a description of
management controls appropriate for
the facility, and implement such
controls. The appropriateness and
priori ties of controls In a plan shall
reflect identified potential sources of
pollutants at the facility. The following
management controls must be
addresseth
• Wastawater retention facilities. The
pernuttee will have documentation at
the facility site supporting the
management controls used to contain
wastewatere and storm waters from the
concentrated feeding areas. The
pollution prevention plan must include
all calculations used to support design.
construction, and size of the retention
structures, as well as. all factors and
calculations used in determining land
application rates, acreage, arid ci’ops.
This documentation may be developed
by the State Soil Conservation Service.
This documentation will allow the
Agency to determine if the containment
structure is adequately designed to
contain the required 25 year. 24-hour
event.
• Liner Requirement Over most of
EPA Region 6 surface water flow is
sustained throughout much of the year
by ground water inflow. As a result
contaminants which leak from
containment structures to the ground
water will typically move underground
toward local streams and rivers where
they will be discharged and affect wager
quality. The permittee must have on Bite
documentation that no hydrologic
connection exists between the contained
wastewater and surface waters of the
Urn ted States. The permit tee is given
two options to demonstrate the lack of
hydrologic connection (1) Document
that there can be no significant leakage
from the retention structure: or (2)
Document that leakage from the
retention structure would not migrate to
surface waters. These two options allow
the perinittee to take into account the
natural situation beneath the retention
structure (such as natural materials or
isolated ground waters). The permittee
should be aware that man made
connections from ground waters to
surface waters via wells and irrigation
must be taken into account when
determining hydraulic connections.
Where the perm.ittee cannot document
that no hydrologic connection exists, the
containment structure must have a liner
which will prevent the potential
contamination of surface waters. Liners
for retention structures should be
constructed in accordance with good
engineering practices and must be
certified by a Professional Vngineer.
Liner maintenance shall include
inspection at least once/Z years. Liner
design may be in accordance with a SCS
plan. Although the requirement for liner
installation Is to protect surface waters,
the permittee is strongly encouraged to
provide a liner for any containment
structures to comply with existing
regulations for ground water protection.
• Manure and Pond Solids Handling
and Land Application. Requirements in
the permit and Pollution Prevention Plan
do not allow the storage of wastes
where there is the potential for
inadvertent release to any surface
water. Storage areas cannot be placed
so as to be threatened by flood waters.
Wastes cannot be applied to land during
or immediately preceding rain events, so
as to avoid runoff of the wastes. Land
application rates and procedure, that
are developed for the facility in
accordance with State guidelines may
be used as part of the Pollution
Prevention Plan for land application of
wastes. The pollution prevention plan
must ensure and document that
procedure, for the handling and
disposal of manure and pond solids
complies with the permit requirements.
Documentation of waste storage
protocol, land application procedures.
and manure handling activities are
required by the permit to ensure that
none of the wastes or resulting
pollutants are discharged to a water of
the U.S. Permittees are encouraged to
apply the manure as fertilizer. However.
where local water quality Is threatened
by phosphorus, the permittee Is
cautioned to limit the application rate to
the mop uptake rate of phosphorus.
Preventive Maintenance. A
preventive maintenance program
Involve. Inspection and maintenance of
all management devices (deaning oil!
water separators, catch basins) as well
as inspecting and testing equipment and
systems to uncover condition that could
cause breakdowns or failures resulting
in discharge. of pollutants to surface
wasters. A good preventive
maintenance program includes
identifying equipment or retention
systems usedi periodically inspecting or
testing equipment and retention system;
adjusting. repairing, or replacing items:
and maintaining complete records on
the equipment and retention systems.
Good Housekeeping. Good
housekeeping requires the maintenance
of a clean, orderly facility. Good
housekeeping includes establishing
housekeeping protocols to reduce the
possibility of mishandling chemicals or
equipment and training of employees in
housekeeping techniques. Pollutants that
may enter retention structures at CAFO
sites due to poor housekeeping include
oils, grease, paints. gasoline, truck
washdown. solvents litter, debris and
sanitary wastes. Management plans can
address the following to prevent the
discharge of these pollutants:
• Designate areas for equipment
maintenance and repair:
• Provide waste receptades at
convenient locations and provide
regular collection of wastes:
• Locate equipment washdown areas
on site, 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.
Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures. Areas where potential spills
Can occur, and their accompanying
drainage points should be identified
clearly in the pollution prevention plan.
Where appropriate, specifying material
handling procedures arid 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
retention structures unless necessary
because of immediate safety
considerations.
Sediment and Erosion Prevention The
plan shall identify areas which, due to
topography, activities, or other factors.
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion. and identify measures to limit
erosion.
Employee Training. Employee training
programs are necessary to inform
personnel at all levels of responsibility
of the requirements of the permit and of
the procedures outlined in the 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.
inspections and Recordkeeping. The
facility operator or a responsible person
will be named In the Pollution
Prevention Plan to develop the plan and
do the required inspections and
reporting. This person will assist the
facility manager in its implementation.
maintenance, and revision. The
activities and responsibilities of the
designated person should address all
aspects of the facilitys pollution
prevention plan. However. EPA prefers
that the facility manager, not the
employee have overall responsibility
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
32485
and accountability for the quality of the
ollutlon prevention plan. to ensure
quate implementation of the plan.
Recordkeeping and Internal
Reporting Procedures. A record keeping
system ensures adequate
implementation of the pollution
prevention plan. Incidents such as spills.
leaks and improper dumping. along with
other information describing the quality
and quantity of discharges should be
included in the records. Inspections and
maintenance activities such as cleaning
oil and grit separators or catch basins
should be documented end recorded.
Records of releases of a hazardous
substance, describing each release that
has occurred at any time after the date
of three years prior to the issuance of
this pernut. measures taken in response
to the release, and measures taken to
prevent recurrence must be included in
plans.
Visual Inspections. Qualified plant
personnel should be identified to inspect
designated equipment and storage
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
follow up procedure must be used to
ure that appropriate and adequate
sponse and corrective actions have
been taken. Records of inspections are
required to be maintained.
• Site Inspection. It is important that
the permittee conduct annual inspection
of the facility site to verify that the
description of potential pollutant
sources is accurate, the drainage map
has been updated or otherwise modified
to reflect current conditions: and the
controls outlined in the pollution
prevention plan to reduce pollutants are
being implemented arid are adequate.
Records documenting significant
observation made during the site
inspection must be retained as part of
the pollution prevention plan for a
minimum of three years. This allows the
Agency access to records of permit
compliance much the same as all self
reported information requited in NPDES
permits.
Special requirements for discharges
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of IW,000
or more. Facilities discharging through a
municipal separate storm system serving
a pop uhitlon of 100.000 or more shall
comply with applicable requirements in
e municipality’s storm water
nagement program developed under
. DES permits issued for the discharge
of the municipal separate storm sewer
system that receives the CAFO facility’s
discharge. provided the operator of the
CAFO has been notified of such
conditions.
Consistency with other plans.
Facilities which have requirements for
retention capacity and land application
of wastes provided in site specific plans
developed by SOS. or Beet Management
Practices (BPM) Programs developed by
a professional consultant may
incorporate any part of such plans into
the pollution prevention plan by
reference.
Additional Information
Additional technical Information on
BMP’s and the elements of a BMP plan
is contained in the publication entitled
“NPDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Document.” US. EPA. June
1981. Site or Pollutant.Speciflc Best
Management Practices. Information
more specific to CAFO is available
through FarmASyst (national contact
ph.* 608—282 —0024) developed for EPA
by the University of Wisconsin.
Additional OMPs are included In
appendix A of the permit. These BMP’s
are recommended for use by the
operator of CAFO facilities, but are not
required. Their inclusion in the permit is
meant to provide the facility operator
with guidance and recommendations. A
decision to use the BMPe in appendix A
is voluntary and should take into
account site specific factors.
The perrnittee is also provided with
reference application rates and manure
nitrogen values In Appendices B&C to
help the operator with the
documentation of land application
procedures. The information provided in
the appendices of the permit are for
reference only. Site specific information
should be taken into account prior to the
land application of any CAFO wastes.
Additional Information on manure
content and application rates can be
obtained through the Sod Conservation
Service and the Texas Agricultural
Extension Service. The operator may
also wish to review the information
available through the American Society
of Agricultural Engineers. 2959 Niles
Road. St. Joseph, Michigan 49085—9559.
(D) State Standards. In accordance
with section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA
these permits must include all State
standards and rules which may be more
stringent than the federal requirements.
The following requirements are
promulgated State Standards for CAFOs
in Texas and as such will be included in
the final NPDES general permit for
CAFOs in the State of Texas:
Subchapter B Livestock and Poultry
Production Operations Rules Effective
4/1/87 part 321.36. Ground Water
Protection, and part 321.40 Edwards
Aquifer. These sections of the Texas
rules establish liner requirements for all
new CAFOs: and prohibit the
establishment of any new CAFO on the
recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer.
d. Recording and reporting.
Monitoring data serves a number of
functions under the NPDES program.
Discharge monitoring 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. Discharge
monitoring data can be used in
evaluating the potential of the discharge
to cause or contribute to water cuality
impacts and water quality star.dards
violations.
Discharge monitoring data can also be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of
controls on reducing pollutants in
discharges. This function of monitoring
can be important in evaluating the
effectiveness of source control or
pollution prevention measqres 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
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.
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, permits for
feedlots will require no discharge of
pollutants into waters of the U.S.
Monitoring data will be required only in
case of discharge from the retention
system.
If for any reason, there is a discharge.
the permittee is required to notify the
Director and the State in writing within
14 days of the discharge from the
retention facility, and to document the
follcwing nfoi’niatlon to the on-site
pollution prevention plan: (a) A
description and cause of the discharge.
including an estimate of the discharge
volume: (b) The period of discharge.
including exact dates and times, and. if
not corrected the anticipated time the
discharge is expected to continue, and
steps being taken to reduce, eliminate
and prevent recurrence of the discharge
(c) Analysis of the conventional
pollutants in the discharge: (d) If caused
by a precipitation event. information
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. Na. 141 / Wednesday , July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
from the nearest National Weather
Sesvfcc station concerning the size of
the precipitation event; (e)
Measurements taken for the purpose of
the monitoring shall be representative of
the monitored discharge.
The discharge mast be analyzed for
all conventional pollutants associated
with feedlot operation. Numbers of
Focal Coliform bacteria are an Indicator
of the amount of pathogenic bacteria
that is being discharged to the receiving
water. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is a
common pollutant found in discharges
that can have significant impacts on
receiving waters. Oxygen demand (COD
and BODS) will help the permitting
authority evaluate the oxygen depletion
potential of the discharge. Five day
bioing cal Oxygen Demand (BOD5) is
the most commonly used Indicator of
oxyg m demand. The pH wiLl provide
important 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, Total Keldahl Nitrogen
(TKN). nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen are
measures of nutrients that can impact
warar quality. In addition, the
inomtoring requirements contain a
requirement to monitor pollutants the
facility uses or stores on site which have
a potential to be in the discharge.
(Example: frequently used cleaning
agents and pesticides.)
All discharge information and data
will be available to the Director upon
request As a part of the pollution
prevention plan. this information will
also be available to the public upon
reasonable request. Signed copies of
momtoring reports shall be submitted to
the Btate if requested. The perinittee
musS notify the Director in writing
within 14 days of any planned changes
in the permitted facility or activity
which may result in noncompliance with
permit requirements. The permittee must
also report all instances of
nrm nmpliance in writing within 14 days
to the Director in accordance with this
permit.
The draft general permits have an
“adverse climate conditions” provision
alloanng 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
wrtzcb prohibit the collection of samples
including weather conditions that create
dangnrous conditions for personnel
(such as local flooding, high winds.
hurricane, tornadoes, electrical storms.
etcj.
The requirements for the type of
samples taken vary depending on the
nature of the retention structure. A
minimum of one grab sample may be
takers from the over-flow structure for
discharges from holding ponds or other
impoundments. Feedlots are not
required to submit monitoring reports
unless apeciflcally requested by the
Director. These discharger -s must
maintain sampling data collected during
the term of the permit. The Agency
requests comments as to whether this
data should be submitted to the
appropriate State Agency (e.g. State
Health Departments). The Agency also
requests comment as to whether
facilities covered by these permits
should be required to submit to the
appropriate State agency an annual
certification that a pollution prevention
plan has been developed for the site and
is being implemented.
The pennittee is required to retain
records of all monitoring information.
copies of all reports required by this
permit, and records of all data 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.
e. Standard permit conditions. This
permit includes all of the standard
conditions used in NPDES permitting to
insure proper implementation of the
permit requirements.
5. Reopener clause
Where a potential exists for the State
to develop numeric limitations which
are more stringent, or control a pollutant
not controlled by permit, the region
reserves the right to revise, revoke or
modify the permit to meet any
applicable water quality standards.
8. Definitions
Region 6 requests comments on any
terms referred to in this permit which
are not defined in Part VIII of the permit.
V. Economic Impact
EPA believes that this proposed
general permit will be economically
beneficial to the regulated community. It
provides an economic alternative to the
individual application process the
facilities covered by this permit would
otherwise have to face. The
requirements are consistent with those
already imposed by effective federal
regulations and State requirements. The
suggested management practices and
pollution prevention plans give the
regulated facilities guidelines which
may save them time and money.
An economic analysis was done when
the BAT requirements for the national
effluent guidelines (40 CFR 412) were
published. Region 8 believes that the
same economic and technology
rationale would apply to the smaller
facilities covered by this print. Also.
Region 8 believes that this permit is the
most economical permitting option
available to the smaller facilities with
NPDES application requirements.
I L however, any smaller facilities
believe that this economic analysis for
the guidelines containment technology
would not apply to their facility and that
they would be able to achieve necessary
water quality requirements of the
receiving stream, through the use of
biological or equivalent treatment
systems, those smaller facilities may
apply for individual permit coverage.
It may be in many situations unlikely.
however, that an operator of a CAFO
would be able to meet water quality
standards economically with a
biological treatment system. Pollutant
content of the wastewaters from the
containment structures can have as
much as 50 to 600 mg/I of nitrogen.
Region 6 believes the biological
treatment needed to reduce the pollutant
and pathogen loadings to meet water
quality standards set for a particular
receiving water could prove excessively
expensive.
VI. Compliance with Other Federal
Regulations
A. National Eavirvnmen Cal Policy Act
Finding of No Significant Impact
To all interested government agepcies
and public groups: Pursuant to the
requirements-of section 511(c) of the
Clean Water Act and the environmental
review procedures of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
at 40 CFR part 6, “Procedures for
Implement ing the Requirements of the
Council on Environmental Quality on
the National Environmental Policy Act”
for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) New
Source Program. the EPA has conducted
a general environmental review of the
following proposed actiosu
(A) Proposed action. Issuance of
General NPDES Permit for New Source
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO), defined in 40 CFR
part 122 appendix B and 40 CFR part
412, and located in all parts of the State.
The discharge of process wastewater
from these facilities is subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.23 and 40
CFR part 412. and to the application of
the new source performance standards
promulgated on February 14. 1974. under
the NPDES permit program.
(B) Environmental effects general 4 ’y
associated with CAFOs. Potential
Impacts to Surface Waters. Impacts to
surface water recourses can result from
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 / Wednesday. July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
32487
runoff from the feedlot area. The runoff
nay be contaminated with pesticides
ed in veterinary treatments, nutrients
.id bacteria from the fecal matter.
rations and mineral blocks. Other
contaminants in the runoff may result
from improper disposal of dredge
material from the waste water holding
ponds. and from erosion resulting from
uncontrolled runoff.
Potential Impacts to Groundwater
Resources. Contaminants in unlined
holding ponds may seep into
groundwater resources. Possible
contaminants contained in the ponds
include the nutrient nitrogen and
bactena from fecal materials, and
pesticides used in veterinary treatments.
Potential Impacts to the Ambient Air
Quality. The primary impacts to the
ambient air quality derive from the
methane emissions and the noxious
odors to adjoining areas.
(C) Mitigation and general pollution
prevention. The new source
performance standards effluent
guidelines for CAFOs require that there
be no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters, the
process waste water treatment pond is
to be designed. constructed and
operated to contain all process
erierated waste waters plus the runoff
‘om a 25-year. 24-hour rainfall event for
location of the point source. The
.. .ilding pond will be lined with either a
synthetic or a day liner to prevent
groundwater contamination. Buffer
zones will be used to separate feed lot
areas from residential areas to mitigate
for odor and visual impacts. CAFOs will
be required to use Best Management
Practices for control of pollution.
(D) Finding. On the basis of a general
review of the impacts commonly
associated with CAFO operations and
other available Information, the EPA has
made a preliminary finding that the
issuance of the General NPDES Permit
will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts and that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Is
not required. This Finding of No -
Significant Impact (FNSI) covers CAFO
facilities in place and operating at the
time of issuance of the General Permit.
Applicants for CAFO facilities proposed
after the issuance of the General Permit
shall submit an appropriate EID and
undergo environmental review prior to
the start of construction.
Comments regarding this decision not
to prepare an EIS will be accepted
luring the thirty (30) day period
Uowing the public notice of this
‘liminary FNSI. The finthng will
ome final with the issuance of the
final permit decision. Address all
comments to: Ellen Caidwell (6W—PS),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202—
2733. Telephone: (214) 655—7190.
New CAFO subject to National
Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR part 412)
will be required to complete an
Environmental Review with the Agency
prior to coverage under the permit. New
facilities are any CAFO not in operation
as of the issuance date of the permits.
These facilities, prior to construction
must complete an environmental review
with this Agency. The initial form to
start the process of an environmental
review has been provided In Appendix
D of the permit. The permittee must
have documentation of “No Significant
Impact” or a completed Environmental
Impact Statement. in accordance with
an environmental review conducted by
the Agency, as a condition of coverage
under the permit This documentation
must be retained on site.
B. Endangered Species Act
The permits proposed today will
authorize no discharge other than upsets
and bypasses, which are relatively
Infrequent occurrences. Accordingly,
EPA Region 6 determines that issuance
of these permits is unlikely to adversely
affect any listed threatened or
endangered species or designated
critical habifat. EPA Region 6 has
submitted copies of these permits to the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. During the
comment period for these proposed
permits, Region 8 will be undergoing
consultation with Fish & Wildlife
Service regarding this determination.
C. 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.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in this
general permit under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 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 provisions
of the Clean Water Act.
£ Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 at 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, i here
the head of the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entitles.
Today’s proposed general permit
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 is8ued. will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122
Administrative practice and
procedure, Reporting arid record keeping
requirements, Water pollution controL
Authoi4ty Clean Water Act. 33 USC i2 1 et
seq.
Dated July 1. 1992.
W.B. Hathaway.
Acting Regionai Administrator.
NPDES General Permit for Discharges
From Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operatlons—Table of Contents
Part I. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area
B. Coverage and Eligibility.
C Limitations on Coverage
D. Requiring an mdlvi dual permit or an
alternative general permit.
E. Notification Requirements
F. Permit Expiration
Part IL Effluent Limitations
A. Discharge Limitations For All Categones
Of CAFOs Other Than Ducks Facilities
Established Prior to 1974.
B. Releases In Excess of the 25 year. 24-hour
Storm Event
Part III. Special Conditions. Management
Practices, and Other Non-Numeric
Limitations
A. Prohibition of Unauthorized Substance,.
B. Proper Operation and Maintenance
Requirements.
Part IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Discharge Notification.
B. Anticipated Noncompliance.
C. Other Noncompliance Reporting.
D. Penalties for Falsification of Reports.
E. Retention of Record..
F. Availability of Reports.
C. Bypass of Treatment Facilities.
H Upset Conditions.
I. Planned Changes.
J. Duty to Provide Information
K. Other Information.
L Signatory Requirements.
Part Vt. Standard Permit Requirements-
A. Duty to Comply.
B. Inspection and Entry.
C. Toxic Pollutants.
D Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions.
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, Iuly 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules
F. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a
Defense.
G. Duty to Mitigate.
H. Proper Operation and Maintenance.
L Penalties far Falsification of Monitoruig
System..
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Uabillty.
K. Property Rights.
L. Severability.
M. State Laws.
N. Permit Action..
Part VU. Definition.
Part 1. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area.
The permit covers all areas
administered by Region 8 in the State of
2
B. Coverage and Eligibility
Unless excluded from coverage in
accordance with paragraph C or D
below, owners or operators of animal
feeding operations that are defined in 40
CFR 122 appendIx B as concentrated
animal feeding operations, and are
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
122.23 are authorized under the terms
and conditions of this permit Owners or
operators of Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are not
required to submit a notice of gain
coverage under this permit unless
specified by the Director.
1. Permittees must retain on site a
copy of the permit and the pollution
prevention plan as required by thin
permit
2. Other Animal Feeding Operations.
AU other animal feeding operations are
encouraged to comply with this permit
3. CAPO’s With Expired Permits or
Pending Applications. All facilities
which have expired permits and have
reapplied in accordance with 40 CFR
122.21(d); and all facilities which have
submitted applications in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.21(a) are automatically
covered by the terms of this permit A
permittee may request to be excluded
from coverage by this permit by
applying for an individual permit In
accordance with 40 CFR 1 22R(b)(3)(W).
4. Additional Coverage Requirements
for Concentrated / tnimiil Feeding
Operations Established After Permit
Issuance. New CAFO facilities subject
to National Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR
412) shall, prior to discharging, complete
the form provided in Appendix D of this
permit. The form must be sent to: Mr.
Hector Pena (OE-FFJ. U.S. EPA Region 8.
1445 Rose Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202.
The permittee shall have
documentation of “No Significant
‘Note That the Agency is Nobang distinct drift
general permits to L.ewsian.. New Mexico.
Oklahoma, Texu.
Impact” or a completed Environmental
Impact Statement, in accordance with
an envirorimentaj review conducted by
this Agency, as condition of coverage
under this permit This documentation
shall be obtained and retained on site
prior to any discharge from the CAFO.
( limitations on Coverage.
The following discharges from
Concentrated Aminal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) are not covered by
this permit:
1. CAFO’s that the Director has
determined to be or may reasonably be
expected to be contributing to a
violation of a water quality standard,
and which have been notified by the
Director to file for an Individual or
alternative general permit in accordance
with Part I, D. (below) of this permit.
2. CAFO’s that discharge all their
runoff and waatewater to a sanitary
sewer system which discharges In
accordance with an NPDES permit
3. Concentrated Duck feeding
operations established prior to 1974
which are not subject to new source
performance standards. -
D. Requiring an Individual Permit or an
Aiternotive General 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 as provided in 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(I). The Director will notify
the owner or operator in writing that a
permit application is required. 11 an
owner or operator fails to submit In a
timely maimer an Individual NPDES
permit application required by the
Director under this paragraph, then the
applicability of this general permit to the
individual NPDES perinittee 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 as provided in 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(lii). The owner or operator
shall submit an individual application
(Form 1 and Form 2B) to the Director
with reasons supporting 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 facility is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the
individual permit or on the date of
approval for coverage under the
alternative general permit. When an
individual NPDES permit Is denied to an
owner or operator otherwise subject to
this permit, or the owner or operator is
denied for coverage under an alternativi-
NPDES general permit, the perinittee is
automatically reinstated under this
permit on the date of such denial, unless
otherwise specified by the Director.
£ Notification Requirements
Owners or operators of facilities
authorized by this permit shall notify the
appropriate State Agency that they are
covered by this permit State northca non
must be made withIn 30 days of
issuance of this permit or upon
completion of a new facility.
F. Permit Expiration
Coverage under this permit will expire
five (5) years from the date of Issuance.
The conditions of an expired permit
continue in force until the effective date
of a new permit (40 CFR 122.6).
Part 11. Effluent limitations
A. Discharge limitations For Au
Categories Other Than Duck Facth:ies
Prior to 1974
The following limitations establish the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties which may be
discharged by a CAFO In compliance
with this permit after applicajion of the
best available technology economically
achievable or new source performance
standards: There shall be no discharge
of process waste water pollutants to
waters of the U.S.
Limitations established for
concentrated duck feeding operations
which began operations after the
establishment of New Source
Performance Standards In 1974 are
subject to the new source performance
standard. There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
waters of the U.S.
B Releases in Excess of the 25 year. 24.
hr Storm Event
Process waste pollutants In the
overflow may be discharged to
navigable waters whenever rainfall
events, either chronic or catastrophic,
cause an overflow of process waste
water from a facility designed,
constructed and operated to contain all
process generated waste waters plus the
runoff from a 25-year. 24-hour rainfall
event for the location of the point
source. There shall be no effluent
limitations on discharges from detention
structures constructed and maintained
to contain.the 25 year. 24 hour storm
event If the discharge Is the result of a
rainfall event which exceeds the design
capacity and proper maintenance.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 141 I Wednesday, July 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules
32489
Retention structures shall contain all
process wastewaters plus the 25 year. 24
hour storm event Structures shall be
ufficient to contain all waatewater,
€ ven In case of high winds.
Part lU. Special Condltiona.
Management Practices, and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
A. Prohibit/on on Unauthorized
Substances
All discharges to containment
structures shall be composed enth’ely of
wastewaters from the proper operation
and maintenance of a CAFO and the
precipitation from the animal feeding
operation areas. The disposal of any
materials (other than discharge.
associã ted with proper operation and
maintenance of the CAFO) into the
containment structures are prohibited
by this permit.
B. Proper Opervtion and Maintenance
Requirements
The facilities covered by this permit
are required to document the attainment
of Best Available Technology (BAT) and
Best Conventional Technology (BCT).
and all Best Management Practices
(B? s) used to comply with the effluent
limitations in this permit Such
documentation shall be included In the
‘ ollutlon Prevention Plan (PPP) outlined
Part II. C. of this permit and shall be
made available to the Director upon
request. Where applicable, equivalent
measures contained In a site specific
Animal Waste Management Plan
prepared by the State Soil Conservation
Service (SCS). may be substituted for
the BMP and PPP requirements in this
Part of the permit Where provisions In
the SCS plan are substituted for
applicable BMPa or portions of the PPP.
the PPP must refer to the appropriate
section of the SCS plan. if the pollution
prevention plan contains reference to
the SCS plan, a copy of the SCS plan
must be kept on site.
1. Operating and Maintenance Record.
The owner! operator shall construct
operate and maintain the feedlot In
compliance with this permit Where the
information contained in a SCS plan is
equivalent to the required
documentation below, the records for
this permit may Include reference to the
SCS plan as documentation of permit
compliance. The following records shall
be maintained at the feedlot and shall
be made available to the Director upon
request
a. Calculations required for
-‘plication rates and retention facility
.pac lty
b. Documentation of existing retention
facility capaclty
c. Date log indicating monthly
Inspection of the retention facility for
structural integrity and maintenance;
d. Date log indicating weekly
inspection of wastewater level in
retention facility, including specific
measurement of wastewater level:
e. If the waste (manure) is sold or
given to other persons for beneficial use.
maintain a log of date of removal from
the feedlot name of haulei- and amount.
in dry tons, of waste removed from the -
feedlot. Incidental amounts, given away
by the passenger pick-up truck load,
need not be recorded.
2. Best Management Practice.. The
following Beat Management Practices
(BMPa) shall be utilized by concentrated
animal feeding owners/operators, as
appropnate, based upon existing
physical and economic conditions.
opportunities and constraints. Where
the provisions In a SCS plan equivalent
or more protective the permittee may
refer to the SCS plan as documentation
of compliance with the BMP ’a required
by this permit -
a. Control facilities must be designed.
constructed, and operated to contain all
process generated wastewatere and the
contaminated runoff from a 25-year, 24-
hour rainfall event for the location of the
point source. Calculations may also
Include allowances for surface retention,
Infiltration, and other site specific
factors. Waste control facilities must be
constructed, maintained and managed
so as to retaIn all contaminated rainfall
runoff from open lots and associated
areas, process generated wastewater.
and waste.
Open lots and associated wastes shall
be isolated from outside surface
drainage by ditches, dikes. banns.
terrace, or other such structures
designed to carry peak flows expected
at times when the 25 year, 24-hr. rainfall
event occurs.
Retention facilities shall not be built
In a wetland, fresh water plays, or other
water of the U.S. except in compliance
with a 404 Permit form the U.S. Corp of
Engineers.
(1) Retention Capacity Calculations.
Retention facilities shall be sized based
upon the following procedure. Calculate
the retention capacity based upon the
25-year 24-hour rainfall event by
5—
(A) The runoff volume from open lot
surfaces plus
(B) The runoff volume from areas
between open lot surfaces and the
retention facilities plus
(C) The rainfall multiplied by the area
of the retention facility and wastes
basin plus
(I)) The volume of rainfall from any
roofed area that I. directed into the
retention facilities plus
(E) All waste and process generated
wastewater produced during a period of
time not less 21 days including
(I) Volume of wet manure plus:
(ii) Volume of water used for manure!
waste removal plus:
(iii) Volume of cleanup/washwater
plus;
(iv) Other water such as drinking
water that enters the retention facilities.
Where appropriate, site specific
information should be used to determine
retention capacity and land application
rates. All site specific Information used
must be documented In the Operation
and Maintenance Record.
(2) Retention Facility Embankment..
The following minimum design
standards are required for construction
and/or modification of a retention
facility; Soils used in the embankment
shall be free of foreign material such as
trash, brush, and fallen trees. The
embankment shall be constructed in lifts
or layers no more than aix inches thick
and compacted at optimum moisture
content. Any variation in embankment
construction must be accompanied by
compaction testing. Compaction tests
must be certified by a Professional
Engineer. All embankment walls shall
be protected by planting grass or the use
of riprapping (or It. equivalent).
(3) Retention facilities shall be
equipped with either irrigation or
evaporation or liquid removal systems
capable of dewatering the retention
facilities. Operators using pits, ponds, or
lagoons for storage and treatment of
storm water, manure and process
generated wastewater. including flush
waste handling systems, shall maintain
in their wastewater retention facility
aMfilcient freeboard to contain rainfall
and rainfall runoff from a 25-year
rainfall event The operator shall restore
freeboard for a 25-year rainfall event
with 21 day. of any rainfall event or
accumulation of wastes or process
generated wastewater which reduce.
such freeboard, weather permitting.
Equipment capable of dewatenng the
wastewater retention structures of
waste and/or wastewater with 21 days
following any rainfall event which
encoaches on the volume of the pond(s)
required to accommodate the rainfall
and runoff resulting from the 25-year
rainfall event shall be at the site
available for use at all times.
(5) Permanent markers (measuring
device) shall be maintained in the
wastewater retention facilities to show
the volume required for a 25-year
rainfall event within the containment
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22, 1992 I Proposed Rules
ponds. The marker shall be visible from
the top of the levee.
(6) Where site specific variations are
warranted, the pennittee must document
these variation., and their
appmprfatanau, Concentrated animal
feeding operations constructing a new or
modifying an existing wastewater
retention facility should insure that all
construction and design is In accordance
with good engineering practices.
b. No flowing surface waters (e.g.
rivers, streams, canals) shall come into
direct contact with the animal , confined
on the CAFO. Fences may be used to
restrict such access.
c. Wastewater retention facilities or
holding pens may not be located in the
100-year flood plain unless the facility Is
protected from inundation and damage
that may occur during that flood event
d. Wastewater retention facilities,
holding pens or waste/wastewater
disposal sites may not be located closer
than 500 from a public water well nor
250 feet from a private water well.
e. Waste handling, treatment, and
management shall not result In the
destruction or adverse modification of
the critical habitat of endangered or
threatened species, or contribute to the
taking of endangered or threatened
species of plant. fish or wildlife.
f. Waste handling, treatment and
management shall not create a public
health hazard shall not result In
groundwater contamination shall
conform with State guidelines and/or
regulations.
g. Solids, sludges. manure, or other
pollutants removed In the course of
treatment or control of wastewater shall
be disposed of In manner such as to
prevent any pollutant from such
materials from entering waters of the
United States.
h. All wastes from dipping vats. pest
and parasite control units, and other
facilities utilized for the application of
potentially hazardous or toxic chemicals
shall be handled and disposed of in a
manner such as to prevent any pollutant
from such materials from entering the
waters of the United States.
I. Pesticide Use. The operator shall
prevent the discharge of pesticide
contaminated waters into waters of the
U.S. The permittee shall notify the
Director in writing within 14 if any
discharge of pesticides into waters of
the U.S. occurs.
j. Dead animal, shall be properly
disposed of within 24 hours. Animals
may be buried (a minimum of 150 feet
from any drainage way with a minimum
of 3 feet of cover), composted in
accordance with health department
standards, or removed (rain the
premises.
k. Management of wastes. Collection,
storage, and disposal of liquid and solid
waste should be managed in accordance
with recognized practices of good
agricultural management. The economic
benefits derived from agricultural
operations carried out at the land
disposal site shall be secondary to the
proper disposal of waste and
wastewater,
3. Pollution prevention plans. A
pollution prevention plan shall be
developed for each facility covered by
this permit All containment structures
have the potential to discharge to
water, of the U.S. Pollution preventions
plans shall be prepared In accordance
with good engineering practices and
should include measures necessary to
limit pollutants in runoff to the
containment structures. The plan 8hall
Identify potential sources of pollution
which may reasonably be expected to
affect water quality in the case of
discharge from the CAFO. In addition,
the plan shall describe and ensure the
implementation of practices which are
to be used to assure compliance with the
limitations and conditions of this permit.
Where a SCS plan has been prepared
for the facility, the pollution prevention
plan may refer to the SCS plan when the
SCS plan documentation contain
equivalent requirements for the facility.
When the permittee uses a SCS plan as
partial completion of the pollution plan.
the SCS plan must be kept on site. The
land shall identify a specific
individual(s) at the facility who is
responsible for developing the
Implementation, maintenance, and
revision of the pollution prevention plan.
The activities and responsibilities of the
pollution prevention personnel should
address all aspects of the facility’s
pollution prevention plan.
a. The plan shall be signed by the
owner or other signatory authority in
accordance with Part VI.L (Signatory
Requirements), and be retained on site
In accordance with Part VLE. (Retention
of Records) of this permit. It shall l e
completed within 180 days of the
effective date of this permit (and
updated as appropriate), or, in the case
of new facilities, prior to operation.
Plans shall provide for compliance with
the terms of the plan within 365 days of
the effective date of this permit, or. in
the case of new facilities, upon
commencement of operations. Facilities
designated by the Director as
concentrated animal feeding operations
in accordance with Part I. B. 2.
(Designated “Concentrated” Animal
Feeding Operations) shall complete the
plan within 180 days, and provide for
compliance with 385 days after
notification from the Director that the
facility I. to be considered a
concentrated animal feeding operation.
The owner or operator of a facility
covered by this permit shall make plans
available upon request to the Director.
or authorized representative.
b. If the plan is reviewed by the
Director, or authorized representatives.
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. Alter such
notification from the Director, or
authorized representative, the perinittee
shall make changes to the plan within 30
days after such notification unless
otherwise provided by the Director.
c, The permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design.
construction. operation, or maintenance,
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States of if
the pollution prevention plan proves to
be Ineffective in achieving the general
objectives of controlling pollutants in
discharges from CAFO’s. Amendments
to the plan may be reviewed by the
Director or authorized representative.
d. The plan shall include, at a
minimum, the following items:
(1) Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources. Each plan shall provide a
description of potential sources which
may reasonably be expected to add’
pollutants to runoff drained from the
facility. Each plan shall identify all
activities and materials which may
potentially be pollutant sources. Each
plan shall Include:
(a) A site map, or topographic map
indicating, an outline of the drainage
area of the concentrated animiil feeding
area: each existing structural control
measure to reduce pollutants In
wastewater and precipitation runoff’.
and surface water bodies.
(b) A written description of material,
that are used, stored or disposed of at
the CAFO (such as pesticides. cleaning
agents. fuels etc.).
(c) A list of spills and leaks of toxic or
hazardous pollutants that occurred at
the facility after the effective date of this
permit and have the potential to
contribute pollutants to runoff waters.
(d) A summary of exi tlng sampling
data describing pollutants in overflow or
bypass discharges.
(2) Wastewater Management
Controls. Each facility covered by this
permit shall develop a description of
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
-------
Federal Regiater / VoL 57. No. 141 / Wednesday. July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
32491
pollutants at the facility. The plan shall
include a the location and a description
f existing structural and non.etructural
cor.trol measures to contain
wastewaters; and a description of any
treatment the wastewater receives. The
description of management controls
shall address the following mininium
components. including a schedule for
implementing such controls:
(a) Wostewater retention facilities.
The permittee must have on site
documentation supporting the
management controls used to contain
wastewaters and storm waters from the
concentrated feeding areas. Retention
facilities shall be equipped with either
irrigation or evaporation systems
capable of dewatering the retention
facilities, or a regular schedule of
wastewater removal by contract hauler.
The pollution prevention plan must
include all calculations used to support
design. construction. and size of the
retention structures, as well as, all
factors and calculations used in
determining land application rates.
acreage. and crops. Where economically
achievable, best management practices
provided In Part 1KB. should be used. If
land application is utilized for disposal
of wastewater. the following
requirements shall apply: (i) Discharge
(irrigated wastewater off the
application site is prohibiteth (ii) When
Irrigation disposal of wastewater is
used, facilities shall not exceed the
nutrient uptake of the crop coverage
with any land application of wastewater
and/or manure; (iii) Wastewater shall
not be irrigated when the ground is
frozen or saturated or during rainfall
events: (iv) Irrigation practices shall be
managed so as to prevent ponding or
puddling of wastewater on the site.
contamination of ground or surface
water, and the occurrence of nuisance
conditions such as odors and flies; (vi
Facilities including ponds, pipes,
ditches, pumps, diversion and irrigation
equipment shall be maintained to insure
ability to fully comply with the terms of
thi.s permit and the pollution prevention
plan; (ii) Adequate eqwpment or land
application area shall be available for
remo al of such waste and wastewater
as required tn maintain the retention
capacity of the facility for compliance
with this permit.
(b) L.ner Requirement. The pernuttee
shall have, at the CAFO facility, site
specific documentation that no
hydrologic connection exists between
the contained wastewater and surface
iaters of the United States. Where the
permittee cannot document that no
hydrologic connection through ground
water exists. the ponds. lagoons and
basins of the retention facilities must
have a liner which will prevent the
potential contamination of surface
waters.
(i) Documentation of No Hydrologic
Connection. A lack of hydrologic
connection can be demonstrated by: (1)
Documenting that there will be no
significant leakage from the retention
structure; or (2) documenting that any
leakage (rain the retention structure
would not migrate to 8urface waters. At
o minimum this documentation should
be certified by a Professional Engineer
or equivalent ground water professional
and must include:
—Hydraulic conductivity and thickness
of the natural materials underlying
and forming the walls of the
containment structure up to the
wetted perimeter-
—Depth to ground waten
—Hydraulic conductivity, thickness and
lithology of the uppermost aquiferi
—A piezometric (ground water contour)
map of the uppermost aquifer covering
the area In and around the.. tructure
and including the nearest flowing
stream.
For documentation of no significant
leakage, In-situ materials must, at a
minimum, meet the hydraulic
conductivity and thickness described in
Part ll.B.3.d(2)(b)(iil) (below).
Documentation that leakage will not
migrate to a surface water must include
maps showing ground water flow paths.
or that the leakage enters a confined
environment.
(ii) Liner construction. Liners for
retention structures should be
constructed in accordance wnh good
engineering practices and shall have
hydraulic conductivities no greater than
1 x 10’ cm/sec. Liner thickness should
be 1.5 feet or greater.
(iii) Liner maintenance. Where a liner
is installed to prevent hydrologic
connection the permittee must maintain
the liner to prevent hydrologic
connection to surface waters, and must
be installed to inhibit infiltration of
wastewaters Liner maintenance shall
include inspection at least once/2 years
or a leak detection system. Liner
inspetion will include the removal of
all liquids and accumulated solids from
the structure followed by a visual
inspection for cracks and other signs of
physical deterioration. Where regular
liner inspection is not established and
no leak detection system is installed.
monitoring wells must be Installed on
the down gradient slope where the
potential exists for down gradient
migration to impact surface waters
Samples from monitoring wells must be
analyzed for total nitrates, nitrite,
ammonia, and total phosphorus at least
once/quarter. Data from the monitoring
wells must be kept on site for three
years with the pollutions prevention
plan. The first year’s sampling shall be
considered the baseline data and must
be retained on site for the life of the
facility.
(c) Manure and Pond Solids Handling
and Land Application. Storage and land
application of manure shall not cause a
discharge of pollutants to waters of the
United States or cause a water quality
violation in waters of the United States.
Discharge (run-off) of waste from the
application site is prohibited. At all
times, sufficient volume shall be
maintained within the control facility to
accommodate manure, other solids.
wastewaters and rain waters (runoff)
from the concentrated animal feeding
areas. A minimum of two feet of
freeboard above a normal pond level
should be Included in the facility design.
The pollution prevention plan must
ensure and document that procedures
for the handling and disposal of manure
and pond solids complies with the
following requirements: (i) Storage and/
or surface disposal of manure In the 100-
year flood plain is prohibited. (ii) Run
off from manure storage piles must be
retained on site. (lii) Waste shall not be
applied to land when the ground Is
frozen or saturated or during rainfall
events. (iv) Waste manure shall be
applied to suitable land at appropriate
times and rates. Timing and rate of
applications to shall be in response to
crop needs. assuming usual nutrient
losses, expected precipitation and soil
conditions; (Permittees are encouraged
to apply manures and pond solids as
fertilizer. However where local water
quality is threatened by phosphorus, the
pernuttee should limit the application
rate to the crop uptake rate of
phosphorus.) (v) Disposal of manure
shall not cause or contribute to the
taking of any endangered or threatened
species of plant, fish, or wildlife; nor
shall such disposal interfere with or
cause harm to migratory water fowl. (vi)
All necessary practices to muunuze
waste manuie transport to watercourses
shall be utilized and documented to the
plan (vii) Adequate manure storage
capacity based upon manure and waste
production and land availability shall be
provided. Do not stockpile manure near
watercoursee. (vui) Use edge-of-field.
grassed strips to separate eroded soil
and manure particles from the field
runoff, and avoid land subject to
excessive erosion.
(3) Preventive Maintenance. A
preventive maintenance program shall
involve inspection and maintenance of
-------
Z492
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 141 / Wednesday , luly 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
alirimoff management devices (cleaning
a4} gbrS , catch basins) as well as
inspecting and testing facility equipment
and containment structures to uncover
conditions that could cause breakdowns
or failures resulting In discharge . of
pnllizntnta to surface waters. Operator.
will provide routine maintenance to
their control facilities in accordance
with aschedule and plan of operation to
ensure compliance with permit
lirmtrition. and state water quality
criteria. This schedule and plan will be
written and include a description of the
pollution control equipment and
structures used, operating schedules for
dewatering the pollution control
facilities and disposing of the
arrurniilsited solids. and a description of
where the removed liquid and solid
wastes are to be disposed to prevent
entry to any waters of the United States.
(4J Good Housekeeping. Good
housekeeping requires the maintenance
of a dean, orderly facility.
Housekeeping procedures that would
result In the basic overall cleanliness of
the facility shall be outlines In the
pollhtinn prevention plan.
(5l SpJ1l Prevention and Response
P vcethrres. Areas where potential spill
canio r. and their accompanying
drainage ponds shall be identified
clearly in the pollution prevention plan.
Where- appropriate. the pollution
prevention plan should specify material
hiaridlmg procedures and storage
requirements. Procedure. for deaning
up ap i s shall 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
Sedimenl and Erosion Prevention.
The plan shall identify areas which, due
to topography, activities, or other
factors. have a high potential for
aigIa i iint soil erosion, and identify
measures to limit erosion.
(r j pioyee Trainrng. Employee
t!.m . programs shall Inform personnel
at alli level., of responsibility of the
c tients and goals of the pollution
prev ’tlnn plan. Training should
addresa topics such as spill response
and clean up, good housekeeping and
material management practice.. A
pollution prevention plan shall identify
periodic dates for such training.
(8 Inspections andRor 1keepth
The operator or the person named in the
pollution prevention plan as the
individual responsible (or drafting and
impli ’ n nbng the plan shall be
espeusihle for inspections and
recor eepmg.
R ard keeping and Internal Reportmg
Pmcethrres. Incidents such as spills, or
ither discharges. along with other
Information describing the pollution
potential and quantity of the discharge
shall be included in the records.
Inspections and maintenance activities
shall be documented and recorded.
These records must be kept on site for a
minimum of three years.
Visual Inspecti o ns. The authorized
person shall inspect designated
equipment and plant areas. Material
handling areas shall be inspected for
evidence of, or the potential for.
pollutants entering the drainage system.
A tracking or follow-up procedure shall
be used to ensure that appropriate
action has been taken in response to the
inspection.
Site Inspection. A complete inspection
of the facility shall be done and a report
made documenting the findings of the
Inspection made at least once/year. The
inspection shall be conducted by the
authorized person named in the
pollution prevention plan, to verify that
the description of potential pollutant
sources is accurate: the drainage map
has been updated or otherwise modified
to reflect current conditions; and the
controls outlined in the pollution
prevention plan to reduce pollutants are
being implemented and are adequate.
Records documenting significant
observation made during the site
Inspection shall be retained as part of
the pollution prevention plan. Records of
inspections shall be maintained for a
period of three years.
d. Special requirements for discharges
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of 100,000
or more. Facilities discharging through a
municipal separate storm system serving
a population of 100,000 population or
more shall comply with applicable
requirements in the municipality’s storm
water management program. CAFO
facilities must comply with the
requirements in the municipal storm
water management program developed
under an NPDES permit Issued for the
discharge of the municipal separate
storm sewer system that receives the
CAFO facility’s discharge. provided the
operator of the CAFO has been notified
of such conditions.
e. Permittees must evaluate the
applicability of the Recommended
Management Practices listed in
appendix A of this permiL Where
applicable and economically Leasible
the operator should include these
practices in the pollution prevention
plan.
4. Other Legal Requirements. No
condition of this permit shall release the
permittee from any responsibility or
requirements under other statutes or
regulations. Federal. State or Local.
Part W. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Discharge Notification
U. for any reason, there is a discharge,
the permlttee Is required to notify the
Director and the State in writing within
14 working days of the discharge from
the retention facility and to document
the following information to the on site
pollution prevention plani
1. The permittee shall monitor the
discharge and Include in the pollution
prevention plan the following
information in writing within 14 days of
becoming aware of such discharge.
a. A description and cause of the
dIscharge, including an estimate of the
discharge volume:
b. The period of discharge. Including
exact dates and Limes, and. If not
corrected the anticipated time the
discharge is expected to continue, and
steps being taken to reduce, eliminnte
and prevent recurrence of the discharge:
c. Sample Type. A minimum of one
grab sample shall be taken from the
over-flow structure for discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments.
Sampling and analysis of the discharge
samples crust be in accordance with
EPA approved methods for water
analysis listed in 40 CFR 136.
d. Analysis of discharge samples must
include the following Fecal Cohform
bacterla S-day Biological Oxygen
Demand (BOD5) Total Suspended
Solids (TSS); pH temperature: total
phosphorus: Kjeldahl nifrogee: nitrate
mtrogee: and any pesticide or waste
which the operator has reason to believe
could be in the discharge.
a. Measurements taken for the
purpose of monitoring shall be
representative of the monitored
d lscharga.
f. If caused by a precipitation event(s),
Information from the nearest available
weather station concerning the size of
the precipitation event.
g. Sampling Waiver. The permittee
must document description of why
samples could not be collected in lieu of
samples data when the discharger is
unable to collect samples due to climatic
conditions which prohibit the collection
of sampling Including weather
conditions that create dangerous
conditions for personnel (such as local
flooding, high winds, hurricane.
tornadoes. electhcal storms. etc.).
2. All discharge information and data
will be made available to the Director
upon request.
3. Written Notification. Signed copies
of monitoring reports shall be submitted
to the Director if requested at the
following addresses: (Address Here).
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 141 / Wednesday . July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
32493
B. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance
‘tice to the Director of any planned
anges in the permitted facility or
activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
C. Other Noncompliance Reporting
The permittee shall report all
instances of noncompliance within 14
working days to the Director in
accordance with Part IV..A. (Discharge
Notification) of this permit.
d. 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 docwnent submitted or
required to be maintained under this
permit, including reports of compliance
or noncompliance shall, apon conviction
be punished by a fine of not more than
S o.ooo per violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than six
months per violation, or by both.
E Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain copies of all
records required by this permit for a
period of at least three years from the
date reported. This period may be
‘ xtended by request of the Director at
/ time.
r. Availability of Reports
In addition to data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR Part 2.
information submitted to EPA may be
claimed as confidential by the submitter.
if no claim is made at the time of
submission. EPA may make the
information available to the public
without fw’ther notice. As required by
the Act, however. Notices of Intent.
permits, and effluent data shall not be
considered confidential and any claims
of confidentiality for this information
will be denied.
C Bypass of Treatment Facilities
1. NotIce:
a. Anticipated bypass. lithe permittee
knows in advance of the need for a
bypass, he shall submit to EPA and the
State written notice, if possible at least
ten days before the date of the bypass
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass to the Director as
required under Part IVA.
2. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass is prohibited and the
Director may take enforcement action
iinst a permittee for a bypass, unless:
The bypass was unavaoidable to
?revent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage:
U. There were no feasible alternative,
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 the permit tee could have installed
adequate backup equipment to prevent a
bypass which occurred during normal
periods of equipment downtime or
preventive maintenance: and
lii. The permittee submitted notices as
required under Part IV.A ..B..C. (above),
& H. (below) of this section.
b. The Director may approve an
anticipated bypass, after considering its
adverse effects, Ii the Director
determines that It will meet the three
conditions listed in Part IV G.2.a.
(above) of this section.
H. Upset Conditions
For facilities with biological treatment
systems who wish 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
pernultee can identify the specific
ca use(s) of the upset
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated .
c. The permnittee has notified the
Director of the upset as required under
Part IV.A.,B., and C.; and
d. The permittee commenced remedial
measures required in a timely manner.
In any enforcement proceeding the
perinittee seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof
I. Planned Changes
The perrnittee 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 the
alteration or addition could significantly
change the nature or increase the
quantity of pollutants discharged.
I Duty to Provide Information
The perm.ittee 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.
K Other Information
When the perrruttee becomes aware
that he failed to submit any relevant
facts or submitted Incorrect Information
in the Notice of Intent or in any other
report to the Director, he shall promptly
submit such facts or information.
L Signatory Requirements
All reports or information submitted
to the Director shall be signed and
certified.
1. All reports or information shall be
signed by the facility owner or operator/
manager where the authority to sign
documents has been assigned or
delegated to the operator/manager.
a. For facilities owned by a
corporation: By a responsible corporate
officer. For the purpose of this permit. a
responsible corporate office means (I) 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.
b. For a facilities owned by a
partnership or sole proprietorship: by a
general partner or the proprietor
respectively.
c. For facilities owned by a
municipality, St.ate, 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
if the authorization is made in writing by
a person described above, and the
authorization specifies either an
individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation.
3. Certification. Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the following certiflcatiorc
“I certif ’ 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 information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system. or
those persons directly re8ponslble 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
vinlations.”
-------
32404
Federal Register I Vol 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules
V. Standard Requirements
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
actlon for loss of authorization to
discharge under this general permit; or
for denial of a permit renewal
application.
B. Inspection and Ent ’y
The permittee shall allow the Director,
or an authorized representative of EPA
including the State, upon the
presentation of credentials and other
documents as may be required by law,
1. Enter upon the permittee’s premises
where a regulated facility or activity La
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 mimes 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 apthorized
by the Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
C. Toxic Pollutants
The pernuttee 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 these standards or
prohibitions, even if the permit has not
yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement
D. Penalties [ or Violations of Permit
Conditions
The Act provides that any person who
violates a permit condition
implementing sections 301. 302, 308. 307.
308, 319, or 405 of the Act is subject to a
civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per
day for each violation. Any person who
willfully or negligently violates permit
conditions implementing sections 301,
302,306.307,308.318. or 405 of the Act,
or any permit condition or limitation is
subject to a fine of not less than $Z500,
nor more than $25000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than one year, or both.
£ Conti uatio of the Limp/red General
Permit
An expired general permit continues
in force and effect until a new general
permit Is Issued.
F. 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.
G. Duty to Mitigate
The perrmttee 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,
H. P oper 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 includes the
operation of backup or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems only when
necessary to achieve compliance with
the conditions of the permit.
1. Penalties for Falsification of
Monitoring Systems
The 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 fines and
imprisonment described in Part V.D.
(Penalties for Violation of Permit
Conditions) of this permit
I. Oil 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 pemmittee 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.
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
circumstance, Is held Invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this
permit, shall not be affected thereby.
M. Slate Laws
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 established pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of the
Act
N. Permit Actions
ThJa permit may be modified, revoked
or 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 non-compliance does not
stay any permit condition.
VI. Reopener Clause
If effluent limitations or requirements
are established or modified in an
approved State Water Quality
Management Plan or Waste Load
Allocation and if they.are more stringent
than those listed In this permit or control
a pollutant not listed In this permit, this
permit may be reopened to Include those
more stringent limits or requirements.
VU, Definitions
1. “Animal feeding operation” means
a lot or facility (other than an aquatic
animal production facility) where the
animals have been, are, or will be
stabled or confined and fed or
maintained for a total of 45 days or more
in any 12-month period, and the animal
confinement areas do not sustain crops,
vegetation. forage growth, or post.
harvest residues In the normal growing
season. Two or more animal feeding
operations under common ownership
are a single an m l feeding operation if
they adjoin each other, or if they use a
common area or system for the disposal
of wastes.
2. “Animal unit’ means a unit of
measurement for any animal feeding
operation calculated by adding the
following numbers: The number of
slaughter and feeder cattle and dairy
heifers multiplied by 1.0, plus the
number of mature dairy cattle multiplied
by 1.4. plus the number of swine
weighing over 55 pounds multiplied by
0.4, plus the number of sheep multiplied
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No . 141 I Wednesday, July 22, 7992 / Proposed Rules
32495
by 0.1, plus the number of horses
ultiplied by 2.0.
3. “Best Management Practices”
1 BMP) 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 site runoff, spillage
or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or
drainage from raw material storage.
4. “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
5. “Concentrated animal feeding
operation” means an “animal feeding
operation” which meets the criteria in 40
CFR part 122. appendIx B. or which the
Director designates as a significant
contributor of pollution pursuant to 40
CFR 122.23. -
Animal feeding operations defined as
“concentrated” In 40 CFR part 122,
appendix B are as follows:
New and existing operations which
stable or confine and feed or maintain
for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-
month period more than the numbers of
animals specified In any of the following
categories:
‘ . 1,000 slaughter or feeder cattle:
700 mature dairy cattle (whether
milkers or dry cows.);
c. 2.500 swine weighing over 55
pounds:
d. 500 horses:
e. 10.000 sheep or lambs:
f. 55,000 turkeys;
g. 100,000 laying hens or broilers when
the facility has unlimited continuous
flow watering systems:
h. 30,000 laying hens or broilers when
facility has liquid manure handling
syste m :
i. 5,000 ducks: or
j. i,000 animal units from a
combination of slaughter steers and
heifers, mature dairy cattle, swine
over 55 pounds and sheep
New and existing operations which
discharge pollutants into navigable
waters either through a man-made ditch,
flushing system, or other similar man-
made device, or directly into waters of
the United States, and which stable or
confine and feed or maintain for a total
of 45 days or more in any 12-month
period more than the numbers or types
of animals in the following categories:
a. 300 sLaughter or feeder cattle:
b. 200 mature dairy cattle (whether
milkers or dry cows):
750 swine we!ghin3 over 55 pounds:
u 150 horses;
e. 3000 sheep or lambs:
f 16,000 turkeys;
g. 30,000 laying hens or broilers when
the facility has unlimited continuous
flow watering systems;
h. 9000 laying hens or broilers when
facility has liquid manure handling
system:
I. 1,500 ducks: or
j. 300 animal units (from a combination
of slaughter steers and heifers, mature
dairy cattle, swine over 55 pounds and
sheep).
0. “Control facility” means any system
used for the retention of all wastes on
the premises until their ultimate
disposal. This includes the retention of
manure, liquid waste, and runoff from
the feedlot area.
7. “Feedlot” means a concentrated.
confined animal or poultry growing
operation for meat, milk, or egg
production, or stabling. in pens or
houses wherein the animals or poultry
are fed at the place of confinement and
crop or forage growth or production is
not sustained in the area of confinement.
and is subject to 40 CFR part 412.
8. “Ground water” means any
subsurface waters.
9. “Land application” means the
removal of waste solids from a control
facility and incorporation into the soil
mantle primarily for disposal purposes.
10. “LIner” means any barrier in the
form of a layer, membrane or blanket.
Installed to prevent a hydrologic
connection between liquids contained in
retention structures and waters of the
U.S.
11. “Process wastewater” means any
process generated wastewater directly
or indirectly used in the operation of a
feedlot (such as spillage or overflow
from Animal or poultry watering
systems; washing. cleaning or flushing
pens. barns, manure pits, direct contact
swimming, washing. or spray cooling of
animals; and dust control) and any
precipitation (rain or snow) which
comes into contact with any manure or
litter, bedding, or any other raw material
or intermediate or final material or
product used in or resulting from the
production of animals or poultry or
direct products (e.g.. milk, eggs).
12. “Retention Facility” or “Retention
Structures” means all collection ditches,
conduits and swales for the collection of
runoff and wastewater, and all basins,
ponds and lagoons used to store wastes,
wastewaters and manures.
13. “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.
14. “The Act” means Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended. also
known as the Clean Water Act, found at
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq..
15. “Toxic pollutants” mean any
pollutant listed as toxic under section
307(a)(1) of the Act
16. “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 perinittee.
An upset does not include,
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventative
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
17. “25-year 24-hour rainfall event”
means the maximum 24-hour
precipitation event with a probable
recurrence interval of once In 25 years,
as defined by the National Weather
Service in Technical Paper Number 40,
“Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States”, May 1961, and subsequent
amendments, or equivalent regional or
state rainfall probability information
developed therefrom.
18, “10-year 24-hour rainfall event”
means the maximum 24-hour
precipitation event with a probable
recurrence interval of once in 10 years.
as defined by the National Weather
Service in Technical Paper Number 40,
“Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States”, May 1981, and subsequent
amendments, or equivalent regional or
state rainfall probability information
developed therefrom.
Appeadix A—Recowuieoded “Best”
Minagement Practices
The best management practices (B? Ws)
outlined in this Appendix are recommended
for the control and abatement of pollutant
discharges. Pollution Prevention Plan should
include these measures where it is
appropriate.
1. Loccuon SLondarth
This section establishes the minimum
standards which should be considered When
selecting the site for a new concentrated
animal feeding operation.
A. The purpose of this section ii to
minimize possible contamination of ground
and surface waters by defining the
characteristics that make an area unsuitable
or Inappropriate for concentrated animal
feeding operations. Permittees should take
every precaution to M1n .ma e the pouibthty
of exposing the public to nuisance conditions,
and to prevent locating of a concentrated
animal Feeding operation in an area
determined to be unsultdble or inappropriate.
unless the design, construction, and
-------
3248
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules
operational features of the facility will
mitigate the unsuitable site characteristic,.
a When constructing a new facility or a
substantial change of an existing facility or
developing a waste management plan for a
proposed site, the permattee should evaluate
whether the design. construction or
operational features minimizes possible
contamination of surface water and
groundwater. In making this evaluation, the
permittee should consider the following
factors:
1. Active geologic processes such as
flooding, erosion, subsidence, submergence
and faulting
2. Groundwater conditions such a.
groundwater flow rate. groundwater quality,
length of flow path to points of discharge and
aquifer recharge or discharge conditions:
3. Soil conditions such as stratigraphic
profile and complexity, hydraulic
conductivity of strata, and separation
distance from the facility to the aquifer and/
or surface water and
4. Cllmatological conditions.
C. Wascewater retention facilities or
holding pens should not be located In
wetlands. (‘rhis prohibition Is not applicable
to constructed wetlands.)
1). Wastewater retention facilities should
not be located in areas overlying regional
aquifers unless the regional aquifer is
separated from the base of the containment
structure by a minimum of 3 feet of material
with a vertical hydraulic conductivity not
greeter than i0’cm/sec or a thicker interval
of more permeable material which provides
equivalent or greater retardation of pollutant
migration. A synthetic membrane liner may
be substituted with a minimum of 30 mils
thicknes, and an underground leak detection
system with appropriate sampling points.
E. A minimum 500 foot buffer zone should
be maintained from the retention facilities
and storage areas to the nearest property
line. Holding pens should not be located
closer than 150 feet to the nearest property
line.
ii. Retent ion Stnictuiw Design
The permit requiree that the facility be
constructed and maintained to contain the 25
year. 24.hour storm event. It I. Important that
the retention structures be constructed in
accordance with good engineering practices.
The following are some design characteristics
that the owner/operator should consider in
the design of the retention structuresi
A. The embankment wall .hould have a top
width of at least 10 feet
8. Interior and exterior slop, of the
embankment walls should be no steeper than
one foot vertical to three feet horizontali
C. There should be en emergency freeboard
not less than two feet beset
D. The retention facility should be
constructed with an emergency spiliway or
overflow channel to remove water In a
controlled manner when the retention facility
capacity is exceeded.
E. The permit requires that wastewater
containment structures shall be isolated from
uncontaminated storm water run.on by harms
or diversion terraces. The diverted rainfall
runoff should not be diverted onto the
property of adjacent landowners without the
written permission of such landowners.
Ill. Surface Wager Protection
A. The permit requires that waste control
facilities be constructed, maintained and
managed so as to retain all contaminated
rainfall runoff from open lots and associated
areas, process generated wastewater. and
waste. Practices to decrease the lot runoff
and water volume are as follows:
1. Divert runoff from clean areas above lot
by constructing ditches, terracee and
waterways above an open lot
2. Install gutters. downapouts and buried
conduits to divert roof drainaget and
3. Provide more roofed area,
4. Decrease open lot surface area:
5. Repair or adlust waterers and water
systems to minimize water wastage.
0. Use practical amounts of water for
cooling
7. Use practical amounts of water for
cleaning equipment.
& Recycle water to flush manure from
paved surfaces if practical and applicable.
8. DIscharging wastewaters or runoff from
the concentrated animal areas is prohibited
by the permit. Practices to decrease the
potential of lot runoff and wastewaters to be
discharged to waters of the U.S.
1. Collect manure more frequently:
2. Eliminate areas that slope in directions
such that wastewater/rainfall cannot be
collecteth
3. Collect and allow wastewater to
evaporate: and
4. Collect and evenly apply wastewater to
land only during dry weather, and at
appropriate agronomic rate,.
CIt lea violation of this permit to
discharge any solid waste or manure to a
water of the U.S. The following practices can
help to minimise waste manure transport to
watercour ses:
1. Do not stockpile manure near
watercoursem
2. ProvIde adequate manure storage
capacity based upon manure and waste
production and land availability:
3. Apply waste manure to suitable land at
appropriate times and rates:
4. Adjust timing and rate of applications to
crop needs, assuming usual nu 1ent losses.
expected precipitation and sod conditions:
5. Avoid land subject to excessive erosion:
8. lisa edge.of .fleld. grossed strip, to
separate eroded soil and manure particles
from the field runoffi
7. UtIlize off.eite areas for manure
application In a manner consistent with best
managements practices and the requirements
of this permit and
0. Where local water quality Is threatened
by phosphorus, the permitted should limit the
application rate to the crop uptake rate of
phosphorus.
D. Feedlot Waste Management for Fly and
Odor ControL The following practice, for fly
and odor control should be utilized by
owners/operators concentrated animal
feeding operations to minimize associated
ardors and Insects:
1. Manure’covered surfaces should be kept
2. DIrty, manure covered animals should be
preventecli
3. An orderly system for runoff collection
and manure handling should be maintainedi
4. Waste should be kept dry or flushed
regularly from confinement areas to a lagoo
or solids separaton
& Dry manure should be stored In steep
piles:
8. DaIries should clean, scrape and wash
the drip shed after each milking and
7. Manure should be removed from the
holding pens within five days after animals
are removed from a particular lot.
E. All facilities should install a mechanical
solids separator end/or a solids settling basin
at a point following any wash and for flush
area and immediately prior to the wastewater
entering the retention facilities. Solids should
be removed from the separator/solids settling
basins at least three time, per week and
stored in a covered area.
P. Owner/operators should collect waste
that accumulates along holding pen/open lot
fence line,. in feeding lanes and feed storage
area on a weekly basis.
I V Ground Water Protection.
Where the potential exists for the
contained wastewater, to contaminate
groundwater, the permittee should take every
precaution to prevent migration of pollutants-
to those waters. The permittee should take all
action appropriate to avoid the discharge of
wastewaters and contaminated runoff waters
to surface and ground waters.
A. Where a hydrologic connection to
surface exists, the permit requires that the
retention basins be lined with materials that
will provide resistance to pollution migratlo
All new or modified wastewater retention
facilities should be constructed of compacted
or in.situ earthen materials which meet the
following minimum re wrementa
(1) 30% or more passes through a number
200 mesh sieve:
(2) A liquid limit of 30% or greaten
(3) A plasticity Index of 15 or greaten
(4) hydraulic conductivity equal to or less
than I X 10—’ om/seci
(5) Soil compaction will be 95% standard
proctor at optimum moisture content and
(0) A minimum thickness of 1.5 feet.
B. U the wastewater retention facilities are
not constructed of suitable materials, then an
alternate lining material should be used.
Liner materials Include flexible membrane
linings. asphalt.eealed fabric liners, and
bentonite sealant,. Completed pond linings
should be designed and Installed In
accordance with good engineering practices.
C. Livestock should be prohibited entry
Into the retention lagoons, on lagoon dikes
and immediate surrounding areas. If livestock
are allowed in the retention lagoons, those
lagoon linings should be Inspected for
damage and perinittee should certrfy In the
pollution prevention plan that the lining
meets the specified criteria.
D. Concentrated animal feeding operations
located over drinidng water aquifers should
Install ground water monitoring wells and/or
lysimeters to monitor liquid movement
through the saturated and unsaturated zones
All wells end/or lysameters must be installed
by licensed water well drillers or qualified
professionals according to state
requirements.
-------
V. Feedjot Waste UIi:z t,on or Disposal By
Land Application
The permit prohibits the discharge of
rigated Wastewater off the application site.
Neither is irrigation permitted when the
ground is frozen or saturated or during
rainfall events.
A. If land application is utthzed for
disposal of wastewa tar. the following good
management practices should be followed
1. When liTigation disposal of wastewater
Is used. tailwater facilities shall be provided
as necessary to prevent the release of applied
Wastewaten
2. Land to be irrigated should have a slope
less than 6%
3. IrrigatIon practices shall be managed so
as to prevent ponding or puddling of
wastewatei’ on the site, contamination of
ground or surface water, and the occurrence
of nuisance conditions such as odors and
Thea:
4. IrrigatIon patterns should allow a 100-
foot buffer in the downwind direction or more
as needed to prevent wastewater spray from
leaving the property:
5. Irrigation application rates should be
limited to the most con3etvativa alcuJation
determined by comparing the water budget
for the area and crop, and the nutrient uptake
of the Irrigated crop: and
6. The cover crop of each irrigated area
should be harvested at least once a year.
B. Representative soil samples should be
taken at least annually from the waste and!
or wastewater application site.
1. When soil samples are taken the
sampling procedures shall employ accepted
technique. of soil science for obtaining
representative analytical results.
2. The following depth zones below the
ground surface should be sampled: a. 0 toO
inches; b. 8 to 10 inches. and c. 10 to 30
inches.
3. The samples should be analyzed for
rntrate-nitrogen. ammonia nitrogen, total
)Cjeldahl nitrogen. cation exchange capacity.
extractable phosphorus. sodium, magnesium.
calcium, sulfur, and electricul conductivity.
C. All solid wastes stockpiles or retained
on site shouldi
1. Be stored under a permanent (structural)
or temporary (plastic sheeting) cover so as to
be protected from rainfalL and
2. Be isolated from all nm-on storm waters
by dikes, terraces, beruas, ditches, or other
similar structures.
D. If land application I. utilized for
disposal of solid waste In either dried of
liquid form, the following requirements shall
apply:
1. Land to receive waste should have a
slope less than 8%:
2. Waste shall not be spread when the
ground is frozen or saturated or during
rainfall events.
3. Waste should be incorporated into the
soil within 48 hour, of application or the
owner/operator should maintain a 200 foot
buffer rena of grass or other thick vegetation
between the disposal areas and the down
gradient property line and/or watercourses.
32497
4. Disposal of waste and wasteweter
should be done In such a manner as to
prevent nuisance conditions such as odors
and The .. The following procedures should be
used to control odors and flies.
a. Apply manure uniformly and in a layer
thin enough to insure drying in 5 days or less
b. Avoid spreading when the wind would
blow odors toward populated areas or
nearby residences or businesses.
c. Avoid spreading or applying manure
immediately before weekends and holidays
when people are likely to be engaged in
nearby outdoor and recreational activities.
di Avoid spreading near heavily traveled
highways.
e. Spread or apply manure inuaornizig
when air Is warming and rising rather than in
the late afternoon.
L Where manure is applied to
nonvegetated land, incorporate manure into
the sod during or within 24 hours of
application.
5. Feedlots may sell or give wastes
(manure) to other persons for beneficial use
The owner/operator should analyze the
wastes (manure) annually for ammonia-
nitrogen. nitrate-nitrogen, total KJeldahI
nitrogen, extractable phosphorus and total
potassium. The owner/operator should
provide each redplent of wastes (manure)
mitten copies of the annual analysis.
Appendix B—-Reference Land
Application Rates of Wastewater
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1. NumIENT REQUIREMENTS OF CROPS, LBS/ACRE.
Crop
EJCpO y N ogen (!bs/
Phoaphoius
Corn,. .___________.__ .
7 5- .99bule_._ - . . . . . ._..._
100-140 bu/a...,..,.....,,,,....,. .__ .,...... . .. . .._... . ._..... _.. ..
75-100
iio—i
60
so
Cotton .,_ —_______ .... ...._ ...... .._. ._. ...
Grain Sorghum
I5O.. 0 bide .. . .. ,_f . — -
180-240
40
60
so
100
30—40
40-80
80-120
120-160
40-60
60-80
80-120
120-160
160—200
100-160
160-220
300-350
400-600
20
20
20
160
200
240
80
160
80
40
60
so

20
40
60
80
20
40
40
60
60
50

100
130
60
100
140
60
75
80
40
60
1.0 baies/s,.,_.... . __. ., . ....,..,..._,..
I S balesla.._
. .._., ....... . , .
.o ..
— _ . . .. . .. . .. .. . - . . - .___
Who t________________
1500-2000 s1a..._ —_____________
2000-4000 bsla...
.
4000-6000 Ibe/a..........,,,,_
60O0-80Q0 5 i / _ ., ..._. ..
...
CoastaJ Berrnuda....._ ...,., .,. . . .,_
Alt ails
20—30 bull — .
30-40 bull —-—. — —._.__.__., ._...___________________
40—S Obula._ ,,
60-80
, ,, ., ,___________________
80-100 bu/a_,,_,....,,__., ..,,,,,. ...
Grwng OrW _,..
1 Oitbflg + 5Zfl9 oiWy
._
3 o umngs _. , . .. ._._._ —— .-_—
4-Oamm gs__. ..
.,_._
whe8t
Nngated, atmu.....,,..... .._________________

lmgate 8—12 Tla .. .. . .—_. _ _. . . ..
. ... . ..._,
So rqPMWSudan ..
Light flQ 1 ...—
Moderate grazng -.—_ _ ..____________________
Hea ’gr. ig
I cutbii or light

3 ounngs or hes , pe g
___ soo5ca en r ite. si.ggest.d for
oarc.r4 es I 50 .mds crsm.in SçIg 4 lesl PS$8 e$ ais for ee em Te..s and Loissisni. Rates for aD grazei Uu.naii es should be m iced bylO
-------
32498
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 141 / Wednesday , IuJy 1992 / Proposed Rules
Notm Actual fertilizer application rate
recommendation, are based on the above
a’op requirements. mlmis soil nutrient levels
identified by a sod test. resulting in
recommendation, which nay be signllTcantly
lower than nutrient levels listed in the table.
TABLE 2.—MAXU.4uu WASTEWATER
APPUCAnOPI RATES IN INCHES
E op tsks.
te rieoqen
its.IacJyv) ( from laCle 1 )
100 200 300 400
Wasteaater application
rates (1ft acre/yi)
21 33 32.00 42.67
10.61 16.00 2133
711 1087 14
6.33 6.00 1061
427 6.40 8.5.
3.56 6.33 7.11
2.05 457 6.09
2.67 400 5,33
2.37 3.56 474
213 3.20 427
194 2.91 3.88
1.18 2.67 3.50
• P4mog i contain o the westa ester ri be
detemunod bye labontcry tea ot the wasteeatar to
be L anO Øet Weau m used 10, Itiçaaon
sIloi4d be tested on a regi che ie ostabtished
Ui *1 faciLities Polkidon Prevaiiesn Pint
Appendix C—Reference Land
Application Rates for Manure and Pond
SoUda
Fertilizer Valuea of Different Animal
Manures 1
TABLE 1.—POUNDS OF AVAILABLE
NITROGEN (N) PER TON OF MANURE
Mwisl ryp.
Un .
°
OyCati te...
eeder/Slaughter Cam.
——
68
71
106

34
56
57
55
SQ
5hp/LamI oa i a-
H r i s ,____________
Q enwT i rSey sI .rt
Rabtids...
O s inc t u’En s - ’
Exotic MainrnVi aid Bids
Sludge and Animal Waste Raannmended
Fertilizer Application Ratas and Scheduling
fur Selected Crups
General Notes
Application rate of sludge or animal wastes
should be based on the most Limiting rate
between nitrogen and phosphorus, unless
otherwise noted, the rate of manure lend
‘These values are for reference only. The
permiuee ibould h.ve manure tested for nitrogen
arid phosphorus on a regula.z basi, titl, to be land
applied to ciopa to avoid over application.
application should reSect Ii , nitrogen or
phosphorus already applied to the a p by
wastewater irrigation. If the application does
not supply sufficient rites of other nutrients.
commercial fertilizer may be utilized to
provide total need. ui accordance wfth these
guidelines.
Notes en Nitrogen Rates
Nitrogen rates Indicated are for plant
available Tutrogen (PAN). Maximum zutrogeri
application rates shall be reduced by the
amount of residual ititrate-mtrogen as
indicated by required soil tests. Maximum
single nitrogen application shall be 150 lbs/ac
PAN. Where allowable PAN application
exceeds 150 lbs/ac. split applications must be
utilized.
Note. on Soil Testing
Soil samples should be taken and analyzed
La the spring prior to planting. If a double
ciop of wheat sin the rotation, a fall soil
sample should be taken and analyzed prior to
the fall wheat planting. Samples should
represent a maximum of sIxty 100) aaee and
should be composite of. minimum of six (6)
core samples. Each one should be a
composite of soil over a depth of 0 to6
Inches.
Soybeans
Rate Nib’ogea .—250 lbs/ac maximum for
animal wastes tested prior to application.
150 lbs/ac maximum for , nlmiul vastes
without testing.
Phosphorus—a) lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 45
lbs/ac phosphate (PiO,).
Potassh im—75 lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. Equivalent toBO lbs/ac
potash (KsO).
Scheduling: Application is recommended
prior to Spring planting of soybeans or In split
application, during the growing season.
Note.: If soybeans follow winter wheat.
sod tests should be performed prior to
application.
Winter Wheat
Rate: Nitrogen—tOO lbs/sc r r 1mum.
Phospborus—.22 lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 50
lbs/ac phosphate (PIOS).
Potassium—GO lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. Equivalent to 81) lbs/ac
potash (K 1 0).
Scheduling Application cf phosphorus and
potassium Is recommended prior to planting.
Application of nitrogen Is recommended In a
split early spring application In February or
March. Application of the maximum nitrogen
rate in the fall prior to planting is allowed.
Note.: On soils with 70% or greater sand
content. rutrogen fertilizer should only be
applied as split early spring applications. On
any soils, if the full recommended rate is
applied In the Fall. no supplemental spring
bocater N is allowed unles, the field
participates in the Cooperative Extension
Service Wheat Morntorrng Program and
follows N application In accordance with
recommendations.
ri i n
Rats. Nltrogen—120 lbs/ac maximum for
irrigated fields. 100 lbs/ac maximum’
aon.Irrigeted fields.
Phosphorus—a) lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. EquIvalent to 60
lbs/ac phosphate (PiO.).
Potassium—GO lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. Equivalent to 60 lbs/ac
potash (K ,OJ.
Scheduling: Application should be made in
spring prior to planting.
Note.: For double ciopping with winter
wheat, see notes for soybeans and wheat.
Care
Rats. Non-lmgats.’i Nltrogen—125 lbs/ac
Phosphoru.—ZZ lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 50
lbs/ac phosphate (P 1 0 5 ).
Potasslwn—84 lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. Equivalent to 100 lbs/ac
potash (1(sO ) .
fmgated Nitrogen—300 lbs/ac maximum (or
animal waste, tested prior to application.
150 lbs/ac maximum for animal wastes
without testing.
Phoephcraa—44 Ibafac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 100
lbs/ac phosphate (P 1 0 5 ).
Potasslwn .—167 lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. Equivalent to 300 lbs/ac
potash (JC O).
Scheduling: The recommendation Is to
apply approximately 3’, of the N at planting
and the remainder as a eldedrasa. All Par
should be applied at planting.
Note.: For double mopping with wheat. see
note. for soybeans end wheat Note that
fertilizer rates shown are maxlmunia and
actual rates should be based on realistic
yield potentials. The Cooperative Extension
Service should be contacted to advise on
yield, and appropriate rates.
Bermuda Grass
Rats. Nitrogen—400 lbs/ac maximum for
animal waste. tested prior to application.
150 lbs/ac maximum for animal wastes
without testing.
Plioephonw —35 lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 00
lbs/ac phosphate (PiOs).
Polaulum—187 lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. EquIvalent (0200 lbs/ac
potash (lC sO ) .
Scheduling: Application should begin lust
prior (within one month) to breaking
doiniancy in the spring and continue through
the growing season.
Note.: For pastures with both bermuda
and fescue where the bermuda grass is
dominant during the summer months and
fescue is dominant during cool months, the
total fertilization rate shall not exceed the
maximum available for bermuda grass.
Fescue
Rats. NItrogen—.i50 Ibe/ac maximum (or
animal wastes tested prior to applicati
135 lbs/ac maximum for animal wastes
without testing.
Waste..:.: r ogen
mgJt’:
50
100
150
200.... .
“n
1067
‘33
335
2.81
2.13
1.78
1.52
1.33
119
1 07
0.97
0.89
300 ____
350. .
400_ __
45 0______________
$00....___
550
€00
-------
Tuesday
June 16, 1992
Part II
Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers, Department of the
Army
33 CFR Parts 323 and 328
Environmental Protection
Agency
40 CFR Parts 110, et al.
Proposed Rules for the Clean Water Act
Regulatory Programs
-------
Federal legiater / VoL 57, No. 116 I Tuesday, June 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Corps of Engineers, DeparL snt of
the Army
33 CFR P,ti 323 and 32$
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
4OCFR Parts 110,112,116,117,122,
230, 232 and 401
Proposed Rule far the Clean Water Act
Regulatory Programs of the Army
Corps of Engineers and the
Envtronmen Protection Agency
*omcsas U.S. Army Corp. of
Engineer.. Department of the Army.
DOTh and Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACflOsc Proposed rule.
sUMMARY: The Corps of Pnglneers and
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) are proposing today to undertake
the following actions with regard to the
Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
program. (1) ModIfy the definition of
“discharge of dredged materfalf ’ (2)
clarify when the placement of piling. Is
considered to result In a discharge of fill
material: and (3) clarIfy that prior
converted oplands are not waters of
the United States. EPA Is also proposing
conforming chsrnges to the Clean Water
Act “water. of the United States” and
“navigable waters” definitions In other
Clean Water Act program regulations.
This proposed ul ms king Is consistent
with the PresIdent’s August 9. 1991.
Wetlands Protection Plan. In addition,
the first two proposed changes
Implement the settlement agreement In
North Corn/inn Wildlife Faderntion v.
Thiloc
DATSS Written comments must be
submitted by August 17, 1992.
ADOR!3S’ Written comments should
be submitted to: The Chief of Engineer .,
United Slates Army Corps of Pngineers,
AT I ’N: Mr. Sam Collinson . ( CW-OR ,
Washington. DC 14—1000.
POR FUSTHU FORMATION CONTAC?.
Mr. Michael Davis, Office of the
Assistant Seaetary of the Army for
Civil Works at (703) 695-1376 or Mr.
John Studt (Corps) at (202) V2-0199 or
Mr. Gregory Peck (EPA) at (202) 200-
8794 or Ms. Hazel Groman (EPA) at (202)
sUPPLEMV(TARY FORMAT1OIC
On February 26,1992. the Federal
government agreed to settle a pending
lawsuit brought by the North Carolina
Wildlife Federation and the National
• Wildlife Federation (North Cam/ma -
Wildlife Fedamdon. et a!. v. Tuiloch,
Civil No. ( O-713-QV-6 -BO (E.D.N.C. -
1992)) involving section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) as it pertains to
certain activities in water. of the United
States. In accordance with the
settlement agreement, the Corps and
EPA are proposing changes to their
regulations to clarify that mechanized
landclearing. ditching. channellzatlon,
and other excavation activities involve
discharges of dredged material and
when performed in water. of the United
States will be regulated under section
404 of the CWA when such activities
have or would have the effect of
destroying or degrading waters of the
United States. Including wetlands. In
addition, the Corps and EPA have
agreed to incorporate into the section
404 regulations the substantive.
provisions of the Corps Regulatory
Guidance Letter (RGL) 90-8 to clarify
the circumstances under which the
placement of pilings have the effect of
“fill material” subject to regulation
under section 404. These proposed
changes will not affect in any mnnner
the existing statutory exemptions for
normal farming. r u’t hing . and
silviculture activities in sectIon 404(f).
The settlement agreement Is
consistent with one of the components
of President Bush’s Plan for Protecting
America’s Wetlands which
acknowledges the need to evaluate the
scope otactivltles regulated under the
section 404 program. The President’s
Plan, announced August 9. 1991.1. a
balanced approach of administrative
actions that will enhance protection of
wetlands on Federal lands, Improve
Federal wetlands research, and ln ease
Federal land acquisition, revise the
Federal wetlands delineation manual.
and streamline and Improve the section
404 regulatory program. -
In addition to the changes proposed In
accordance with the settlement
agreement and consistent with the
President’s Wetlands Plan, the Corps
and EPA are proposing to Incorporate
Into the section 404 regulations the
substantive provisions of the Corps RGL
90-7 to clarify that prior converted
croplands are not water. of the United
States subject to regulation under the
CWA. EPA Is also proposing conforming
changes to the definitions of “waters of
the United States” and “navigable
water.” for all other CWA program
regulations contained in 40 GB parts
110.112. 116, 117, 122, and 401 to provide
consistent definitions in all CWA
program regulations.
Overall, these proposed changes will
promote national consistency, more
clearly notify the public of regulatory
requirements and ensure that the sec
404 regulatory program Is more
equitable to the regulated public,
. iihs nce the protection of waters of the
United States, and clarify which areas In
agricultural crop production will not be
regulated as waters of the United States.
Proposed Changes
33 Port 3Z3—Permiis for Discharges of
Dredged or?!!! Material into Waters of
the United States
40 CF’R Port 222—404 Program
Deflnitions, Exempt Activities Not
Jlequirirtg 404 Permits
33 CFP. Secton 323.2(d) and 40 GB
2 3 2 . 2 (e)
The Corps and EPA jointly administer
the CWA section 404 regulatory
program. The CWA provides the Corps
and EPA with broad authority to
regulate activities Involving a discharge
of dredged or fill material into the
Nation’s waters. including wetlands.
Based on this authority, the Corps and
EPA have broad discretion in defining
those activities that involve a discharge
of dredged or fill material and therefore
require authorization under sectIon 404.
Historically, the Corps has regulat’
all activities involving discharges of.
material. However. Corps guidance ha
not been entirely clear or uniform
among all Corp. district offices
regarding which activities Involving
discharges of material excavated (i.e..
dredged) from the waters of the United
States require authorization under
section 404. The Corps has traditionally
regulated ditching activities where the
thterfal was excavated and sidecast
into adjacent wetlands resulting in spoil
piles or berm.. In situations where the
excavated material was almost
completely removed to the surrounding
uplands, Corps districts have varied
markedly In exercising their discretion
to regulate the activity. Based In part an
15 year. of experience, the Corps and
EPA do not believe that It I. possible to
conduct mechanized landclearlng,
dlthfng . channellzatf on. or other
excavation activities in waters of the
United States without at least some
Incidental discharge of dredged
material: nor do the agencies believe
that It Is possible to completely remove
all excavated material to the uplands.
The differences from one Corps
district to another In the types of
excavation activities regulated did n
greatly affect the section 404 prograz.
until recently. The Corps has received
numerous questions regarding which
ditching activities would require a
section 404 permit. This has increased
-------
Fed I Rag ifaw / Vol. 57. No.. 118 1 Tneaday , jw 18 . 1 I Pr osed knies
workload, and th re ’Itlngdalays are
taxing Federal resources and delaying
project proponents whe el len wait fare
written deterinthaffon from the Carps on
whether their actlvftfes are regulated.
Furthermore. he carmale th $ance,,
applicants with substantial resoor
appeared to attempt to avoid ‘ ee 404
regulation for drainage activities by
removing, as much as possible, the
excavated material to uplArds . Ass
result, project proponents were
8ometimes not regulaf d und the
current Corps and ‘A policy
framework althougJi the i ipslrta of such
projects were imi1 those of projects
currently being regnlateL The changes
that the Corps andEPA are proposing In
this rule wiU make the regulatory
program more equitable for aU project
proponents, and the mgpn. i .&wjflbs
able to focus limited resources on
reasonably regulating
lnndcleRr(ng. dDd ing . U tjon , or
other excavation a vWaa. Sr ten with
authorized section 404 pro uma will
need to review their statute and
regulations for t*i tnicy and If
necessary, che pj their r datlcns in
accordani e with 40 G’R ‘ 3 .1fl(b ) .
The Corps’ current 1Hni . of
“discharge of dredged material,,” .t 33
CFR 323.2(d). provIdes that de mhii
ncidenlal soil movement occurring
Juring normal dredging aperatlone is net
considered to-be within this regulatory
definition. This e clu”lon derives, In
part, from a desire to avoid ihnplt ie
regulation o(dredging itself In waters
within the orIIilict1on.aJ scope of the
Rivers and Harbors Act.. As
regulations zit m hnib,r d ffi 1Hon
wtth the sama exclusion, at 40 ( R
23 2 .2(e).
Over the years. application c i this “de
min’ ” ” Iaz gnage has become
proht ms iic , espeaaliy when applied to
activities which did not Involve dredging
for the purposes of tn n m4, 1
navigation In traditionally navigabLe
waters. B s of lbs lack ci
In the regulation, In ias w..vas this
language has b Interpreted to
exclude from regulation lan risg
and drainage activities in wetla
where the c ii ! quanthy of excavated
material discharged was relatively
QmAll , but where the discharg, was part
of an activity which couldim,,
significant environmental Inpsd on the
waters of the Umted States. lruy to
the Intent of the ( seen W.torAc$. Wail.
the Corps and A have a1t ptod to
eddress this problem through gn
emoranda. e.g., RGL 90-5. addr -Ing
.ihlch lnndrieanng a v1tlea are subject
to section 404 juriidritlon . the ag. . .r 4 r .
believe that a regulatory .i .*iige would
lead to & helter u .q 1 .àirig of the
scope of the term “discharge of dre d
material” and would pr te greater
- natianalcnsaLsteacyandm&e. Hic.
protection of the aquatic eavirunmeaL
Under the proposal, langneg,* has
been added to the definition of
“discharge of dredged materiar to
clarify both what is lath.
defiithinn of regulated actlvitie and
what Is ez iuded from the definition. For
example, the proposal clarifies that
phrase “normal dredging operstlon.”
refers to “dredging to ma1nt tn , deepen ,
or extend navigation n.k in lb.
navigable waters of the United Slates,
as d fh ’d in 33 R part 3 [ “ecticu 10
waters), with proper authorization from
theCozp s .” -
In additIon, the new LAng . would
clarify that, apart from lb. . vr 4 ee 4 al .
“normal dzed at ,” Lb.
“discharge of dredged mato4sl ”
it ludes any discharge. he., iLIftk. . e,
of excavated ma iaJ into
waters of the United States which he
tnddental to any activity, MI HH
me h ni ed dear eg , d trh ng ,
e,
wh lcbhasorw o u ldb a ve t h e.ff.çqof
destroying or d adhzig any ares of the
waters of the United Stutee. The t
“discharge of dredged materhar does
not laded. I lnhI 1L• , 4J mov
Incldenth to a vitles which do ret or
would not have such an e ect .
The Corp. has regulated discharges
associated with ni ch ith d
lA LkI anng operations far many yws.
However. It has not always bees clear
which andeleerIng activities would
result in iacharges. in part des to
uncertainty eve, wh ’ther lb. activity.
Involved a discharge sufficiently large to.
trigger Seel’ 404 regulation. Over lb.
years lb. Corp. has i ’—’d several RCL.
to clarify this iu” Most recently, the
Corps “ ' “ ‘I kQ.9G-6. dated July18,
1990, to address which loaddeoring
activities should be subject to ! Nl4 .flfl
404 — This Mane was .Me
addressed inAvoyeiJesSportssma
Zeegue, . v. Moxmt 715 F.24 (5th
CIr. 1983). In thi. case the mt stated
that the t “discharge” may
reaannably be understood to
“redeposit” and t w1mil I that the m
“discharge” onv s the red p .ui .lting of
soil taken from wetlands , such as
dw me “ “ad landdearing
activities. Ov r experience ever the
years, and th e Fifth Circuit ruling in
Avoyeiles., have convinced un that
mechanized lsadcleering. ditrh4,w
thanmsiuati and other ezcnvathma
do consistently involve discharge, and
that tbe activities which produce the
discharges should be regulated where
the . stlv l wo.ld or degrads
waters of the United States.
We belie,, that ft Is Is
lock at the eavM 2aI t of
a vitiea that invthe sod
mov t for’ a ...l r..s’ - First, the
Federal has breed authority
wider w’ mn 404(a) to r gul t any
discharge of dredged or fill material into
any water ci the United State.. Thin
authority baa been upheld by many
decisions of the Fadesal co ts , Second,
the Act Cfmt in - I exuilcit exemption
for do minrm , dlathasges any 1sf m ,
of one would need to be c” ' ”’en1 with
the envi mncrnf l purposes of the Act.
Th i rd, the proposed langn ge also
parallele the approach and mpI in
the policy of section 404fJ ) , w
generally P T pts ndnor discharges
from farming. r ne1th g and
sl!vfloultuzal activities, but “recapbnes”
them when the activity alters waters of
the United States. Specificafly, CWA
section 404(f)(Z) states that “asp
discharge of dredged or mnl,vial
navigable waters thcidenial loony
o .-;ty ’ (emphasis added) that could
bringanyarea of the waters of the
United States into a new ma and where
the reach of the waters could be reduced
or where their low or circulation could
be mpslredthal lbereqo lred tokave a
permit under section 404 (See 40 R
233.3 33 R 333.4 for a more
detailed des xlpUoa of the scope of the
section 404( 1) exemptIons ). Furthermore,
we beHave that normal drea ’ging
operations, as we propose to de e
them, should not be regulated under
section 401. since they gerierefly do not
alter the teeth or flow or circulation of
the waters, nor do they con t waters
of the United State. into dry land or
degrade wetlands. Normal dredging In
navigabl , waters will continue,
huwiwir . to be regulated under section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1898.
The Corps and ‘A are proposing to
change d 1tkm of the term
“ct tharg. of dredged xraterfar .133
CI R 333.2(d) and 40 ( R 233.2(e). The
practical effer of this change In
Is that the Corpe. ‘A a.
appruprlate. and authcrMad stel a
appropriate. would regulate on ’
SectIon 404 .31 ‘ ‘ d L ,ii,t ,i
difrhlng. th ebeatj o n, and other
excavation ediwithe performed he
waters al the United States that hay, or
would have the effect of des*rcy or
degrading waters of the United States,
Iz hediag wetlands. This will . HT te
the current In w ,niintpn,W amodated
with regulation of these
-------
28896
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 110 I Tuesday, June 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
The proposed rule dcei not change In
any way the m n r In which the Corps
and EPA determine whether an activity
Is exempt wuler section 404(1)(1) of the
CWA. Therefore, the proposal will not.
In any way, affect the exemptions for
agriculture, silvicultureor ranching
activities now provided by CWA section
404(f).
Moreover, the proposed changes as a
general rule will not result in the Corps
regulating pumping of water from a
waterbody. snagging operations, or
vehicular traffic in wetlands. Pumping
water from a wetland or other water of
the United States or snagging vegetative
material from a water of the United
States generally would not, In and of
Itself, result In a discharge of dredged
materiaL However, if excavation or
filling would be done to accomplish the
pumping and the activity would destroy
or degrade a water of the United States
(or If the snagging operation would
result in a discharge through
redeposition of soil and would destroy
or degrade a water of the United States)
then the activity would be regulated.
The term “snagging” as used in this
paragraph means the removal of trees.
parts of trees, or the like, from a water
body to prevent their interfering with
navigation. Although vehicular traffic
may result In a redeposition of material.
that activity generally would not destroy
or degrade a water of the United States.
We invite specific comments from the
public on all issues presented In this
paragraph.
Although the Corps and EPA have not
yet adopted a final definition for either
the term “destroy” or the term
“degrade.” we propose the following
and Invite and encourage public
comment on this issue, Under the
proposed nile. destruction of a wetland.
or other water of the United States,
would occur when the activity that
involved the discharge of dredged
material alters the area In such a way
that it would no longer b.a water of the
United States. Also under the proposal.
degradation of a wetland or other water
of the United Slates would occur when
the actlv* that involves the discharge
results In an identifiable dea’ease in the
functional values of the water of the
United States. Under these definitions,
activities may come within section 404
jurisdiction, but could be regulated
under a nationwide or regional general
permit If they would have minimal
environmental effects. We invite public
comment Identifying appropriate
categories of excavation activities that
would generally have minimal
environmental effects and therefore be
potential candidates for authorization
under general permit
The proposed definition of
“degradation” Is Intended to define a
threshold which excludes from
regulation certain activities that would
have no Identifiable adverse effect on
waters of the United States. The Corp
and EPA are inviting suggestions on
alternative methods for defining this
threshold. The Corp and EPA are
specifically inviting comment on
whether “Identifiable decreases” In
aquatic resource functional value is an
appropriate threshold test that Is
sufficiently clear for the purpose, of
implementing the regulatory program.
For example, If a wetland is drained in
such a way that the hydrologic regime is
altered enough to change the vegetative
composition of the area, the wetland
will be considered to be degraded.
Further, most sand and gravel mining In
waters of the United States results In, at
a minimum, incidental discharges and
destroys or degrades waters of the
United States and thus would be
regulated. We invite public comment
suggesting any categories of activities
which might involve incidental
discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States, but
which as a general rule would not be
regulated under this regulation because
they would not destroy or degrade
waters of the United States.
Under the proposed rule, It would not
be necessary for the Corps, EPA. or
authorized states to establish, on a case-
by-case basii, that mechanized
landclearlng. ditching, channellzatlon,
and other excavation activities involve a
discharge of dredged material because,
as discussed above, the agencies do not
believe that It Is possible to conduct
these activities without redepositing
some of the excavated material.
Moreover’, the agencies believe that, in
virtually all cases. mechanized -
landclearing. ditching, channelizatlon,
and other excavation In waters of the
United States would destroy or degrade
waters of the United States, and the
agencies will therefore apply a
rebuttable presumption that these types
of activities would have such an effect.
and are therefore regulated under
section 404. Where a project proponent
believes that its activities will not
destroy or degrade waters of the United
States, the proponent will have the
burden of demonstrating to the Corps
that such effects will not occur as a
result of the activity. The activity will be
subject to regulation under section 404
unless the Corps, EPA when it Is the
lead enforcement agency or undertaking
a sectIon 404(c) action In advance of a
specific permit application, or an
authorized state as appropriate,
determine that the project proponent
made such a showing.
33 CFR Section 323.3(c) and 40 R
Section ‘ ‘ ‘-(r ) -
The Corps for many years has
considered pilings to be structures
regulated under section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1989, but did not
consider them as a general rule to
constitute a discharge of fill material for
purposes of section 404. However, the
Corps has also long recognized that,
under certaIn circumstances, pilings can
have the effect of fill and thus should be
regulated under section 404. Recognizing
this problem, the Corps. on November 3,
1988, issued RGL 88—14. Subsequent to
that RGL. additional questions were
raised concerning when pilings should
be regulated under section 404. A
number of new projects were being
proposed to tie constructed on pilings in
an attempt to avoid section 404
jurisdiction. These projects were for
activities that would normally be
constructed on fill such as hotels,
industrial developments. stores, and
parking structures, Since these Issues
were not addressed in RGL 88—14, a new
RGL 90-8 was Issued on December 14
1990. -
In summary, RCL 90-8 provides that
there are two situations where pilings
are regulated under section 404 of the
CWA. (1) PIlings that have the physical
effect of fill (including pilings that are
closely spaced rather than normal open
pile structures): and (2) Pilings that have
the functional use and effect of fill
(ind i jng pilings that support structures
theIàre normally placed on fill such as
multi-family housing, office buildings,
etc.). Under RGL 90-8. however, pilings
are not to be regulated In circumstances
Involving linear projects traditionally
used to cross waters of the United
States such as bridges, elevated
walkways, and powerline structures.
Similarly, placement of pilings would
not be regulated for structures that
traditionally are constructed on pilings
such as piers, boathouses, wharves,
marinas, lighthouses. and individual
houses built on stilts where pile-
supported construction is ueed to avoid
substantial flooding.
In the settlement agreement reached
between the Federal government and
the National Wildlife Federation, as a
result of the case North Carolina
Wildlife Federotion. et a!. v. Tuioch.
Civil No. C90-713-CIV-5-BO
(E.D.NCJ, the Corps and EPA agreed
propose that the relevant portions of
RGL 90-8 concerning the regulation of
-------
FSLIIII R / Vol. W, Nc ,. fl6 I Thesday, June 1 1982/ Prrçooed Roles
pilings under section $ be ps’oaml ptrd
In the Code of Fudersi a i1nt4 .
diros h saline and cn ____
under the Adminfstr tjye Proosdars Act
process. Therefore, the Corps and A
are seeking comments on this proposal
to define clearfy when tiulxrgs should be
regulated under section 401. in
particular, the Corps Is coneldering
adding some restaurants that are
cons n_cted on pilbigi to the list of
activities that we oat subject to —
regulation pursuant to RGL 90-S.
33 CPA Port 328-Deffrzil ion of Waters of
the Unfted States
C Port 720-DfrcM, of Oil
40 CPA Part 112-Oil Pollution
Prevention
40 CPA Part li igr i .t .. ’ of
Hazardous Substances
40 CPA Part 117-Determination of
Reportable Quonbbsjrflora.rrjocs
Substances
40 CPA Part l - A Adnthriatared
Permit Programx 7 No
Pallu D Rli .
System
40 CPA Pail -&ction 40 (bNI)
Guidelines for fs dai, of
Disposal Sites for Dr e4rd orpilJ l
Material
40 CPA Pail -W Piegza
Def imtio,w £Tcempt Activities l l
Requiring 4 Permits
40 CPA Part 401-Effluent Cui rIpiiiies and
Standoiris
FR Section 328.3 (aXOJ, 4oa’R Section
110.1. 4OCPRSectloell2.&4OQIR
Section flft 5 40 CPR Section 1171j)(7J,
40 CPR Section 122 .2.40 (YR Section
23O.3(sJ(8 , 40 (YR Section 2 .2g 8),
and 40 CPR 401.11(1)
We propose to add new Iangiis ge to
33 CFR 328 .3 (a), 40 CFR 110.1.40 (YR
112.2.40 (YR 110.3,40 (YR 117(fl(7). 40
(YR 122.2.40 (YR 23aa(e). 40 ( YR
232.2(g), and 40 (YR 401.11(1) which
currently define waters of the United
States. The Corps new Lgg . would
note two examples of areas that are not
waters of the United States.. The st Is
simply waste freatment sys s, as
presently des ibed at the refmaaced
section. The second. In accordance with
the President’s Wetb nbi Plan, would
codify the Corps and WA’. present
policy regarding prior converted
cropland. EPA’s new language would
not modify any current references to
waste eatment systems, but would
codify the Corps ant EPA’s policy
regarding prior converted crupland at
-. the referenced sections.
On September 28. 199(1, the Corps
gasued RGL. 90-7 “Clarification of the
Phrase ‘Normal Circwnstances’ as It
Pertains to Cropped Wet1 nr1ic ” j
to establish greater consistency between
the liaa I — js and
the Swampbuster provisions of the Food
Security Act, as amended by the Food,
Agriculture. Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990. which Is tmplementedby
the Soil Conservation Serv ).
Under RGL9O-7.
opland.” as defined by the S(
National Food Security Act M aL are
not wetland. within the meaning of the
Corps and EPA regulatfon& Prior
cropland. we wettui4 . that.
— to December 23 ,1988. were both
manfp Jated (drained or otherwise
physically altered to iwove excess
water from the land) and cropped to the
tant that they are inundated for no
more than 14 canseoutfvu 4 ays daring
the gr .,wl g season. Prior converted
croplands do act Include pothole or
playa wetlands.
The Corps and EPA axe proposing to
amend their d, finHtz of of
United State. with regard to prior
converted croplands In or to provide
for c’ IMancy in the adminisfrstlc.cI
the various Federal prcgzu ff vtb
these type. of areas. This proposed
kange would achieve the a ciss’
policy obl es of athevEig ea
predictability far Aff ctId pestle. as
they deal with the Fedwelgovoriimont
regarding c Lcdaopl wt
SCS determInatIons of prior w ’erted
cropland do not constitute sectIon 404
)uyisdictfonal determinations because-
only the Corps and EPA have the
statutory authority to determine the
geographk scope of section 404
Jurisdiction. The final dek w uatfm, of
whetheran area isa waterofthetjnited
States for ueposes of section 484
regulation }smadebytheCcrpearEPA
as appw 1 rfate. pursuant to the January
*1988. rmyfEPA Memorandum of
A rternent on geographic Jarisdiction.
The Corp. (and EPA, as appropriate)
will accept and ccn fn SCS prior
wswcrled croplend designations to the
extent possible. Nevertheless, any
person considering a proposal that
would Involve the discharge of dredged
or fin material Into areas designated as
prior converted croplarid by the SC Is
encouraged to obtain Corps (or EPA)
concurrence in the prior converted
aopland designation.
The Corps and EPA note that under
today’s proposal a prior converted
cropland Is considered to be gh tz
unless: For once In every five years the
area has b used for the production of
an agricultural commodity: or. the area
has been used and will continue to be
used for the production of an
agricultural cnvnvnodity in a ‘iwnrnfmIy
used rot tIon with aquaculture. graaaes,
legumes or pasture production.
The Corps d EPA we propus to
define “prior in
aceordancewlib the SC National Food
Seweity MansiL Second gthtloe, 190-
V-VPSAM, Am.,idmenl 8 May1901.
The National Food Se D Act Mans.)
sets forth SCS policy and procedures for
hephenantlig. in aIia the
wophealer provision, of the Pond
Security Act of 1985, as amended by the
Food. Agriculture. C ervatinu . and
Trade Act oll990 . Dy vitae of this
Incorporation by reference, the Corp.
and EPAwe only heorpoisting the sited
of tbs NaH’ I Food SeI. 1y
Act Ui. . . _ ) La.. Second Edition,
Amendiu’u’i 8. May1901. With rasped
to any I ’ * usnt iwsion .1 the
NaHemal Food Se lty Ad Ma l
MdbyS( th,CoipeaudEPAwm
review any seth selnequ imebon
regarding ai mad. to the defiultia,?
of ‘ prior 4 cropl,wct ’ and
dete . . n. it that time whether to
Incorporate by rofereno, such
subsequent version Into the ucik 404
aid other CWA program
bvw Iuo 1 ’% toax l ifythepr icr
converted cropland RGL. the Corps and
EPA do not Intend to alter t
longstanding position thata party
cannot elimmAte the Jurisdiction of the
CWA an throogh an
unauthorized discharge actlvity . This, an
area which becomes prior converted
eropland by virtue of such unauthorized
discharge Is it lieu . . d by section 401
and subject to an cnfo, ent action for
any activity which violated the CWA.
By prcpoeisgtocodify the prior
converted cropland RGL into regele*icm,
the agencies would be revising the
definition, of “waters of the United
States” and “navigable water,” far all
EPA programs under the CWA to clarify
that prior converted croplands axe not
within the scope of CWAJuzi (r-
EPA Is interested In receiving public
comment on what effect. If any, such
codification would have on compliance,
response. and enforce t efforts
other EPA programs, in particular, the
CWA Section 311 gr m which
prohibits the discharge of oil and
hazardous substances, require,
notification of any such discharge, and
sets requirements for prevention and
clean-up (see 40 (YR 110.1. 112.2,118.3,
and 117.1).
Elkvl uiwOgt5I Du . _ ... _ nLHn, ,
We have made a preH lna.ry
determination that this action does not
constitute a ma jar Federal action
signifIcantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. However, an
environmental assessment will be
-------
268
Federal Register I VoL. 57. No. 118 / Tuesday, June 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
prepared pri or to making a final decision
on this proposed regulation. If we
determine that there would be a•
significant impact on the quality ofthe
ht!mnn fly(ft)flh! Pfit an Envl nainenta1
Impact Statement will be prepared
before a final decision Is made.
Furthermore, appropriate environmental
documentation Is prepared for all permit
decisions.
Executive Order 12291 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Ad
The Department of the Army and the
Environmental Protection Agency have
determined that the revisions to these
regulations do not contain a major
proposal requiring the preparation of a
regulatory analysis under E.O. 12291.
The Department of the Army and the
Environmental Protection Agency
certify, pursuant to Section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. that
these regulations will not have a
aignifl ant Impact on a substantial
number of entitles.
Note 1.—The term ‘ he ’ and iti derivative,
used In these regulations axe generic and
should be considered as applying to both
male and female.
List of Subjects
33Th
Navigation. Water pollution control..
Waterways. -
33 CFR Part 328
Incorporation by reference.
Navigation. Water pollution controL
Waterways.
40 CF7 Parts 111X l IZ l1& 117.122.220.
233. and 401
Incorporation by reference. Wetlands,
Water pollution controL -‘
Dated: June 4 19 .
Nancy P. O ne.
A sistqat cc , Wary of theAzmy (Civil
Workst Department of theArmy.
F Henry 11 hktit 0.
Deputy Adminls*mtor Environmental
Pmtec on Agency.
Accordingly. 33 ( R parts 323 and 328
and 40 Q ’R parts 110. 112,116.117. 122.
230.232 and 401 are proposed to be
amended as follows:
33 CFR CHAPTER U—(AMENOEDI
PART 323—PERMITS FOR
DISCHARGES OF DREDGED OR FILL
MATERIALS INTO WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 323
continues to read as follows:
Authority 33 U.S.C. 1344
2. Section 323.2(d) Is revised to read
as follows:
ma
S I • •• •
(d)(1) The term &schaz o of dredged
material means any addition of
dredged material Into the waters of the
United States. The term includes.
withhout Limitation, the addition of
dredged material to a specified
discharge site located In waters of the
United States and the runoff or overflow
from a contained land or water disposal
area. Discharges of pollutants Into
waters of the United States resulting
from the onshore subsequent processing
of dredged material that is extracted for
any commercial use (other than fill) are
not Included within this term and are
sub ject to section 402 of the Clean
Water Act even though the extraction
and deposit of such material may
require a permit from the Corps or
applicable state. The term “discharge of
dredged material” includes, without
limitation, any addition or redeposit of
dredged materials. Including excavated
materials, into waters of the United
States which is lnddental to any activity
(except normal dredging operations as
defined below). Including mechanized
- landdearlng. ditehing. channelizatfon. or
other excavation which has or would
have the effect of destroying or
degrading any area of waters of the
United States. The term does not Include
de mmimis soil movement Incidental to
any activity which does not have or
would not have the effect of destroying
or degrading any area of waters of the -
United States. Moreover, the term does
not include do mmimis. incidental sod
movement occurring during normal
dredging operations, defined as dredging
to maintain, deepen. or extend
navigation channels In the navigable
waters of the United States, as defined
In 33 CFR part 329. with proper
authorization from the Congress and/or
the Corps. The term does not include
plowing, cultivating. seeding and
harvesting for the production of foot
fiber. and forest products (See I 323.4
for the definition of these terms).
(2) For purposes of paragraph (d)(1).
mechanized Iandclearing. d1frhIng.
dw nellzatjon. or other excavation
activities In waters of the United States
result In a discharge of dredged
materiaL Further. where such activities
occur In waters of the United States. the
activity Is presumed to result in the
destruction or degradation of such
waters unleu the project proponent
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Corps. or A as appropriate, that the
activity would not have such an effect in
a particular case.
* ma IAm J -
3. Section 323.2(e) i amended b).
adding a sentence at the end that ri.
asfollows: .
• • • - • “ ‘S
(e)’ • See 1 323.3(c) concerning tle
regulation of the placement of pilings in
waters of the United States. -
• S S S S
4. Section 323.2(1) Is amended by
adding a sentence at the end that reads
as follows:
• . • S S I
(f • See I 323.3 c) concerning the
regulation of the placement of pilings in
waters of the United States.
• S S S •
5. SectIon 323.3(4 is added to read as
follows:
323.3 Dlac*arges requiring perrnftL
• I • S S
(c) Pilings. (1) The placement of
pilings In waters of the United States
shall require a section 404 permit when
such placement Is used In a manner
essentially equivalent to a discharge of
fill material in physical effect or
functional use and effect. Examples
Include but are not limited to, the
following activities In waters of the
United States:
(I) Physical effect of fill: Projects
In effect replace an aquatic area or
change the bottom elevation of a
waterbody as a result of the placement
of pilings that are so closely spaced that
sedimentation rates are inareased or the
pilings themselves essentially replace
the bottom will require a section 404
permit. This circumstance would Include
pilings placed In waters of the United
Slates for dnm , dike,, or other
structures utilizing densely spaced
pilings, or as a foundation for large
structures.
(U) Functional use and affect of fill:
Construction projects will require a
sectIon 404 permit where pilings serve
essentially the same functional use as a
solid fill foundation. and’where the
project would result In essentially the
same effects as fill (e.g., alter flow or
circulation of the waters, bring the area
Into a new, non-aquatic use, or
significantly alter or eliminate aquatic
functions and values). Regulated
activities Include the placement of
pilings to facilitate the construction of
office and Industrial developments.
parking structures, restaurants, stores.
hotels, multi-family housing projects.
and similar structures In waters of
United States.
(2) Placement of pilings In waters ,. -
the United States will not require a
permit under section 404 In
-------
Federal Register / - VoL 57; No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1992 I Proposed Rules
circunistances Involving linear pro jecta
such as bndges, elevated walkways, or
powerlthe 5tr n a , Simfiarly,
placement of pilings In waters of the
United States will not require a section
404 permit In circumstance, that Involve
structures that have been traditionally
been constructed on pilings; examples
are piers, boathouses, wharves, marinas,
lighthouses, and individual houses built
on stilts solely to reduce the potential of
flooding (e.g.. beach houses where road
access is on uplands, but the house may
be located in a low area necessitating
construction on stilts). However, all
pilings placed In the navigable waters of
the United States (see 33 CFR part 329)
require a ithorization under section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1 9 (see
33 R part 323).
PART 328—OEFINmOtI OF WATERS
OF ThE UNITED STATES
8. The authority citation for part 328
continues to read as follows:
Authoi4ty 33 U.S.C. 1344.
7. Section 328.3(a) Is amended by
removing the last sentence and adding a
new paragraph (a)(8) that reads as
follows:
328.3 DifinWone .
• E-. • • a
(a)
(8) Waters of the United States do not
Include:
(1) Waste treatment systems, Including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirements of CWA (other
than cooling ponds as defined in 4 OCFR
123.11(m) which also meet the oriterla of
this definition): or
(Li) Prior converted opland. as
defined by the National Food Security
Act Manual, Second Edition, 100-V-
NFSAM. Amendment 6. May1991, Soil
Conservation Service. This
incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance wIth 5 U.S.C
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of tha
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Servi Ce,
South Agriculture Building, room 0054.
14th and Independence Ave. SW..
Washington. DC or at the Office of the
Federal Register. 1100 L Street, NW.,
room 8401. Washington. DC.
• . • a a
40 FR HAP ’TER I-(AMENOEDI
PART 110—DiSCHARGE OF OIL
1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:
Authou4ty 33 U.S.C 1321 (bX3) and (b)(4)
and 1361(a); 33 U.S.C 1517(m)(3).
2. Section 110.1. definItion of
navigable waters, is amended by adding
three new sentences of concluding text
at the end of the definition to read as
follows:
110.1 DefinitIons.
I • S
S S
Navigablewatere do not include prior
converted cropland. as defined by the
National Food Security Act ManuaL
Second Edition. 180-V-NFSAM,
Amendment 6. May. 1991. Soil
Conservation Service. This
Incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register In accordance with 5 U.S.C
552(a) and I CFR part 51. Copies of the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
South Agriculture Building. room 0054,
14th and Independence Avenue. SW..
Washington. DC orat the Office of the
Federal RegIster. 11001. Street, NW.,
Vasllngton. DC
PART 112—OIL POLLUTiON
PREVENTION
1. The authority citation for part 112
continues to read as follows:
Autborfty 33 U.S.C 1231 et seq.
2. Sectf on 112.2(k). definItion of
navigable waters. Is amended by adding
three new sentences of concluding text
at the end of the definition to read as
Iollows
*112.2 Osflnftlons.
• • • •
.
Navigable waters do not Include prior
converted cropland, as defined by the
National Food Security Act Manual.
Second Edition. 180-V-NFSAM,
Amendment 6. May, 1991. Soil
Conservation Service. This
IncorporatIon by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
South Agriculture Building. room 0054.
14th and Independence Avenue, SW..
Washington. DC or at-the Office of the
Federal RegIster, 11001. Street, NW.,
room 8401, WR*hirlgton, DC.
• • a a
PART 118—DESIGNATION OF
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
1. The authority citation for part 118
continues to read as follows:
Authority 33 U.S.C 1521 et seq. -
2. In 0 116.3, the definition of
navigable waters is amended by adding
three new sentences of concluding text
at the end of the definition, as set forth
below, and the definitions are placed in
alphabetical order.
*118.3 DifinWons .
a •. •
S
Navigable waters do not Include prior
converted cropland. as defined by the
National Food Security Act Manual.
Second Edition, 180-V-NFSAM,
Amendment 8. May. 1991. Soil
Conservation Service. This
Incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register In accordance wIth 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
South Agriculture Building, room 0054.
14th and Independence Avenue, SW..
Washington. DC or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 11001. Street. NW.,
room 8401. Washington. DC.
• S a a a
PART 117—DETERMINATION OF
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES FOR
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
AUtbOrity 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
2. The definition of navigable waters,
§ 117.1( 1), Is amended by adding three
new sentences of concluding text at the
end of the definition to read as follows:
0117.1 Osfk Won. .
• • a a •
Navigable waters do not Include prior
converted oropland, as defined by the
National Food Security Act Manual.
Second Edition. 180-V-N}’SAM,
Amendment 8. May. 1991. Soil
Conservation Service. This
Incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register In accordance with 5 U.S.C
§552 (a) and I CFR part 51. CopIes of the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
South Agriculture Building. room 0054.
14th and Independence Avenue. SW ..
Washington. DC or at the Office of the
Federal Register. 11001. Street. NW.,
room 8401. Washington. DC
a a a a a
-------
Federal egizter / VoL 57, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 16. 1 / Proposed Rules
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATONAL
POWJTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM -.
1. The authority citation for past 122
continues to read as follow.:
Authonty U.S.C 2251 e q.
2. SectIon 122.2. definitIon of waters of
the United States, is amended by adding
three new sentences at the end of the
definition to read as follow.:
• 122.2 DefinWoes .
• . a • •
Waters of the United State. do not
Include pri or converted eropland. as
defined by the National Food Security
Act Manual. Second Edition, 1BO-V-
NFSAM Amendment 8, May, 1991. Soil
Conservation Service. This
Incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 US.C
552(a) and 1 ( R part 51. Copies of the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
South Agriculture Building, room 0054.
14th and Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington. DC or at the Office of the
Federal Regisler. 1100 L Street. NW..
room 8401. W h i sgtoe. DC
PART 230—SECTiON 404(bXl)
GUIDELINES FOR SPEC2FICATION OF
DISPOSAL SITES FOR DREDGED OR
FILL MATERIAL -
1. The authority citation for part 230
continues to read as follow.:
Authudly 33 U.S.C 1344(b) and 138114
2. Section 230.3( 5), definItion of waters
of the United States, Is amended by
adding three new sentences of
concluding text at the end of the
definition to read as follow.: - .
230.3 Dsth eooe.
• I I I I
Water. of the United States do not
include prior converted aopland, as
defined by the National Food Security
Act Manual. Second Edition, 180-V-
NFSAM. AmendmentS, May, 1991, SoIl
Conservation Service. This
Incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register In accordance with S U.S.C.
55 2 (a) and I R part St Copies of the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
South Agriculture Building. room 0054.
14th and Independence Avenue. SW..
Washington, DC or at the Office of the
Federal RegIster. 1100!. Street NW.,
room 6401, Washington. DC.
PART 232—404 PROGRAM
DERNmONS EXEMPT ACTIVITIES
NOT REQUIRING 404 PERMITS
1. The authority citatfon for Part 232
continues to read as follows:
Au* 4ty 33 U.S.C. 1344.
2. Section ‘ ‘ ‘ (e) . definition of
discharge of dredged material. Is revised
to read as follow.:
233.2 DsflniUw
• -I I I • I
(e)(1) The term discharge of dredged
material means any addition of
dredged material Into waters of the
United States. The term includes,
without limitation, the addition of
dredged material to a specified
discharge site located in waters of the
United States and the runoff or overflow
from a contained land or water disposal
area. Discharges of pollutants into
waters of the United States resulting
from the onshore subsequent processing
of dredged material that Is extracted for
any commercial use (other than fill) are
not included within this term and are
subject to section 402 of the Clean
Water Act even though the extraction
and deposit of such material may
require a permit from the Corps or the
State section 404 program. The term
“discharge of dredged material”
Includes, without limitation. any
addition or redeposit of dredged
materials, including excavated
materials, into waters of the United
States which Is Incidental to any activity
(except normal dredging operations as
defined below). Including mechanized
landclearing. dltthlng. channelizatlon. or
other excavation which has or would
have the effect of destroying or
degrading any area of waters of the
United States. The term does not Include
de minim/a soil movement Incidental to
any act lvltywh lch does not have or
would not have the effect of destroyl iig
or degrading any area of waters of the
United States. Moreover, the term does
not include a’e minim/s. incidental soil
movement occurring during the normal
dredging operations, defined as dredging
to maintain, deepen. or extend
navigation channels In the navigable
waters of the United States, as defined
In 33 Part 329. with proper
authorixati on from the Congress and/or
the Corps. The term doe, not include
plowing, cultivating, seeding and.
harvesting for the protection of food.
fiber, and forest products (See 323.4 for
the definition of these terms).
(2) For purposes of paragraph (e)(1).
mechanized landcleazlng. dlfrhlng ,
channellzatfan. or other excavation
activities In waters of the United SU
result In adlschazgs of dredged
material. Further. where each activities
occur In waters of the United States, the
aclivftyla presumed to result In the
destruction or degradation of such
waters unless the project proponent -
demonstrate. to the satisfaction of the
Corp., or ‘A as appropriate, that the
activity would not have such an effect in
arculacas
3. Section 232.2(f), definitIon of
discharge of fill material, is revised to
read as follow.:
I I I I
(f)(IJThe term “discharge of fill
material” means the addition of fill
material Into watere of the United
States. The term generally includes..
without limitation, the following -
activities: placement of fill that Is
necessary for the construction of any
structure in a water of the United States;
the buildingof any aU icture or
Impoundment requiring rock, sand. dirt,
or other material for Its constructlon
site.development fills for recreational.
Industrial. commercial. re’dential . an’s
other uses: causeways or road fills:
dams and dikes: artificial Islands
property protection and/or recLamation
devices such as rtprap. groins, seawalla,
breakwaters, and revetments; beach
nourishment levees; fill for structure,
such as sewage treatment facilities,
Intake and outfall pipes associated with
power plants and subaqueous utility
line, and artificial reefs. The term doe,
n 9 t.lndude plowing, cultivating, seeding.
and harvesting for the production of
food. flb and forest products (See
Section 252.3 for the definition of these
terms.)
(2) In addition, the placem nt of
pilingsinwaters of the United States
shall require a section 404 permIt when
such placement Is used Ins mannn
essentially equivalent to a discharge of
fill material In physical effect or
fnnc44onal use and effect In such cases,
the placement of pillage In waters of the
United States constitutes a ‘I’ ”charge of
fill material for purposes of Section 404.
Examples inclmdn. , but are not limited
to. the following actIvities In waters of
the United Staten
(I)Physionleffnctoffilk Projects that
In effect replace an aquatic area or
duange the bottom elevation of a
waterbody as a result of the placemi
of pillage that are so closely spaced t.
sedimentation rates are increased or the
pillage themselves essentially replace
the bottom will require a Section 404
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 118 I Tuesday, June 16 , .1992 I Proposed Rules
26901
permit This circumstances would
Indude pilings placed In waters of the
United States for darns, dikes, or other
structures utilizing densely spaced
pilings, or as a foundation for large
ethactures.
(I I) Funcdonal use and effect of 1 1Th
Construction projects will require a
Section 404 permit where pilings serve
essentially the same functional use as a
solid fill foundation, and where the
project would result in essentially the
same effects as fill (e.g., alter flow or
circulation of the waters, bring the area
into a new, non-aquatic use, or
significantly alter or eHrn4nate aquatic
functions and values). Regulated
activities Include the placement of
pilings to facilitate the construction of
office and Industrial developments,
parking structures, restaurants, stores,
hotels, multi-family housing projects,
and similar structures In waters of the
United States,
The term discharge offWmose.rld
does not Include the placement of
pilings in waters of the United States in
circumstances involving linear projects
such as bridges. elevated walkways. or
powerline structures, Similarly, the term
does not Include the placement of
pilings in waters of the United States In
circumstances that involve structures
that have been traditionally constructed
on pilings; examples are piers.
boathouses, wharves. marinas.
lighthouses, and individual houses built
on stilts solely to reduce the potential of
flooding (e.g.. beach houses where road
access Is on uplands, but the house may
be located In a low area necessitating
costruction on stilts). However, all
pilings placed In the navigable waters of
the United States (see 33 Q ’R part 329)
require authorization under Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1099 (see
33CFRpaII32Z).
4. Section 232.2(q), definllloti of
waters of the United States, Is amended
by adding three new sentences of
concluding text at the end of the
definition to read as follows:
o 2332 0sfln ons,
• • I I I
Waters of the United States do not
include prior converted cropland. as
defined by the National Food Security
Act Manual, Second Edifice, 180-V-
NFSAM. Amendment 0, May, 1991, Soil
Conservation Service. This
incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance wIth 5 U.S.C
552(a) and I CFR part 51. CopIes of the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
South Agriculture Building. room 0054.
14th and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington. DC or at the Office of the
Federal RegIster. 1100 L Street, NW.,
room 8401, WashIngton. DC
PART 401—EFFLUENT GUIDELiNES
AND STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 401
continues to read as follows;
Autho lty 33 tJ.&C. 1231 .1 seq.
2. Section 401.11 ( I). definition of
navigable waters, Is amended by adding
three new sentences at the end of the
definition to read as follows:
*401.11 Giasraldifloltlons .
I S I • I
• ‘ Navigable waters do not
include prior converted cropland, as
defined by the National Food Security
Act Manual, Second Edition, 18G-V-
NFSA?..t Amendment 6. May, 1991. Soil
Conservation Service. This
incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register In accordance wIth 5 U.S.C
552(a) and I CFR part 51, Copies of the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
South Agriculture Building . room 0054.
14th and Indepentlence Avenue, SW..
Washington. DC or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 1100 L Street, NW.,
room 8401, WashIngton, DC.
I - I I I I
(FR Dcc. 92—1$7 FUed 6-15-02: 8:45 amj
- .1, -
-------
Federal Register / Vat. 57, No. 102 I Wednesday, May 27, 1992 / Proposed Rules
22197
5. Auto and Truck Redlniahiiag—
marketable emission reduction rule.
(3.4-42 tpd)
‘)egreastng—merketable emission
.tion rule. (3.5-4.1 tpd)
7. Asphalt Paving—marketable
emission reduction rule. (2.5—3.2 tpd)
8. Commercial Baking—marketable
emission reduction rule. (2.3—2.9 tpd)
9. Can and Coil Coating—marketable
emission reduction rule. (1.8—1.9 tpd)
10. Adhesives—marketable emission
reduction rule. (1.1—1.4 tpd)
11. PrInting—marketable emission
reduction rule. (0.8—1.1 tpd)
12. Miscellaneous Metal Parts—
marketable emission reduction rule.
(0.5-0.7 tpdJ
C. Solicitation of Comment
EPA solicits comment on the proposed
list of control measures and on the
general approach for stationary and
area source control discussed In D.C.,
above.
Executive Order
Under Executive Order 12291, this
action is not “major”. It has been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget for review.
List of Subjects In 4OCFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Hydrocarbons.
r
.hority 40 U.S.C. 7 40 1-7671q.
Dated: May 15, 1992.
Henry F. Habicht
Acting Admirnstmtor
(FR Doc. 92-12176 Filed 5—28—92, 845 amj
BIWNO CODE 6S6O.4O.
40 CFR Parts 122,123, and 501
(4138-1)
National Pollutant DIscharge
Elimination System Sewage Sludge
Permit Regutatlons State Sludge
Management Program Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACT1OIC Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On May 2. 1989. the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated State sewage sludge
management program regulations (40
CFR part 501) as well as revisions to the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Sy8tem (NPDES) permit
requirements and procedures (40 CFR
parts 122, 123, and 124) to establish
sewage sludge permitting and State
- ge sludge program req s1reinenta (54
.716) pursuant to section 405 of the
. . .. .. n Water Act (CWA). Under these
rules, publicly owned treatment works
(POTWa) and other treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) are
required to submit permit applications
Within 120 days after the promulgation
of standards (40 CFR 503) applicable to
their sewage sludge use or disposal
practice(s). The Agency expects to
promulgate these standards later this
summer. EPA estimates that up to 20.000
permit applications may be submitted to
EPA at one time as a result of the
current requirements. To facilitate the
management of these applications. EPA
is today proposing to revise these rules
to stagger the submission of permit
applications. Additionally. EPA is
proposing to extend the time period
during which the Initial set of
applications must be submitted from 2.20
days to 180 days after promulgation of
Part 503.
DAT! Comments must be submitted on
or before June 28. 1992.
ADDREB5E Comments should be
addressed to Pamela Mazaka,, Permits
Division (EN-336), Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460.
FOR FURThER t7tFORMATION CONTACT
Pamela Mazakas. Permits Division (EN-
336). Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street SW.. Washington. DC
20460, (202) 250-6599.
SUPPLEMENTARY INPORMATIOIC
B uund
A. Water Quality Act of 1987
B. EPAs Sewage Sludge Management
Program
11. DiscussIon of Today’s Proposed Rule
A. Permit Application Requirements
B. Deadline.
a Regulatory Development Process
A. Executive Order 12292
B. Paperwoi* Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B.dcgroimd
Implementation of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) has Increased the extent to
which wastewater is treated before
discharge to surface waters. At publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs),
ãmplementation of secondary treatment
requirements under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. under section 402 of
the CWA. ha. improved effluent quality
while Increasing the amount of sewage
sludge being generated.
A. Water QualityAct of 1987
Section 406 of the Water Quality Act
of 1987, which amended section 405 of
the CWA. established a comprehensive
program for reducing the risks to human
health and the environment from the use
or disposal of sewage sludge. The
revisions to the CWA underscored
EPA’s obligation to promulgate
standards for sewage sludge that protect
public health and the environment from
reasonably anticipated adverse effects
of pollutants in sewage sludge during it
use or disposal Furthermore, the 1987
amendments required that all NPDES
permit, issued to POTWa and other
treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS) contain conditions
implementing sewage sludge standards.
unless those standards are induded in a
permit issued under 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 under a State
program approved for admlntstenng a
section 405(1) sewage sludge permitting
program. The amendments also
provided that the Administrator may
issue separate permits that implement
the sewage sludge requirement. to
treatment works that are not subject to
section 402 of the CWA or to any of the
other listed permit programs or
approved State programs. Moreover, the
amendments provided that the
standards for use or disposal are
enforceable directly against any user or
disposer of sewage sludge under section
405(e) of the CWA. In other words, a
“lW DS must comply with the
standards by the statutory compliance
deadlines whether or not a permit
Incorporating the standards has been
issued to the TWTDS.
B. £PA ‘a Sewage SIud.ge Management
Ftogram
EPA proposed State sewage sludge
management program regulations on
February 4.1588(51 FR 4458). This
proposal, however, was issued prior to
the February 1987 amendments to the
CWA that gave new direction for the
regulation of sewage sludge
management activities. The proposed
regulations were modified to reflect this
new direction and were repropoe.ed on
March9.1988(53FR7842)and -
promulgated on May 2. 1989 (54 FR
18716). These regulations establish
permit requirements and procedures as
well as requirements for States msh ing
to implement approved sewage sludge
management programs as either part of
their NPDES programs or under separate
authority. These regulations establish
the programmatic framework for
implementing the technical standards
for sewage sludge use or disposal.
Central to the sewage sludge
permitting program Is the development
of standards that protect human health
and the envirooment from reasonably
anticipated adverse effects of pollutants
In sewage sludge that Is used or
disposed. On February 8. 1989 (54 FR
-------
2198
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 102 / Wednesday , May 27, 1992 / Proposed Rules
5748), EPA proposed standards for the
use or disposal of sewage sludge if the
sewage sludge is applied to the land..
distnbuted and marketed, placed in
sludge-only landFills (inonofilla) or
surface disposal sites, or fired In a
sewage sludge incinerator. When
promulgated. the standards will be
codified at 40 CFR part 503.
On November 9. 1990 (55 FR 47210),
EPA published a notice regarding the
availability of information and data
collected d rir.g the National Sewage
Sludge Survey and the anticipated
impacts of this information on the
propose 1 ‘art 503 standards. At that
time. E ’ .\ proposed a number of
changes to inc part 503 regulation as a
result of the sLrvey and as a
cor.sequen.e of uiformation and
comments provided by scientific peer
review panels and public comments on
the proposed part 503 rule. EPA expects
to promulgate final part 503 standards
on July 31. 1992.
[ I. Discussion of Today’s Proposed Rule
A. Permit Application Requirements
Under the current sewage sludge
permit program regulations
(H 122.21(c){2)(i) and
501.15(d)(1)(iz)(Afl, any POTW with an
existing NPDES permit must submit
permit applicatiom information when its
next application for NPDES permit
renewal is due or within 120 days of
promulgation of an applicable sewage
iludge standard, whichever comes first.
The preamble discussion (54 FR 18737)
made it clear that all POTWa covered
y the part 503 regulation, had to submit
ermtt applications within this 120 day
,ertod. Under H 122.21(cl(2)(ii) and
iOl.15(d)(1l(iij(9J. any other existing
WTDS. not subject to the NPIJES
,rogram (i.e.. “sludge-only facilities’),
nust also submit the permit application
riformation withIn 120 days of
iromulgation of an applicable sewage
ludge standard or upon request of the
)irector. For TWTDS commencing
peratlon after an applicable part 503
tandard is promulgated, the regulations
H 122.21(cI(2llhiiJ and
01.15(d)(1)(iil(C)) require that permit
pplicanons be submitted at least 180
ays prior to the date proposed for
ommencing operations.
Under the current requirements,
pproximately 16,000 POTWs and three
, five thousand other TW1’DS would
eed to submit application information
ii thin 120 days after promulgation of
art 5 . EPA’s original intent was to
se the information from permit
pplications to identify priorities for
ermit modification or issuance. Several
hariges have occurred since
promulgation of these requirements that
make this approach less necessary or
practical.
First, the EPA is working to enhance
the direct enforceability of the part 503
standards. This could ensure an
Immediate minimum level of regulation
for all TWTDS regardless of whether
they have a permit or whether sewage
sludge conditions are part of an existing
permit. Permits are still necessary,
however, and play a major role in the
overall scheme of the national sewage
sludge management program. For
example. permits may be needed to
‘tailor requirements to address areas
with particular environmental concerns,
Although part 503 could provide general
self-implementing standards for most
‘TWrDS, some standards may need to
be developed based on site-specific
conditions (e.g.. metal limits for sewage
sludge fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator). The most effective means
for establishing standards based on site-
specific factors Is through permits.
Permits also establish general duties of
perinittees and add certainty to the
permittees obligations. Furtheimore.
permits are an effective means of
bringing TWIDS not already addressed
under the NPDES regulations into the
program. Today’s proposed rule does
not establish when an applicant may
seek standards based on site factors.
Instead, the availability of site-specific
limits will be determined in the
forthcoming part 503 regulation.
Second, as a result of the National
Sewage Sludge Survey, as well as peer
review and public comment on the
proposed part 503 rulemaking. EPA has
improved knowledge of the prevalence
and relative risks of different sewage
sludge use or disposal practices. As a
result, the Agency is better equipped to
direct permitting activities to those
treatment works requiring priority
attention.
Third, EPA is concerned about
effectively using limited resources.
Completing an initial screening of up to
20,000 applications would be a
monumental task and the Agency does
not believe it to be feasible within a
short time period. Further, much of the
Information submitted within 120 days
of part 503’ . promulgation may be
outdated by the time work can actua!!y -
begin in evaluating the information and
developing permits. Consequently.
TWTDS may need to submit new/
updated information.
In light of the discussion above, EPA
is proposing a phased approach to
permit application submittals. In the
first phase. EPA is proposing to fo4us on
all TWTDS required to have (or
requesting) site-specific pollutant limits
to be provided in part 503. This first
phase indudes several types of TWTDS
but targets, in particular. sewage sludge
Incinerators. Focusing on sewage sludge
Incinerators first Is appropriate because
available data Indicate that these
faciLities pose the greatest risk to human
health and the environment
Under today’s proposal, site-specific
requests would be considered after this
first round of permit applications only
for good cause. Examples of good cause
would include instances where a
TWTDS does not have information
when an applicable sewage sludge
standard is promulgated that site-
specific pollutant limits are necessary.
For example. if a TWTDS changes its
surface disposal site to a site for which
site-specific pollutant limits wider part
503 are necessary, the TWTDS would
have good cause to apply for such limits
either through a permit modification or
application filed within 180 days of
becoming aware that the second site
needs site-specific pollutant limits.
Some TWTDS are not currently
subject to the current NPDES program
for effluent discharges (sludge-only
facilities). EPA does not have an
inventory of these sludge-only TWTDS.
Therefore, one of EPA’s goals is to
identify these TWTDS In the second
phase of information submittals. Again,
the self-implementing provisions of part
503 would protect public health and the
environment In the short term.
Additionally, the permitting authority
maintains the authority to require any
TWTDS to submit full permit
applications at any time ilit determmes
a permit is necessary to protect public
health and the environment
Instead of requiring an irrunediate
submittal of a complete application from
these TWTDS. EPA is proposing to
require the submittal of limited
background information within one year
of promulgation of an applicable sewage
sludge use or disposal standard. (To the
extent these TWTDS are required to
have, or want to request, site-specific
limits, they must come forward during
the first phase and submit permit
applications within 180 days of
promulgation of an applicable sewage
sludge use or disposal standard.)
EPA is proposing that these sludge-
only TWTDS submit the following
information to the DIrector
(1) Name, mailing address and
location of the TW’l’DS;
(2) The operator’s name, address,
telephone number, ownership status,
and status as Federal. State. private,
public or other entity;
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 102 / Wednesday. May . 1992 / Proposed Rules
22199
(3) A description of the sewage sludge
use or dispogal practices (including.
‘here applicable, the location of any
tea where sewage sludge is transferred
br treatment, use, or disposal, as well
as the name of the applicator or other
contractor who applies the sewage
sludge to land if different from the
TWTDS. and the name of any
distributors if the sewage sludge is sold
or given away in a bag or similar
enclosure for application to the land. If
different from the TWTDS);
(4) Annual amount of sewage sludge
generated, treated, used or disposed
(dry weight basis); and
(5) The most recent data the TWTDS
may have on the quality of the sewage
sludge.
EPA Is seeking comments on whether
this information is sufficient to establish
a priority scheme for permitting these
TWTDS.
To clarify when sludge-only facilities
must subnut permit application
Information. EPA La considering the
ultimate use or disposal of a generator’s
sewage sludge to be the generator’s use
or disposal practice—even LI the sewage
sludge use or disposal Is carried out by
someone else. Therefore. sludge-only
TWTDS will have to submit permit
application information within one year
“er promulgation of part 503 (according
he proposed revisions to the
aplementaUon regulations) if the
sludge they generate is ultimately land
applied, Incinerated in a sewage sludge
incinerator, or placed in a surface
disposal site. For example. if a sludge-
only TWTDS generates sewage sludge
and sends that sludge to someone else’s
sewage sludge inclnersq,r. the
generating TWTDS will still have to
submit permit application information
within one year after promulgation of
part 503. (In this case, the incinerator
will also be considered a TWTDS and
will be required to submit permit
application information as well.)
The third phase conB ists of TWTDS
with NPDES permits not addressed
under the first pha8e. These TWTDS
would be expected to submit the
application information In accordance
with NPDES permit renewal procedures.
Such procedures require permit
Fsc*ties mquved to hay. (or
— st a
NOn.NPCES
applications at least 180 days before the
NPO permit Is due to expire. Public
health and the envirorunent ase still
protected in the short term by the self.
Implementing provisions of part 503.
Furthermore, If EPA determines that Ills
necessary to require sewage sludge
application information and to reopen a
permit before renewal. It may do so at
Its discretion under the authority of 40
CFR 122, 82(a) 1 3) and fl) to protect
human health or the environment
It Is Important to note that the focus of
this proposal Is on the submittal of
permit application, only. Compliance
with part 503 Ii still mandatory, under
section 405(d)(2)(D) of the CWA. as
expeditiously as possible. but in no case
later than one year after publication for
two years 11 construction is required)
regardless of a TW’IDS’s permit status.
Furthermore, today’s proposal does not
interfere with the permitting authority’s
discretion to set priorities for issuing
permits.
EPA will be responsible for issuing
permits that implement the sewage
sludge use or disposal standards. unless
those standards are Implemented
through certain other Federal permits or
permits issued by a State with an EPA-
approved sewage sludge management
program. Because no States have
received EPA approval of their State
sewage sludge management programs
yet. all application information must be
submitted directly to the appropriate
EPA Regional offices, unless the facility
has been directed otherwise by EPA.
For consistency, EPA Is also
proposing to Include these provisions in
40 CFR 123.25(a)(4) by cross.referencing
the part 122 provisions. This means that
States which seek approval of a
modification to their NPDES program to
regulate sewage sludge use or disposal
would be expected to have comparable
regulations as part of their programs.
B. Deadlines
Because EPA is proposing to focus the
application requirement on those
TWI’DS required to have (or requesting)
site-specific pollutant limits, the 120.day
time period currently provided for under
the regulations may be insufficient to
generate the necessary information. For
— sscimbon mhonviebm w 5 n 120 days 11w Part
50 5 p o Uganor
Si nti 11u09 appUcabcn kWo TM5on wiewl 120 days aftor Pvt
503 p i Qii
this reason. EPA Is proposing to extend
the lime period to 180 days after
promulgation of part 503. This time
period was generally not an issue when
the regulations were first proposed. Now
that EPA has a better understanding of
the Likely part 503 requIrements, the
Agency has determined that 121) days
may be too resthctlve and that 180 days
would be more appropriate. For
example. sewage sludge incinerators
may need to submit air dispersion data
and conduct control efficiency tests
(trial bums) that could take a
considerable period of time to complete.
EPA wants to avoid having Incomplete
applications submitted because of
Inadequate amounts of time In which to
generate the required Information.
Additionally, the 180 day time period Is
consistent with the current time period
established for new facilities to submit
permit applications. For example. a
TWTDS proposing to commence
operation must submit an application at
least 180 days prior to commencing
operations ( 122.21(c)(2)(liI) and
5O1.15(d)(1)(il)(C)) and those TWTDS
with existing NPDES permits must
submit new applications at least 180
days prior to their existing permit’s
expiration date (* 122.21(d) (1) and (2fl.
(EPA is not proposing to change either
of these time frames.)
After today’s amendments. alt
TWTDS will generally be required to
submit permit applications within 180
days of a triggering event. For
consistency, EPA is also proposing to
modify * 123.1(b)(4). This provision
states that a user or disposer of sewage
sludge designated as a TWTDS must
submit a permit application withIn 120
days of being notified by the Regional
Administrator that a permit is required.
For the same reasons stated In the
para aph above, EPA Is proposing to
extend this time period from 120 days to
180 days after a TWTDS Is notified that
a permit Is required. Again, for
consistency. EPA is proposing to Include
the extended deadlines into part 123 as
well
For a summary of the general changes
made by tnth y’s proposal. see Table LI.-
1.
TABLE II-1.—Sui Rv oc GEi E w. CHANGES MADE BY ToCAY’S PROPOSAL
E m war nto rcns mann
S nIt 11ge ss 5casol1 rewi 150 days afw Pan
am
Submd sl dgI asØcsOon docmabon MI n 180 days s Itar Part
sos p o ’sdgat0ft
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 102 / Wednesday. May 27. 1992 I Proposed Rules
TABLE 11-1.—SUMMARY OF GENERAL CHANGES MADE BY TODAY’S PROPOSAL —COfltIflUBd
Exiserig requaements
Proposed requeefl 5
Faciizbes not requeed to have
(er requesting) sae epeatic
‘“..
with next NPOES permit
NPOES pemvflees.
Submit sludge applicauon ntorrnation within 120 days after Pert
Submit sludge application information
renewsl application.
Non-NPCES permittees
( “studge-ontyl
503 prcmuIgabc
Submit sludge app 5cation information within 120 days aftnr Pail
503 promulgation.
Submit Isnhled sludge ifllOf’ffIatlOfl within 1 yeW after Pail 503
promulgation
IWTOS may request site.speofiC pollutant hints later upon a showing of good cause.
III. Regulatory Development Process
A. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is major
and. therefore. subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. A major rule is defined as a
regulation that Is likely to result in: (1)
An annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; (2) a major increase in
the costs or prices for consumers.
individual Industries. Federal. State and
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or (3) a significant
adverse effect on competition.
employment, investment, productivity.
innovation. or on the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic or export markets.
Today’s proposal Imposes no new
criteria but rather lessens the burden for
submitting permit applications. Instead
of requiring the submission of all permit
applications within 120 days after the
promulgation of Part 503. the submission
of applications is to be done in phases.
This avoids the potential for a TWTDS
to have to submit two applications
because information became outdated
before a permit could be written.
Therefore, the proposals do not
constitute a major rulemaking. These
regulations were submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (0MB) for
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Information collection
requirements (ICR) for the existing
regulations are covered by ICR #1237,
which was approved In 1989. The
information collection requirements in
this proposed rule have been submitted
for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. An Information Collection
Request document (ICR #1237.05) has
been prepared by EPA and a copy may
be obtained from Sandy Farmer.
Information Policy Branch [ PM—223YJ.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street SW.. Washington. DC
20460. or by calling (202) 260—2740.
Public reporting burden for this
collection of information Is estimated to
vary from 4 to 5 hours per response.
with an average of 4.83 hours per
response. including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Submit comments on 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 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. 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of its rules
on small entities. Nor 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
proposal most directly affects treatment
works that use or dispose of sewage
sludge that are already required to
obtain permits under existing Federal or
State programs. Today’s proposal
merely changes existing regulations to
provide for the submittal of permit
applications in phases. In most cases,
small facilities will have additional time
to submit their applications.
Accordingly. I hereby certify pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these amendments
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 122
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Sewage
disposal. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control.
40 CPI? Port 123
Confidential business information.
Hazardous materials. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Sewage
disposal. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control. Penalties.
40 CF7 Part 501
Confidential business information.
Environmental protection. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Publicly
owned treatment works, Sewage
disposal. Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: May 14. 1992.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out In the
preamble. Parts 122. 123, and 501 of 40
GR Ch. I are amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAM& ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
EUMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authontlr. The Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.
2. Section 122.1 is proposed to be
amended by revising the second
sentence of paragraph (b) (4) to read as
follows:
§ 122.1 Purpose and scope.
• • • • •
(b)
(4) Any person designated as a
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage” shall submit an application for
a permit under 122.21 within 180 days
of being notified by the Regional
-------
Federal Register f Vol. 57, No. 102 I Wednesday, May 27. 1992 / Proposed Rules
22201
Administrator that a permit is required.
a * • •
1 Section 122.21 is proposed to be
ended by redesignaling paragraph
tc)(21(iu) as (c)(2)(v); redesignating
current paragraphs (c)(2J (1) and (ii) as
(c)(2) (ii) and (iii) respectively and
revising them; and adding new
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2) (iv) to read
as follows:
§ 122.21 AppUc5tlon fore permit
(applicable to State programs, see
§ 123.25).
. S • * S
(c)
(2) Permits under section 405(fl 01
CWA. (i) Any existing “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” required to
have, or requesting site-specific
pollutant limits as provided in 40 CFR
Part 503. must submit the permit
application information required by
paragraph (d)(3)(iiJ of this section within
180 days after promulgation of a
standard applicable to its sewage sludge
use or disposal practice(s). After thIs 180
day period. “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” 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.
(u) Any “treatment works treating
esdc sewage” with a currently
.ctive NPDES permit. not addressed
under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section,
must submit the application information
required by paragraph (d)(3)(u) of this
section with the application submitted
in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(iii) Any other existing “treatment
works treating domestic sewage” not
addressed under paragraphs (cfl2) (iJ or
(ii) of this section musl submit the
information listed in paragraphs
(c )(2)(iii);A) —(E) of this section, to the
Director within 1 year after
promulgation of a standard applicable to
is sewage sludge use or disposal
oractice(s). The Director shall determine
when such “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” must apply for a
permit.
(A) Name, mailing address and
ocanon of the “treatment works
:re ting domestic sewage.”
(B) The operator’s name, address.
telephone nignber. ownership status,
afld status as Federal. State. private.
public or other enttty
(C) A description of the sewage sludge
use or disposal practices (including.
where applicable, the location of any
where sewage sludge is transferred
eatment. use. or disposal. as well
‘is the name of the applicator or other
contractor who applies the sewage
sludge to land. if different from the
“treatment works treatIng domestic
sewage.” and the name of any
distributors if the sewage sludge is sold
or given away in a bag or similar
enclosure for application to the land. if
different from the “treatment works
treating domestic sewage”):
(C) Annual amount of sewage sludge
generated. treated, used or disposed
(dry weight basis); and
(E) The most recent data the
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage” may have on the quality of the
sewage sludge.
(iv) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(2)
(i). (ii), or (iii) of this section. the
Director may require penuilt applications
from any “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” at any time if the
Director determines that a permit Is
necessary to protect public health and
the environment from any potential
adverse effects that may occur from
toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
4. The authority citation for part 123
continues to read as follows
Authoeity Clean Water Act. 33 U S C. 2251
et seq
5. Section 123.25 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 123.25 Requirements for permtttlng.
(a) *
(4) § 122 ,21(aHb), (c) (2), (e)—( ). and
(l)—(o)—(Apphcatton for a permit);
S • • S S
PART 501—STATE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
6. The authority citation for part 501
r ntmues to read as follows
Authoiity Clean Water Act. 33 U S C. 1251
etseq,
7. Section 501.15 is proposed to be
amended by redesignating paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(C) as (d )(1)( ii)(E); redesignating
current paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) (A) and (B)
as paragraphs (d )(1J(ii) (B) and (C)
respectively and revising them: and
adding new paragraphs ld)(1)(ii)(A) and
(d)(1)(ii)(D) to read as follows:
§ 501.15 RequIrements for permitting.
* S S • S
(d)
(1)
(ii) (A) Any existing “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” required to
have (or requesting) site-specific
pollutant limits as provided under 40
CFR part 503. must submit the permit
application information required by
paragraph (a)(2) of this section within
180 days after promulgation of a
standard applicable to its sewage sludge
use or disposal practice(s). After this 180
day period. “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” 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.
(B) Any “Lreatment works treating
domestic sewage” with a currently
effective NPDES permit. not addressed
under paragraph (d)(1)(il)(A) of this
section. must submit the application
information required by paragraph (aH2J
of this section when the next application
for NPDES permit renewal Is due.
(C) Any other existing “treatment
works treating domestic sewage” not
addressed under paragraphs (d)(1l(ii)
(A) or (B) of this section must submit the
information listed in paragraphs
(d)(1)(iillCfllNS) of this section, to the
Director within one year after
promulgation of a standard applicable to
Its sewage sludge use or disposal
practice(s). The Director shall determine
when such “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” must apply for a
permit.
(1) Name, mailing address and
location of the “treatment works
treating domestic sewage”;
(2) The operator’s name, address,
telephone number, ownership status.
and status as Federal, State. private.
public or other entltr
(3) A description of the sewage sludge
use or disposal practices (including,
where applicable, the location of any
sites where sewage sludge is transferred
for treatment. use, or disposal. as well
as the name of the applicator or other
contractor who applies the sewage
sludge to land if different from the
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage,” and the name of apy
distributors if the sewage sludge is sold
or given away in a bag or similar
enclosure for application to the land, if
different from the “treatment works
treating domestic sewage”);
(4) Annual amount of sewage sludge
generated. treated. used or disposed
(dry weight basis); and
(5) The most recent data the
“treatment works treating domest c
sewage” may have on the quality of the
sewage sludge.
(U) Notwithstanding paragraphs
(d)(l)(ii) (A), (B), or (C) of this section,
the Director may require permit
applications from any “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” at any time if
-------
02
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 1992 1 Proposed Rules
the Director determines that a permit is
necessary to protect public health and
the environment from any potential
adverse effects that may occur from
toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
• • • • I
(FR Doc. 92-12177 Filed 5—28-92: 645 51511
SILUNO Coot 6550-5O-M
4OCFR Part 180
(PP 0E3898 and 0E3908/P533; FRL—4005—1j
PIN 2070-AC18
Pesticide Tolerances for Oxyfluorfen
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document proposes that
tolerances be established for residues of
the herbicide oxyfluorfen and its
nietabolites containing the diphenyl
ether linkage in or on the raw
agricultural commodities cocoa beans
and garbanzo beans. The proposed
regulation to establish maximum
permissible levels for residues of the
herbicide an or on the commodities was
requested in petitions submitted by the
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR.
4).
DATES: Comments. identified by the
document control number [ PP 0E3898
and 0E3908/P533J. must be received on
or before Jane 26. 1992.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written
comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch. Field
Operations Division (H7SOGC). Office of
Pesticide Programs. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M SL SW..
Washington. DC 20460. In person. bring
comments to: Rrn. 1128. CM 2. 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway. Arlington. VA
22202.
Information submitted as a comment
concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any
part or all of that information as
“Confidential Business Information”
(CB [ ). Information so marked 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 CBI must be submitied for
inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidentiaL
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. All written
ccmxnents will be available for public
inspection in Rin. 1128 at the address
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m..
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
OR FURTHER INFORMATION COHTACTI By
mail: Hoyt amerson, Emergency
Response and Minor Use Section (H.
505C). Registration Division. Office of
Pesticide Programs. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M St., SW..
Washington. DC 20460. Office location
and telephone number Rm. 716C. CM
*2. 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway.
Arlington, VA 22202. 703 557-231O.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR.
4). New Jersey Agricultural Experiment
Station. P.O. Box 2 31. Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
has submitted pesticide petitions 0E3898
and 0E3908 to EPA’on behalf of the
named Agricultural Experiment
Stations.
These petitions requested that the
Administrator, pursuant to section
408(e) of the Federal Food. Drug. and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a(e)),
propose the establishment of tolerances
for residues of the herbicide oxyfluorfen
[ 2.chloro -1.(3-ethoxy-4-mtrophenoxy)-4-
(trifluoromethyl)benzenej and its
metabolites containing the diphenyl
ether linkage at 0.05 part per million
(ppm) in or on certain raw agricultural
commodities as follows:
1. PP OE38 8. Petition submitted on
behalf of the Hawaii Agricultural
Experiment Station proposing a
tolerance for cocoa beans.
2. PP 0E3908. Petition submitted on
behalf of the California Agricultural
Experiment Station proposing a
tolerance for garbanzo beans.
The petitioner proposed that use of
oxyfluorfen on garbanzo beans be
limited to California based on the
geographical representation of the
residue data submitted. Additional
residue data will be required to expand
the area of usage. Persons seeking
geographically broader registration
should contact the Agency’s
Registration Division at the address
provided above.
The data submitted in the petition and
other relevant material have been
evaluated. The toxicological data
ccnsidered in support of the proposed
tolerances include:
1. A 2-year feeding study In dogs with
a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 100
(equivalent to 2.5 milligrams (mg)/
kilogram (kg)/day).
2. A developmental toxicity study in
rats given gavage doses of 10. 100, and
1.000 mg/kg/day with NOEL’s for
maternal and developmental toxicity of
100 mg/kg/day. Developmental effects
consisting of lower implantation
efficiency, a higher resorption index.
and a lower fetal viability incidence
were observed at i,00o mg/kg/day.
Maternal effects were also observed at
1.000 mg/kg/day (HDT) and may be
responsible for the developmental
effects observed at this level.
3. A rabbit developmental toxic:ty
study with NOEL’s for maternal and
developmental toxicity of 10 mg/kg/day.
A developmental effect, an increase in
fused sternebrae. was observed at 30
mg/kg/day (highest dose tested).
Maternal effects were also observed at
30 mg/kg/day and may be responsible
for the developmental effects observed
at this level.
4. A three-generation reproduction
study in rats fed diets containing 2. 20.
and 100 ppm with a NOEL for
reproductive effects of 10 ppm
(equivalent to 0.5 mg/kg/day). Effects
were observed at 100 ppm as evidenced
by decreases in fetal viability, fetal
body weight. and maternal body weight.
5. Mutagenicity studies including a rat
cytogenetic assay (technical
oxyfluorfen). negative: Salmonella
assays (technical grade). positive with
and without activation in strains TA98.
TAIOO. and TA1537; Salmonella assays
(purified oxyfluorfen). negative with and
without activation at concentrations up
to 7,500 ug/ plate in strains TA98. TAIOO.
TA1535. and TA1537; mouse lymphoma
assay (technical oxyfluorfen). positive
with activation levels 2 to 4 times
background at concentrations up to 4.
ug/aiL. negative (purified oxyfluorfen).
without activation to 1,000 ug/ML
unscheduled DNA synthesis assays
(technical and polar fraction), both
negative, and host-mediated assay
(technical grade). negative.
6. A 2-year chronic feeding/
carcinogemcity study in rats fed diets
containing 2.40. and 800 ppm (the 800-
ppm dosage level was raised 1o 1.600
ppm at week 57 of the study) with a
NOEL of 40 ppm (equivalent to 2.0 mg/
kg/day) based on minimal hypertrophy
of liver cells. There were no
carcinogenic effects observed under the
conditions of the study at any dose level
tested.
7. A 20-month chronic feedingf
carcinogenicity study in CD-I mice fed
diets containing 2. 20. and 200 ppm with
a NOEL of 2 ppm (equivalent to 0.3 mg/
kg/day) for systemic effects.
Oxyfluorfen was associated with
significant positive dose-related trends
for liver adenoina. carcinoma, and
combined adenoma and/or carcinoma in
male mice when compared with
historical control data From CD-I mouse
studies of 20 to 22 months duration.
There was no apparent effect on the
latency period for tumor occurrence.
no compound-related increase in tumo,j
was observed in female mice.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 101 / Tuesday. May28 . 1992 / Proposed Rules
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and
their overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden, the Secretary Invites
comment on whether there may be
further opportunities to rednre any
regulatory burdens found in these
proposed reguLations.
List of Subjects In 34 CFR Pail 200
Administrative practice and
procedure. Education of disadvantaged.
Elementary and secondary edns aKnn.
Grant program—education, Juvenile
delinquency. Neglected, Private schools.
Reporting and recordkeeprng
requirements, State-administered
programs.
(Ca taleg of Federal Domestic Assistance
Numbarsi 34.010. Ompter I Program m lacal
Educatlonaj Agencies: 84.012. Chapter 1
Program—State Administration)
Dateth May 7. 1992.
La,mi . Ajan I’r.
Secretory of Educoiio.a.
The Secretary prgposes to amend part
200 of tItle 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as followe
PART 200—CHAPTER 1 PROGRAM IN
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
1. The authority citation for part 200
continues to read as follows
Autbosfty 20 U.S.C. Z’01—2731. Zazi-zaas.
2851—2854. reel—2801, unless otherwise noted.
2. SectIon 200.8 Is amended by
revising the definition of Educationally
deprived chiid, n In paragraph (c i to
read as follows:
§ 200.8 Whet deflnitlons apply to the
Chapter 1 LEA Programl
a a • • •
(C) ”’’
Educationally deprived children
means children—
(1) Whose educational attainment is
below the level that Is appropriate for
children of their age: or
(2) Who reside in local institutions for
neglected or delinquent children,
including adult currectional institutions.
3. SectIon 200.20 Is amended by
revising paragraph (a)t10)(il (D).
removing the word “and” at the end of
paragraph (a)(10)(i)(D), and adding a
new paragrajlh (a) 10Xi)(F) to read as
followm
200.20 low does i LEA apply tera
subgrsnt?
(a)’’’
(10)’ ‘
(I) ’
(B) Are designed and Implemented In
consultation with teachers (including
early childhood professionals. pupil
services per !Irw’l. and librarians, If
appropriate) and, for children residing in
local institutions for neglected or
delinquent children, with institutional
officials (Including instructional and
support staff, and staff serving as
parentsj
(F) Provide chapter 1 services to
homeless children, if appropr ate: and
4. Section wo.ai is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) and
by adding new paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)
to read as follows:
200.31 How dose an LEA ldantify and
asset children to participats?
• a S • •
(b ) ” ’
(1) Identify educationally deprived
children, as defined in *2 0 0.8 (c).
including educationally deprived
chlldsen.in private schools, in all eligible
school attendance areas, and
educallounfly deprived homeless
children, regardless of their residence.
(2) On the basis of Information
obtained under paragraph (bXl) of this
section. Inr hu14ng information
concerning educationally deprived
children In private schools and
educa’ onally deprived homeless
children, Identify the general
Instructional eas and grade levels on
which the program will focus.
Instructional areas and grade levels may
vary among and within school
attendance areas If the needs
assessment data support those
variations,
a a a • a
(c) • ‘
(6) An LEA may use funds available
under this part to serve educationally
deprived homeless children who do not
attend chapter 1 project schools.
(d) Inciden tal inciusian of non-
Chapte ri thildren. An LEA may
provide, on an incidental basis. chapter
1 servIces to children who have not been
selected toparlicipate in the LEA’.
chapter 1 project if—
(1J The chapter 1 project is designed
to meet the special educational needs of
chapter 1 children and is focused an
those duildzun and
(2) The LEA is able to demonstrate
that the inclusion of non-Chapter 1
children on an incidental basis does
not—
(1) Decrease the amount, duration. or
quality of chapter 1 services received by
theuhJJth en who have been selecte
( II) lz uasc the cost of providing the
sei-vu . ar
(lii) Result in the exclusion of children
who would otherwise recewe chapter 1
services.
5. Section 2EXL34 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (a)(4) to rend as
follows:
f 200.34 How does an LEA involve
parents?
(a)’
(4) An LEA that provides chapter 1
services to children who reside ip local
Institutions for neglected or delinquent
children shall comply, to the extent
feasible. with the requirements in this
section.
S
• I a
6. SectIon 200.35 is amended by
redesigns ting paragraph (a )(3) as (a)(4)
and by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to
read as followsi
200.35 ustars ths requbwmenta for
and repotling pru ict results?
(a)”
{3) i) An LEA that provides chapter 1
services to children who reside in local
institutions for neglected or delinquent
children shall comply, to the extent
feasible, with the evaluation
requirements In paragraph (a) of this
section.
(ii) If compliance is not feasible, the
LEA shall base Its evaluation on the
success in meeting desired outcomes the
LEA established for the neglected or
delinquent children. *
[ FR Doe, 92-12148 Filed 5-22-92. &45 ami
LUNQ Cod 4XO.O
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY -
4OCPR Pai’t 122
IFRL 4137-2)
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, Announcement of
National Meetings to Consider Options
for Controlling Sources of Stormwater
Pollution
AOENCY Environ ’ entaj Protection
Agency (EPA).
suvuaRy EPA is holding national
meetings to get public input on section
4 0 2(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act, which
addresses Phase II of the storinwatey
program and requires EPA to issue a
regulation by October 1. 1992.The
regulation must designate additional
storm water discharges to be regulated
to protect water quality and establish a
comprehensive program to regulate such
deslg ia*.d soorces. Congress has left
the precise scope and nature of the
applicable controls under Phase II for
EPA tode e.Publtclnpst will help
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 101 / Tuesday. May 28, 1992 I Proposed Rules
21919
EPA evaluate option, for designating
and controlling Phase II sources.
DATES Public meetings will be held on
the following dates:
(1) June 12. 1992 from 9 am. to 4p.m..
(2) June 15. 1992 from 9 a.m. to 4p.m..
and
(3) June 19. 1992 from &30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m.
ACORESSE The respective meeting
locations for the dates listed above are:
(1) The Denver Marriott City Center.
Denver. Colorado.
(2) The San Francisco Hilton HoteL
San Francisco, CA.
(3) The Holiday Inn National Airport.
Arlington. VA.
FO FURTHER INFORMAT iON CONTAC1
Barbara Brozan of the Rensselaerville
Institute In Rensselaerville, New York.
at (518) 797—3783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAflOM The
Water Quality Act of 1987 added section
402(p) to the Clean Water Act. This
section requires the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish phased
regulations for the control of storm
water discharges under the National
Pollutant Discharge Fiimrnation ,,ystem
(NPDES) program.
The first phase of the stormwater
program is well underway This phase
involves the permitting of discharges
from storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more. The basic
permitting framework for Phase I was
established on November 10, 1990 (55 FR
47990). The framework provides
industrial facilities with three options
for applying for NPDES permit coverage.
They may submit a notice to be covered
by a general permit. Municipal operators
of municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of 100.000
or more must develop and Implement
stçrm water management programs
within their service areas.
Section 402(p)(6) of the CWA. which
is the focus of this notice, addresses
Phase U of the storm water program and
requires EPA to issue a regulation by
October 1. 1992. The regulation must
designate additional storm water
discharges to be regulated to protect
water quality and establish a
comprehensive program to regulate such
designated sources. Congress has left
the precise scope and nature of the
applicable controls under Phase LI for
EPA to define. Public input will help
EPA evaluate options for designating
and controlling Phase II sources.
Dated: May 21.1992.
Michael 0. Cook,
Director, Office of Wast.ewoter. Enforcement
and Compliance.
(FR Dac. 92-15 Filed 5-21-92 &45 im)
wsa cooc u
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
(MM Docket No. 92-112, RM-79821
Radio Broadcasting Servlcea
Hawklnsvllle, GA
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTIOtC Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document requests
comments on a petition by Tri .County
Broadcasting Co. proposing the
substitution of Channel 280C3 for
Channel 280A at Hawkinsville, Georgia.
and modification of Its license for
Station WCEH(FM) to specify the higher
powered channeL Channel 280C3 can be
allotted to Hawkinsville in compliance
with the Commission’s minimum
distance separation requirements with a
site restriction of ma kilometers (13
miles) southwest to accommodate
petitioner’s desired site. The coordinates
are North Latitude 32—10-32 and West
Longitude 83—39—11.
DATES Comments must be filed on or
before July 13. 1992, and reply comments
on or before July 28. 1992.
ADORESSE 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: Dan J. Alpert. Ginsburg.
Feldman & Dress, Chartered, 1250
Connecticut Avenue NW., suite 800.
Washington. DC 20030 (Counsel for Tn-
County Broadcasting Co.).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACY:
Nancy J. Wails. Mass Media Bureau.
(202)634-8530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIO* This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s notice of
proposed rule making. MM Docket No.
92—112. adopted May 8. 1992, and
released May 19. 1992. The full text of
this Commission decision is 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. Downtown Copy
Center. (202) 452—1422, 1714 21st Street
NW.. Washington. DC 20038.
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
porte contacts are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which Involve channel allotments.
See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex porte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing
procedures for comments. see 47 CFR
1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects Ia 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Michael C. Ruger,
Acting Chief Allocations Drench Policy and
Rules Division. Moss Media Bureau.
(FR Doc. 92-12100 Filed 5-21-92. &45 ami
O*UJNO COOS 17 13.01-a
47 CFR Part 73
(MM Docket No. 92-108, RM-79701
Radio Broadcasting SeMces St.
Joseph, MN
AGENCY Federal Communications
Commission.
ACT1OI Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document requests
comments on a petition filed by St.
Joseph Broadcasters requesting the
allotment of Channel 225C3 to St.
Joseph. Minnesota. as that community’s
first local service. There Is a site
restrictIon 7.3 kilometers (4.5 miles)
northwest of the community. The
coordinates for Channel 225C3 are 45—
37—14 and 94-22-05.
DAT!S Comments must be filed on or
before July 13. 1992, and reply comments
on or before july 28. 1992.
AOORE3SE Federal Communications
Commission. Washington. DC 20554. in
addition to filing comments with the
FCC. Interested parties should serve the
petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Gregg
Skall, Lowse Cybulskl. Pepper &
Corazzini. 200 Montgomery Building.
1776 K Street NW.. Washington. DC
20008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACY:
Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media
Bureau. (202) 634—8530.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 82 / Tuesday . April 28. 1992 I Notit es
17909
1-92-4
Date of Receipt: February 24.1992.
Close of Review Period’ April 22, 1992.
The extended comment period will close
May 13, 1992.
Applicant: Matsui International Co..
Inc.
Chemical: Spiro(2H-indole-2,3 ’.
(3.Hlnaphth [ 2,1.bIt l.4joxizaneJ,6 ’-(2,3..
dihydro- 1H-indol-1-yl)-1.3-d lhydro.1,3 ,3
trimethyl.;
Use: Photochroma tic silk screen
printing ink.
Production Volume: 30 kgs.
Number of Customers: 1.
Worker Exposure: During processing/
use approximately 12 workers may be
exposed dermally to 1950 millIgram. per
day up to 90 days if gloves are not worn.
Test Marketing Period: 90 days,
commencing on first day of import.
1-92-5
Date of Receipt: February 24,1992.
Close of Review Period April 22. 1992.
The extended comment period will dose
May 13. 1992.
Applicant.’ Matsul International Co.,
Inc.
Chemical: Spiro(2H-indole-2.3’.
(3H]naphth(2,1- bJ [ 1.4joxizaneja,3..
dihydro-1.3.3 -trimethyl4’.( l.piperidinyl) -
Use: Photochromatlc silk screen
printing Ink.
Production Volume: 30 kgs.
Number of Customers: 1.
Worker Exposure: Dunng processing!
use approximately 12 workers may be
exposed derrnally to 1950 milligrams per
day up to 90 days if gloves are not worn.
Test Marketing Penoth 90 days,
commencing on first day of import.
1-92-6
Dote of Receipt. February 24, 1992.
Close of Review Period: April 22, 1992.
The extended comment period will close
May 13. 1992.
Applicant: Matsui International Co.,
Inc. :
C ’iiemicals: 3H.Naphtho [ 2,1.b pyran,
3.3..diphenyl.
Use: Photochromatlc silk screen
printing ink.
Production Volume: 50 kgs.
Number of Customers: 1.
Worker Exposure: During processing!
u e approximately 12 workers may be
exposed dermally to 1950 milligrams per
day up to 90 days if gloves are not worn.
Test Marketing Period: 90 days,
commencing on first day of ibiport.
Risk Assessment: EPA identified
possible releases of up to 0.002
kilograms per day per substance to
waier but did not identify any
significant human health effects or
environmental risks for use during the
test markets. Therefore, the teat market
activities wiU not present an
unreasonable risk of Injury to health or
the environment
The Agency reserves the right to
rescind approval or modify the
conditions and restrictions of an
exemption should any new information
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
Dateth April 20. 1992.
John W. Meloaa,
Director. Chemicel Control Division. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Tox:cs.
(FR Doc. 92-9739 Flied 4-V-O2. 8.45 aml
uJNG co -_ -- pr
(FRL-4121-4 1
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit for
Discharge of Storm Water Auoclated
With Industrial Activity in the State of
Oklahoma
AQENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACfl0N Supplemental notice of draft
NPDES general permit for discharge of
storm water associated with Industrial
activity in the State of Oklahoma .
SUMUARY In the August 18. 1991,
Federal Register (58 FR 40948), the
Environmental Protection Agency
published and requested comments on
draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general
permits for point source discharge of
storm water associated with industrial
activity in States and Territories without
authorized State NPDES programs
(including Oklahoma) and on Indian
lands and/or from Federal facilities in
various other States. An important
condition, limiting discharges in several
areas of the State. was inadvertently
omitted from the draft general permit for
the State of Oklahoma. State law
prohibits new point source discharges.
or increased loads from existing point
source discharges, to designated
outstanding resource waters, sensitive -
public and pnvate water supplies, and
high quality waters of the State. In
compliance with sections 402(a) and
301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act.
EPA is amending the draft general
permit for Oklahoma, proposing to
prohibit new discharges of pollutants in
storm water and increased pollutant
loadings in existing storm water
discharges to waterbodies listed under
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards
Rule 300.15.
DATU Conunents on this addition to the
Oklahoma draft NPDES general permit.
including any requests for a public
hearing, must be received on or before
May 28, 1992.
AODRrSSFS The public should send an
original and two copies of their
comments addressing this addition to
the Oklahoma general permit to Brent
Larsen, NPDES Permits Branch (6W—
PM), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 1200,
Dallas. Texas 75202—2733. All comments
or requests for a public hearing must be
limited to factors or issues directly
related to today’s addition to the draft
general permit for Oklahoma. Comments
on today’s notice will be added to the
Administrative Record located 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.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTAC1
For further Information on this addition
to the draft general permit for Oklahoma
contact the EPA Region 6 Storm Water
Hotline at (214) 655-7185 on Brent
Larsen, Permits Branch (6W-PM), EPA
Region 8. 1445 Ross Ave.. suite 1200.
Dallas, TX 75202—2733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORUATIWC
L Background
A draft NPDES general permit for
discharge of storm water associated
with industrial activity in the State of
Oklahoma was noticed for public
comment in the August 16. 1991. Federal
Register (56 FR 40948). The public
comment period was open from August
18, 1991, to October 15. 1991, and a
public hearing was held in Oklahoma
City on September 20, 1991.
As proposed, this general permit
would be available to a wide range of
industrial facilities in Oklahoma
required to obtain a NPDES storm water
discharge permit by section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), thr?ugh
implementing regulations at 40 CFR
122.28. These implementing regulations
were promulgated in the Federal
Register on November 18. 1990 (55 FR
47990).
All NPDES permits are required by 40
CFR 122.44(d) and section 402 of the
CWA to contain provisions necessary to
insure compliance with State
requirements. A condition necessary to
protect rule 300.15 of the Oklahoma
Water Quality Standards 1988 was
inadvertently omitted from the August
16. 1991. draft general permit for
Oklahoma.
-------
i 1u
ret erai_Register / VoL 57. No. 82 / 1 ue day, April 28. 1992 / Notices
U. Today’s Notl e
Today’s notice requests public
comment on an amendment to the fact
sheet and draft general permit for
Oklahoma published an the August 16.
1991. Federal Register (56 FR 40978).
Only the amended general permit
conditions in today’s notice are open for
public comment at thu time.
Amendments to Foci Sheet/or Draft
Okkthoma Genera! Permit
The following information Is a -
supplement to Fact Sheet for Draft
General Permit on page 40963 of the
August 16, 1991. Federal Register. This
fact sheet amendment only applies to
the draft general permit for the State of
Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards 1988 were adopted by the
State on February 14.1989 and approved
by EPA on January 18. 1990. Rule
300.15—Limitations for Additional
Protection places additional limitations
on various waters of the State. New
point source discharges and increased
loadings from existing point source
discharges are prohibited into various
waters of the State designated as (1)
“Outstanding Resource Waters”,
“Scenic River” (including waterbodies
within the watersheds of such rivers),
and waterbodies located within the
boundaries of areas In appendix B of the
1988 Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards; (2) “High Quality Waters” or
(3) “SensItive Public and Private Water
Supplies”. Waterbody designations are
found in appendix A of the 1988
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
SectIon 502(143 of the CWA (as
amended by Pub. L. 100-4) defInes point
source as “any discernable. confined
and discrete conveyance. Induding but
not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel.
tunnel, conduit. well. discrete fissure,
container, rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, or vessel or
other floating craft, from which
pollutants are or may be discharged.
This term does not include agricultural
storm water discharges and return howe
from irrigated agriculture.” SectIon 507
of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. 1..,
100-4) states “for the purposes of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the
term “point source” includes a landfill
leachote collection system.” This
definition Is codifIed at 40 CFR 122.2,
The definition of “storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity”
(codified at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)) Is
found In the November 10.1990. Federal
Register (55 FR 48065).
‘The effect of rule 300.15 of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards
1988 Is to prohibit new or increased
point source discharge, to certain
waterbodles of the State. Some
examples of new storm water point
source discharges Include the discharge
of runoff from construction sites, new
Industrial facilities, or new roads. Some
examples of situations that could result
in increased loadings from existing
storm water point source discharges
include Industrial plant expansion.
increased fertilizer/pesticide use.
removal or poor operation of existing
storm water quality controls, or
additional development or occupancy in
industrial parks.
Parts l.A. and 1.8. of the draft general
permit for Oklahoma have been
modified to further limit eligibility. In
accordance with rule 300.15. the
Oklahoma general permit cannot
authorize a new or increased discharge
to waterbodles listed under that section.
As of the date of this notice, the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board Is
considering a change to nile 300.15 that
would exempt storm water discharges.
However, until and unless modified,
Rule 300.15 remaIns In effect. Should
rule 306.15 be modified before Issuance
of the final Oklahoma general permit,
today’s proposed modifications may be
omitted from that final permiL
[ IL Modified Draft General Permit
Conditions
Part L Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Ares.
The permit covers all areas of the
State of Oklahoma. However, new
discharges or increased loadings from
storm water associated with industrial
activities. as defined at 40 CFR
122.28(b)(14). are prohibited into various
waters of the State designated as (1)
“Outstanding Resource Waters”.
“Scenic River” (including waterbodie.
within the Oklahoma portions of
watersheds of such rivers), and
waterbodles located within the
boundarie, of Appendix B of the 1988
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards: (2)
“High Quality Waters” or (3) “SensItive
Public and Private Water Supplies”.
Waterbody designations are found In
appendix A of the 1988 Oklahoma
Water Quality Standards.
8. Eligibility
1. Except for storm water discharges
identified under paragraph 1.8.2. and
new or increased discharges to
waterbodies Identified in paragraph LA.
this permit may cover all new and
existing discharges composed entirely of
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity.
IV. Economic Impact
An analysis of the economic impact of
compliance with the draft general permit
is included in the fact sheet published
August 16, 1991 (58 FR 40988). Today’s
notice is a modification to the eligibility
conditions of the draft general perinfi
and does not change the cost estimates
previously published.
VU. Executive Order
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.
V 1JL Paperwork Reduction Act
Today’s notice is a modification of the
draft general permit for Oklahoma
published on August 18. 1991. Today’s
notice does not substantially change the
analysis for the Paperwork Reduction
Act made for the original draft general
permit (56 FR 10991). which is
incorporated herein by reference,
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Today’s notice incorporates a permit
condition necessary to insure the
general permit would comply with State
requirements. Alter review of the facts
presented in the notice printed above, 1
hereby certify, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this
general NPDES permit. when issued, will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
)oe 0. W Ink!..
Acting Regional Admrnistrcior. EPA Region a
Doe. 92-9862 Filed 4- -92 8.45 am)
enuwo ccce ii-
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Applications for Consolidated
Proceedbg
1. The Commission has before it the
following mutually exclusive
applications for a new FM station
-------
Thursday
April 2, 1992
Part VI
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 122
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Application Deadlines, General
Permit Requirements and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity; Final Rule
-------
11394 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No . 64 / Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFR Part 122
(FRL-4100 .4J
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Application
Deadlines, General Permit
Requirements and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With industiial
Activity
AOENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
S*JMMARY The Water Quality Act
(WQA) of 1987 added section 402(p) to
the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section
4 02(p) of the CWA requires the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to establish phased and tiered
requirements for storm water discharges
under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program.
On August 16, 1991 (56 FR 40948). EPA
requested public comments on several
regulatory and policy Issues regarding
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity. On November 5, 1991 (56 FR
56549), the Agency also proposed
extending the deadline for submitting
part 2 of group applications for storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity.
In response to comment received on
August 16. 1991. proposal, today’s action
describes a National Strategy for Issuing
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Today’s action also contains a
final nul that revises minimum NPDES
monitoring requirements for storm water
discharge. associated with lndu.sthal
activity. In addition, today’s rule
establishes minimum requirement, for
filing notices of intent to be authorized
to discharge under N1’P general
permits.
Today’s rule also establishes a
deadline of October 1. 1992 for part 2 of
group applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. As noted above, this revised
deadline was proposed on November 5,
1991. In connection with group
applications, today’s rule contains an
amendment to clarify the minimum
number of facilities that must submit
sampling information in part 2 of a group
appiication.
Finally, today’s action codifies several
provisions of Section 1068 of the
lntermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 or TranspoTtatlon
Act Into the NPDES regulations. Section
1068 of the Transportation Act
addressed permit application deadlines
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from faciLities.
that were owned or operated by.
municipalities. —
EFFECTIVE DATE The final rule.b ,nie.
effective May 4. 1992. .. -
ADDRESSES: The public record I. located
at EPA Headquarters, EPA Public
Information Reference Unit, room 2402,
401 M Street, SW. Washinglon. DC.
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONtACT
For further information on the rule
contact the NPOES Storm Water Hothne
at (703) 821-4823 or Kevin Weiss, Office
of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (EN-336), United States
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20480. (21)2)
260-9518.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Water Quality Act of 1987
C. November 16, 1990. Permit Application
Regulations
D. August 16. 1991 Notice
E. November 3.1991 Proposal
F. Intermodal Surface Transportation
ElEdency Ad of 1991
IL Today’s Rule
A. Long .Term Permit lssi ance Strategy
B. Minimum Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements Is, Storm Water
Dlsd rges
C. Application Requirements for Ceoezal
Permit,
D. Deadline for part 2 of Group
Applications
E. Clarification for Part 2 of Group
Appbcatioaa
P. Transportation Act Deadlines
ILL E oomlc Impact
IV. Executive Order 12 1
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VL Regulatory Flexibility Act
VU. APA Requirements
L Badground
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
wastewater and from municipal sewage
treatment plants. This program
emphasis has developed for a number of
reasons. At the onset of the program In
1972. many sources of industrial process
wastewater and municipal sewage were
not controlled adequately, and
represented pressing envirmunental
problems. In addition, sewage outfalls
and industrial proces . 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
(occwnng over a wide area) of water
pollution, such as agricultural and urban
runoff, were also major causes of water
quality problems. Some diffuse sources
of water pollution. such as agricultural
storm water discharges and Irrigation
return flows, are exempted statutorily
from the NPDES program. Controls for
other diffuse sources have been slow to
develop under the NPDES program.
A. Environmental Impacts
Several national assessments have
been conducted to evaluate impacts on
receiving water quality. For the purpose
of these assessments. urban runoff was
considered to be a diffuse source or
nonpoint source pollution, although in
legal terms, most urban runoff is
discharged through conveyances such as
separate storm sewers or other
conveyances which are point sources
under the CWA and subject to the
NPDES program.
The “National Water Quality
Inventory. 1990 Report to Congress”
provides a general assessment of water
quality based on biennial reports
submitted by the States under section
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.third of
stream miles, one.half of lake acres and
three-quarters of estuarine waters),
roughly 60 percent to 70 percent are
supporting the uses for which they are
designated. For waters with use
impairments, States were asked to
determine Impacts due to diffuse
sources (agricultural and urban runoff
and other categories of diffuse sources),
municipal sewage, industrial (process)
wastewaters, combined sewer
overflows, and natural sources, and then
to combine impacts to arrive at
estimates of Ihe relative percentage of
State waters affected by each source. In
thi, manner, the relative importance of
the various sources of pollution causing
use impairments was assessed and
weighted national averages were
calculated,
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday , April 2, 1992 / Rules and Re ilations
11395
Based on 51 States and Territories
that provided information on sources of
pollution, the Assessment also
conduded that pollution from diffuse
sources such as runoff from agricultural,
urban areas, construct Ion sites, land
disposal activities, and resource
extraction activities is cited by the
States as the leading cause of wtiter
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 information. Some
examples where use impairments are
cited as being caused by diffuse sources
indude: Rivers and streams, where ii
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers. 6 percent are caused by
construction and 14 percent are caused
by resource extraction: lakes, where 28
percent are caused by separate 8torm
sewers and 24 percent are caused by
land disposak the Great Lakes shoreline,
where 6 percent are caused by separate
storm sewers, and 41 percent are caused
by land disposak for estuaries where, 30
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers; and for coastal areas, where 36
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers and 37 percent are caused by
land disposal.
The States conducted a more
comprehensive study of diffuse pollution
sources under the sponsorship of the
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
Assessment, 1985” which indicated that
38 States reported urban runoff as a
major cause of beneficial use
Impairment In addition. 21 Stales
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 affect, shellfish
growing waters. The NOAA studies
identified urban runoff as affecting over
578,000 aeres of shellfish growing waters
on the East Coast (39 percent of harvest-
‘Me i c r class., of diffuse source, that include, In
part. storm water point source discharge. are
Urban runoff conveyance,. conatrucilon site.,
agriculture (feedlotsi. Iesouzv. extraction site,, sod
land di,posal fscilit,e..
‘Se, The Quality of Shellfish trowtng Watere
on the East Coast of the United 8tate, , NOAA,
tas k fl Quality of ShetlII.h Growing Waters In
lb. Gulf of Msxlco ’. NOAA. 198k and “The Quality
of SheUfish Growing Wets,. on the West Coast of
the Untied State ,”, NOAA. 1900.
limited area): 2.000.000 acres of shellfish
growing waters in the Gulf 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).
B. Water Quality Act of 2 7
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987
added section 402(p) to the CWA to
establish a comprehensive two phased
approach for EPA to address storm
water discharges. Section 402(p)(1)
provides that EPA or NPDES States
cannot require a permit for certain storm
water discharges untIl October 1, 1992.
except for storm water discharges listed
under section 402(p)(2). Section 4 O 2 (p)(2J
lists five types of storm water
discharges which are covered under
Phase I of the program arid are required
to obtain a permit before October 1,
1992:
(A) A discharge with respect to which
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 250,000 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.
The WQA clarified and amended the
requirements for permits for storm water
discharges in the new CWA section
402(p)(3). The Act clarified that permits
for discharges associated with Industrial
activity must meet all of the applicable
provisions of section 402 and section 301
including BAT/BCT technology-based
requirements and that permits for
discharge. from municipal separate
storm sewer must meet a new statutory
standard requiring controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximwn
extent practicable (MEP). As with all
point source discharges under the CWA.
storm water discharges are subject to
applicable water quality-based
standards.
Section 402(pJ(4) establishes
deadline, to implement the permit
program for Storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity:
discharges from large municipal
separate storm sewer systems (systems
serving a population of 250,000 or more)-
and discharges from medium municipal
separate storm -systems (systems
serving a popu1atio of 100.000 or more
but less then ),O(fJJ . This section of the
Act specifies deadlines fas’ EPA to
promulgate permit application
requirements. applIcants to submit
permit applications. EPA and authorized
NPDES States to issue NPDES permits,
and for permIt compliance for the
identified storm water discharges.
NPDES permits for all other storm
water discharges fall under phase II of
the program, and cannot be required
until October 1. 1992, unless a permit for
the discharge was issued prior to the
date of enactment of the WQA (i e.,
February 4, 1987), or the discharge is
determined to be a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the
United States or is contributing to a
violation of water quality standards.
EPA, in consultation with the States.
Is required to conduct two studies on
phase II storm water discharges that are
in the class of discharges for which EPA
and NPDES States cannot require
permits prior to October 1. 1992. The
first study will identify those storm
water discharges or classes of storm
water discharges addressed by phase II
and determine, to the maximum extent
practicable, the nature and extent of
pollutantiln ich discharges. The
second etu4y frr the purpose of
establiahing.Focaduzes and methods to
control phase .4 nia water discharges
to the extent na tae,y to mitigate
impacts on water quality. Based on the
two studies, EPA In consultation with
State and local officials, is required to
issue regulations by no later than
October 1, 1992, whIch designate classes
of phase II storm water discharges to be
regulated to protect water quality and
establish a comprehensive program to
regulate such designated sources. This
program must establish, at a minimum.
(A) priorities, (B) requirements for State
storm water management programs, and
(C) expeditious deadlines. The program
may include performance standards,
guidelines, guidance, and management
practices and treatment requirements,
as appropriate.
C November i 19 2 Permit
Application Regulations
EPA promulgated permit application
regulations for the storm water
discharges identified under section
402(p)(2) (B). (C), and (D) of the CWA.
including storm water discharges
associated with industrial activitg 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
-------
11396 Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 64 / Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
industrial actIvity - Individual permit
applications and group applications. In
addition, the notice recognizes a third
set of apphcatzon procedures (or storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity ’ Those associated
with general permits. With these
requirements, EPA is attempting to
implement a flexible, cost-effective
approach for storm water permit
applications.
The requirements for individual
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
set forth at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1J.
Generally, the applicant must provide
comprehensive facility specific narrative
Information Induding (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 end
non-structural controls to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff; (5) a
certification that all storm water outfalls
have been evaluated for any
unpermitted non-storm water
discharges: and (6) 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 122.28(e)(1) of the November 16.
1990 rule, Individual applications were
to have been submitted by November 16.
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
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 dinu.aish contact
of these materials by precipitation (see
40 CFR 122.26(c)(2)(ifl. Under the
November 16. 1990 regulations, Part I of
the group application was to be
submitted to EPA no later than March
18. 1991. The regulation provides that
$ The deadline for .ubrnJt1fo an Indlvtduul permit
applitattoa for storm water diachariin. aaenclated
with Industrial activity wai extended horn
Novrrnber 18.1991 to October 1. 1992(56 FR 56648.
(Noeember & 1991)).
The de.dtiiw for subrnItitn part I of the oup
a pIic.tIoo .. extended horn Manth 28. 1991 to
5..ptembr, 30. 1901156 FR 12096 (Marcb 21. 9191)).
EPA 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. Part 2 of
the group application contains detailed
information, Including sampling data. on
roughly ten percent of the facilities In
the group (today’s notice contains a
more detailed description darifying the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.28(cJ(2)(iI)).
Under the November16. 1990
regulations, part 2 applications were to
be submitted no Later than 12 months
after the date of approval of the part I
application. (Revisions to this deadline
are discussed below). Also under the
November 18. 1990 regulation. facili ties
that are rejected as members of a group
were to have 12 months from the date
they receive notification of their
rejection to file an individual permit
application (or obtain coverage under an
appropriate general permit). 6
The group application process has
been designed by EPA as a one-time
administrative procedure to ease the
burden on the regulated community and
permitting authorities in the Initial stage
of the storm water program.
The third application procedure
entails seeking coverage under a general
permit for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity.
Dischargers covered by a general permit
are excluded under 40 R 122.21(a)
from requirements to submit individual
or group permit applications. Conditions
for filing an application to be covered, by
a general permit (typically called a
Notice of Intent (NO!)) are established
on a case-by-case basis. As discussed In
more detail below, today’s notice
establishes final minimum requirements
(or general permit NOl submissions.
The November18. 1990 regulations
also establish a two part application
process for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more. The
regulations lists 220 dUes 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
I applications (or discharge. from large
municipal separate storm sewer systems
°The deadlin, for. f.cit*ty that Is re ec1ed a..
member of. oiip application to subuili an
Individual permit application hi. bami revIsed to
provide that an individual application must be
submitted no taut than 12 month. after the date of
receipt of the r of re)ection or October 1. 1992.
whither,, cernes flrel. (SI PR 58640, (Novumba , 5.
1091)).
(systems serving • pupJu$r ’sa of 250.000
or more) were due Narember 16 .1991.
Part 2 applications (crthscharges from
large systems are duo on Nowiisber 18.
1992. Part I applications fordlicharges
from medium municipal separate storm
sewer system. (systems serving a
population of 100.000 or mote, but less
than 250.000) are due May 18,1992. Pail
2 applications for discharges from
medium systems are due on May 16.
1993. Today’s rulemaking does not
address. modify or change application
requirement. or deadlines established
by the November 16. 1990 regulations for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more
0. A u.gust J6 1 1 Notice
On August 18. 1991. EPA published a
notice (58 FR 40948) requesting public
comment on four mmi4or areas:
(1) EPA ’s long-term permit issuance
strategy for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activutv
(2) Proposed modifications to 40 CFR
122.44(i)(2) addressing minimum
monitoring and reporting requlrernent
(or NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity;
(3) Proposed modifications to 40 CF’R
122.28(b)(2) addrualng minimum notice
of intent requirements for general
per mits;
(4) Draft ba ellne ilpermits for
storm water discharge. associated with
industrial activity in 12 States (MA. ME.
NH, F !. LA, TX. OK. Nh& SD, AZ. AX.
ID) and 0 Territories (District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam. American Samoa. the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marlana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands) without authorized
NPDES State programs; on Indian lands
In AL, CA, GA, KY, M l. MN. MS !vfF.
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.
One of the central purposes of today’s
notice Is to address and/or take final
action on the first three items listed
above. Each of these three items is
discussed in more detail below. The
fourth component of the August 18, 1991
proposal involving draft baseline
general permits for storm water will be
addressed In a separate rulemaking
presently scheduled for promulgation in
late spring of this year.
E. Noveinber5 I l Proposal
On November 5, 1991. (58 FR 58555),
as a result of Issues and concerns raised
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday , April 2. 1992 I Rules and RagulaUons
11397
In comments on the March 21. 1991
proposed deadline extensions. EPA
requested comments on extending the
deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application from May 18. 1992 to
October 1. 1992. In the November 5, 1991
notice, the Agency indicated that this
extension would provide an appropriate
opportunity to conduct sampling to
support the part 2 application and would
allow for permit issuing agencies to
issue general permits.
F intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991
On December 18. 1991, the President
signed the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (or
Transportation Act) of 1991, into law.
Section 1068 of the Transportation Act
addresses NPDES permit application
deadlines for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
facilities that are owned or operated by
muncipalities.
Section 1068(bJ(1) of the
Transportation Act provides that EPA
shall require individual permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
are owned or operated by municipalities
on or before October 1. 1992: except that
any municipality that has participated in
a timely part 1 group application and
that is denied participation in the group
application shall not be required to
submit an individual application until
the 180th day following the date on
which the denial is made.
Section 1068(b)(z) of the
Transportation Act provides that part I
of group applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of
250,000 or more shall be required on or
before September 30. 1991, and part 2
applications on or before October 1,
1992. Part I of group applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are owned or
operated by a municipality with a
population of less than 250,000 shall be
required on or before May Ia, 1992, and
part 2 applications on or before May 17,
1903.
Section 1068(c) of the Transportation
Act provides that EPA shall not require
any municipality with a population of
less than 100.000 to apply for or obtain a
permit for any storm water discharge
associated with an industrial activity
other than an airport, powerplant, or
uncontrolled sanitary landfill owned or
operated by such municipality before
October 1, 1992. unless a permit is
required by either section 4 O 2 (p)(2) (A)
or (E) of the CWA. Section 1068(d) of the
Transportation Act defines uncontrolled
sanitary landfill to mean a landfill or
open dump, whether open or closed, that
does not meet the requirements for
runon and runoff controls established
pursuant to subtitle D of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
Section 1068(e) of the Transportation
Act clanfies that the statutory deadlines
for group and individual applications
outlined above do not affect any storm
water discharge that is subject to the
provisions of either section 402(p)(2)(A)
or 402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA. Section
402(p)(2)(A) of the CWA addresses
storm water discharges that had an
NPDES permit prior to February 4, 1987.
Section 402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA
addresses storm water discharges that
EPA or the State. as the case may be.
determines that the storm water
discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States. As discussed in more
detail below, today’s rule codifies the
application provisions of Section 1068 of
the Transportation Act.
II. Today’s Rule
Today’s rule addresses the following:
(1) EPA’s long-term permit issuance
strategy for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity:
(2) Modifications to 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2)
addressing minimum monitoring and
reporting requirements for NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(3) Modifications to 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2) addressing minimum notice
of intent requirements for general
permits;
(4) Modifications to 40 CFR 122.28(e)
to establish a deadline of October 1,
1992 for part 2 oF group applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industnal activity:
(5) An amendment to4O CFR
122.26(c)(2) to clarify the minimum
number of facilities in a group that must
submit sampling information in part 2 of
a group application; and
(8) Modifications to 40 CFR 122.26(e)
to codify portions of Section 1068 of the
Transportation Act of 1991.
A. Long Term Permit Issuance Strategy
Many of the initial concerns regarding
the NPDES storm water program
focussed on adapting the existing
NPDES permit program to effectively
address the large number of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Potential issues with
implementing the NPOES program for
storm water discharges asBociated with
industrial activity are raised not only by
the number of Industrial facilities
subject to the program, but aleo by the
challenges presented in Identifying and
assessing approprtate technologies for
preventing and reducing pollutants in
different classes o(storm water and the
differences in the nature and extent of
storm water discharges.
Based on a consideration of comments
from authorized NPDES States.
municipalities, industrial facilities and
environmental groups on the permitting
framework and permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with igduatrial activity. EPA
has developed a strategy for permitting
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that will serve as a
foundation for future program
development and technology transfer.
The Agency intends to use the flexibility
provided by the CWA 6 in designing a
workable and reasonable permitting
system.
In an action related to this
rulemaking, EPA, in conjunction with
the Rennselaerville Institute, has
initiated a project to develop
recommendations for streamlining and
improving the existing permit issuance
and compliance processes for storm
water discharges. In addition. th.
project will examine whether and how
the currently unregulated phase II storm
water discharges should be addressed.
EPA will belasuing a Federal Register
notice to anns ce a series of meetings
that will addr these phase II storm
water discharge —
The strategy In today’8 action consists
of two major components, a tiered
framework for developing permitting
priorities and a framework for the
development of State Storm Water
Permitting Plans.
1. Permitting Priorities
The Agency believes that most storm
water permitttng activities can be
described in terms of the following four
classes of activities:
• Tier I—Baseline Permitting One or
more general permits will be developed
initially to cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity;
• The Coon in NRDC v Train 398 F Supp 1393
(0 D C. 1975) affd. NRDC v Coslie 508 F 2d 1369
(DC Cm 1977). ha recognized the edrr’ mstrammve
burden placed on the Agency by requiring
individual permits for a large number of
water discharges These courtS hove atllrmed EPA a
discretion to use certain administrative devices.
such as area permits or generei permits to heip
manage its wor iood in addition the m.ourts hove
recognized flezibtitty in the type of permit
conditions that are eutobimehed tnciudtng
requirement. for best management practices See
August 16 1991 t56 FR 40948) for further discussion
of the use of genersi permits (or storm wster
discharges
-------
fl393 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 84 / Thursday, April 2 . 1992 I Rules and Regulationa
• Tier/I— 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 JIl—Indust.ry -$pec,f,c
Permitting: Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific general permits, and
• Tier I V—Focility.Spec,f,c
Permitting. A variety of factors will be
used to target specific facilities for
individual permits.
These four dasses 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 U, 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
permit to coverage under a tier Ill
lndustry.specific general permit
a. Tier I—Baseline permitting Tier I
general permits can initially cover the
majority of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity in a
State. Consolidating many sources
under a general permit greatly reduces
the administrative burden of Issuing
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Under this approach:
• Pollution prevention and/or best
management practices will be
established for discharges covered by
the permit:
• Facilities whose discharges are
covered by the permit will be certain of
their legal responsibilities and have an
opportunity to comply with the CWA
• EPA and authorized NPDES States
will begin to collect,and review data on
storm water discharge. from priorfty
industries, thereby supporting
subsequent permitting activities;
• The public, including municipal
operators of municipal separate storm
sewers which may receive storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, will have the opportunity to
review data and reports developed by
industrial permittees under section
308(b) of the CWA;
• The baseline permits will provide a
basis for coordinating requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity with requirements of
municipal storm water management
programs in permits for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer
systems.
• The baseline permits will provlde’a
basis for bringing selected enforcement
actions; and
• The baseline permit, along with the
State storm water permitting plane
(discussed below), will provide a focus
for public comment on draft permits and
subsequent phases of the permitting
strategy for storm water discharges.
Initially, the coverage of the baseline
permits will be broad. However, it is
anticipated that coverage will become
more specific and targeted as other
permits are issued for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity pursuant to tier 1! through tier
IV activities. The Agency believe. that
tier I permits can establish the
appropriate balance between monitoring
requirements and impiementable
controls that will Initiate facility-specific
controls and provide sufficient data for
compliance monitoring and future
program development Baseline general
permits are flexible enough to allow the
inclusion of tier II. III or IV types of
permit conditions, such as industry
specific monitonng or control conditions
into the baseline general permit.
b Tier 11—Watersbed permitting.
Issuing permit. on a watershed basis is
potentially a desirable way to cost
effectively use Agency resource, to
satisfactorily address risk. Facilities
within watersheds shown to be
adversely Impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual
and more specific general permitting
activities. This process can be initiated
by identifying receiving waters (or
segments of receiving waters) where
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been identified
as a source of use impairment or are
suspected to be contributing to use
Impairment. Information developed
under sections 304(1), 305(b), and 319(a)
of the CWA. along with information
from other sources (induding
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
classe, of storm water discharges In
these locationg can be targeted for
additional permit conditions which may
provide for additional information to
characterize the discharge (e.g..
additional monftoiing and reporting
requirement.) or. where appropriate, for
more stringent controls.
Information gathered ander Initial
permits for storm water discharges as
well as Informatinn from other sources
can be used to reassess water quality.
based controls. As discussed In more
detail below, State storm water
permitting strategies are expected to
have a major role in this process.
c. Tier Il/—Industry-specific
perrn:ftin,g Specific industry categories
will be targeted for Individual or
industry.specific general permits. Thesi
permits will allow permlting authorities
to focus attention and resources on
industry categories of particular concern
and/or industry categories where
tailored requirements are appropridie
The Agency will work with the States to
develop model permits for selected
classes of industrial storm waler
discharges. In addition, the group
application process adopted in the
November 1O 1990 regulation. (55 FR
47990) will provide an additional
mechanism for developing industry.
specific general permits Group
applications that are received can be
used to develop model permits for the
appropnate industries.
d. Tier IV—Facili:y-specif,c
perrniwzig Individual permits will be
appropriate for some storm water
discharges in addition to those
identified under tier Uand tier UI
activities. Individual permits should be
issued where warranted by the
environmental risks of thedlacharge. [ he
need for additional and more complex
individual control mechanisms, a
facility’s compliance history or the
potential to consolidate permit
requirements for a particular facility For
example. Individual NPDES permits for
facilities with process discharges should
be expanded during the normal process
of permit reissuance to cover storm
water discharges from the facility. This
provides an opportunity to develop more
facility specific individual controls
without greatly increasing incremental
administrative burdens.
2. State Storm Water Permitting Plans
EPA believes that State Storm Water
Permitting Plans provide an effective
basis for ensuring adequate public input,
evaluating program activities and
priorities, and providing program
oversight during the earlier stages of
program development. These plans will
provide an effective coordination and
tracking mechanism for evaluating the
initial permitting activities for storm
water discharges required under section
402(p) of the CWA. In addition, Stale
Storm Water Permitting Plans will
provide a framework within which to
coordinate and asses the relationship
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday, April 2. 1992 1 Rules and R geilntions
11399
and appropriate priorities between
controlling storm water discharges
under the NPDES program with other
efforts to address diffuse sources of
water pollution, such as State Nonpoint
Source Control Programs developed
under section 319 of the CWA.
EPA has outlined below a number of
the components and elements of State
Storm Water Permitting Plans which it
believes are essential to assure
successful implementation of the storm
water initiative called for In section
402(p) of the CWA. At a minimum. State
Storm Water Permitting Plans should
include a description of an oversight
strategy regarding the implementation of
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 by the NPDES authority (e.g. either
an authorized NPDES State. or. where a
State does not have base program
authorization, by EPA).
EPA is requesting that draft State
Storm Water Permitting Plans be
provided to the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance by April 3.
1995. EPA anticipates that States will
update these plans on a regular basis.
These plans will assist EPA in
technology transfer activities with other
States, evaluating the progress of States
in Implementing storm water permitting
activities, and in identifying both
euccesses and difficulties with ongoing
program implementation. The initial
State Storm Water Permitting Plan will
also entail preliminary planning.
assessment, and tracking that will be
essential to developing phase U State
Storm Water Management Programs
called for under section 4 O 2 (p)(o) of the
CWA.
The basic framework for the Plan
should include the following elaments
on a State-wide-basis:
Municipal Seporote Storm Sewer
Systems
• A list of municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving a population of
100.000 or more within the State;
• For systems Identified, a summary
of the estimated pollutant loadings as
initially provided in the permit
application for such discharges, and as
otherwise updated;
• The status of the issuance of
permits for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more, including
any NPDES permit number for such
discharges: and
• An outline of the major components
of municipal storm water management
programs required under permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems. including a
detailed description of the
implementation of any innovative or
model municipal program components.
Storm Water Discharges Associated
W,th IndustriolAct v,ty -
• A description of the status of
activities to Issue and implement
baseline general permits, including a
copy of any final general permit for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activitly:
• A list of categories of industrial
facilities that have storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are being considered for
industry-specific storm water general
permits;
• A description of procedures,
including activities conducted under any
general permit (such as in8pections,
review of notices of intent or review of
monitoring reports) to identify specific
storm water discharges aesocia ted with
industrial activity that are appropriate
for individual permits:
• A description of how permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems require the
development of mundpai storm water
management programs addressing the
control of pollutants In storm water
discharges associated with industrial
acthnty.
Impacted Waters
• A description of procedures to
identify receiving waters where
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers, storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, or
any other class of storm water
discharges are, or have the potential to.
cause or contribute to a violation of a
water quality standard, including a list
of waters identified by these procedures.
• A plan to evaluate Improvements to
water quality resulting from controlling
storm water discharges.
Case-by-Case Designations.
• A description cf procedures to
identify storm water discharges (other
than those currently subject to
requirements for obtaining a permit) that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard or significantly
contribute pollutants to the waters of
the United States.
• A list of storm water discharges
(and associated receiving waters) that
have been designated or are being
considered for designation under section
402(p)(2j(E) of the CWA as needing a
permit.
EPA strongly oo ages public
participation and onmment, including
efforts to coordinate with appropriate
Federal and State land thanagers. at the
State level during the development of
these plane.
These initial State storm water plan
components will assist the
implementation of permitting efforts for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity and other pnority
storm water discharges by creating a
framework for planning and prioritizing
State storm water permitting activities,
tracking State permit issuance efforts.
and providing EPA information for
technology transfer purposes among
NPDES permitting authorities and other
State agencies. The State Storm Water
Permitting Plans will provide a
framework for implementing the tiered
long-term strategy for permitting storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity, and so noted above.
it will assure preliminary State-wide
planning and assessment that will be
essential to developing phase II State
Storm Water Management Programs
required under section 402(p)(6) of the
CWA. In reviewIng State Storm Water
Permitting Plans, EPA will coordinate
with Federa A cjes that may be
affected by oompeñenta of the plans.
3. States without NPI)FS General Permit
Authority
As noted. the issuance of general
permits is an important component in
the recommended permit issuing
strategy. Presently 38 States (and I
territory) have been authorized to
Implement the NPDES permit program.
Kowever. only 29 of these States have
been authorized to issue general
permits. If NPDES authority is not
obtained for any of the remaining 10
States, individual NPDES permits based
on the submission of individual or group
applications will have to be issued for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. It is important to
emphasize that under the CWA. EPA
cannot issue general permits in States
that have been authorized to administer
the base NPDES program.
EPA strongly recommends authorized
NPDES States without general permit
authority to obtain general permit
authority as soon as possible EPA is
currently working with these States to
provide technical assistance and
support end to expedite the
authorization process.
-------
11400 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 I Thursday, April 2, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
4. Response to Comments
a. Tiered priorities. Many commentera
agreed that EPA and authorized NPDES
States should prioritize permit IssUanCe
efforts for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity, and
Indicated that the tiered priorities
identified by EPA generally establish an
appropriate conceptual framework for
such efforts. These commenters
generally Indicated that the four tier
strategy provides appropriate
opportunities to identify high-risk
discharges. In response, the Agency
agrees and is retaining the four tiered
set of priorities as discussed in the
August 18. 1991 proposaL
Some commenters indicated that they
thought EPA and authorized NPDES
Slates should be bound to lmplembnilng
the tiered priorities consecutively in the
order reflected by the four tiers. These
commenters indicated that the draft
general permits noticed on August 18.
1991 by EPA violated the tiered priority
approach because the permits contained
some permit conditions which were
above a tier I baseline set of pollution
prevention measures. EPA disagrees
with these comments. The Agency
wants to tiarify that ft only Intends the
four tiered set of priorities lobe used as
a general conceptual framework which
can be used to describe efforts to issue
permits. The strategy for setting storm
water permit Issuance priorities Is not
intended to be a set of regulatory
requirements binding on EPA. States, or
Industrial dlschargers. Articulating
tiered priorities does not legally restrict
conditions in permits issued by EPA or
authorized NPDES States. Rather all
NPDES permits. including permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, must be in
compliance with sections 301 and 402 of
the CWA. A major purpose of
articulating tiered priorities Is to a .Lst
in identifying and developing
appropriate permit conditions for high.
risk facth ties. Tier I baseline general
permits which have some’of the
characteristics of tier U or 111 permits are
consistent with these objectives.
b. State Plans. Some States supported
the concept of Plans, but were
concerned that scheduling plan
development one year after the date of
today’s rule would hinder the Initial
development of storm water programs in
a number of States. These comznenters
Indicated that the NPDES storm water
program would be lii its initial stage of
implementation and authorized NPDES
States would be busy conducting s
number of critical activities such as
obtaining general permit authority.
issuing baseline general permits. and
issuing permits for discharges from large
arid medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems. They indicated that
these activities could be disrupted if
States placed lop priority on developing
and submitting plans Within a year of
today’s action. EPA agrees with these
concerns, and believes that while
development of these plans should begin
early in the storm water permit Issuance
process to help guide Implementation.
draft plans do not need to be prepared
for submission untIl April 3, 1995.
One State stressed that permitting
plans were necessary to assure national
equitability and prevent economic
disincentives In States with progressive
storm water management programs.
EPA believe, that one of its goals in
overseeing the development of the
NPDES program Is to ensure that NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
reflect the requirements of the CWA in
an equitable manner that reflects the
technology-based and water quality.
based requirements of the CWA. At the
same time, the Agency recognizes the
need to provide sufficient regulatory
flexibility to allow State. to make
rational and reasonable permitting
decisions. For example. today’s rule
provides permit writers with additional
flexibility to target high risk discharges
and establish group or facility specific
monitoring and reporting requirements
in NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, hi addition, permit conditions
for most classes of etorm water
discharges will be established on a
case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, the
Agency agrees with the commenter that
State Storm Water Permitting Plans can
provide an important tool to ensure that
NPDES storm water programs In
different State. reflect pollution control
requirements consistent with the CWA
while maintaining the adequate
flexibility necessary to successfully
Implement the NPDES storm water
program.
Several authorized NPDES States did
not support the idea of State Storm
Water Permitting Plans, but rather
Indicated that annual EPA/State
agreements could be used as a tool for
oversight of the NPDES storm water
program. In response. the Agancy
believes that the approach in the Plans
is consistent with and can be
implemented as a component of annual
EPA/State agreements if there is an
adequate level of detail and specificity
and the State and EPA Region agree on
including the elements noted above as
part of the annual oversight process. The
Agency believes that by publishing a
framework for these Plans, it will
provide States with eotiseofnecessarv
Plan elements. provide a nationally
consistent approach for evaluating
program progress, facilitate ’ tiw4tnnlogy
transfer activities, encouruge’pablic
participation, and enaurethat risk, are
evaluated Ion the context of the entire
NPDES storm water program.
In the August 18. 1991 notice, the
Agency requested comments oh whether
the guidelines for Plans should be made
requirements that are incorporated into
EPA regulations, or remain non-binding
recommendations for States. Most of the
commenters that responded to this issue
urged EPA to make the guidelines for
Plans non-binding recommendations for
the States. While EPA notes that It may
require preparation of such Plans
pursuant to Section 402.(pJ(6) of the
CWA. the Agency agrees with the
commenters that establishing guidelines
for Phase I storm water permitting plans
as non-binding recommendations
provides an amount of flexibility that is
appropriate at this point in the
program’s development. Therefore, the
Agency is clarifying that the guidelines
for Phase I Plans and the request to
prepare and submit Plans to EPA are
non-binding recommendations at this
point in tune. :; . ..
B. Minimum MoriJthrIz and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges “? “ -
Current NPDES regulatloua at 40 CFR
1Z2.44(i)(2) provide that alt NPDES
permits are to establish requirements to
report monitoring results with a
frequency dependent on the nature and
effect of the discharge, but In no case
less than once a year. In the August 18,
1991 proposal. EPA requested comment
on six major options for modifying 40
CFR 122.44(i)(2) to provide minimum
monitoring and reporting requirements
specifically addressing storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.
In the August 18, 1991 proposal, the
Agency identified a number of factors
that it would consider when evaluating
this issue:
Difficulties in Sample Collection—
Collection of storm water samples may
pose a number pf potential difficulties.
These difficulties include determining
when a discharge will occur, safety
considerations, the potential for a
multiple discharge points at a single
facility, the intermittent nature of the
event, the limited number of events that
occur In some parts of the country, and
variability in flow rates.
Variability of Data—The types and
concentrations of pollutants in storm
water discharges associated with
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 I Thursday, April 2. 1992 I Rules and Ragalations
11401
Industrial activity depend on a number
of factors. Including the nature of
Industrial activities occumng 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 end/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
diachargers will contain a variety of
types of conlrola. 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, discharge
sampling information may not provide
as direct a link to compliance with
permit conditions. However, effluent
monitoring data can still play an
important role in identifying priority
facilities, providing Information on
sources and types of pollutants which
can be evaluated when designing or
modifying best management or pollution
prevention practices, and evaluating the
effectiveness of best management
practices and pollution prevention
measures.
Administrative Burdens on Permitting
Agencies—Requiring each facility that
discharges storm water associated with
industrial activity to submit monitoring
data at least annually would result in a
significant increase in the number of
discharge monitoring reports received
by EPA Regions and authorized NPDES
States.’ Receiving annual monitoring
reports containing complex technical
Information from each facility with a
storm water discharge associated with
Industrial activity would require a
significant amount of permitting
resources dedicated to reviewing and
filing these reports.
A estimates that It all Facilities with storm
water dIichar ei associated with Indu str ial activity
other than oil .nd as taciIiti s and Inactive mln,n
operations were required to submit a discharge
moeltorlr report annually, almost 15% of all
di.chs,ge ,monttoflng reports collected annually
under the NPDES pro%rom would be for storm wate r
discharge. associated with Industrial actIvity
Focused Permitting Efforts
The long.term permitting strategy
discussed earlier in today’s notice
provides for a flexible, risk-based
system for issuing permits and targeting
priority discharges. Flexibility has been
incorporated into the strategy to
facilitate efforts by EPA and authorized
NPDES States to identify priority
discharges and conduct permit issuance
activities which reflect Regional and
State priorities. Discharge sampling data
from targeted facilities can support the
development of priori ties and can be
used to assist in assessing the
achievement of water management
goals. As priorities and risks within a
State are identified and evaluated.
dassee of facilities will be targeted for
more specific permit issuance activities
(tiers II. 111 and IV of the strategy).
1. Overview of Proposed Options and
Comments
In the August 18. 1991 proposal. EPA
Identified six major options (plus a no
change option) for establishing minimum
monitoring requirements in NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated wtth industrial activity.
These options only addressed minimum
requirements for discharge monitoring in
NPDES permits. All options retained
authority for NPDES permit authorities
to require more stringent monitoring
requirements where approjniate. The six
options (plus the ne change option) were
as follows:
No Change Option: Case-by-case
monitoring conditions in permits for
storm water discharges, with a minimum
requirement to report monitoring results
at least annually.
Option 1: Cese-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minunum requirement
to report monitoring results at least
twice per permit term.
Option 2: Case-by-case monitonng
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that facilities conduct annual sampling.
Facilities would not be required to
report monitoring information unless the
information was requested in a permit
or by the Director, but would be
required to retain information.
Option 3: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that facilities (other than those from oil
and gas exploration or production
operations and Inactive mining
operations where a past or present mine
operator cannot be identified) conduct
annual sampling. Facilities would not be
required to report information unless the
Information was requested in a permit
orby the D1ro tsit.hetwould be
required to retala in.formation. For
contaminated storm water discharges
from oil and gas exploration or
production operation. arfrom Inactive
mining operations where’a past or
present mine operator cannot be
identified, either case-by-case
monitoring conditions in permits for
storm water discharges with a minimum
requirement of annual sampling (without
reporting) or, instead of sampling, a
Professional Engineer’s (PE) certification
attesting that good engineering practices
were being employed to meet
appropriate permit conditions.
Option 4. Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that monitoring reports be submitted at
least annually for targeted classes of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity located in the
watershed of receiving waters that are
sensitive to or impacted by storm water
dls harges.
Option 5: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with no minimum
requirement to report monitoring resuitc
Option & Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges, With a minimum requirement
for the first ermfI for the discharge that
monitonngresèftsb reported at least
once a year,A fäcilIty has
submitted five y drs ÔÈ data. monitoring
conditions for storm water would be
established on a case-by-case basis with
no minimum requirement to conduct
annual sampling.
In addition, the Agency indicated that
It would consider developing a final
regulation which combined aspects of
several of the articulated options (see
August 18. 1991 (58 FR 40957)) The
various benefits and concerns with each
option were discussed in the August 16.
1991 notice.
The comments received on the options
reflected differing opinions regarding the
need and use of monhtonng in the
NPDES storm water program Some of
the comments expressed views on the
benefits and drawbacks of different
monitoring strategies in different
situations. An uidei lying theme that
emerged from the comments was that a
number of factors, such as the nsk to
water quality that different types and
classes of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
present, the nature of permit conditions
(e g. such as numeric limitations and
best management practices). and the
nature of the operation of the facility
should be considered when establishing
-------
11402 Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday . April 2. 1992 I Rules and Regu )a cns
monitoring conditions in NPDES permits
for storm water discharges.
Other commenters suggested that EPA
should allow alternatives to monitoring.
Some commentere urged the Agency to
expand option 3 to allow other classes
of facilities in addition to oil and gas
operations to obtain a PE certification.
to allow facility operators to conduct
inspections, or certify compliance with a
checklist of pollution prevention
measures or best management practices
(BMPa) In lieu of sampling. Other
commenters suggested that other
individuals were as qualified or more
qualified than PEa to perform site
Inspections and that additional
flexibility should be provided with
regard to the inspection requirement.
For example. some commenters
indicated that certified construction
inspectors were more appropriate for
conducting inspections at construction
sites than PEa, who might not be
familiar with soil and erosion practices
or storm water management
technologies. Other commenters
suggested that site personnel would
typically be in the best position to
evaluate the implementation of pollution
prevention measures and BMPs.
Other comments urged EPA to
consider the costs and technical
difficulties of sample collection and
analysis when establishing minimum
monitoring requirements, and
encouraged the Agency to consider
alternatives to discharge sampling, such
as allowing site inspections In lieu of
monitoring. In the August 16. 1991
notice. EPA had requested comments on
monitoring requirements for inactive
mining operations, and some comments
specifically addressed this issue.
2. Today’s Rule
In response to comments. today’s
rulemaking adopts an approach that is a
combination or hybrid of a number of
options Identified In the August 16, 1991
proposal, particularly options 3 and 5.
The final rule provides for establishing
monitoring conditions in NPDES permits
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity on a case-by.
case basi8. At a minimum, a permit for
such a discharge must require the
discharger to conduct an annual
Inspection of the facility site to identify
areas contributing to a storm water
discharge associa ted with indusinal
activity and evaluate whether measures
to reduce pollutant loadings identified in
a storm water pollution prevention plan
are adequate and properly implemented
in accordance with the terms of the
permit and the plan or whether
additional control measures are needed.
The discharger must be required to
maintain for a period of three years a
record summarizing the results of the
inspection and a certification that the
facility is In compliance with the plan
and the permit, or identifying any
incidents of non-complIance. Such
report and certification must be signed
by a corporate official In accordance
with 40 CFR 122.22.
Today’s rule establishes a minimum
req uirement for annual inspections for
most storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. The Agency
believes that a minimum frequency of at
least annual inspections is appropriate
to ensure evaluation of changing
conditions and practices at a site,
(especialiy those caused by wet weather
and winter conditions occurring
throughout a year) and to ensure
adequate implementation of pollution
prevention measures on a regular basis
While option 3 of the August 16, 1991
proposal had requested comment on a
minimum frequency of every three years
for a PE certification for oil and gas
operations and certain inactive sites, the
Agency believes that providing
additional flexibility in who conducts
site in8pections will sufficiently lower
compliance costs in some cases to allow
a higher frequency of inspections to be
feasible. As discussed below, the
Agency is providing additional
flexibility in establishing monitoring or
inspection requirements for storm water
discharges from inactive mining
operations. No commenters on the draft
general permits in the August 16. 1991
Federal Register notice specifically
indicated that it would be infeasible to
comply with requirements in the draft
general permits to conduct annual
inspections. The Agency believes that a
minimum annual frequency of
inspections compensates for less formal
requirements with respect to specifying
who must conduct the inspection. A
minimum annual frequency is also
consistent with the minimum
requirements for discharges other than
storm water to report monitoring
information at least annually.
A minimum of an annual inspection or
report of monitoring results is not
required for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
inactive mining operations where
annual inspections are impracticable.
Rather, permits for storm water
discharges from inactive mining
operations may require certification
once every three years by a Registered
Professional Engineer that the facility is
in compliance with the permit or
provide for alternative requirements.
This provision will provide additional
flexibility to address Inactive mine
operations. Mining .i MUiskave a
somewhat unique hislssy of
development and t actw..authi.e g sites
can be dispersed diffusely in iemoIe,
hard to reach locations whgvs
employees may typically aol bonsite
to conduct site evaluations, In addition.
the inactive nature of these sites may
limit changes to potential for storm
mter discharges from the site to
contain pollutants, thereby warranting
less frequent inspections. The Agency
anticipates that certification by
Professional Engineers may often be
appropriate for these sites given the
nature of typical controls for these sites
and the limited amount of activity
occurring at them. Alternative
requirements may be appropriate for
storm water discharges from inactive
mining operations in some
circumstances. For example. storm
water discharges from inactive mining
operations on Federal lands where an
operator cannot be identifIed present
unique circumstances because of the
remote nature and high number of sites
on large Federally owned areas
The Agency believes that this rule will
provide sufficient flexibility for permit
writers to establish monitoring
requirements that reflect the potential
risk of the dischargo and that are
appropriately relatecEto the nature of the
permit conditions for a discharge
Today’s regulatorym l4fieatzon does
not preclude discharge sampling and
reporting requiremen’s In NPDES
permits for storm waier discharges
associated with industrial activity.
While today s rule change provides
additional flexibility to establish
monitoring requirements, it does not
limit the authority of EPA or authorized
NPDES States to estabflsh sampling
requirements where appropriate based
on a consideration of risk or other
factors.
The Agency recognizes that different
types of perinitconditions are
appropriate for different types of storm
water discharges. Numeric effluent
limitations are appropriate for some
classes of storm water discharges End-
of-pipe numeric effluent limitations are
typically used for some types or classes
of storm water discharges associated
with induatnal activity Typically,
NPDES permits for these classes of
discharges will contain numeric effluent
limitations, and sampling requirements
will be appropriate for these permits
‘Fat ee.mpIe. he Agency N.. issued aumenc
effluent IImItattoo guideline, lot ten dais,, of
diecherge. (Net ire composed entirely of storm
wet ,? or of storm wile? combined with proce.a
Wet ? ,
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 64 I Thursday . April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
However, for many other types of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. NPDES permits for
the discharge will require the
implementation of pollution prevention
measures and/or BMPs. Where permits
require the implementation of pollution
prevention measures and/or BMPs, and
do not establish numeric effluent
limitations, conducting inspections to
identify sources of pollution and to
evaluate whether the pollution
prevention measures and/or BMPs
required by the permit are being
effectively implemented and are in
compliance with the terms of the permit
may provide a better indication than
discharge sampling of whether a facility
Is complying with the permit. As a
result, the Agency believes that today’s
rule will also reduce discharge sampling
burdens on some industrial facilities
with storm water discharge permits that
require the implementation of pollution
prevention measures and BMPs rather
than numeric effluent limitations, while
providing more effective and efficient
environmental benefits.
Today’s nile does not affect the
manner in which the NPDES regulations
address discharges other than storm
water associated with industrial
activity. The provisions of 40 CFR
122.44(i)(2) will continue to require that
NPDES permits for discharges other
than storm water associated with
industrial activity establish
requirements to report monitoring
results with a frequency depeqdent on
the nature and effect of the discharge.
but in no case less than once a year. In
addition, today’s rule does not change
the manner in which the NPDES
regulations address storm water
discharges which are subject to an
effluent limitation guideline (e.g. a
minimum of annual monitoring is still
required for these facilities).
3. Response to Comment
Some commenters questioned the
value of sampling data for storm water
discharges in certain situations. In
response, the Agency believes that, in
certain instances, storm water discharge
monitoring data will play a number of
critical roles in the NPDES program. As
discussed above, some permits for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity will establish
technology or water quality-based
numeric limitations. Discharge
monitoring reports will be an important
means of assessing compliance with
these requirements Discharge
monitoring. induding monitoring
requirements in permits that do not
establish numeric limitations, plays a
number of other functions in the permit
program.
Discharge monitoring data can be
used to assist in the evaluation of the
risk of discharges by indicating the
types and the concentrations of
pollutant parameters in the discharge.
Discharge monitoring data can also be
used to support the development of
future permit conditions and controls,
assist in identifying sources of
pollutants at a facility, assist in the
evaluation of the effectiveness of
pollution prevention measures and
BMPs. and assist in identifying potential
water quality-based Impacts. Storm
water discharge monitoring data will
have an unportant role, along with other
information, in identifying facilities or
classes of facilities where tier II, UI and
IV permit issuance activities are
appropriate.
Several commenters offered a number
of suggestions for rnonitonng programs
for storm water discharges. In response,
EPA generally recognizes that there are
a number of innovative and risk-based
approaches to developing monitoring
strategies for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity For
example. monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity can be focused on
those discharges located in watersheds
that are impacted by or sensitive to
storm water discharges as proposed in
option 4. In order to encourage States to
explore efficient, innovative and cost-
effective monitoring programs, today’s
rule provides flexibility to establish
different monitoring strategies and does
not adopt option 4. although the
minimum requirements adopted today
do not preclude the use of an option 4
type approach where appropriate. (The
same is true for options 1, 2, or 6: EPA or
authorized NPDES States retain the
flexibility to use these types of
approaches on a permit-specific basis).
The Agency believes that this approach
offers the greatest potential for using
permits to generate information on
priority storm water discharges that can
be used to assist in the development of
controls.
Many commenters urged EPA to
provide sufficient regulatory flexibility
to permit writers to establish discharge
sampling and reporting requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity on a case-by-case
basis. Many commenters favored
establishing discharge sampling
requirements in a risk-based manner. A
number of these commenters suggested
that it was important to sample storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from priority classes
of facilities,, bet ibet aaoss.the-board
monitonng reqiur ents for all facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity may not be an
appropriate or cost-effective use of
resource.. A number of justifications
were provided for favoring a flexible
approach including: (1) Regulatory
flexibility could allow establishing
monitoring and reporting requirements
in a risk-based manneri (2) some types
of facilities may not be significant
contributors of pollutants when they
were in compliance with pollution
prevention measures or plans. (3) in
some situations site inspections would
be more appropriate than monitoring for
determining permit compliance. (4) EPA
and authorized NPDES States have
limited ability to effectively review data
(5) the potential burdens on small
businesses and facilities in arid climates
could be significant. (6) there would be
difficulties in characterizing storm water
discharges with sampling data, and (7)
EPA needs to focus on storm water
discharges with the highest risk. Some
commenter-s summarized these concerns
by indicating that they believed that for
some storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity, overly broad
discharge monitoring reqwremerits
could be counterproductive toward the
goals of the program, as significant
resources would have to be expended
collecting and analyzing discharge
samples, thereby l1 iltlng available
resources at some facilities, such as
certain small businesses, to implement
measures that would result in the
removal of pollutants in their storm
water discharges Other commenters
raised concerns regarding sampling
storm water discharges from specific
classes of industries For example,
representatives of the construction
industry contended that monitoring
storm water from construction sites has
limited usefulness due to the changing
nature of the activity.
As discussed above. EPA has
designed today’s rule to address all of
these concerns. Since today’s rule
provides additional flexibility in the
NPDES regulatory framework to
establish monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, the Agency believes
that the concerns raised by the
commenters. where appropriate, can be
addressed during the permit issuance
process under the flexible regulatory
framework established by today’s rule.
In particular, the Agency believes that
today’s rule, which relies on site
inspections as minimum requirements,
provides a more efficient and cost-
effective approach for evaluating the
-------
11406 Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 64 I Thursday, April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regu1 *me
appropriate. For example. the
identification of discharges to receiving
waters with impaired water quality can
be used to target facilities for priority
permitting efforts. Also, the 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 diechargere that a more specific
general permit was issued. The NO! also
can identify the permiltee to provide a
basis to develop and implement
enforcement and compliance monitoring
strategies and priorities. In addition, the
administrative burdens on the
permitting issuing agency and the costs
to diachargers can be reduced by
replacing more complicated permit
application requirements with simplified
requirements.
One State commented that EPA
should not mandate by regulation the
information required in an NO!. which It
believed should be left to the State or
EPA Region issuing a general permit. In
response. the Agency believes that
today’s regulatory framework provides
sufficient flexibility for developing NO!
requirements, and that the minimum
information requirements of today’s rule
represent essential information
necessary for meeting the program
objectives outlined above. Under
today’s rule, the minimum requirements
for NOIs i tclude the legal name of the
owner or operator and the facility name
and address. EPA believes that this
information is essential to Identify the
location of the facility for compliance
purposes and to provide mailing
addresses necessary to conduct any
correspondence. The minimum NO!
requirements also include a description
of the type of facility or diechargers.
This description is necessary to provide
Information to screen whether the
discharge is eligible for coverage under
the general permit and to allow the
permit writer to begin to Identify priority
discharges. Finally, the mlnunuxn NO!
requirements include the receiving
stream(s). This information is necessary
to adequately identify the discharges to
impaired receiving waters where water
quality-based permits are necessary.
Some comxnenters indicated that they
believed that all discharges should be
required to submit an NO!. Various
reasons were provided to support this
approach, including that the NPDES
authority needed to know of all facilities
that discharged storm water to a given
water body, and that diachargers should
not be required to comply with a permit
unless they submit a notil ’ication. In
response, the Agency believes that moat
general permits will require the
submit tel of NO!. However, there may
be some situations where it may be
more appropriate to have the Director
notify dischargers that they are covered
by a general permit or that NO!
requirements are otherwisgrnOt -
appropriate.
For example. is suing a general permit
without NOI requirements may be an
appropriate way for EPA and authorized
NPDES States to miniMi, e
administrative burdens and compliance
costs in permits for small discharges
which have been determined to have
minimal or no impacts on receiving
waters. Today’s regulation provide some
flexibility to address these situations.
In the August 16. 1991 notice, EPA
requested comment on whether it is
appropriate to require NOIs for the large
number of contaminated storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from oil and gas exploration and
production operations. Most
commenters on this Issue indicated that
they thought NOls should be required in
genera! permits for storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations.
One State commented that it believed
that it would be inappropriate to
exclude a class of discharges from the
requirements to submit an NO! unless
there is an alternative method that can
and will be used to track these
discharges. A different commenter
Indicated that oil and gas operations
were adequately monitored through the
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) program and
that NOb for NPDES general permits
would not be necessary. A number of
the commenters expressed confusion
over the relationship between this
provision and section 402(1)(2) of the
CWA 10 . and suggested that requiring
NOls in NP -J ituflfl water
discharges from operations
would minimi atth sISJQfl.
After evahaati d ——.,eflts,
EPA beliEves, th,a 4os the
situation of Inactive c6*adgai
operations on Federal lands discussed
below, it is not a ropsiate to exclude
contaminated storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
oil and gas exploration and production
operations from the minimum NO!
requirements. and therefore today’s rule
does not treat storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity from
oil and gas operations differently than
other storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity in this regard. As
a result, today’s rule does not contain a
specific reference to storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations
The Agency believes that NO!
requirements in general permits for
storm water discharges from oil and 8
operation will provide for a clear
tracking mechanism that is currently
unavailable under the SPCC program
In addition, as was pointed out by
commenters. the NO! process can be
used to identify facilities with
contaminated runoff, and therefore
minimize confusion with respect to the
provisions of seâlion 4O2(1)I2) of the
CWA. YT’
One commenter
clarification on th p dures that
would be followed to elisure that
permits requiring Dfrectornotificatlori
instead of facility submission of an NO!
are in compliance with the procedural
requirements of the CWA and the
NPDES regulations. The Agency does
not believe that today’s rule conflicts
with the NPDES regulations or the
CWA. The Agency believes that the
existing NPDES regulations provide for
adequate public notice and public
comment opportunities when general
permits are issued. (See 40 CFR 124.10.
“Section 402 ifl2) of the CWA provide, thai
NPOES permits shall not be required for storm
water runoff from mining operation, or oil and gas
exploration. production. proceuing or Ueatment
operation’ or transmission facilities. composed
entirely of flows which are from conveyences or
ay.tenis 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 corn. into contact with, any overburden.
raw matailsi. Intermediate peodacts. Sniahed
product. byproduct or waite products located on the
site of such operation. A ?ubuished permit
application regulations consistent with section
402 111 (2) on Novemberle. 1950(55 FR 40X150 1.
‘Thea. regulations require permit applications for
discharges composed entirely of storm water
associated with industrial activity from oil or gas
exploration, production. processing. or treatment
operation., or tranamluiofl facilitie, only when a
discharge of storm wtsya multi In a discharge of,
reportable quantity for which notification Is or was
required pursuant to 40 C?R t1t.21. 40 CFR 302.6. or
40 CPR 110.8 at anytime sInce November 10. 1901. or
the discharge contributes to. violation of. waler
quality atandard. (see 40 ( ‘R 122.2 5(cfl lH in) ).
Permit applications are not required for, discharge
composed entirely of storm water from a mining
operation unless the discharge comes into contact
with any overburden. raw material. intermediate
products. finished product. byproduct. or waste
products located on the site of such operations
“EPA requested comment on using information
ollected under the SPCC pru nm to track storm
water discharges. However, this approach has a
number of limitations. including that the SPCC
program currently does not require facilities subiect
to SI C requirement. to .ubmit not,flcat ,ons in
addition, many facilities aubiect to the SPCC
program are not subpect to the NPDES storm waler
program either because they do not have a storm
water discharge to waters of the United States or
bec.use they ate not activities that are addressed
by th. regulatory definition of storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity at 40
CFR 122..*bMi4l (eg, certain pipeitnes)
-------
S
12.t11 . wed 124. 7) TheAgenty wants to
point out that the NPDES regulation.
equire certain opportuoAt ies lot the
piablia to comment during tlka pammi
ssuancs process, and provida foi permit
appeal 51 LeT tbe ,p nn1t Is issued. in
additIon. 40 C i 8(b3(2 (li1 -
provides thatJo A 4permita, -
anj owner or operator authorized by a
general peimitmay request to be.
excluded from O e coverage of the
general permit by applying for an
Individual permit
One commpnter requested
clarification on the type of notification
that must be provided by the Director to
a discharger where the discharger Is not
required to submit an NOL In response.
the Agency believes that In most cases.
the Director will notify dlschargers of
coverage In writing.
One commenter requested
clarification on whether a discharger
that is not required to submit an NOL
but rather I . notified by a Director, will’
be subject to permit fees. The Agency
wants to clarify that this rulemaking
does not address permit fees.
One commenter. while supporting the
requirement that an NO! be submitted.
Indicated that EPA could reduce Its
paperwork load by Issuing general
permits for storm water discharges from
construction sites that requhed
dlschargers to notify municipalities
Instead of the NPDES permit authority.
EPA disagrees with this approach.
Submitting NO!. to municipalille. but
not requiring that an NO! be submitted
to the Director may not assure that EPA
or authorized NPDES States receive
adequate Information to effectively
implement the NPDES program foi these
discharges.
In the August 16. 1991 notIce. EPA
proposed that general permits for storm
water discharge. associated with
Industrial activity from Inactive mining .
In4cUVe oil and gas operation. ocmuvlng
on Federal land. whar. en operator
cannot be -Identified ay contain
alternative ‘ U .ontt f - -
‘equfrements, A federal land
mAnngPmhln agency commented that
Inactive landfill, on Federal lands are In
some wayi analogous to Inactive mines
and inactive oil and gas operations and
should be treated sinlilaily. EPA agrees
with thin comment and accordingly
today’. rule allow, alternative notice of
Intent requirement, In general permits
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from inactive
landfill. on Federal lands.
One State urged EPA not to refer to
NO!. as permit application.. They were
concerned that calling NO!. permit
applications would trigger certain public
notice requirements under Slate law.
They further.argued that the purpo..oI.’-
NOla are sigelilcantly different tba
permit applications, and that the cited-’
Stats law peovision should p4 p1 . Is
rnse , EPA recognizes
dlffer.ijces between theper i&. e.
notice of Intent and. an .lndl!1s psrah
application. Indwidual .pe’
application, contain a significant
amount of site-specific lafonnatlon that
Is typically used for-the development of
Individual permlicondltlons. NOb
typically contain oz y general
Information and are used for screening
and. compftapce purposes rather than for
the development of permit conditions.
However, the distinction between
Individual applications and NOb as
they relate to public notice requirements
In various State laws Is a question of
Interpretation of those State laws which
EPA does not attempt to answer In this
notice. EPA notes however, that It
considers submission of an NO! to,
constitute a permit application for
purposes of federal regulatory
provision. which provide that a timely
reapplication of a federal permit or
license continues the effectiveness of
the existing permit pending action by
the Director. (See 40 CFR 122.8).
In the preamble to the August 18. 1991
notice. EPA discussed pubilo
accessibility to lists of NO!., but did not
publish proposedregulatosy language
addressing this issue. EPA does not
intend tn addrus* this Jisue in this
rulemaking. but will be addressing the
issue in futwe rulemaking.,
D. Deod!Inà for Pbrt 2 of Group
Applicotoag, .,. - ,
1. November 5. 1991 Proposal
On November 5. 1991, (56 FR 58555).
EPA requested comments on extending
the deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application from May 18. 1992 to
October 1, 199Z In the November 5, 1991
notice, the -Agenëy indicated that this
extension would provide an appropriate
opportunity to conduct’sampling to
support the Part 2 eppllcatlon and would
allow for permit Issuing agencies to
Issue general permits.
2. Today’s Rule
EPA recalved over 60 tommenis on’
the November 5, 1991 proposal. Alter
careful consideration of these
comments. tha’A scy Is extending’the
deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group applications for storm water
discharge. associated with Industrial
activity from May 18. 1992 to October 1,
19 as proposed.. .‘ . -
EPA Is. granting this extension to
provide an appropriate opportunity to
conduct sampling to support the part 2
U 5 IM.I W o———i - ’-— -———’-— r’
to the completlonof th* ’oup’
application procem.
3. Responuto Comments
All of lbs tàmmentaTeccFv-ed on the
NovetnberSlggl prnposalto extend the
regulatoiy deadline for Bubmittlng part 2
of the group application supported an
extension. A number of reasons were
provided to justify the extension.
Including the difficulty associated with
sampling storm water discharges from
facilities located in arid and northern
regions during winter months, the need
for time tqallow for the preparation of
guidance documents, training personnel
in sampling techniques, and conducting
analytical work. A number of
commenters supported October 1. 1992
as the deadline for part 2 of the group
application. In general, these
commeritere expressed their belief that
the deadline, for aubautting part 2 of the
group application and Individual permit
application. f storm water discharges
associated with dustnaI activity
should be th&a .*iwmber of
reasons were uiuilloriupporting this
approach. lnc *ht*b1, would be
the most eqnltabldapçroech, the
regulated community-would have a
clearer choice of applIcaffon options,
end one deadline would limit confusion.
EPA agrees with these concerns, and as
is discu8sed above, I. extending the
deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application from May 18, 1992 to
October 1. 1992.
Some commenters favored extending
the deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application beyond October 1,
1992. Some of these commenters
suggested that part 2 of the group
applicajion should not be required until
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity were issued. These commenters
indicated that this approach would
ensure that dischargers would have
three options for applying for a permit.
(e.g. particIpating in a group application,
submitting an individual application, or
submitting an NOl to be covered under a
general permit). This would allow
dlschargers to select the most cost-
effective approach allowable under the
NPIJES regulatory framework, Other
commeriters suggested that participants
in a group should be given one complete
year from the date ifter thu-group
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 64 I Thursday. April 2. 1992 I Rule.
Sppl icat i o s P 9nodifica lion
- will provIde.i . itabIe
a . atid ai ’ , iiU lvity. It
will alss.L1-’
-
11407
-------
1141 )8 Federal Register / Vol, 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992 / Rules
receives notice of approval of the part I
application.
EPA notes-that the extension to
Octoberi, 1992 provIdes authorized
NPDES States with additional time to
issue general .pennlti Fo storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. On August 18. 1991. (50 FR
44 48). EPA published a proposal
requesting public comment on draft
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity In States and territories without
authorized NPDES programs. 1 ’ The
Agency intends to make every effort to-
issue these general permits in the spring
of1992..
However EPA has decided against
basing the deadline for submitting part 2
of the group applications on the date
that general permits are Issued by
individual States because of the
potential confusion and uncertainty that
would arise. Although the Agency
proposed draft general permits for storm
water discharges In States without
authorized State NPDES programs in
one notice. it may not finalize all of
these permits on the same date. The
Agency expects that various region.
specific. State-specific, or Industrial
category-specific Issues may take
different amounts of time to address. It
should also be noted that the August 16.
1991 proposal does not address general
permits In authorized NPOES States.
Each authorized NPDES State that will
issue general permits for storm water
discharges assodated with industrial
activity will have to go through the
procedures for issuing general permits of
that State. DIfferent permit isannTtce
procedures, along with other factors,
will result In these permits being issued
at different times. All of these factors
Indicate that a tremendous amount of
uncertainty and confusion would result
If EPA attempted to tie regulatory..,,
deadlines for submitting peimit
applications to the dates when general
permits are issued far particular States.
This Is particularly ftnporthnt to the
group app fla ocees where
facilities from many different States
maybe inthe’same grnep [
lnaddftionJthe Agencyantidpates
thot there will be situatiOns where the
• permlftlngunthority determines that
‘Tbs notice address ., draft genmal permits In
12 States (MA. ME. NH. FL LA. TX. O K. NM. SD.
AZ. A K. ID ). and ilz Tunltot$ss (Distilci of
Columbia. the COminOnwealtIt of Pue,t Rico.
Cue,,,. Aw4can Samoa. tb Commonwealth of the
Northern Marten, Islands. and the Trust Tpnftor
of the Pacific Island.) without authorized NPDPS
Stsa u smz Indian Iands AL. CA. CA. KY.
ML CL Ma. MT. NC. P . NY. NV. 115. LIT. WL
and WY: located within federal facilitIes and Indian
lands In CO and WA: end located within federal
fecilitla. In Dolawars.
general permits are inappropriate for a
given class of storm water discharges.
Additional confusion would arise In
these situations U application dead )thei
were tied to the dates of generalpteiailt
issuance. The Agency I . use cc sàer rJ
that unacceptable delays may.reidt
under this approach In State. where Ike
Issuance of a general permitli delayed.
EPA also disagrees with the - -
suggestion that the deadlines for
submitting part 2 of thi application
should be based on the date on which a
part I applicat*óñ is accepted. EPA
believes that estebllahlng a fixed
•deadllne of October 1, 1992 for part 2 of
the group application Is warranted for
the same reasons that the Agency
articulatedabove and in the proposal.
This approach provides an equitable
deadline for these facilities, reduces
cdnfuslon and uncertainty in the
regulated community, and provides
sufficient time to complete the sampling
necessary to obtain quantitative data.
£ Clo.rification for Pelt 2 of Group
Applications
The November 16. 1990 regulations
established procedures for group
applications for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity. The
group application process allows for
facilities with similarj*ornswater
discharges to file a ithagle two part
permit applicatl Part.! of a group
application inchide a list of the
facilities applying. a-narrative
description summarizing the Industrial
activities of participants of the group, a
list of sig iRcnnt materials exposed to
precipitation that are stored by
participants end material management
practices employed to diminish contact
of these materials by precipitation (see
40 CFR 1 .28(c)(2)(i)). In addition, the
part I application must Identify the
group participants that will submit
quantitative data (sampling data) in part
2 of the group application. These
parlldpanta,must ,o representa lve f
thegroup..
In part 2 of the group application, the.
subset of facilities identified In the Part ,.
I application must submit quantitative
data. The provisions of 40 Q R
122.28(c)(2)(ii) establish a-minimum
criteria for identifying facilities from
which sampling data must be submitted.
EPA bad proposed that. In general.
groups submit data from at least 10
percent of the facilities in the group,
with. minimum of 10 facilities
submitting data (December 7, 1988(53
FR 49435fl. in the final rule. EPA
allowed groups of 4 to 10 members to
apply If 50 percent of the facilities
submitted data ( . 990 (55
FR48 067)). -
Durtha the p . U ocess.
the me ula some
confusion ‘ J & ’
number of fmadUtts t L Lsub . It
sampling data for 1 51mPh ‘.JJIttII to 99
members: For groups withittQ 99
members, some group. haveinterpreted
the language in the Noi enther 10.1990
regulations to require lOpercent of the
facilities to submit sampling data, while
other groups have Interp ted the
language to require • minImu* of 10
facilities to .uhmll.saniplfng data.
In today’s action. EPA wants to clanfy
that for groups with 3) or fewer
members, at least 50 percent of the
discharger. participating in the group
must submit quantitative data. Far
example. at least nine facilities must
submit quantitative data if a group is
composed of 17 members. For groups
with 21 to 99 members, at least 10
discharger. partidpatlng in the group
must submit quantitative data. For
example. at least ten facilities must
submit quantitative data if a group is
composed of 25 members. For groups
with 100 to 1.000 members, at least 10
percent of th. discharger. participating
in the group most unbmit quantitative
data. For gruu *J7bn ore than 1.000
members, no motii ji 1UI diechargers
participating In * j I Ip must submit
quantitative dati
For groups w1th ’10
members, either aia4eri of two
dischargera from each i tIpItation zone
indicated in appendix Eof 40 CFR part
122 in which tea or more members of the
group are located, or one discharger
from each precipitation none indicated
in appendix E of 40 Q ’R part 122 In
which nine or fewer member, of the
group are located, must be identified to
submit quantitative data. For groups of 4
to 10 members, at least onefacllity In
each precipitation zone In which
members of the group are Ioéated must
submit data. EPA has made a correction
to the group application requirements to
reflect the above. which-represents
EPA’s original Intent in the November
16.1990 rule.
F 7iansportotion Act Deadltn 9
Section 1008 of the Transportation Act
addresses permit appLication deadlines
for storm water discharge. associated
with industrial activity that are owned
or operated by municipalities. Today’.
rule codifies three changes to existing
tory deadlines to reflect the new
provisions of sectIon 1068. The hut two
modifications address individual
application deadlines, and the third
addresses group application deadlines.
-------
• Federal RegIster / VoL 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992/ Rules 11409
munldpality or that are owned or - ‘ than airport..
operated by a municipality wlth.* - uncontrolled uitaryfondfth1a that are
populatiou of 250,000 or more,, ilIo • - owned orqpar 4iiiJ bánfclj,aflfles
Iegishvahistory for the I po ati ’ with-. póiWadssrj1 jrTt ,oo(j
Act Clarified that Sectie. 199 (c)p?o r1d& th’A shall
cdnf c , report affec not require this rec 4 gjd of
dates for submitting alormws$r inIt. Industrial facilitie, to apply for or obtain
appilcetions established th * a mcenl a permit before October ii unless a
rulemaking published lu-the Federal permit Is required under either section
Register on November 5, 1091. s * 4 O 2 (p)(2) (A, or4E) of the CWA.
• conference report, while silent on the With respect to this second group of
deadlines for these privately owned fadhille,, toda ’p rule reserves the
industries, is not Intended to override regulatory j iatfl1n s for storm water
the dates established In EPA’a applications , The Agency Intends to
Tulemaking ctiofl.” (Vol. 137 Cong. Rec. address these facilities In a manner that
H11509 (daily ed. NOvember 26, 1991), Is similar to other storm water
Rep. Han merichnildi). Thus, the permit discharges addressed by section
application deadlines For storm water 4021p)(1) or the CWA.’ Currently, the
discharges associated with Industrial Agency intends to evaluate storm water
activity from privately owned and disch es associated with Industrial
operated facilities, Including (hose that activity that are owned or operated by a
discharge through a municipal separate municipality with a population of less
storm sewer to waters of the United - than 100.000 (except for those from
States, are not changed by today’. nile powerplants, uncontrolled sanitary
with the exception of the Part a landfills and airports) along with other
application deadline, discussed storm water discharges addressed by
elsewhere In today’, notice. AlSO WhOle section 4021,p 1) In two studies required
a facility is privately owned and- under section 4 O 2 p)(5) of the CWA..
operated, but has a service coati’oct These 8tudle. will be used to support
with a municipality, the facility Ii not the development of regulations under
considered to be “municipally, section p j,i4ft is clear from the
operated”, For legislative bjst*el the Transportation
owned and operated LaMfiU that Act that CongreofInteisije j to address
receives municipal waste p usnt to a these dIschai g . Jsmnnoer i.e., as
contract with a munlclpaljty or some discharges sublectto the permit
other form of relmbnzgeuient from a moratorium of a &tJ 2fp)(i) of the
municipality can avail Itself of the CW& “EPA defifled àtrfal activity
application deadline extensions In the In such a way as to ruqulee many cities
Transportation Act, Which apply Only tg with a population under 100,000 to make
facilities owned or operated by application for stormwater prTmts.
municipal governments, notwithstanding the moratorium on
As outlined above, section 1003 of the
Transpo,taft Act contains special permit requirements that the Congress
thought It waiputing in place’ ‘Thia
provisions for inunldpafltjes with a legislation will clanfy that small cities
popelatlon of lees than 100,000. Section need not apply for permits associated
1068(c) of the Transportation Act with some of the Industrial facilities
defines two classes of Industrial
facilities that are owned or operated by they own or operate until October 1,
municipalitie, with a populafto of less 1992, (the) date (be the general
moratorium on their permit
than 100.000. The first group of fadlillee - uIre (VoL 137 Cong. Rec
is oomprlsed of airport,. powexplant,,
1 and uncontrolled sanitary landfills that cS185O6 (daily ad. November 27. 1991),
‘ire owned or operated by a municipality SelL aiafeej. lMlunlcipalitie, with
with a population of lees than ioo,o . ‘ populations of ess than 100,000 would
Is clear that Congress did not Intend In —
section 1068(c) to change the existing ‘ “Siction 40 puliP of th. CWPI Oestes 5
moratorium on tsauln NPOES permit, untIl October
Individual application deadlines ro , .. .e. not
these dlsd agc& Group application Idenufl ,.d In section 4O2 pK2) of thu CWA.
requirements for storm water discharge. 4 (PJ(eJ of thu CWA .quttei ‘A. to
associated with Indretrtal activity from consultation with State and local official,. Is
these facilities are add eesed by section required to iuua regulations by no later than
October 1• 1e . which de,igna ,s additional stornt
1008(b) of the Transportation BilL A. water di charge. to be regulated to protect water
discussed above, the group application quality and establish, comprehensive pro am to
deadline, for these facilities are May 18, regulat, such designated source.. This program
1992 foe Part I application, and ?4ay;7. must usiablIsh 4 at a rnlnimwt , , tAt puiothl... UJ
1993 arts equlreunanu f ar Stats Stone W.ter Maugement
Pro sjns, and (C) espeditious desdltne., The
The second group I. comi rlsed of - program may friclude performance standard,.
facilities with storm water discharge. gutdeitre.. guidance, and management practice,
associated with Industrial activity other and treutineni reqlllremenhs as appropriate.
The deadlines fof ubmlttth
individual permit applications for storm
weter discharges associated with-’-
Industrial ectlvfty that ate o*ned
operated-by municipalities er ,
consistent
-:“
esabljsbedmb 199115&FR
505481 wIth tweexcept1on. - - -‘
(1 Municipal facilitie, that have been
Identified In a pars I group application
that has been submitted Ins timely
manner where either the group.
application Is denied or the particular
facility is rejected front the group, are
not required to submit an Individual - -
application until the 180th day following
the date onwhjcb the denial or rejection
is made; and .-, - S
(2) FacilItie, owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of legs
than 100.000 other tha 0 an airport, . -
powerplant. or uncontrolled sanitary
landfill are not required to submit a
permit application at this time unless I
permit Is required under either section
4 O 2 (p)(2) (A) a of the CWA..
With regard to facilitie, that are either
part of a group that has been denied or
which are Individually rejected from a
group, today’s rule cod1fles afte,nati,o
deadlines for storm water discharge.
assodated with Industr ial activity from
facilities that are owned or operated by
a municipality and that are rejected as
member, of a part 1 group application,
Such discharger, shall submit an - -
Individual application no later than 160
days after the date of receipt of the
notice of rejection or October 1. 1992.
whichever is later,
With respect to facilitie, owned or
operated by munidpal ije, with a
population of W0,000 or less. WA
believes that Congress Intended this
language to place all of their storm
water discharges (except for those from
airports, powerplants and uncoptroljed
sanitary landfills) into Ph aa of t} ,
- storm water Drowam. --
Today’s rule’a1.dc j5 j the -
?ransportafloá ct * lternaUve - -
deedlIn for j j For
storm watet dJscharges associated with
indu,tyfalactjvitie, that ire owned or
operated by municipalities with.
population of less than 250,000.
• Reflecting the new provisions of Section
1068 of the Trensponatio Act, the
group application deadlines for these
facilities are now May 18, 1992 (or part 1
applications and May 17, 1993 for part 2
application,,
EPA also wants to clarify that the
Transportation Act did not affect soy of
the regulatory applIcat1 n deadlines for
storm water dlsdutrges associated with
Industrial activity from facilItie, that are
either not owned or operated by’s
-------
21410 . Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 64 I Thnr day. April 2, 1992 / Thiles aid R.U
1. DeterminIng the Population of
Municipalities
The Transportation Act establishes
phased requirementa for NPDES permits
for storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity from facilities
thai are owned or operated by
municipalities with specified
populations. However, the
Transportation Act uses a different
classification scheme than Is used In
section 402(p) of the CWA to define
classes of municipal separate storm
sewer systems. Under sectIon 402(p) of
the CWA. municipal separate storm
sewer systems are classified on the
basis of population served by the
system. Under the Transportation Act.
the population used for dassifying
industrial operations owned or operated
by municipalities is the population of the
municipality. This distinction is
important because a number of
municipal entitles with a population of
io0, 00 or more are not addressed by the
regulatory definitions of large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems.
40 R 122.20(b)(4) sth (fl specifically
Identify 173 cities and 47 countIes as
having large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems (e.g.
systems serving a population of 100.000
or more). While these definitions
Identify all Incorporated cities with a
population of 100,000 or more, they only
specifically identify 47 of the 447
counties with a population of 100,000 or
more based on the 1990 Census.” In
addition, other types of municipal.
ent itles which may own or operate
storm water dlschargesusodated with
Industrial activity ar ot specifically
addressed by tb.-r *le.tozy definition of
large azzd.uiedlum municipal separate
toxm sewer systems. Examples include
sanitary sewer districts, flood control
districts, and unincorpgrated towns and
town ship s .
In providing phased requirements for
different storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity that
are owned or operated by
municipalities. EPA believes that a
1 $ ppq 4Ici PG. II . indite 40ci’R part
primary concern of Congress was the
economic burdens placed on - -
municipalities with a smaller population
base over which to spread costs.
general. when determinIng the’ - ‘
population of a munidpal e A ’
will look at the general populatian -or
service population of the munldpal-
entity.
For the purpose oftoday s rule, the
1990 Census will be used to determine
the population of counties. Service
populations wiUbe used to determine
the population of sewage treatment
districts which operate publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). Where one
sewer district operates a number of
plants, the entire service population of -
the district will be used to determine the
applicable population classification of
all of the treatment works operated by
the district.” Populations within service
districts will be used to determine the
populations of flood control districts and
other municipal entities with service
populations. The State population will
be used to determine the population of
State DOTs.” Where an Industrial
facility Is owned or operated by more
than one municipality, then EPA intends
to use the combined populations of the
appropriate municipalities In
determining population-thresholds.
EPA believes that thedlatlnction
between the population of
municipality and th e population served
by a municipat separate storm sewer
system Is appropriate and was Intended
by Congress. In the November 16. 1990
nilemnidng, EPA noted Inter-Jurisdiction
comple,dtles associated with municipal
governments developing controls for
storm water into such large and medium
systems played a role in defining the
regulatory terms large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. However, such concerns do not
appear to be as evident with Industrial
facilities that are owned or operated by
municipal entitles.
Section
Act st nsd or
operated bps w”sli th
population diaas iLW O1ether
than an airport pawerpl d
uncontrolled sanitary ) ,ueerffifl are not
required to apply for permit applIcations
at this time unless a permit is required
under either section 402(p)(Z) (A) or (E)
oftheCWA. --;‘-
Section 1008(dJ of the Transportation
Act defines the term “uncontrolled
sanitary landfill” to mean a landfill or
open dump, whether In operation or
closed, that does not meet the
requirements for runon and runoff
controls established pursuant to subtitle
D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Today’. action codifies thi, definition at
40 CFR 122.28(b)(15J.
On October 9, 1991, (50 FR 5097$),
EPA published criteria for solid waste
disposal facilities. Including municipal
solid waste landfills (MSWLPs),
pursuant to subtitle D of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. Several provisions of
these regulations specifically address
runon and runoff from the active
portions of regulated units. Owners or
operators of aIL WLF units are
required under 25R-2 -c to design.
construct and . t . runon control
system to prevent. ite the active
portion of the $t t.dnzlng the.
peak discharge frnaca - yesr storm. In
addition, all MSWLF units are required
to design. construct, and maintain a run-
off control system from the active
portion of the landfill to collect and
control at least the water volume
resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.
Runoff from the active portion of the
unit must be handled In accordance with
the surface water requirements of 40
CFR 258.27( 8). which provides that all
MSWLF units must be operated In
compliance with NPDES requirements.
Any discharges of a rionpoint source of
•polutlon from an MSWLF unit Into
waters of the United States must also be
In conformance with any established
water quality management plan
developed under the CWA. The
not be required to apply for permits for
stormwater discharges associated with
Industrial activities except for power
planiL n ontrtilled sanitary landfills.
and airports,” (Vol. 137 Cong. Rec.
H11509 (daily ed. November 26. 1991).
Rep. Hammerschmldt).
--C - -
S _. - •___ SI —
iPormmp iu. Ifs district with. zmmulatl,e
servtra popu1.U n of 5 A.IV openS.. two 5SWS$S
tre.tment planta. . of which senves 309.090 sad
lb. other which .eivu seen. both planS. will be
naiderad to bs a facility that Is owned or operated
by a municipality with • population of ne.om c
mo
“Lindar this appruech. m’Awoeld baa. the
population of IaciUUei openalad by. State DOT on
the entire Stats pcpuI.ti rather than the
population of th, local government entity with land
use authority (e4. city, town. township. county) (a
which the facility I. physically located. EPA
hattie .. that this approach Is appropriate because
the Stat. oar facility wiU typically be operated
faIzly independently of the local government entity
with land ua authority and the mater revenue
soorce. of the State DOT sri State-wide (such as
gasolins taxe.l
The regulatory defloitloas of lug. aed medium
municipal separate Itmm sewer systems o lp
specifically idanilfy counties wIth a population of
100.00010 unlncorpor. ted. urbanized ereas of the
county.
‘ The October 0. 5091 rule clarified that the
subtitleD requirements call for the ool(ectlon and
control of runoff from the .ctive portion of MSWIY
unit., but do not require that us collected runoff be
umpled or treated. Thu was because when the
notice was seued. EPA was In the process of
implementing NPDES requirements for sterns water
discharges associated with usduatnol activity from
landfill, to the October 9,1991 muG. EPA
explained that ths NPD permit wsde the CWA
would be the appropriate mechanism for eniwing
thst point enurce discharges of runoff from MSWLF.
are protective of human health and the environment
(see October 9. 1991. (56 FR 51054))
-------
Federal Regiater/ Vol. 57, No, 84 9 Thursday, April 2, 1992 / Rules and 1Zj . - 11411
effective dale for these requfremanti are
Octoberg, 1993. -
Operators of landfills that are owned
or operated by.. municipality with a
popu1atfo of l than 1 ’ o with a
stoi water discharge a,scmiated with
Industrial acthfty*Ojhat are,.•,
‘uncontrolled muqj submit an N ES
permit apphcatfg for their discharge. or
obtain coverage turder an app?o iate
general permit.
EPA remains concerned about the
risks to surface water quality posed by
landfllle.*i The Agency Wants to clarify
that storm water discharges from
landfills that are owned or operated by
a munldpallty with a population of less
than 100,000 can still be required to
-obtain an NPDES permit even where
they are In compliance with subtitleD -
requirement. where they we designated
under section 402(p)(ZJ(EJ of the CWA
as needing an NPDES permit because
they are significant ntrlbutors of
pollutants to waters of the United Slates
or they contnbute to a violation of a
water quality standard.
111. Economic Impact
EPA ha. prepared an Information
Collection Request [ 1 ) for the purpose
of estimatjn g the information collection
burden Imposed on Federal, State and
local governments and Industry by
today’. revision. to req ulremecrtg to
submit annual monitoring reports,
minimum notice of intent (NOI)
req Wrement, for NPDES general
‘The existlag kn&iD altrta In pail 7 .d*eio
.0 teedSuli except those vesed by the revised
alIens In part isa whIch .dtheu
Iind JIs which receive houaebold hawdou, wsi cs
hadow,,, fros veta4 -.
geusretose. By th. N ) ‘ w i
definjtfoa of .tar n w.tar discharge anocl.ted
- with Industrial acftvlty ’ addresses landfills that
receive or have received any Industrial waa*as
(wastes M esd boa any of th. o r duof
fsalWuaddre by the vs Iswy - ‘- - d.
alma wetur acbargan m d w1th44
a ty PSS 40 Q R i b) (143).
__ b 4 tod with solId
wa toOw
disposal f lit ‘ ‘wi & * M tl . ft
‘A noted thai itate datL ca l. atedy
. vtd sod the
— ofcunewia la that
; . .olld ifs ,
wul tsaMthdthMd atlcacs.Id
laniSnien of nost
becanes they as, ha,, . . ..I., ,d Im’ge vohms, of
bazadogs so ’L Ic guoa L th* is. of da ,t n
w.i. .l . s. y twiitet Sta iep.4i,,J that of
the i.ioo ao eJ solid wasta Isniffilla whIch
momitmed i 5athai’gea to swfac. 55
chad Is. s.rfs. , wat Inspects. belle,,. that
laws. and thIn, solid weats may pret
Ins , ,? flab b.ma. mibtto.C i iI. keep
In sddlttos. dsatga omata -Iw ’enJid wani. Ia ’..4flI
have hapr ed. and we r ,p tod tea s to’
Impre s. with the - ls* of selsetIs U
requIr.iI_wi i (mfl
permits, and for States to submit State
Storm Water Permitting Plans.
EPA estimates that the total annizáj
cost of complying with the revlaed.
monItoyh reporting reqimen(af
storm watesdisuharge, i$z j ,4
The Agency estimates that tda j l 5
results in a annual
the regulated communfl
over the prior regulaty -reqmdrema t’
EPA estimates that thi ’ annual costs of
complying with NO! submissions
requiredbyNPD 3perm
$282,348. I iowerv r , EPA believe, that
today’s rule will antincrease the
existing burdens of complying with NO!
requirement,,
EPA estimates that the annual costs to
State govenunent, and EPA of
reviewing monitoring reports for storm
water discharges I $138,156. The
Agency estimates that the annual costs
to State, and EPA of reviewing NO!, Is
$210,919. However. EPA believe, that
today’s rule will not Increase the
existing burdens of reviewing NOIs.
EPA estimates the total annual costs of
preparing and reviewing State Storm
Water Permitting Plans to $351848.
IV. Executive Order 1 9i ”
Executive Order i. requires EPA
and other agencies to pexf jrin regulatory
analyses of ma for iegtrlalioca. Major
regulation. are these wIdth Impose a
cost on the economy ciuioo million or
more annually orha,ó tets other
economic impacts. Todays regula(pry
amendment, generally make the NPOES
permit applicatIon , more flexible and
less btzrdenunm. for the regulated
communftmj11 . .e regulations do not
satisfy any of the criteria specified In
section 1(b) of the Executive Orde and.
as such, do act constitute a niafor rule.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
tOMB) for review.
V. Pap wo ,k .w t tF 4 un Ad
The laromzauun requirements in this -
- rule have been approved by the Office -
of Management and Bedget (0MB)
under provisions of tb, Papetwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C 3501 at seq. and
have been asbignedOMB Coátra!
number 2040-0008.’ , ,. . , •
Public reporting bIs’den for l ull -
collectlo of Information Is estimated to
average 17.48 hours per response, an
increase of 1.50 hours, This Includes
time fur rav1irwL tuitructions,
sea .Jii g exftthtg date loumes,
gathering the data needed. and
• ‘completing and reviewing the coflection.
ot Information. ‘The 17.48 figure Ii an
average for all discharger, under the
NPDES program, including POTW.,
Indusirlal procea, water
dlschargers. For storm waer
discharger-n, the b wden per
responsq wide b .8bours per
repondent.
Send cosene re.rdIng ie burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of Information, including
suggestions fo reducing this burden, to
Chief, information Policy &anch. PM-
223Y, U.S. Environmental Protect ton
Agency, 401 MEfreet SW. Washington.
DC 204 end to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Office of Management and Budget.
Washington. DC 20500, marked
“Attention: Desk Officer for ‘A.”
VL Regulatiwy ih4hty Ad
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5
U.S.C 601 at seq. EPA is req uired to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the Impact of rules on
small entitle,. 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 aubstan’.ai number of small
entities.
Today’s amendments to the
regulations wou1 generaIIy make the
NPDES regtdatloni more flexible and
less burden.samne.for permit tees
Accordingly, lbs by certify, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 005(b) . ’ iat these
amendment, wlfl4 t ea significant
Impact on a sub stâl llM number of small
entities.
VII. APA Requirements
The amendments to permit
application deadlines for storm wdter
discharges associated with industnal
activity from facilities owned or
operated by niuniczpalities axe being
adopted without notice and comment
As they merely codify the provisiona of
section 1068 of Lh Zntezmodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
they constitute Interpretive rules for
which notice and comment is not
“required. EPA requested mnienl on
the issue of the mbitmum number of
facilities that must suhmui sampling data
In a group application in a December 7.
1988 notice (53 FR 49410). Additional
notice and CnmmPnt Is not required for
the clarification to the group application
regulations made In today’s rule because
the Agency has already taken comments
on this Issue and today’s action only
clarifies the approach that was intended
by the November 18, 1900 rule.
List of Si. 1 4.u . In 48 CFR Part 122
•Admuidstratjve practos arid
procedure, Environmental protection.
Reporting and record keeping
-------
11412 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 64 I Thursday . April 2. 1992 / Rules ________
requirements. Water pollution control.
General permits, Storm water.
Authority Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251
etzoq.
Detedi March 23, 1992.
William K. Railly,
Admin,stripuop. -
For the reasons stated In the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS ThE NAT1OP4AL
POWJTANT DISCHARGE
EUMINAT1ON SYSTEM
The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authozlty Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251
etseq.
Subpart B—Permit Application and
Special NPDES Program Requirements
1n IAm
2. Section 122.20 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(15). and revising
paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D), (eJ(1), (e)(2)(l),
(e)(2)(iil) and (e)(2)f iv) to read as
follows:
o 122.26 Storm water dlsctierges
(apØcabie to Stole NPOES programs, see
t1fl . 25
• • • • -
-
(15) Uncontrolled aonitoiy landfill
means a landill or open dump, whether
in operation or dosed, that does not
meet the requirements for runon or
runoff controls established pursuant to
subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
‘ .
(2)’
(i) • •
(0) For groups of more than 1.000
members. identify at least 100 -
diechargers participating inthe gloup
application front which quanti th,e
data will be submitted. Fc* groups of 100
or more membé i , d iflfy a minimum of
ten percent of thaadzarger5
participating in the group application
from which quantitatIve data will be
submitted. For groups of between 21 and
99 members tdentify a minimum of ten
dI.charg rs participating in the group
application from which quantitative
data will be submitted. For groups of 4
to 20 members, identify a minimum of 50
percent of the dlechargers participating
In the group application from which
quantitative data will be submitted. For
groups with more than 10 members.
either a minimum of two dischargers
from each precipitation zone indicated
in appendix E of this part in which ten
or more members of the group are
located. or one discharger from each
precipitation zone indicated in appendix
E of this part in which nine or fewer.
members of the group are located. must
be identifled to submit quantitative’
data. For groups of 4 to 10 members , at
least one facility in each. prec1ptta n
zone indicated in appendix Eof this part
In which members of the group are
located must be Identifed to submit
quantitative data. A d aalption 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
paragraphs (cJ(1)(i)(B) and (c)(1)(i)(C) of
this section. shall accompany this
section. Different factors impacting the
nature of the storm water discharges.
such as the processes used and material
management, shall be represented, to
the extent feasible, In a manner roughly
equivalent to their proportion in the
groUp.
. S • S •
(e) ‘
(1) lad, viduol applicaLions. (i) Except
as provided in paragraph (e)(l)(li) of this
section. for any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity
identified in paragraphs (b)(14) (1)
through (xi) of this section, that Is not
part of a group application as described
In paragraph (c)(2) of this section or
whijth is not authorized by a storm
water general perrnit. -apermlt
application made pwluant to paragraph
(C) of this section haIl be submitted to
the Director by October 1, 1992;
(ii) For any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity from
a facility that is owned or operated by a
mumcipulity with a population of less
than 100.000 other than an airport.
powerplant, or uncontrolled sanitary
landfill, permit applications
requirements are reserved.
(2) •
(I) Part 1. (A) Except as provided in
paragraph (e)(2)(l)(H] of this section, part
I of the application shall be submitted to
the Director, Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Comgllance by
September 30. 1991;
(B) Any municipality with a
population of lees than 250.000 shall not
be required to submit a part I
application before May 18. 1992.
(C) For any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity from
a facility that Is owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of lees
than 100,000 other than an airport.
powerplant. or uncontrolled sanitary
landfill, permit applications
requirements are reserved.
- (W 2 -(A ., -4e4lrovlded in
paragraph (e)(ZWth)(D) UsiI section,
part 2 of the.applicatl .s ll’be
submittted to t Dlm Qfflca of
Wutewatar ! u.-4- --’—1 th
CoInplIRn by Ociabmii ãe
(B) Any immidpallty 1thie
population of lees than 250.000 ehall not
be required to submit a part I
application befoie-MaylT ,4993.
(C) For any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity from
a facility that is owned or operated by a
municipality with à’population of less
than 100.000 other than snairport,
powerplant, or uncontrolled sanitary
landfill, permit applications
requirements are reserved.
(iv) Rejected facilities. (‘A) Except as
provided In paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of
this section. facilities that are rejected
as members of the group shall submit an
individual application (or obtain
coverage under an applicable general
permit) no later than 12 months after the
date of receipt of the notice of rejection
or October 1, 1992, whichever comes
first.
(B) Facilities that are owned or
operated by a municipality and that are
rejected as rn mheru of part I group
application shall submit an indiudual
application no i than 180 days after
the date of tecelp(bf the notice of
rejection orO b 1992. whichever
is later.
• 0 5’ -
2a. Section 122.28k amended by
redesignating current paragraph (b)(2)
as (b)(3) and by adding a new paragraph
(b)(2) to read as follows:
§ 122.20 General permits (apØ1c Ie to
state NPDES progrwns, em § 123.25).
• 0 • 0 0
(b)
(2) Authorization to discharge, or
authorization to engage in sludge use
and disposal practices. (I) Except as
provided In paragraphs (b)(2)(vJ and
(b)(2)(vij of this section, dlechargers (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 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)(2)(v) of this section,
contains a provision that a notice of
intent is not required or the Director
-------
Federal Register 1 VoL 57, No . 04 I Thursday, April 2. 1992 I Rules and R latioca
11413
notifies a discharger (of treatment works
treating domestic sewage) that it La
covered by a general permit. in
areordance with paragraph (b)(2)(vl) of
this section. A complete and timely.
notice of Intent (NOl), to be covered In
accordance with general permit
requirements, fulfills the requirements
for permit applications for purposes of
* 122.8. 122.21 and 122.28.
(ii) The contents of the notice of intent
shall be specified in the general permit
and shall require the submission of
Information necessary for adequate
program implementation, including at a
minimum, the legal name and address of
the owner or operator, the facility name
and address, type of facility or
discharges, and the receiving streani s).
General permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from inactive mining. inactive
oil and gas operations, or inactive
landfills occurring on Federal lands
where an operator cannot be identified
may contain alternative notice of intent
requirements. All notices of Intent shall
be signed in accordance with 122.22.
(iii) General permits shall specify the
deadlines for submitting notices of
intent to be covered and the date(s)
when a discharger is authorized to
discharge under the permit;
(lv) General permits shall specify
whether a discharger (or treatment
vworka treating domestic sewage) that
has submitted a complete and timely
notice of intent to be covered in
accordance with the general permit and
that Is eligible for coverage under the
permit, Is authorized to discharge. (or in
the case of a sludge disposal permit, to
engage in a sludge use or disposal
practice), In accordance with the permit
either upon receipt of the notice of intent
by the Director, after a waiting period
specified In the general permit, on a date
specified in the general permit, or upon
receipt of notification of Inclusion by the
Director. Coverage may be terminated
or revoked In accordance with
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(v) Discharges other than discharges
from publicly’owued treatment works.
combined sewer overflows, primary
Industrial facilities, and storm water
discharges assoda ted with Industrial
activity, may, at the discretion of the
Director, be authorized to discharge
under a general permit without
eubmitting a notice of in tent where the
Director finds that a notice of intent
requirement would be Inappropriate. In
making such a finding, the Director shall
consider the type of discharge: the
expected nature of the discharge: the
potential for toxic and conventhinal
pollutants In the dlschargee: the
expected volume of the discharges;
other means of identlfythgdiacharges
covered by the permit: andthe’
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 Ireating
domestic eewage 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.
* . . . .
122.23 (Amendedl
3. In redesignated paragraph
122.28(b)(3)(ii), the reference; “(b)(2)(i)”
is revised to read “(b)(3 )(i)”.
4. In paragraph 122.28(c)(3). the
reference; “122.28(b)(2)(i) (A) through
(F)” is revised to read “122.28fb)(3)(i) (A)
through (C)”
Subpart C—Permit Conditions
5. Section 122.44 Is amended by
revising paragraph (i](2) and adding
para apha (l)(3) through (i)(5) to read as
follows:
* 122.44 EstabUslting limitations.
standsrcts , and other permit conditions
(applicabl, to Stats NPOES programs, so.
p123.25).
• a a a •
(I)
(2) Except as provided In paragraphs
(i)(4) and (i)(5) of this section,
requirements to report monitoring
results shall be established on a case-
by-case basis wIth a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge, but In no case less than
once a year. For sewage sludge’ use or
disposal practices, requirements to
monitor and report results shall be
established on a case-by-case basis with
a frequency dependent on the nature
and effect of the sewage sludge use or
disposal practice: minimally this shall
be as epeclfledk- part 503
(where applicable), b no case less
thanonceayear. : ;‘ : ‘
(3) Requir. -m. .t. tO4siyOrt monitoring
results for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity which
are subject to an effluent limitation
guideline shall be established on a case-
by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge, but In no case less thun
once a year.
(4) Requirements to report monitoring
results for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity (other
than those addressed in paragraph (i)(3)
of this section) shall be established on a
case-by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge. A l a minimum, a permit
for such a discharge must require.
(I) The discharger to conduct an
annual inspection of the facility site to
identify areas contributing to a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity and e aluate whether
measures to reduce pollutant loadings
identified in a storm water pollution
prevention plan are adequate and
properly Implemented in accordance
with the terms of the permit or shethe
additional control measures are needed.
(ii) The discharger to maintain for a
period of three years a record
summarizing the-results of the
inspection and a rt1flcation that the
facility Is in compliance with the plan
and the permit, and identifying any
incidents of non-compliance:
(iii) Such report and certification be
signed in accordance with § 122.22, and
(iv) Permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from inactive mining operations
may, where annual inspections are
Impracticable, require certification once
every three years by a Registered
Professional Engineer that the facility is
in compliance with the permit, or
alternative requirements.
(5) Permits which do not require the
submittal of monitoring result reports at
least annually shall require that the
permittee report all instances of
noncompliance not reported under
* 122.41(1) (1). (4), (5). and (8) at least
annually.
(FR Doc, 92-7279 Filed 4-1-02. &45 ami
wse co o
-------
9724
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 55 I Friday . March 20. 1992 / Notices
is estimated to be not more than 19g.
The amount active ingredient requested
per State is less than 9.5 g. The test sites
will consist of the two field experiments
planted side-by-side and separated by a
20 ft. wide buffer zone, with the entire
study area surrounded by a 20 ft. wide
fallow zone. Corn seeds Inoculated with
Cxc/Bt using Crop Genetic’.
International standard inoculation
process wiLl be planted at the two study
areas. If Crop Genetics International
chooses to test less than four new
Constructions, then site dimensions will
be less than discussed above. The
fallowznefLwjde ij
separate individual tests and the general
study area from other crops grown
outside the test site at both locations,
the zone will be maintained using tillage
and/or chemical herbicides. In the event
that certain hybrids are determined
based on greenhouse tests not to
inoculate well using CC I ’ . standard
process, these varieties may be stab-
inoculated in the field using a
suspension of Cxc/Bt. CCI’ . 1992 field
tests are designed: to evaluate activity
of Cxc/Bt constructions against the
European corn borer (ECB), Ostrinia
nubilalis (Hubner) in M ryland and
Nebraska; and to evaluate the
segregation of Cxc/Bt consfruction&
Upon completion of the tests, all plant
debris and stubble will be buried by
dishing. Harvested grain will be
destroyed by either (1) Grinding the
harvested grain, spreading the residue
Onto the test site, and Incorporatuig the
residue into the soil, or (2) roasting the
grain and disposing of the residue either
at a landfill or by incorporating the
residue into the soil in the test site.
Based on previous data submitted (EUP
No. 58788 .-EIJP—z). no overwintering of
Cxc is anticipated.
The labeling proposed by CCI that
would govern the conduct of the -
experiment states
Applicator should wear protective
clothing and waterproof glove.. For use
only in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the experimental use
permit.
Following the review of the CCI
application and any comments received
in response to this notice, EPA will
decide whether to issue or deny the EUP
request for this EUP program, and If
issued, the conditions under which it Is
to be conducted. Any issuance of an
EUP will be announced In the Federal
Register. - -
Dated: March 5. 1992.
Stephani. R. Irene,
Acting D,recter. Reg,strin,on Division, Office
of Pesticide Progmm&
(FR Doe. 92-8544 Filed 3-19-92, $ 45 amj
mLLma CO nr
(FRL4I 16-61
Revision of the Connecticut National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program to Add
Authority to Issue General Permit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTTOIC Notice of approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Plimini Uo System General Permit
Program of the State of Connecticut .
su Maay On March 10, 1992, the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region I approved the State of
Connecticut. National Pollutant
Discharge liminafton System General
Permit Program. This action authorizes
the State of Connecticut to issue general
permits In lieu of individual NPDES
permits.
— FCU FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward I C McSweeney, Chief,
-. Wastewater Management Branch,
Water Management Division. U.S EPA.
Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, Boston. Massachusetts, 02203,
(617) 5 65. ..35 () ,
SUPPLEMEpiTARy INFORMAT1OpC
L 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, contain
the same types of wastes, require the
same effluent linutations or operating
conditions, require similar monitoring.
and are appropriately controlled under a
general permit rather than individual
permits,
Connecticut was authorized to
administer the NPDES Permit program in
1973. It. program is previously
approved, did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
are several categories of discharge.
which could appropriately be regulated
by general permit. in Connecticut.
including stormwater. Therefore, the
Connecticut Department of Environment
Protection requested a revision of its
NPDES program to provide for issuance
of general permits.
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.
U. Discussion
The State of Connecticut submitted, in
support of Its request a Program
Description and revised NPDES
Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA and the State, as well as copies of
relevant statutes and regulations. The
State also submitted a statement by the
Attorney General certifying. with
appropriate citations to the statutes and
regulations, that the State ha. adequate
legal authority to administer a general
permit program consistent with the
applicable federal regulatlons., ased
upon Connecticut’s submisslofl’.and its
experIence in administering an
approved NPDES program, EPA has
concluded that the State will have the
necessaiy approved procedures and
resources to administer the general
permits program.
Under 40 CFR 123.82, NPDES program
revisions are either substantially
(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
Connecticut of general permit authority
is a non-substantial revision 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
similar point sources.
Moreover, under the approved
program, the State retains authority to
Issue individual permits where
appropriate, and any person may
request the State to issue an individual
permit to a discharger otherwise eligible
for general permit coverage. While not
required under 40 GR 123.82. EPA is
publishing notice of this approval action
to keep the public informed of the status
of its general permit. program
approvals.
IlL 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 State NPDES permitting
authority throughout the country.
Today’. Federal Registe, notice is to
announce the approval of Connecticut’.
authority to Issue general permit..
-------
F da al Register I VoL 57, No. 55 I Friday, Mai h 20, 1992 / Not2ces
Number of Fully Authonzed (Fedet i
Facilities, Pretreatment. General pencil)
I L
W. Review Under Executive Order
i2 1 d the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant tO’sectlon 8(b) of that Order.’
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysi, for all rules which
may have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of small entitles.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Regulatory FlexibWty Act (5 U.S.C 601
et seq), I certify that this State General
Permit Program will not have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entitles. Approval of
the Connecticut NPDES State General
Permit Program establisbee no new
substantive requirements, nor does It
alter the regulatory control over any
Industrial category. Approval of the
Connecticut NPDES State General
Permit Program merely provides a
simplified administrative process.
Dated: March 13,1982.
Paul Keoegh,
Acting P egion&Admthistmtor.
(FR Doe. 92-8545 FIled 3- .19-02 845 am)
coer
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Information Collection Submitted t
0MB for Review
aav c ’r Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACItO* Notice of Information collection
submitted to 0MB for review and
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980.
SUMMAIY In accordance with
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. chaptor
35). the FDIC hereby gives notice that It
has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for
0MB review of the information
collection system described below.
7 pe of Review: Extension of the
expiration date of a currently
approved collection without any
change In the substance or method of
collection.
Title: Application for a bank to (1)
establish a branch, (2) move Its main
branch, or (3) establish a remote
service facility.
Form Numbeft None (letter appllcatlonj.
0MB Numberl 3064-0070.
Expimlion Date of 0MB Cleattince:
May 31. 1992.
Respondent& Insured state noflmembcl
banks applying for FDICs consent to
establish and operate new branches,
move main offices or branches, or
establish remote service facilities.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Number of Respondents.’ 1 325.
Number of Responses per Re pondenL
11
TothlAflnuoi Responses. 1.328.:
9725
V jV
V
•
- ,Vy I
-
V . i.f - V.
STATE
NPDES
PROGRAM
STAnis
..
V_,__•VVV VV V•V
V
9-,
-- .
f imss
—
,
—
,
A ca
- . V
-C- -
V
10/19/19
11/01/81
05/14/13
03/21/75
09/28/73
04J0I/74
06/28/74
11/28/14
10/23/77
01/01/75
08/10/75
00/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17/73
06/30174
05/01/74
10/30/74
06/10/74
06112/74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10/28/75
b/IS/iS
06/13/75
03111/74
09/26/73
06/30/75
09/17/84
06/10/75
12/2 5/7 ?
07 107/57
03/11/74
06/30/76
03131/73
11/14/73
05/10/82
02/04/74
01/30175
10 9/79
11/01/a
05/05118
01/09/89

12/08/80
06/01/19
09/20/79
12/09/78
08/10178
08/28/85
09/30/83
11/10/87
12/09/78
12/09/78
01/28/53
06/26/19
06/23/81
11/02/79
08/31/78
04/13/02
06/13/00
09/28/84
01/23/90
01/28/03
03/02/79
00/30/78
09/17/54
09/26/80
09130/0 1
07107/87
—
—
02/09/52
—
05/10/52
11,28/79
05/18/81
10119/79
11/01/08
09/22/89
06/03/SI
—
03/12/SI
08/I V83
—
08/03/ 81
—
09/30/83
09/30/85
06/07/53
01/15/79
05/13/82
06/03/81
—
09/07/84
—
04/13/82
—
06/14/82
—
07/27/83
03/12/51
—
09/11/84
04/09/62
08/10183
07/07/87
03/16/82
—
04/14/89
09/301 56
06/10/83
12/24/80
01/26/91
11/01/88
09/22/89
03/04/83
03/10/92
—
01/28/91
09/30/91
01/04/84
04/02/91
—
—
09/30/83
09/30/91
—
12/15/87
09/27/91
12/12/85
04/29/83
07/20/89
—
04/13/82
—
09/06/91
01/22/90
—
02/23/82
06/02/91
09/17184
—
04118/9l
07/07/87
—
—
05/20/91
09/26/89
05/10/82
12/19/86
09/24/91
u as-
V
V
Cabfcnua
V
V

CQ oado
V
....._
.
COnTISC SC4
V
Os iiwvs
..
GeoiOa
..
V
._
I4a
V
I I 1OS$
•
V
V
mOans
V
.
lows
VV
V
Kmtsss
V
V
Kenndty__________________________________________________________
-
.
M ict an
V
Umnssata
1 1I ’NJ
%lsici,l
.
Momens
V
.
Ns Wg
•
..
.
-
Niw JsI sy
Mow YO
NOrth
VV
C oIn a____________________________________________________
P4njth Q tw
Ø
Psiv wyMo nsa
Rh,cds
.
Soum ComWi.
T.wisss ss
V
IJ lgI
‘
.
Vu 11k4*
V 1
W
Waat 1. ,4I.4
-
WomVllOIls
•
W...... ....
•
V
Wycaun
Tot
.
‘
g
-------