NPDES Program
Regulations and Preambles
1992-1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
1992

-------
a--.
JtJ •J
Federai Reg ter / Vol 7. i Jo 246 / T iesday. Deccmher 22. 1992 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
FR-454&—7; LAG2S0000 and TXG2S00003
?ropoe.d NPDES Genersi Permit. for
Produced Water and Produced Sand
Discharges From the Oil end Gas
Extraction Point Source Category To
Coastal Waters W i Louisiana and Texas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of draft NPDES general
permit.
SUMMARY: EPA Region elsproposing to
issue general NPDES permits
prohibiting discharges of produced
water and produced sand derived from
Oil and Gas Point Source Category
Facilities to coastal waters of Loi .i i*n*
and Texas. Facilities covered by these
permits include those in the Coastal
Subcategory (40 R Part. 435. subpart
D). the Stripper Subcategory (40 0R
part 435. subpart F) that discharge to
coastal waters of Louisiana and Texas.
and the Offshore Subcategoxy (40 CPR
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 6 may also
issue an administrative order requiring
iat permittees discharging produced
,ater from e dsting Coastal. Stripper or
)ffshore Subcategory wells to other
than ‘upland area” waters in Loni 4
and to other than “inland and fresh”
waters in Texas comply with the
permits’ produced water discharge
prohibitior.s within three years after
final publication of the permits.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
permits must be submitted by February
5. 1993.
ADDRESSES: Comments on these
proposed permits should be sent to the
Regional Ai4minietrator, EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT
Ms. Ellen Caidwell, EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue. Dallas. Texas, 75202.
Telephone (214) 655—7190.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATlOIc
Supplementary information (fact sheet)
provided in this notice Is organized as
lollows:
L Legal Bails.
II Regulatory Back&ound.
Ill. Facility Coverage.
IV. Types of Discharges Covered.
V. Compliance Delays.
VI. Specific Permit Conditions.
A. Beat Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) Conditions
Produced Water
. Improved performanc. of BPT
technology
b. Granular filtration
c. Membrane filtration
d. Biological trea nt
e. Rain jection
£ Evaluation of options using BCT oust test
g. S .unm ?y of BC for produced water
2. Produced Sand
a. BCF Cost Analysis for No Discharge
b. of BCT for Produced Sand
B. Best Available Technology
Emnomically Achievable (BAT)
Conditions
1. Produced Water
a. Sources of Data and Information
b. CharacteristIcs of Produced Water as
Related to BAT
c. Derivation of BAT (BPJ) P mIt
Requirements
(1) Carbon adsorption
(2) BIological traa ast
(3) precipitation
(4) Granular filtration
(5) Membrane filtration
(6) Improved performa çe of BP’l
technology
(7) Rainjection
d. BAT Cost Analysi, for No Discharge
a. BAT Option Selection
2. Produced Sand
a. Derivation of BAT (BPJJ Permit
Requirements
b. Selection of “No Ducharge” BAT
Limitation
c. Cost Evaluation of BAT
C. State Rules and Regulations, and State
Water Quality Standards
1. Produced water
a. Characteristics of Produced Water as
Related to Water Quality Standards and
Regulations.
(1) Volume
(2)Chemcter i s t ics
(3) Pate and environmental Impact of
produced water
(4) Biological toxicity
b. Louisiana Stats Regulations for
Produced Water Discharges
(1) DIscharges to upland waters
(2) Discharges to intermediate, brackish or
saline waters
c. Texas Rules for Produced Water
Discharges
d. Louisiana Water Quality Standards
(1) Narrative standards
(2) NumerIcal itarta
(3) MIxing zones
(4) Modeling of produced water discharges
e. Texas Water Quality Standards
(1) Narrative standards
(2) NumerIcal alterla
(3) LCSO acute toxicity effluent standard
(4) MIxing zones
(5) Modeling of produced water discharges
L Texas Hazardous Metals Regulation
g. S.”a’y of Produced Water
Requirements based on State Regulations
end Water Quality Standards
(1) LouisIana
(2) Texas
2. Produced Sand
a. State Regulations for Produced Sand
b. Louisiana Water Quality Standards
C. Texas Water Quality Standards
d. S.m .1v ..vy of Produced Sand
Requirements based on State Water
Quality Standards
0. Summrny of Produced Water ani
Produced Sand Requirements
1. Legal Basis
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 t4isr ’ha ges 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 discharges:
(1) Meet standaras reflecting levôls 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 fecal
coliform, CWA section 301(b)(1)(E)
requires effluent limitations based on
“best conventional pollution control
technology” (BCT). With regard to
nonconventlonal 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
subcategoiy. 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
BPT. acr. and BAT standards to which
specific industrial categories and
subcategories are subject. Until such
guidelines are published. however.
CWA section 402(a)U) requires that EPA
determine appropriate BCI’ and BAT
effluent limitations in Its NPDES
permitting actions on the basis of its
best professional judgment (BPJ). BPT
standards for the Oil and Gas E,thaction
Point Source Category are codified at 40
R part 435. with BPT standards
which were applicable to the Coastal
Subcategory at subpart D. Because EPA
has not promulgated BAT or BC!’

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 1 Notices
60927
guidelines for the 011 and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category or any
of its Subcategories, the BAT and BCI ’
effluent limitations Region 8 proposes
here are based on BPJ, after
consideration of factors listed at 40 ‘R
125.3(d) (2) and (3). As explained
hereinafter, those limitations will
prohibit any discharge of produced
water or produced sand to “coastal”
waters in Louisiana and Texas.
Although the Agency typically issues
NPDES perinitsto the operators of
individual facilities, It may also issue
“general permits” applicable to a class
olslmilar diachargere within a discreet
geographical area. See generally NRX
v. Costie, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cfr. 1977);
40 CFR 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
Mministrative 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
wnhout regard to whether it is issuing
an individual or general NPDES permit.
IL Regulatory Background
Because operations within the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Sowce Category
vary widely, EPA has subcategorized it
for the purpose of developing
technology.based effluent guidelines.
Those subcategories now codified at 40
CFR part 435, are the ‘Offshore,”
“On hore.” ‘Coastal.” “Stripper,” and
“Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use”
subcategories.
As codified at 40 G’R part 435, EPA
guidelines based on the application of
best practicable technology (BP’fl
prohibit the discharge of produced
water and produced sand from the
Onshore Subcategory, but allow such
discharges subject to various limitations
from facilities In all other subcategories.
BPT guidelines for the Coastal
Subcategozy, for Instance, allow the
di4arge of produced water subject to
an oil and greas, limitation of 72
milligrams per liter (mg/i) daily
ma dmurn and 48 mg/i monthly average,
representing the performance of oil.
water separation technology In 1979.
See 40 R 435.42.
On December 27, 1983, Region 6
proposed a general permit for “Inland
Waters,” covering in part the same
geographical axes as the permits
proposed today. 48 FR 57001. That
proposed permit. which was based on
the Agency’s BFT guidelines, was never
issued in final form. Nor could Region
6 now issue that permit as proposed.
Since March 31, 1989, CWA section 301
has required EPA to apply Industrial
effluent limitations based on the more
stringent BAT and BC ]’ standards.
rendering the Agency’s 8FF guidelines
obsolete,
EPA has been developing BAT
guidelines for the Oil and Gaa
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
Subcategozy 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
4691 9. In developing today’s proposal,
Region 8 has considered Information on
which that notice was based , together
with information the Agency received in
response to Its publication.
On Itine 7, 1990, Region 6 proposed
general permits for discharge. 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 includedno
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 reserves the
option of Issuing unified general
permits covering all discharges from
Coastal Subcategory drilling and
production activities in a single final
publication.
In. Coverage
The part 435 guideline definition of
“coastal” was promulgated in a final
rule on April 13. 1979. See 40 ‘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 “R 125.1(n), or
(2) any wetlands adjacent to such
waters.” There are three ambiguities
associated with this definition. First, It
falls to indicate whether a Coastal
Subcatagory facility Is one which
discharges to a “coastal” water or one
which is constructed In a “coastal”
water, Second, “40 C2 ’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 6, these ambiguities were
resolved on February 25. 1991, when
the Region issued four final NPDES
permits prohibiting discharges from
Onshore Subcategory facilities In
Lotii 4*ns, Texas, New Mexico, and
Oklahoma. 56 FR 7698. After e71%minhl
the regulatory hii.fnry that indicates that
the basis for subcategorizatlon lay in
technological differences 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. 56 FR 7698—7699. Noting
that former 40 ‘R 125.1(gg) had been
a verbatim recitation of CWA section
502(3), Region 6 relied on that statutory
definition of “territorial seas.” 56 FR
7899. In a somewhat similar vein,
Region 8 found the part 435 reference
“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” shoreward
of the territorial seas were “coastal.” 56
FR 7699,
Region 6 contInues to interpret the
part 435 “coastal” definition in that
fashion. As proposed, the permits thus
apply to all Louisiana and Texas
facthties with wellheads located in
“waters of the United Slates,” as
defined at 40 (YR 122.2. Facilities
which would be considered “Onshore’
but for the decision in API v. EPA, 681
F.Zd 340(5th Cir. 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 Offshore and Coastal
Subcategory produced water, then
discharge it to Louisiana coastal waters.
If the permits are promulgated as
proposed. they will prohibit such
facilities from discharging Coastal
Subcategory produce& water at any
location and prohibit the discharge of -
Offshore Subcategory produced water to
“coastal” waters, I.e., any water of the
United Slates shoreward of the
territorial seas. They will not, however,
prohibit the discharge of Offshore
Subcategory produced water to offshore
waters, even if it ha. 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,

-------
I S
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 I Tuesday. December 22. 1992 / Notices
The Stripper Subostegory applies to
those onshore fadlities produbng no
more that ten barrels of oil perdey
while operating at the vn v eum
feasible rate of production end In
accordance with zecoplzad
conservation practiom. See 40 R
435.60. EPA has devvltcped no BPT
effluent limitation guidelines for the
Stripper Subcategory. resennlng that
such low production rates provide
insufficient capital for etruflttthg
pollution wuL uI but has
also mi stod that further stody of Jolut
disposal options u lit result In BFT
guidelines prohibiting the discharge of
produced wa from Stripper
Subcatt uiy facilities. Se , 42 FR 44942.
44948 ( () tob r 13,1978). Given the lem
DtrJl ent cost analysis thvolve In DAT
determinations, It seems . 1le BAT
effluent limitations for stripy would
prohibit the discharge of produced
water. Indeed, according to verbal
communications from the Okiahome
Corporation Commi’ ion. ft appears the
State of Ofrl*h. ma has already
e1imin ed all stripper well discharge.
to surface water over whIch it has
jurisdiction. RegIon 6 hex not to date,.
however, done an independent cost
analysis for ma n a BAT -
determination for the Stripper
Subcategory. _____
Noverthelees, Stripper Subcat . 7
facilities which discharge Into coastsl”
waters of Louisi n* and Texas will also
be subject to the general permit.’ 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
compliance with state water quality
standards and other requirements
Louisiana and Texas have adopted
pursuant to aulhnrity they retain under
CWA section 510. Those standards and
requirements are discussed in a later
section of this notice.
Under CWA. an NPDES permittee’s
‘discharges” Include discharges
performed on Its behaltby another
party, including a contractor. EPA
Region 6 recently learned that some
operators subject to the discharge
prohibitions of one of Its Onshore
Subcategory general permits
nevertheless believed they were not
liable for discharges by parties with
whom they contracted for produced
water disposal. To avoid such confusion
in the future, the permits EPA
Region 8 today proposes prohibit
permiftees from “imusing or
contributiur to discharges prohibited
by the permits. Causing or wi LrthiaW
to such a discharge Includes 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
parmittees wider the proposed permits,
a provision which will render operators
and their disposal contractors jointly
and severally liable for permit
vtolathu 1 1 . These provisions, which em
to a e compliance with the
discharge prohibitions of th. permits,
are suth rii d by CWA section
402(a ) (Z). _____
in sum y. the permits will, if
Issued as proposed, prohibit discharges
of produced water and produced sand
derived from fadlitie, In the Coastal,
Offa1 i . , and S1rippui Sub tv u lii to
all of the Umted Stats,
of the er boundary of the
Territorial Seas in Louisiana and Texas.
In addition, the permits will prohibit
the discharge of produced water and
produced sand &lved from facilities In
the Coastal Subcatsgory to any other
water of the Uthted States. It is the
responsibility of the permittee to
determine if his discharge Is covered by
this p iuJL Cu uL National Oceanic
and Atmospheric AdmIni”tz tiuu
(NOAA) nautical charts can be of
asatsta In locating the outer
boundary of the general permit ares.
These charts cover the entire coasts of
Texas and Louisiana at a 180,000 scale,
although onmin ports end bays have
more detailed wvv . They em
available from NOAA charts agents
such as marinas end marine supply
stores.
Similar discharges from Onshore
Subcategory facilities are already
prohibited by Onshore Subcategory
General NPD Permits LAG3Z0000 and
TXC3Z0000, published at 56 FR 7698
(February 25.1991). Issuance of the
permit. proposed today will thus lead to
HmInv hon of virtually all produced
water and produced sand discharges In
Louisiana and Texas, with the exception
of Agricultural and Wildlife Waxer Use
Subcategory facilities West of the 98th
paralleL
IV. Typ ofDischargesC..ui.J
Only two waste 5Lz’ GU1S are
specifically covered inid r the general
pur uts proposed hem. They are
1) Prudirmd wainr , which is water
arid particulate matter associated with
oil and gas formations.
Produced sometimes called
“formation wat . ” or “bun, water,”
includes small of source w
and treatment chemicals that uuu to
the surfacer with the produced formation
fluids and pass through the produced
water treath g systems currently used by
many oil and gas operators.
(2) Produced sand, which is sand and
other particulate matter from the
producing formation and production
piping (including corrosion products),
u well as source sand end hydrofrec
sand. Produced sand comes to the
surface mixed with crude ofl and
produced water, from which It is
generally separated by a produced water’
desander and treatment system.
Produced sand also Includes sludge
generated by any chemical polymer
used In a produced water treetruant
sy ste
Other waste streams associated with
Coastal Subcategory oil and gas
activities Include drilling fluid. (muds).
well treatment fluids, blowout preventer
fluids, wail completion fluids.
formation test fluids, woshover fids,
treated waste water from dewetered
drilling fluids and cutting, drill cuttings,
cement, deck drainage. dealiy .4,etloa
discharges, domestic unitary
wastes, uncontaminated ballast/bilge
water, uncontaminated seawater, and
uncontaminated freshwater. As noted
above, Region 0 proposed general
NPDES permits regulating those waste
streams at 55 FR 23348 (June 7, 1990).
V. C”p”-” . Dalaje
The rein jectien technology on which
the permits’ produced water discharge
prohibitlone are based Is fully available
and has been successfully used by oil
end gee operators For many years.
Information from the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
(LD J shows that, as of September
1991. there were 1500 oil and gas weflA
in “ .rpland areas” that either had ceased
or were to cease discharge of (reinject)
produced water no later than July 1992.
and that out of a total of 484 wells in
non.”uplazrd areas” (and excluding
t uIt rIal sees), 130 were reinjecting
produced water and 32 more were on a
schedule to reinject. information from
the Texas Railroad Commission (TRC)
shows that, as of October 1989, out of
a total o17813 active oil an gas wells In
Texas, 8464 were Inland of the
Chapman Line end 1149 were seaward
of the Chapman Line. The Chapman
Line is a rough boundary separating
“Inland and fresh” waters (to which
produced water cannot be discharged
according to state regulations) from
saline waters. ‘Ibis means that of 7813
wells, about 6400 were rein jecting
produced water in October 1989.
As a practical matter, same
wbowillbesubjecttoth ls permit end
we not already prohibited by state
regulations from discharging produced
water, will notbe able to employ that
technology during the 30 day period
between the final publication of the

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Notices
60929
permits and their effective date. They
will have to construct injection wells to
eliminate their produced water
discharges and will moreover be
requited to obtain Class II Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Permits from the
appropriate State regulatory agencies.
e.g.. the LDEQ and TRC, each of which
is authorized to adminkter 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 U UIC permit
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 &illing
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 effictive.
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
discnarges 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 Mysidopsis bahia as test
organisms. 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 aeated.
When the permit became effective, there
was simply not a great enough supply
of inysids to meet this new demand and
Region 8 was thus compelled to stay the
Offshore general permit’s limitation on
dnlling fluid toxicity until suppliers
were able to react. 51 FR 33130
(Sejitember 18, 1986).
Providing a phase in period is,
however, somewhat problematic.
Pursuant to CWA section 301 and 40
Q R 122.47(a)(1), NPDES permits may
not indude provisions allowing
dischargers to achieve compliance with
BAT limitations pad March 311989.
Accordingly, the Region plans to issue
a general airh,thiiatrstive order under
authority of CWA 309(a)(3) when It
publishes the final permits. Although
the order will not authorize dlr)ta ges
of produced water, EPA will not
generally initiate an enforcement action
- against an operator to whom the order
applies as long as that operator complies
with the orders terms.
As now envisioned, a draft of the
general administrative order is
published as Appendix A to this notice.
Because this isa somewhat unusual
situation, Region 61. teklng the
somewhat unusual measure of soliciting
comment on the prospectiv, terms of an
administrative compliance order. It
should be noted, however, that this will
not render the general order juir44d.tlIy
reviewable in the seine 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.. City of
Baton Rouge v. U.S. EPA. 620 F 2d 478
(5th Cit. 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 wells
to other Waters of the United States. The
LDEQ has adopted I.ACi33, I X, 7.708,
regulating discharges of produced water.
That State rule, which Is more fully
descibed 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 Gulf
of Mexico, cease by July 1. 1992.
Regulations of the TRC (Statewide Rule
8(e )) likewise prohibit 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, I.e., wells
spudded after the effective date of the
permits. If such wells are currently
envisioned, they are still in the plRnning
stage, so obtaining access to rein jection
facilities should at most merely delay
the time atwhich theycan bedr illed
and operated.
EPA Region 6 also solicits comment
on the final compliance date of the draft
order. In adopting l.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 meet specified State
effluent limitations. That schedule,
which appears to be only indirectly
based on water quality considerations,
will requite all Louisiana operators tc
comply with the rule no later than
January 1, 1997, v .yt for operators
discharging to certain open bays along
the Gulf rn s t . 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 Atr hafiiIaya 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 8 has no desire to work at
aces purposes to either LDEQ or TRC.
It must, however, exercise independent
judgment in including 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). The
proposed Louisiana permit thus
mandates compliance with the
requirements of LAC. 33, IX, 7.708 via
narrative limitation and tne draft
administrative order does not affect that
permit provision.
EPA usually includes interim limits
in the administrative compliance orders
it issues and Region 6 is considering
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 ( R 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 6 believes,
however, that a number of operators
now discharging produced water to
coastal waters of L ouisiana and Texas
may not have Installed separation
equipment capable of comDlying with a
BPT !!m!t. To comply with an interim
BPT 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
lnaeased cost of purchasing and
installing that equipment appears
unreasonabLe to EPA Region 6 in view
of the short ’terrn and relatively modest

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. Nc. 246 i Tuescay. December 22. 1992 I Notices
water quality improvements in which
its applice on would result.
This does not. of course, moan that
operators subject to the permits and
administrative order can simply fati to
control their discharges mtil they
comply with final permit limits. The
draft administrative order contain. a
provision requiring operation and
maintenance of existing pollution
control equipment, including oil/water
separators, at all times. Requiring some
form of disararge wwi.ltoring and/or
repozirog in the arhnii isfrative order
would render those operation and
maintenance piuvieaOflS more
enforceable, but the draft order contains
no such monitoring and reporting
requuement Region & will carefully
consider all su estions for such
monitoring end reporting requirements
in view of its competing desire to avoid
unnecessary paperwork.
Dated: December 9, 1992.
W. B. Muthawa ,
Acting Regionsi AdmLni r. Region £
VI. Specific Permit Conditions
Appropriate permit conditions are
based on
(A) Best Conventional Pollut t
Control Technology (BC ) to control
conventional poliutn tu,
(B) Best Available Treatment to
control toxic and nrmconventional
polln’ n’Q .
(C) Louisiana Produced Water
Regulations
CD) Louisiana Water Quality
Standards
(El Texas State regulations, and
(F) Texas Water Quality Standards.
Discussions of the rationale for
specific affluent limitations far
produced water and produced sands
appear below For convenience, these
requirements and their regulatory basis
are cross referenced by the type of
discharge in Table 1.
A Best Conventional Pollutant Confrol
Technology (BCT) Condilions
Since no Coastal Subcotegoiy effluent
guidelines beyond BPT exist, the Region
is establishing BC!’ effluent limitations
on a best professional judgment hasis
(BPJ). The SF) evaluations Include a
review of produced water treatment
optiotis iiev,lnped by the Agency for the
proposed Offshore Subcategury
guidelines (50 FR 34591.. August 26,
1985 55 FR 49094, Nov ber 26, 1990:
and 56 FR 10664. March 13. 1991). since
those treatment options will be
applicable to stal produced waters.
tts expLii d hi the following pager,
‘3C ! ’ requirements for produced water
i.;e the same as existing BPT limitations
(48 mg/i daily average. 72 mg/I daily
maximum oil and grease), because a
more stringent treatment option did not
pass the BC!’ coat test. The Raglan 1.
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 for produced water
are the same es existing B? ! ’ limitations
(48 mg/i daily average, 72 mg/I daily
maximum oil and grease) because a
more stringent treatment option did not
pa.. the BC!’ cost test.
As discussed below, the technology
evaluated for possible produced water
BC!’ contrela more stringent than B ?!’
include improved performance of BPT
technology, filtration, biological
tzea ” and rein jection. Due to the
similarities between Coastal and
Offahoes produced water characteristice
and control technologies, the same BC!’
produced water control technologies are
evaluated for Coastal that were
evaluated in the proposed Offshore
Subcategoiy guidelines (50 FR 34591; 55
FR 49094. November 26, 1990: and
August 26. 1985; 56 FR 10664. March
13. 1991). The SF? limitations. 49 mgI
I daily average and 72 mg/I daily
maxtmum, on oil and grease have been
promulgated at 44 FR 22069 (April 13,
1979) and codified at 40 R pelt 435,
Subpart D.
a. Improved performance of HP?
technology. This technology consists of
improved operation and of
existing gas flotation equipmenL more
operator attention to treatment system
operation, and pos&ibly rusixing of
certain treatment system components
far better treatment efficiency. The 1985
O hore guidelines action, which
included results horn a 30 platform
study, found that improved BF!
performance 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 grease limitations achieved
through im rvv d SF!’ performance
would be 38 mg/i as a daily macmum
and 27 mg/i as a monthly average.
Because of a lack of adequate
documentation on samples used in the
ongmn.il 30 platform study upon which
the iuqiwvod SF!’ performance test was
conducted, this treatment was not listed
as C pr 5 f ued A w .y option in the 1991
proposed Offshore Guidelines. EPA,
however, received additional data on
performance of gas flotation
technology in response to the 1991
proposal, and as part of a petition
requesting that the method for
deternilning compliance with the oil
and grease Iirnltshe one that measures
only ‘insoluble” oil & grease. The data
now being used hi arriving at the final
decision on produced water limits in
the Offshore Guidelines is EPA’s 30
Platform Study, the OOC’a 42 Platform
Study (1990), the OOC’. 83 Platform
Composite Study (1991) and EPA ’. “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 Guidelines, and as will be
discussed later in this Fact Sheet, is
expected to have this treatment s the
preferred SAT option for the final
Offshore Guidelines. The improved
performance gee flotation, however,
does not pass the BC!’ cost test far 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. C oirularfiltmtion. Granular
filtratha, 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 for
offshore and coastal produced water. It
found, however, that granular filtration
systems are not useful in the removal of
soluble materials and priority
pollutants. Both 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 mg/I daily average and 29 mg/I
daily maximum.
The Region has not adopted granular
filtration as an 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 BY ! ’. the
991 proposed Offshore guidelines
showed that this technology does not
pass the 5Cr cost test (i.e.. the POTW
comparison test).
c. Membrane filtration. In considering
add-on technology to B ?!’, the Agency
also considered membrane filtration In
the 1991 proposed Offshore guidelines.
In this proposed rule, It was found
membrane filtration technology
reflected adequate treatment beyond

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Notices
80931
BPT for the offshore and was more
effident In the removal of organic
compounds than either 8FF or granular
filtration technologies. Th. proposed
guidelines found that membrane
filtration as a 8FF add-on was capable
of achieving oil and grease discharge
limits of 7 mg/i monthly average and 13
mg/I daily ma,dmum.
Membrane filtration, at this time, does
not appear practicable as an add-on
option to BPT 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 be
readily available at facilities In the
Coastal Subcategory. In addition, the
1991 propcsed Offshore guidelines
found that this technology did not pass
the BCT cost test.
d. Biologicoi treatment. In the 1985
Offshore Guidelines proposal, the
Agency considered biological treatment
for produced water as add.on
technology to BPT as a means to reduce
the content of oil and grease in
produced water. Investigations showed
that there are severe problems with
acclimating and maintis’n 4 ng biological
cultures in produced waters in effluents
with high dissolved solids
concentrations (bnnes). Consequently,
in the 1991 proposed Offshore
guidelines, EPA rejected this technology
from further consideration as an add-on
BPT option for BC!’.
e. Rein jection. In the 1991 proposed
Offshore guidelines. EPA also evaluated
rein jection. 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
of rein jection technology results in no
discharge.
Rein ectlon has not been adopted as a
BCT.level of control for conventional
pollutants by the Region because this
technology does not pass the BC!’ cost
test (see Section VLA.1.f, below).
f. Evaluation of options using BC!
cost test. The BC!’ treatment
technologies considered In the 1991
proposed Offshore guidelines (or
recoondered as a result of comments)
and outlined above involve either
improved gas flotation (improved
performance BFT), filtration as add-on
to B? ’!’ (granular or membrane) or
rein jeccion. In the 1991 proposed
Offshore guidelines (and in
reconsideration as a result of
comments), all of these treatment
technology options were evaluated
according to the BCT cost tests. The
parameters used In those analyses were
TSS, and oil and grease. AU of the BC!’
options failed BC!’ cost tests apt for
BC!’ equal to BPT. On th. basis of the
test results, the Agency set BC ! ’ BFF for
produced waters in the offshore in both
the dted 1985 and 1991 actions andis
expected to maintain this position in the
final decision on the O hore
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 rein jection because a
recent RegIon 8 survey of production
statistics and disposal cost data for the
Coastal Subcatagory shows that the cost
is significantly higher than the $3.47 to
$3.71 par pound of conventional
pollutant removed developed from the
data set used in the 1991 proposed
Offshore guidelines.
The Regions BC’!’ cost test for oil and
grease removal was based on the cunent
B?’!’ 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 7,632mg oil and grease perbarreL 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., costs 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 CM. ICavanaugh for
Avanti to EPA, 1/17/92) was found to
range from $0.15 (for a large land-based
injection facility with 100% capacity
utilization) to $1.02 (for a small bay.
based facility with 50% capacity
utilization) per barrel (1991 dollars).
Util!7ing the lowest costs from the
reevaluated Walk and Haydel data, the
cost for reinjection of produced water is
$0.15 per barrel, or $8.98 per pound of’
oil and grease removed. This cost
significantly exceeds the BC!’ base-line
cost of 30.48 per pound of pollutant
removed and, therefore, reinjedlon fails
the BC !’ cost test. The failure 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. Sununary of BCT for produced
watez’? The treatment options evaluated
for BC’!’ are: Improved performance of
BPT technology, add-on granular
filtration to BPT. add-on membrane
filtration, add-on biological treatment
and rein jection. These options are the
same as those considered 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
offshore guidelines, all of the
technologically promiting treatment
options beyond SF!’ were rejected
because they did not pass the DC I’ cost
test. Therefore, the BC!’ level of control
for produced water remains the same as
8FF. 48 mg/I daily average and 72 mg/
1 daily maximum for oil and grease.
2. Produced Sand
Produced sand, after 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
concem under BC!’ Is oil and grease. No
BPT. 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 BC!’ cost test. The
available options for BC’!’ are either the
no discharge or the “no free oil” levels
of contiol. 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.
a. BCT COSt analysis for no Discharge.
This BC’!’ cost analysis for produced
sands is based on the following
assumptions: Disposal costs will be
similar to those for muds and cuttings:
specific gravity of produced sand will
range from 2.8 g/ml to a high of 2.8 g/
ml, porosity of “settled” produced sand
will range from 30% to 50% (the
nnlifrn iy higher value Is used to test low
sand to water volume ratio); nil sands
are measured as TSS as per 40 G’R part
138 (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 2.3 g/ml
yields produced sand weights of 455
to 684 pounds per barrel.
A per barrel coat for land disposal of
a barrel of dnll 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 $10 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
FeueT Register I VcI. 57. No. 246 / Thesdey. December 22. 1992 / Noticc
porosity 50%). the cost of land disposal
of produced sand is 30.11 per pound of
TSS removed. This cost Is well below
the BCT/POTW benchmark cost of $0.40
per pound of conventional pollutant
removed. Alternatively, the
Development Document for the
proposed 1991 Offshore subcategory
guidelines (EPA 440/1—91—055, March
1991. page VI—28) estimates rend
disposal of muds and cuttings casts to
be $33 to $111 per barrel. A “worst
case” analysis, using the higher disposal
cost (Sill/barrel) and the lowest
amount of TSS removed (445 lbs
derived from the highest porosity/barrel
of sand) results in a $0.24/pound
•conventional pollutant removal cost,
also wall below the POTW benr hms.ik
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 axe a large
part of the disposal costs for muds and
cuttings, are expected to be minimal for
produced sand. This is due to the small
volumes of sand produced per well and
thefactthat,forthemostpaxt.theyaze-
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 part of a BCF cost test. This
test assesses the ratio of current-to-EFI’
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 specifically deal with this waste
stream. Onshore disposal of some of this
waste is a current industry practice. The
Offshore Operatore Committee (OOC)
estimates that 32% of the produced
sands in the offshore (a 1991 May
survey indicates 13,225 barrels of a total
4 1.627 barrels) were disposed of
onshore. Therefore. It is assumed that
the disposal costs under BF are
approximately the same as has been
calculated for BCr. above, and the
Industry Cost Ratio (ICR) will
approximate unity. Thus, this portion of
the BCF cost test also is passed by the
zero discharge limitation for coastal
facilities.
b. Summary of BCT for produced
sand. The zero discharge limitation on
the discharge of produced sand Is
proposed for these permits because
onshore disposal costs fall significantly
below the BC benrlimiark removal cost
for conventional pollutants.
B Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (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 data 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 (MMS)
environmental Impact and technical
reports, American Petroleum Institute
(API) studies, data provided by the
Offahore Operators Committee (OOC),
proceedings from industry conference.
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
characterixedas including oil and
grease, dispersed and dissolved
hydrocarbons. heavy metals, treating
chemicals and radionucleides. Boesch
and Rahalis (1989) have estimated
produced water discharged into Coastal
Suhcategory 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
Weters 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 fiow.weighted oil and grease
effluent concentrations averaging 89.8
mgfl. Priority organics present in
significant amounts were benzene, bis
(2-ethyihexyl) pnthalate. ethylbenzene.
napthalene, phenol. toluene and 2.4-
dimethylphenol. The proposed Offshore
guidelines reported that produced water
- also contains priority metals.
particularly cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel, silver and nnc. as well as
variable amounts of biocides. corrosion
and scale inhibitors, emulsion breakers,
treating chemicals (reverse emulsion
breakers. coagulants. flocculants),
antifoams and paza n/asphaltine
treating chemicals. In a study of OCS
produced water routed 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
Subcategozy.
A recent review (Avanti for EPA,
AprIl 18, 1992) of DMRs 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 conthm lnants in produce& Water
within the Coastal Subcategory will be
similar 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 BF for the removal of
toxica 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 BCI’
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 BFT 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 exeit
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 BA1
option of biological treatment as add-on
technology to BPT: however It found
severe problems with a&rlimiiting and
maintaining biological cultures to treat

-------
Federal Register! Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Notices
60933
rnne Additionally, this
technology baa not been tested with
waters having total dissolVed solids
concentration levels encountered Lu
produced water. The Agency rejected
this option for the Offshore Subcategory.
and the Region Is also rej cting this
option for this Coastal permit for the
same reasons.
(3) chemical precipitation. The 1985
and 1991 Offshore guidelines actions
considered the BAT option of chemical
precipitation as a possible add-on BPT
technology for produced water. This
technology can be useful In removing
soluble metallic Ions from solution by
converting them to an Insoluble form.
Hydroxide predpitatiou and sulfide
precipitation were found to remove
virtually no zinc, the priority pollutant
found in most samples, from Bfl.
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 shidge
generated by the process. The Agency
rejected this option for Offshore
guidelines, and the Region is also
rejecting It for the Coastal permit.
(4) Gmn idar 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 moat priority pollutants
or metals contained in produced
hydrocarbons and entrained In
produced water are in 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
being BAT for produced water.
(5) Membxaneflhti’ution. In the 1991.
proposed Offshore guidelines, the
Agency considered the BAT option of
membrane filtration as an add-on to
BAT fór produced water familties
located 4 miles or less from shore.
Membrane filtration technology Is
relatively new as applied to the oil
industry; although. it has been applied
to a number of other Industries for some
time. For example. m mhrme filters are
used to separate oil. bacteria, solids and
emulsified material from water in dairy.
pharmaceutical and beverage industries.
Although membrane filter technology
can reduce oil and grease to
concentrations of 13 mg/I daily
maximum and 7 maIl monthly average,
the filter units require periodic chemical
cleaning and blow down. There is a lack
of data on filter characteristics and filter
configurations needed to treat the
priority organic and metallic pathitants
heown to be present in produced water,
as well as a lack of data on the levels
of priority pollutants rr Mning after
treatment with membrane filtration. In
spite of these unknowns, the 1991
proposed Offshore Guideline.
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 proposaL andua
result of additional data obtained by
EPA In April, 1991. For the Offshore
Guidelines. EPA has found that
membrane filtration Is not technically
available as a BAT treatment option at
this time. The region Is. therefore,
rejecting the BAT option of membrane
filtration as an add-on to OFt’ 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
B?!’ (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 Subcategory
facilities.
Compared with the other BAT
options, the most effective means of
removing oil and 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 rein jeciloir as BAT are not
applicable to the Coastal Subcategosy
areas of Texas and Louisiana.
(7) Rein/action, In the 1985 proposed
Offshore guidelines action. EPA
considered rein j lon for all wells
located In shallow waters as the
1 nufvrr.d tzeetment option to define
BAT. In this action, rein jection was
found to be technologically feasible for
meeting a zero discharge standard foe
platforms located in water depths of 20
meters or less. The Agency r mIdered
reinjaction for all shallow water
structures except for gas wells, which
were found to discharge considerably
less produced water (1/15 of oil well
discharges). When EPA evaluated this
rein jection option for all wells located
In the Offshore Subcutegory (sum of
both shallow and deep water wells) the
Agency Found rein jedlon to be
technologically feasible and
economically achievable for new
sources but deferred a thi ljir opinion
regarding reinjecti on for existing wells
becaus. of lack of data and estimated
cost (so 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 factors
prompted the Agency to consider
variabLe depth limits and conditions
which would allow for alternative
onshore rein jeclion by an offshore
focility.
In tIre 1991 proposed O hcre
Guidelines, the Agency dated that while
reinjection is generally technologically
feasible in all offshore areas nation wide
(I.e., suitable formations and conditions
are available for disposal operations),
some specific areas may experience
problems In being able to inject due to
for” ’Inn characteristlos or the
proximity to 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 Offshore
Guidelines also stated that rein jection
for all offshore wells nationwide would
result In a 4.9% production loss.
The reasons given In the 1991
proposed Offshore Guideline. 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 are ample numbers of
injection horizons with favorable
formation characteristics in the Coastal
Subcategory areas of Texas and
Louisiana.
In the 1985 proposed Offshore
Guidelines. the Agency indicated that
the additional energy requirements
Imposed by zero discharge are due
prirnarilyto the filtration arid pumping
of produced water Into Injection wells.
It was found that there would be nusil
Inciemental energy rerpriraments for
rein jection of produced water and this
would not significantly affect the costs
‘of pollution control n measurably
affect energy supplies. The 1985 actlou
also found that when additional
pumping is req uired. additional air
emissions would be aeated due to the
use aldlas ilorgas sngrn for
generating power and this concern was
reiterated in the 1991 proposed Offshore
guideline.. In contrast to these findings
for Offshore, power for rain jection from
many Coastal Subcategory wells would
be obtained from Local power compan ies

-------
- :.. . . .. . sua,, cecioe: 2 . ‘9 02 / Notices
or genon.ted from power take-offs from
existing equipment, with no significant
increase in emissions from onsitepower
generation. -
The Region finds that rein jection of
produced water In the Coastal
Subcategory areas of Texas end
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-conventional 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 jecting their
produced water.
d. BAT cost analysis for no discharge
The BAT cost analysis for the
produced water no discharge
requirement (Avanti, July, 1992.
Economic Analysis—Produced Water)
consists of three parts: The financial
impact of compliance with thino
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,
(I) Basis of analysis. Since Louisiana
State Regulation LAC:33JX.7.708
(discussed fully in section VI.C.1.b of
this Fact 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
incremental 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 additional 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 will be shown later in this 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 Texaa
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 (I.e.. no discharge of
produced water into state 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 finmarlal characteriatlos. 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 financial 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
dischargers. The range of asset size of
the 27 companies is $23 million to $87
billion and the range of produced water
discharge 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 rein jection costs from
Kerr Associates and the produced water
.
volumes from the above-noted State
agency records. The Kerr study is a
reevaluation of a produced water
rein jection cost study by Walk. Haydel
& Associates (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, Haydel study and are
somewhat lower; although, they do not
reflect one of Kerr’s major concerns of
the Walk Haydel study that the
pretreatment assumptions (filtration of
the produced water prior to Injection)
represents an excessive cosLThe 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 bbl/dey land-based (in Texas) or
marsh-based (In Louisiana) wells for
rein jection of produced water. It was
assumed, however, that dischergers
with the larger produced water volumes
will use larger wells to capture available
economies of scale. In this regard, the 5
largest dischargers in Texas are assumed
to use 6.000 bbllday land-based wells.
In Louisiana. It was assumed that 7 large
dischargers will use 9,000 bbl/day
marsh-based wells and 3 other large
dischargers will use 6.000 bbl/day
marsh-based wells. In addition, 3
Louisiana operators in bays will use
9.000 bb )lday bay-based wells and 2
Louisiana operators in bays will use
6.000 bbl/day 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 BAT no discharge
requirement is $73.9 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 / Notices
60935
than 0.001% to 0.24%, as a result of the
BAT No Discharge compihinfe costs .
The one exception was a company
that had a 28% equIty change. 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 dischazgers among the total 101
companies. There was working capital
information for 17 of the 27 companIes.
The analysis also showed a very small
working capital change (0.001% to
3.1%) as a result of the BAT No
Discharge requirement
(3) Impact on loss of future
production. This analysis estimates the
oil production lost (oil not produced)
because of the added cost 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 fields 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 36 fields (4 bay fields and 32
marsh fields) discharge 59.5 million bbl/
year of produced water, which is 19.6%
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 these
fields tenge from .04 to 24.4. the
produced 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
(BOEJ per year to 4.25 mIllion BOEI
YO 1 0 i 1 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
estimated 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
yti .bthig recoverable es ace for
the field that is, where the field Is In
its production life. That Inferiti t1nn
was not available for the 38 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 coats, and tax races. All of
these factors were assumed to remain
constant throughout the prodtwtlnn life
of the field. The price of oil was
projected to be $21 per bbl Oil
production costs, excluding the
produced water rein jeetlon costs, was
based on “Costs and Indices for
Domestic Oil and Gas Field Equipment
and Production Operations 1987, 1988,
1989” published by the Energy
Information Atiministratlon (EIA).
Production costs were scaled down from
EIA’s cost estimates for a 12-slot Gull of
Mexico platform. Costs for three model
oil production facility sizes were
developed. The largest model facility
(used to analyze the Large hay fields)
was scaled down to approximately ¼ of
the GulI- 12 platform coat. The
intermediate size facility (used for small
bay and large marsh fields) was
assumed to be ½ of this largest model
facility’s cost. The small size production
facility (used for small marsh fields) was
assumed to be ¼ of this largest model
facility’s cost. These production costs
are presented in Table 4. A field may
contain both large and small production
facilities. The number and size of
production facilities in each of the 38
fields was approximated from
Information on the number and size of
their produced water outfalls. A very
conservative BAT compliance cost was
assumed to be $0.41/bbl (Table 3). This
compliance coat is conservative because
it is based on the cost for a um.11 marsh.
based Injection well with no allowance
for economy of scale, use of produced
water for secondary recovary or use of
abandoned wells. A combined stats 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 these
fields due to the cost of complying with
BAT (rein jection 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 lose 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 lose of oil
production is not meant to represent the
per t loss of oil production for all
coastal oil production facilities covere
by these permits. Such a percentage
production loss. If the Information was
available to calculate it 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 in
Texas and to fresh waters in Louisiana.
Such produced water discharges are
already prohibited by state rules or
regulations des ’ibod In sections
VLC.1.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 PEGs are 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 div hRIged
and by a weighing factor that puts each
pollutant quantity on an equivalent
scale by accounting for varying degrees
of toxicity. For example. a pound of
radium is 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 rteria developed by
EPA (Quality Criteria for Water. 1986)
for each pollutant For these permits.
marine toxic weighing factors were used
(resulting In a higher cost/PE) since the
receiving waters for which there will be
an additional compliance cost due to
these permits will be mainly marine or
estuarine. The complete methodology
and derivation of the tcxlc weighing
factors used for this analysis are
presented in Verser (1992).
The BAT cost per PE for these
permits. as wall as those for a number
of other Industries, is listed in Table 5.
The cod per PE for these permits wore
calculated by multiplying the cost of
disposal (from section d.(i). above) by
the total volume of produced water for
coastal Texas and Louisiana and
divided by the total FE. These costs per

-------
60936
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246/ Tuesday. December 22. 1992 I Notices
FE represent a worst case, In that they
used the disposal costs for small
injection wells (highest cest/bbl) with
no allowance for e omy of emle, use
of produced water seomdary
recovery or mo of ahendoned wells. The
comparison with BAT cost per FE for
these permits with BAT guidelines for
other industries shows that the BAT
cost for these permits Is among the
lowest of the BAT costs for various
industries.
(5) Summor, of BAT cast anal ysir fat
No Discharge. As demonstrated above,
the BAT No Discharg, of produced
water requirement In these proposed
permits Is economically achievable. The
financial Impact oloumpilauce with the
No Discharge requirement en most
companies Involved In Texas and
Louisiana Cnestsl production Is
minimal. The estimated loss of
production due to compliance with the
No Discharge requirement Is small
compared with total coastal production.
In addition. a comparison of the ant
effectiveness of BAT (No Discharge) for
these permits with BAT for other
Industries shows the No Discharge
requirement to be among the lowest
BAT costs per pound equivalent for any
of these industries.
e. BAT option selection
The Region has selected rein jection of
produced water as the appropriate BAT
effluent control for lwdc and
nonconventlonal pollutants In these
Coastal Suboategory permits. The above
review Indicated that the other add-on
technologies to BPT provide for less
removal of these pollutants fran
produced water than does rein jection.
Rein jection provides total removal from
Waters of the U.S. In Louisiana and
Texas of non-conventional and to dc
poihatanta due to produced water
discharge. in addition, the iefnjectf an is
shown, as discussed above, to be
technologically available and
economically achievable.
2. Produced Sand
As explained in the following pages .
BAT for produced sand Is no discharge.
a. Derivation of BAT (BPP permit
aequiruments
As stated previously In section VLA.2
of this Fact Sheet there are no
promulgated guidelines for produced
sand discharge.. Qm’ently, produced
sands are either transported to waste
disposal sites onshore, or washed with
4 ther water or solvent and then
charged. Other than the water or
avant washing of produced sand or Its
uaposal In waste disposal sites. th.
Agency Is unaware of any other feasible
technology capabl, of routinely cleaning
produced sand uA pI for a system
aeveloped by Shell Oil Company
(c’waments from Shell 011 Company to
A on proposed rule. Offshore
Guldelinsi, 56 FR 10684. March 13.
1991). The Shell system is reported to
have reduced the all content of
produced sand to 5% toO%.but this
system is only a prototype system.
untried by and may be unavailable to
the Industry In general.
b. Selection of “No Discharge” BAT
limitation
Using BPJ, the Re Ion has selected a
BAT “no discharge’ requirement for
produced sand the most effective
moses of controlling the discharge of
nonconveutlenal and tardc pollutants
Into waters of the U.S. Th. prohibition
on discharges of produced sand In the
Coastal Subcatsgovy areas of Texas and
Louisiana Is technologically feasible,
and In the following section Is shown to
be economlcallfaclilsvebl..
c. BAT cost evaluation a/produced
sand
The BAT ant evaluation for no
discharge of produced sand of
two pasts: A I, iI*Uon of the average
compllaw cost per facility and a cost
effectiveness analysis.
As will be shown later in this Fact
Sheet, the discharge of produced sand
would be In violation of the General
Criteria of the Loii4 .n* Water Quality
Standards, The BAT cost analysis does
not, however, awime compliance with
these General Criteria (Le.. no discharge
of produced sand to Louisiana coastal
waters), thereby m*king the cost
estimate anservative.
(1) Compliance cod analysis. The
volume of produced sand generated In
the coastal subcategory La not well
documented. The volume of sand
requthug disposal was ag*im*ted using
a database developed by the Offshore
Operators CommIttee (0CC) and
submitted to the ‘A for the
development of Offshore Guidelines
(OOC. 1991). Aczarding to the database,
the total volume of produced sand
generated In a twelve. .month period Is
41.627 bbls. The produced water
associated with this volume of sand is
309,631.000 bbla. This is an average of
7440 bbls of water per bbl of send. The
region estimates that a similar ratio
applies to Coastal Subcotegosy
producing fadlitfes.
The volume of produced water
generated In the coastal aubcategory is
304.312.000 per year In Louisiana and
218,075,000 bbls per year in Texas
(Avantl, April 18.1992). Using the
I’iiug vole of produced sand per
barrel of produced water that was
derived from the COCs offshore data.
the volume of produced sand requiring
disposal under the proposed general
permits apprordinates 41,000 bbls per
year in Louisiana and 29,000 bbla per
year In Texas.
The 0CC states that produced sand
often is handled like cuttings In that It
is sent for disposal as nimhi, , i ’dous all
field waste under state regulations.
Walk, Haydel & Aseadates (1989)
provides disposal costs for oil field
wastes as 39.SeIbbl of catting, on the
Gulf of Mexico coast. This cost Includes
barging costs for offshore facilities at
$1.50/bbl to $2.00/hbL The use of costs
for cuttings disposal from offshore for
estimating the disposal coat of produced
sand In coastal areas results in an
Inflated cost far produced sand. For one
thing, the transportation (barging) costs
for produced sand will be m4 ,ih,i 1 at
most. Nevertheless, based on a high
estimate of 3l0.00/bbl for disposal of
produced sand (which Inclu&es barging
costs) . the total annual costs far disposal
of produced sand under the proposed
general permits are $409,000 far
Louisiana and $293,000 for Texas. This
is an average annual cost per facility of
only 51.800 In Louisiana and $1,850 for
Texas.
(2) Cost effectisenw 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
calculated by multiplying the pollutant
concentration by a weighing factor that
puts each pollutant quantity on an
equivalent scale by acoouziting far
varying degrees of torddty 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 higher.
The toxic weighing factors are
calculated based on a methodology that
uses human health and aquatic life
coterIe developed by A for each
pollutant The complete methodology
and derivation of the toxic weIghing
factor used for this analysis are
presented in Versar (1992).
For produced sand, pollutant
concentration data were available only
for radium. The radium c ”votratIon of
produced sand was dartv from two
data sources. The first data source Is the
00Cc produced sand databsev
submitted In response to the proposed
Offshore Guidelines (CCC, 1991). The
database Includes Ra and xuRa
concentrations for 19 produced sand
samples collected by member

-------
Federal Register! VoL 57, t4o. 246 / Tuesday,_December 22, 1902 / Notices
60937
companies from offshore IIHaa . The
second data source was submitted by
Shell Offshore Inc. also for the effluent
guidelines effort (Shell Offshore Inc.,
1991). The 29 samples reported by Shell
Offshore were taken as part of a
monitoring study for a produced sand
treatment technolo ’ (Continental Shelf
Associates. 1991). A data set of the
combined results of these two studies
produces average concentrations of 37
pCi/g Ra (range of 0 pCI/g to 172 pCi!
and37pCUg Ra(rangeof0pCU
g to 180 pCi!g) for 48 produced sand
samples.
In the calculation of PE’s for the No
Discharge requirement of produced sand
(Avanti. June. 1992). the Region made
the reasonable assumption that the
produced sand Radium concentrations
offshore will be similar to those of the
Coastal area since produced sands are
derived from similar geological
formations. The total pound equivalents
forboth ’Raand aredlvidedbythe
total cost of compliance for each state.
The resultant removal cost per pound
equivalent of 226 Ra and un Is $106 for
both Louisiana and Texas.
(3) Summer,’, BAT cost analysis for
produced sand
Because the average cost of disposal
per facility for produced sand are
minimal (approxunately 31.800 per
facility), analyses of specific companies
were not conducted. This disposal cost
per facility represents ahlgh.end
estimate of the total costs. The cost
appears to be reasonable and acooptable
for waste disposal under BAT.
The cost effectiveness results are
compared to the cost effectiveness of
previous rule makings In Table 5. ThIs
Table shows a range of cost per pound
equivalent from SO to $404 (In 1981 5)
for a number of promulgated BAT
industry guidelines. For these Coastal
permits the cost Is 3106 ($71 in 1981 3)
per pound equivalent.
The cost of produced sand removal
fallsbelow the middle of the range of
costs. This analysis considered only
radium In calculating cost effectiveness
because of a lack of data on other
poLlutants occurring In produced sand.
For example, limited data on oil and
grease concentrations show levels at or
around 1 mg /I (Continental Shelf
Associates. 1991). Thus organic priority
pollutants are almost certain to be found
in produced sand. If these organic
pollutants were added to this cost
effectiveness analysis, costs per pound
equivalent would be lower. With the
present analysis the cost appeara to be
within the acceptable range of costs per
pound of pollutant removed, and Is
considered a r,iasnn*hle BAT cost of
permit compliance.
C State Rules and Regulations, and
State Water Qualfty Standard.
EPA ii required under 40 0 1 R
122.44(d) to Include conditions as
necessary to achieve State requirements
and water quality standards as
established under section 303 of the
Clean Water Act. Discussed below are
produced water characteristics, State
rules and regulations that apply to
produced water, and the produced
water requirements based on State
Water Quality Standards. Then
produced sand characteristics and
produced sand requirements based on
State Water Quality Standards are
discussed.
I. Produced Water
a. Characteristics of produced water
as related to water quality standards
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.
radlonuclides.
(1) Volume. Boesch and Rabalals
(1989) have estimated that 1,952.386
barrels of produced water are
discharged daily into all Loiil.liu, State
waters. This figure was recently revised
to 1,954,049 barrels daily by ? .Q (S
(MMS 91-004). Boesch and Rah t u
(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 remAining 10%
Is derived from o±hore.
EPA has recently completed a
reevaluation of volumes of produced
water discharged to Coastal Subcategory
areas of Louisiana and Texas (Bowler &
Potrazzuollo to EPA. March 17. 1992).
This report, based on a review of
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) and the Railroad
CommI ion of Texas (TRC) discharge
monitoring reports (DMR ’s). Indicates
that a total produced water dlwhn,ges to
coastal areas of 1.4 million barrels per
day. Due to the large volumes of
produced water Involved, and because
these water volumes can be expected to
l.naease in time with the aging of the
producing fields, continued discharges
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 (Rittenhouse at aL 1989). In
coastal produced waters, !bO4S (MM
91-0004) reported salinity ranges of
to 192 ppt and Boesch and Paih I .
(!vth4S 89-0031) reported 50 to 150 ppt.
While the .AIInlty of brine. can have
severe negative effects on local
biological communities, produced
waters also contain relatively high
concentrations of organic compounds
including entrained volatile aromatic
hydrocarlons (VAN’s), alkanes. metals
and, to varying degrees, radlonudlides
(NORM), Some VAN’s (beazane,
ethylbeozene. Toluene). as well as oil
and grease, TOC, TSS. pH. temperature.
chlorides, dissolved oxygen. and
toxicity are limited by state regulations.
A 30 platform Gulf of Mexico offshore
study by Burns and Roe (for EPA, 1982)
reported average effluent concentrations
for VAN’s at 2.4 mg/I for benzene, .263
mg/i for ethylbenzene and 2.6 mg/I for
toLuene; phenol average concentrations
are reported at 2.1 mg/I. Priority
pollutants. in addition to the preceding.
contain significant amounts of bis (2.
ethylhexyl) phthalate. naphthalene. One
would expect similar values for
produced waters would be exhibited by
facilities in the Coastal Subcategoiy
areas of Texas and Louisiana. Indeed,
.Q 1S ()AMS 91-0004) reports some
VAN Louisiana coastal area
concentrations exceed 5 mg/I and some
effluents exhibit similar phenol
concentrations. Rabalals at aL (1989)
have listed 31 organic compounds in
produced water, Including those
indicated above. The report also
Indicates that produced waters exhibit
concentrations of 10 to 100 mg/I
aliphatic fatty adds, approximately 1 to
35 mg/i aromatic adds and up to 35 mg/
1 saturated hydrocarbons. Rabalais
(1990) and St. P. St aL (1990). also
report that toxic metals are present In
produced waters with nickel, vanadium
and barium in the highest
concentrations with mac. copper and
chromium also being present in most
dlqcharges. EPA Indicated (proposed
Offshore guIdelines. March 13,1991)
that produced water contains significant
concentrations of priority metals,
particularly cadmium, copper. lead.
nickel, silver and mc. Additionally,
produced water was also found to
contain variable amounts of biocldes,
corrosion and scale inhibitors, emulsion
breaker, treating chemicals. antifoams.
paraffine/asphaltlne treating chemicals.
and possibly anhydrate Inhibition
chemirnIe
Concentrations of NORM (Ra-226.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 / Notices
to 1,215 pC i/I (Proposed O hcse
guideline. March 13. 1991). Schlenker
and St. P. (1990) report Radium 226
contents In produced waters that rong.
from 131 to 393 pO/L An LD study
of state waters (primarily coastal iree)
has found that Ra-220 end R—228 oomn
primarily in the sohible phas, and da is
from approxImately 450 discharging
sites indicate that produced water from
hail of these sites exceeds 300 pO/L
The data reported by a recent ?vQ4S
study (OC Study. MMS 91—001) -
indicates that produced vciien sampled
in the Louisiana coastal ares (Coastal
Sub Atii uiy as well as Territorial Seas
portion of the Offshore Subcategary)
had 136.8 to 1040 pCLF1 with Inaesses
in radioactivity linked to inaeases in
salinity.
(3) Fats mid ,nvirwsmantal imp of
produced water. In the put. produced
water has been dIv 4 ”ged into r ut,al
Subcategoiy waters. Although much ha&
been written on the environmental
effects of discharges of thee. waters over
the years, th. attempt here will only hi
to review updated syntheses of some of
the more sigeificant data sets. Bo..ch
and Rah e (1989) IndIcated that
cont*,nifts*ian causAd by discharges of
dense water plain.. (brine.) extends
beyond the region in which acutely-
lethal concenualions of con iiisin4
were expected to be found. MMS ().O .fS
91—0001—4) has reported that some of
the pollutants In discharges of produced
water in coastal and open bay areas had
a persistent effect on benthic
communities and have had a reeIs’ ”c,
in degradation. These conclusions also
reflect th. views of others (e.g., Daniels
and Means, 1989; Rsb*I*1. . 1991;
Rabaleis,etaL, 1989; St. Pest aL 1990),
with St P. at al. concluding that
continued produced water discharges
into the shallow water, low energy,
unique hydrological Inner coastal
environments will likely result In en
inaease In both the level and extent of
conventional and wnw.,ivontkmsl
pollutant contamination In areas of the
discharges. In support of these
Rab’I i (1991) indIcated that the largest
component of the orgenic load of
produced water lithe fatty add . and
aromatic adds. Saturated hydz czrb ms
were found to both. next m
abundant Volatile. and phenols
comprise the third most abundant dies
of pollutants preaent in produced water
with bennane and toluene comprising
75% to 85% of these aunpounds. These
vompounds, although water soluble and
sily dispomed within the water
jhimn. are cutely toxic to org ’n ’i
lfl high concentrations. Polynuclear
aromatic bydroonbous (PAW.)
constitute the smallest fraction of
organic pollutants found In produrad
water. PAM’s, however, are the heaviest,.
most toxic and snvlzonmwitally stable
component In produced water and are
most likely to be aonmzulated In
sediments of the discharge area.
St P. at aL (1991) IndIcated that the
factors determining the degree of impact
of produced water upon the
environment Is related to discharge rite
(amount), quantity of pollutants and
trace metals present In the produced
water, local hydrology, sediment
disruption (dredging activIties, etc.) and
sediment type (especially organic
content and texture). As In the case of
produced water discharges Into rv...tel
Subcat wy areas, dense water plumes
will tend to have cumulative long term
environmental effects due to the low
enei , low mass awh 0 g . waters
which typ1I y areas In the Cn A1
Subcategory. The chern1r tl* and trace
metals found within produced waters
discharged Into these coastal areas have
been Judged to have both a potential
ecological as well as human health risk
(Daniels and Means, 1989).
(4)BioiogkclTaxIdIy SLPeetaL
(1991) report a mean LC,o 96.bour
mysid shrimp acute toxicity from
produced water at four sites in the
Louisiana coastal area it 4.3% with the
range of LC 50 ’s beIng 2.6% to 3.8% of
the effluent Sheepahead 96-hour lAs
acute toxicity tests yield a m n value
of 20.1%, with a range of 7.2% to 33.8%
of the effluent Uith tv g the Agency’s
method of deter ’ninhIg an equivalent
chronic to dty value from acute values
by means of acute/chronic ratios (EPA!
50512—9O-(l01. p.18 ). the sheepehead
chronic toxicity range reported by St. Pe
at. al. as indicated above Is equivalent
to chronic values of .72% and 3.38% of
effluents. St. P. et. aL also ran the 96
hour acute test an elutrfates from
sediments in the area which indicated a
73.3% mortality of the test organism
Hyal ella oxteca. in a separate study.
Envlzo-Lab, Inc.. conducted biological
acute and chronic toxicity tests on
produced water from West Delta Block
52 facility. Plsquesnlnes Parish,
Louisiana for L.G.S. Exploration,
Harvey, Louisiana. Envfro-Lab’s 7-day
chronic test of no observable effsdt
concentration (NOw). Utilizing
Mysidopsis and Cyprinodon, indicated
the followlng Mysidopsis survival,
gruwth and fecundity lobe,
respectively, 2.873%, 1.437% and
2.875% effluent, Cyprinodon survival at
1.437% effluent and gr. th value of
<1.437% effluent The 96-hour acute
lethality IC , 1 , tests for Mysidopsis were
5.8% to 13.8% effluent and for
Cypnrtodon were 1.5% to 8.1% effluent
Boesch end Rabelals (1989) also
indicated that produced water assays on
cuzs’ ’eens had LC, 0 ’s of less than 10%
produced water. Additionally, Rose and
Ward (1981) indicated that shrimp
larvae LC, 0 ’s were less than 1%
produced water.
Produced water toxldty 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 from one company showed a mean
NOEC survival for mysids of 0.88%
effluent (with a m nl ium of 0.32% and
of 1.86% effluent) and a
mean NOEC envival for sheepshead
minnows of 1.0% effluent (with a
____ of 0.26% and. m*idmuin of
2.7% effluent). Seven-day chronic
survival data from another company
showed a mean NO survival for
mysids of 0.95% effluent (with.
minimum of <0.1% and a m vfw ’um of
5% effluent).
The largest produced water toxicity
data base (Avantl. 1992) used in these
permits consists of self-monItoring
compliance data required by Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
discharge permits. The data base has
results from 241 96-hr LC, 0 tests using
mayids. 239 96-hr LC, 0 tests using
aheep.hiail mInnows, 228 chronic
toxicity tests using myslds arid 223
chronic teats using sbeepshead
minnows. The 96-hr IC,, mysids tests
had a mean of 12% effluent and a 95
percentile value of 1.3% effluent The
96-hr lAo sheepshead minnow tests
had a mean of 27% effluent and a 95
percentile value of2.7%. For the
chronic toxicity tests, the mysid
survival mean value was 4.5% effluent
and the 95 psrmntile value was 0.2%.
The sheepshead minnow survival mean
value was 8% effluent and the 95
percentile valu, was 05%. The toxicity
tests summarized in this Section
Indicate that iIi rhavges of produced
waters from coastal facilities are
sufficiently toxic that thei, discharges
Into Coastal Subcatsgory water is of
great concern and, as discussed later In
this Fact Sheet, water quality standards
will not be met if theIr discharge is
allowed.
b. Louisiana state regulations for
produced water discharges. (I)
Discharge to flesh water. Louisiana State
Regulation LAC:33, D C, 7.708 prohIbits
discharges of produced water to fresh
water areas characterized as ‘uplaud ’
after July 1. 1992. The Regulation
defines “upland as “any land not
normally Inundated with water and that
would not, under normal circumstances,
be characterized as swamp or fresh,

-------
Federal Regieter / VoL 57, No. 246 I Tuesday. December 22. 1992 / NotIces
60939
intermediate. brackish or saline marsh”
and states “the land and water bottoms
of all parishes north of the mae parishes
contiguous with the Gulf c(M.,dce will
he considered In toto as upland areas.”
This Regulation doss however, allow
discharge toa major deltaic pass of the
Mississippi River or to the Atchafalaya
River. including Wax Lake Outlet.
below Morgan City, lithe discharge has
been authonred by a State permit.
(2) Discharges to intermediate.
brackish or saline waters. This same
Regulation (LAC 33:DL7.708 addresses
the discharge of produced water Into
intermediate, brackish or saline waters
inland of the inner boundary of the
Temtorial Seas by requiring that either
discharges cease, or comply with a
specific set of effluent limits. Allowance
is made for a schedule to either cease
discharge or comply with the
limitations. The schedule will be based
on the number of discharges (one to
three or more) aa operator may have. An
operator with three or more discharges
of provI1Ir . 4 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 hn’ges must be in
compliance by January 1.. 1995. 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 da tor less
and a mnaidmum 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. . 4 h&’ges
must be either oliminnted or be in
compliance by January 1. 1997. The
Regulation does, however, allow
dischargers to certain open bay . the
opportunity to show. on a case-by-case
basis, that their diotharge should be
exempt from these Regulations.
Specifically, N()__ 5 discharging to
the open Waters and at least one mile
from any shoreline in t andelaur
Sound, Breton Sound, Barataria Bay.
C .mrnAebI Bay, Timballas Bay.
Terrebaun. Bay. East Cats B1”4’ Bay.
West Cote Blanche 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 comas first, to show on a
caso-by.cas. basis that their particular
discharge should be exem$ from these
regulations, l Ithe DOE study, alter
scientific peer review, shows minimal
arr.eptable environmental impacts.”
The above noted produced water
effluent limits for daily maximum
undiluted effluent lzatlma, to
mgi!. allowed ar m Benzene, .0 125
ethylbensone, 4.380 tolusne, .475; oil
and iii . 15: total organic carbon, 50
total suspended solids. 45; dIssolved
oxygen 4.0 (min 4 mum). In addition, the
Regulation requires the effluent to have
no wsible sheen, a pH of 0-0 standard
units, chloride dilution ratios of 1:10
with ambient waters, and soluble
radium at no more than 60 picocuries
per liter. The Regulation also require.
that discharge, meet acute and chronic
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’. limits for benanne,
toluene, Radium 228 end 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. or unable to meet
the requirements of. the Louisiana
Regulation 33.!X.7.708. 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 water 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 waters of major
deltuc passe. of the Mississippi River
or Atchafalaye River, and to the areas of
open bays subject to the case-by-case
exemption from this Regulation.
c. Texas ivies for produced waler
discharges. Statewide Rule 77(dX3) (18
TAC S 3.75 states that no permit maybe
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 slate, while Rule
8(e)(1.2. and 4) charge . that (1)
operators shall not pollute waters of the
Texas offshore and adjacent eetuarine
waters as well as inland and fresh
waters or damage the aquatic life therein
and (2) operations are to be conducted
in such a manner to preclude the
pollution of the waters of the offshore
and adjacent estuanne zones 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 Røgion is using this Rule as
en additional basis for requiring no
dlwhitrge of produ d water to Inland
and fresh waters of the State of Texas.
d. Lowarana renter quality standards.
The Louisiana Water Quality Standards
(LAC 33:IX.11) contain narrative and
specific numerical miteria far listed
water bodies aonordlngto then
designated uses. Unlisted water body
designated uses me determined by the
uses listed for the water body to which
the unlisted water body Is a tributary or
disthbutary.
(1) Narrative standards. LAC
33:IX,1113(B)(5) states that no
substance. shall be present In the waters
of the state or the edlments underlying
said waters in quantities that alone or in
combination will be toxic to human,
plant, or animal life or significantly
Inmease health risks due to exposure to
the substances or consumption of
contaminated fish orother aquatic life.
Region 8 has interpreted (EPA letter to
LDEQ dated 12/6/90) this narrative to
require no chronic toiacity at the edge
of the mixing zone, and no acute
toxicity at the edge of the Zone of Initial
Dilution (ZID).
(2) Numerical criteria. LAC 33:IX.
1113(C) states the Numerical Criteria
Identified in the Numerical Criteria
Table I apply to the specified water
bodies, and to their inbutaries,
distributarie,. and Interconnected
streams and water bodies if they are not
specifically named therein. The
Implementing procedures are spelled
out In the EPA letter to LDEQ dated 12/
6/90.
(3) Mixing zones. The mbdng zones
established in the Louisiana Water
Quality Standards are: 200 foot radius
for coastal bays and lakes. These mi idng
zones are used for both aquatic life and
human health protection.
(4) Modeling of produced water
discharges. Dispersion modeling was
done to determine whether produced
water discharges will violate Louisiana
Water Quality Standards Numeric
Criteria for Toxic Substances
(LAC33:IX,1113(CUGfl, or General
Criteria for Toxic Substances
(LAC33DC1113(B)(5)). The dispersion
model used was the COR1 CC I model.
The model was run 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

-------
bO i,40
Fedc e1 egister I Vol. 57, No. ;6 .‘ Tuesday. Dec rabe: 22. 1902 ‘ Nctac
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 Subcategory waters.
The modeling was done using two
produced water discharge rates: the
average discharge rate (3383 bbl/day)
from Louisiana state permit compliance
data for coastal facilities, and the
median discharge rate (813 bbl/dny)
from the same data set. The average
produced water effluent concentrations
for the various pollutants was 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, Load.
Mercury, Nickel and Zinc will be
violated at the edge of the . The
Marine Chronic Criteria for the same
pollutants, plus Arsenic, were also
violated at the edge of the mixing zone.
In addition, the Human Health Criteria
for Benzene was violated at the edge of
the mixing zone.
Using the median ‘lia& 1 n’ge rate and
the average effluent concentration,
Table 7.-a shows that the NumericS
Marine Acute Criteria for Copper. Lead
Mercury and Nickel were violated at the
edge of the ZID. The Marine Chronic
Criteria for these same pollutants were
violated at the edge of the mixing zone.
In addition, the Human Health
Standards for Benzane was violated at
the edge of the miidng zone. Table 7—
a shows that the violations were very
significant for Lead, 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 ware 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 date 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. If 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 95.8% of the 226 niysid
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
themysldtestsand63% of the
Sheepshead minnow tests violate the
criteria 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 Louisiana 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
if 307.2—307.10) include specific
numerical criterion values for specific
pollutants and narrative standards for
the purpose of enhancing or
malntat4nlng 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 EPA from the Texas Water
Commission, dated 11/20/1991 and
“Implementation of the Texas Water
Commission Standards via Permiting”,
dated February. 1992.
(1) Narrative standards: 31 TAC
4307.6(b) states that waters of the state
shall not be acutely toxic to aquatic life
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) Nuniencoi criteria: Numerical
criteria for waters of the state are
established (31 TAC if 307.2—307.10)
for specific toxic substances and are
identified in Tables I and 3 at § 307.6.
(3) LCSO 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 LCSO
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 (LDEOJ. This
data was generated as a permit
compliance requirement for a number of
LDEQ-lssued 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-br LC5O tests
formysids, and 239 acute 96-hr LC5O
tests for aheepshead minnjr%ws. In
addition, the data set lnclades 226
chronic survival tests for inysids and
221 chronIc survival tests for
sheepshead minnows. The Agency
assumes that the toxicity of produced
water from the Coastal Subcategory
areas of Texas will be the same or very
similar to the toxicity of produced water
from the Coastal Subcategory areas of
Louisiana.
From the 96-hr LCSO 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 mysida and 226 24-hr
LC5O 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 sheepshead minnow tests
failed to achieve the Texas Water
Quality Standards requirement of a 24-
hr LCSO. These data were from diluted
samples, not 100% effluent, which
means that If this 24-hr LCSO 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 run using 100% effluent, the
per cent mortality would have been
even greater than the data currently
shows.
Of the total of 226 sheepshead
minnow 24-br LC5O generated tests. 67
(30%) had 50% or greater mortality at
24 hours, even though the average
affluent concentration for these tests
was only 34% effluent Of the remaining
159 tests. 138 probably would have had
greater than 50% mortality If they had

-------
Federal R agister / VoL 57. No. 246 1 Tuesday. December 22. 1962 / Notices
60941
been rune! 100% effluent. oaotthe..
138 tests were run at lass than 23%
effluent and the 39 wets run
at between 25% end 50% effluent
This data demonstrate, that produced
water di rharges in Texas will probably
violate the Texas § 307.6(e)(ZKB) Water
Quality Standard. The Region ii
therefore using probable violation of the
Standards as a basis for requiring no
discharge of produced water in Ci esftI
Subcategory areas of Texas.
(4) MLcing zonss The miidng zones
established for implementing the Texas
Water Quality Standards are: aquatic life
protectlon—100 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 waler
dischoxges: 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 Ceneral Criteria for Toxic
Parameters (307.4). The dispersion
model used was the CORl vflX I model.
The model was run using a water depth
of 3 meters. This modeling
approximates the dispersion for
produced water discharges 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 Subcategory waters, It Is,
therefore. assumed that If the discharge
of produced water in this scenario
causes a violation of numeric or general
Water Quality Standard, then such a
discharge would cause a violation of
that Standard in any of the Texas
Coastal Subcategory waters.
The produced water discharge rates
used were the uverege discharge rate
from Louisiana State Permit Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) data base For
coastal facilities (3382 bbl/day) and the
median discharge rate (813 bbUday).
The Tems Implementation Plan requires
that Daily Average (Monthly Average)
and Daily Maximum effluent limits be
calculated from tb Numeric water
quality standards using a specified
procedure. The effluent data me then
compared with these water quality.
based limits. This comparison is given
in Table 8. Far the comparison. the
mean of all the values from the
Louisiana State Permit DMR data base
(using 0 for those data below detection)
was used to compare with the Daily
Average limits. and the 95 percentile
values (of the fl}. detected values) was
used to compare with the Daily Max
limits.!! is assumed that the Louisiana
rroducad water flow and uent
concentration data le repomentathe of
produced wat for Texas coastal
0-s.
A comparison of the effluent data
with th. water quality-based limits
riiL i6ted using the median effluent
flow (which results In higher limits)
shows substantial violations of Daily
Max limit for 8 metals and benzene,
There are also substantial violations of
the Daily Average limit for 6 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 the Lo”i” ” 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
226 mysld tests and 85% of the 221
Sheepshead minnow tests violate the
Standards at the edge of the mixing anne
when the mean discharge rate was used.
Even when using the median discharge
rate, where 8.8% effluent must not be
toxic, the chronic lethality data show
that 85% of the mysid tests and 83% of
the Sheepshead minnow tests violate
the Standards at the edge of the mixing
zone.
In summary, produced water effluent
data show that allowing the 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 hazardous
metals for discharge into State waters.
Table 9 compares the mean produced
water concentrations with the Texas
Hazardous Metals limite listed in 31
TAC 319.22 and 319.23. ThIs
comparison shows violations of the
Regulation for Arsenic, Barium. Lead
and Mercury. This finding ms yet
another basis for the permit requirement
of No Discharge for produced water.
g. Summaiy of produced water
requirements based on state regulations
and i quaLIty dwth. (1)
dsrwnt. S lan VLCLb of this Fact
Sheet irI4.ril.. 5 5 the Loii&s si State
Regulations which prahibft the
iI 4 .r 4 i ge of produced water Into
0 t,iaiaii . upland frndi watme. That
Section also demonstrated that the
discharge to iut edIate, lr h or
saline watass (except for discharges to
some large bays) which requires no
discharge or meet certain limits. would
violate the limits Imposed by those
Regulations. These State Regulations,
therefore, ivnish 5 basis for the
proposed permit’s requirement of No
Discharg. of produced water to the..
State waters, S mnn VLC.1.d
demonstrated that the discharge of
produced water to any Louisiana rii a.*gl
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 prohihition
furnishes a basis for the proposed
permit’s No Discharge requirement to
those waters, Section VLC.i.e
demonstrated that the discharge of
produced water to any Texas coa 1
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 me no Louisiana
regulations comparable to the
previously discusmad Louisiana
Regulation LAC 33DC.7 for produced
water which specifically address
produced sand. Also, Taxes does not
have rules or regulation, which
specificelly address produced sand.
b. Lowssana water quality standards.
The Louisiana Water Quality Standards
establish general and oumenc criteria
for discharges to state waters. General
criteria apply at all times to the surface
waters of the state (I.e., iuchidlng waters
within a mixing zone), end apply to.
among other parameters. aettleable
solids. The General Criteria for
Settleabi. Solids requires that “there

-------
60942
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 I Tuesday, December 22. 1992 I 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 slimes 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 clearly
appropriate for regulating produced
sand discharges,
It is the Region’s opinion that the
discharge of produced sand into the
sha& w Coastal Subcategory waters In
Louisiana would result in th.
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 rigsthat showthatthebulkofthe
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 dischargepoint.
The region Is, therefore, prohibiting
the discharge of produced sand on the
basis that the discharge of produced
sand to Louisiana Coastal Subcetegory
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 numeric 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 toxlcparameters and
solids which affect benthic blota. The
latter general criteria states: “Surface
water shall be essentially free of floating
debris and suspended solids that are
conducive to producing adverse
responses In aquatic organisms or
putresdble sludge deposits or sediment
layers which adversely affect benthic
blots or any lawful uses.” As stated in
Section VI.C.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 waters of
Texas will result in the production of
sediment layers which adversely affect
benthic biota and, therefore, will violate
the above cited Texas Standards General
Criteria.
As stated In Section VI.C.2.b, above,
The Region does not have sufficient data
on the pollutants associated with the
i1lwhii ge of produced sand to use the
violation of the Standards (for Texas, in
this case) for 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. Sumnioxy 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. Summary 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 oL
produced water requirement is
necessary to ply with State Rules
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.
VII. Other Legal Requirements
A. State Certification
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 3o1(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 matenals
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 section 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
opereting 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.llquid
separators; and
(10) Discharges from flare lines.
C. Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1538, 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 / Notices
60943
Fisheries Service (N WS) . that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of listed
threatened or endangered sped., or
result in the destruction or adverse
of their al&al habitats.
B ”e it will .lhi Iti.mt. the d1rhim ge
of tmdc produced water and produced
send to sensitive aquatic environments,
Issuance of these general permits as
proposed is unlikely to adversely affect
any listed species or their ciutical
hibtt The Region has forwarded a
copy of this notice to FWS and NMFS.
requesting their written concunence in
that conclusion.
D. The Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act
( iA) and its Implementing
regulations (15 CTh part 930. subpart D)
require that any Federally licensed or
permitted activity affecting the coastal
zcneofa State with an approved Coastal
Zone Management Program ((2MA) be
r m idPnt with the C 24P (Section
307(c)(3)(Afl. The State of Louisiana has
a ( ‘ that has been approved by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The Region
has reviewed Louisiana’s Coastal Use
Culdelines (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 with a
rlm ency certification, will be
submitted to Louisiana for a consistency
determination.
L The Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act
The Marine Protection, Research and
S m 1n rjes 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 1vWRSA
establishes the Marine Sanctuaries
Program. Implemented by NOAA.
which requires NOAA to designate
ocean waters as marine sanctuaries for
the pwpose of preseMng or restoring
their conservation, zea eadonal,
ecological or aesthetic values.
Section 302(1) of RSA requires that
the Seaetazy of Commerce. after
designation of a marine sanctuary,
consult with other Federal agencies. end
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 Seaetary shall certify that the
permitted activity Is consistent with the
purpose of the marine sanctuaries
program and/or can be carried out
within itt promulgated regulations.
There are presently no mdsting marine
sanctuaries In the coastal waters of
Louisiana end Texas.
F. Economic Impact (Executive Order
12292)
• 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
G. 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 for redudng 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—
0086 and 2040-0004). Washington. DC
20503, marked “Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA”.
JL Reguialo yFlaubiity Act
Section 803 of the Regulatory
Fle,dbllity Act (RFA) generally requires
that federal agencies prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for
any proposed rule which may have a
* 4 gnificant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. EPA’s current
policy on EPA implementation requires
preparation of an WRA whenever a
proposed rule may have any adverse
economic effect on any small business,
even when EPA would not require It.
WRAs need not be encyclopedic;
however, their scope must be tailored to
the level of resources available for the
analysis, the quality and quantity of
available data, and the seventy of the
rule’s anticipated impacts on small
entities. In the instant case. EPA Region
6 has 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 facilitie . to be regulated under
the permits Region 6 proposes today are
classified as Major Group 13—Oil and
Gas 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 ais
“small” If 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 and
Stripper Subcategory facilities which
will be affected by todky’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
may be si nlficant .
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. providing additional business
opportunities for smaller operators who
can obtain the necessary flnandng
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) renixin to
be seen.
There are, moreover, significant
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 r 4 ImJIte 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 Tha 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

-------
60944
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22, 1992 / Notices
are transferred from large to fl r
operators who are capable of operating.
them at a profit despite declining
production. This transfer of h].es from
large to smaller opejetma I. . . . . tly
OXUrTIDg with Inoreasing frequency In
the United States. It is thus lrto
conclude that small businesses usuelly
tend to opw .in older wells and fields In
which oil production has declined.
including most Stripper Subcategory
wells.
Paradoxically, the lees c l i (and
c mu pofldl g Income) an oil well
produces. the more brine it produces.
Wells generating the least profit are thus
generally responsible far a
disproportlonstaly large share of the
environmental problems .sscdated with
discharge. of produced water. Frees an
overall perspectIve. Lbs costs of ceasing
emstlng discharges of produced wetas
will not, es shown earlier in this 2ir
be significant. but it seems likely that
smaller operator ., vis a viz larger
operators, will sustain relatively greater
economic Impacts If the permits are
issued aajrmposecL
Most of the small businesses to be
regulated under the proposed permits
would incur the coot of complying with
the no discharge requirement whether
or not these permlla were issued. The
proposed permits’ prohibition on
discharging produced water and
produced sand Is largely based on
existing state water quality standards
and. far produced water, on state
regulatory requirements, which must be
complied with under State law. In some
particularly in Louisiana, the
proposed permit requires the
&irT i nrion 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 to 2 years
sooner than would be required of some
discharger. by the Louisiana produ
water regulations, potentially affecting
some small businesses adversely. As. ’
practical matter, some small businesses
will be unable to continue oil and gas
production from some existing weib
after the permits’ prohibitions on the
discharge of produced water to &i e
surface waters became. eff otl . As
pointed out earlier in this notice, the
exact point at which this lose of reserves
will occur depends on numermis
variables, not the least of which is the
fluctuating psice of card. oil.
On an Industry -wide basis, the
economic luuiu small businesses may
suffer from ceasing production at an
earlier date will probably be mitigated
by the fact that the moderately
operating costs In ned for all existing
wells subject to the permits will result
in earlier convey uoss of lease. from
large to small operators. Although some
small businesses may have to shut in
older wells nearing the end of their
prod”4 on life, they will also have
Incuessed opportunity to obtain leases
on leer mature fields at an earlier stage
of their production, when they are more
profitable to operate. It would not be
f , however, to claim that every small
op er a tUl [ who has to shut In err existhig
well will seek and obtain offsetting
As stated previously In this fact sheet,
the no discharge limits for produced
water and produced sand are largely
on state water quality standards
and regulatory requirements. In
addition, the prohibition on discharging
produced water and sand kern Coastal
Subcate 5 y wells covered by these
permits is based on BAT. The CWA
provides EPA with little flexibility to
address the Impacts that BAT limits
may have on’srnall businesses. Pursuant
toCWA §S30 1 and 402 and EPA.
Implementing regulations, the Agency
must adopt and impose uniform BAT
effluent h,, .I ftons on an Industry-wide
basis after considerIng (1) the age of
equipment and fadlities 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 (including aner
requIrements). 40 R 1Z5.3(d)(3). None
of these factors provides a rationale far
adopting less 5 tii wt or alternate BAT
effluent limitations on small entities.
Similarly. EPA must require compliance
with state water quality standards and
regulatory requirements in Issuing
permite. regardless of whether the
disr-h”,ger is a large or small entity. See
generally Arkansorv. Oklahoma.____
U.S. . 112 S. CL 1046(1992). The
Ragion has not, therefore, considered
Imposing different effluent limitations
on small and large entities.
As desaibed elsewhere In this notice,
Region 6 considered a number of
alternative technologies, hoping one
might form the basis far effluent
limitations that might accomplish the
stated objectives of the CWA while
ml i i i m4,4n 5 the economic impacts of the
permits an both small and large
businesses. The proposed No Discharge
requirements em based on rein jection of
produced waxer and onshore disposal of
produced sand. These are the least
expensive of the alternative
technologies which p . d 5ff lV In
acoompllh4iig the obj tIves of BAT
and slowing complianc. of state water
quality standards and applicable state
regulations.
In proposing thes. permits. Region 6
has moiwver considered the leceased
costs that record keeping and reporting
requirements may Impose on the vLztizw
regulated ccmmrmfty. including small
businesses, hr an effort to reduce such
costs, It has pared such requirements to
the absolute ,‘,4yth ,rnm necas y to
enforce these permits. For instance,
Region 8 is not proposing to require that
operators file notices of intent to be
covered; although, receipt of s
notices would provide EPA with a
meens.of tracking these entities subject
to the permit and avoid jurisdictional
disputes In potential enforcement
actions. Likewise, It Is not proposing to
establish a maul lest system to ensure
that produced water and sand
actually disposed of In a mau.,,er
compliant with the permits. RegIon 6 Ia
only proposing to require that operator.
report any discharge of a pollutant
subject to this permit within 24 .hours .
Compliance with this reporting
requirement should not require
technical skills beyond those possessed
by most small operators.
If the produced water discharge
prohibitions of these permits became
federally enforceable 30 days after final
publication. Impacts to small busineues
would probably be exacerbated. The
Region regards It iinHfraly that small
businesses could surr aafully compete
with the major oil companies in
obtis4nhng currently 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 compliance order Region
6 intends to Issue, the parmlta’
produced water discharge prohibition
will therefore become EPA-enforceable
30 days after final publication only far
those produced waler dischargea
already prohibited by state regulations
and far new wells. The three year
transition period reflected by the draft
administrative order Is the longest
Region 6 now regards reasonable and
consistent with Congressional policies
expressed in CWA.
There Is, of course, an alternative to
issuing any permit. Le.. EPA could fail
to p or Issue It. It does not appear
that this “no actiau alternative is
practical In the Instant matter. CWA
prohibits the tila.thauge of produced
water and sand, or any other pollutant.
to surface waters of the United States In
the absence of an NPDES permit and the
oil and gas Industry has been
discharging those pollutants In violation

-------
Federal ! & ter/ Vol. 57, No . 248 I Tuesday. December 22, 1992 I Notices
60945
of the Act for a considerable period. As
a matter of policy, Region 8 has not
taken enforcement tlrm on those
violations because the operator.’ failure
to obtain the necessary permits has been
largely due to the Agency’s inability to
Issue them, given its limited resources
and competing priorities. EPA L a not,
however, the only entity entitled to
bring an action to enforce CWA. CWA
section 505 authorizes affected citizens
to bring a dvii action ngRin any
unpermitted discharger. seeking
injunctive relief and penalties, after
provIding 60 day notice to the
discharger, the State in which the
discharge o urs, and EPA.
Historically, there have been few
citizen enforcement actions against oil
and gas operators discharging to coastal
water. in Louisiana and Texas. In recent
months, however, a public interest
environmental organization In New
Orleans has provided notice to EPA
Region 6 that it will file suit sg*inst
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
discharges and another has agreed to a
schedule for ceasing its coastal
produced water discharge .. Spwved by
the possibility of such suits (and
increasingly stringent state regulatory
requirements), other oil and gas
operators have begun elimin ting 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 commence citizen suits as public
concern over the adverse environmental
consequences of produced water
discharges increases. Neither EPA nor
any other entity can reliably predict
which of the many thousands of
Louistuna and Texas prpductlon
operations would become targets for
such citizen suits, a factor which might
well have a rhilllng effect on future
investment In the domestic oil and gas
Industry. By acoompllshirig the goals of
such citizen suits on an Industry-wide
basis in Louisiana and Texas. EPA’.
permits and adrninistxa lve order will
probably eliminate the incentive for
such actions and the uncertainties they
pose for individual oil and gas
operators.
In summary, these permits will have
some impact on a number of small
entities in the oil and gas production
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 these’permlts require
costs beyond those necessary to comply
with state law the state water quality
standards and other state regulations).
There is no alternative 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 ‘ 1 Uin
necessary for their enforcement.
APL 1987.011 and Gas Indusoy Exploration
and Production Wastes. Eastern Researdr
Group (ERT) Inc.. July 1987.
Avanti Corp. June, 1992. Emnoinlc Analysis
kr NPDES General Permits for Oil and Gas
Production in Coastal Texas and
Louisiana—Produced Send.
Avanti Corp. July. 1992. Esenomlc Analysis
for the NPDES General Permits for Oil and
Gas Production Operations in Coastal
Texas and Louisiana—Produced Wtt .
Avanti Corp. June. 1992. Stimmsry of
Survival Obseivations from Toxicity Tests
Submitted Under LADEQ Permit Flies.
Avanti Corp. July, 1992. CharacterizatIon of
Data Collected from the Louisiana
Deperttnent of Environmental Quality
Permit Flies for Development of Texas and
Louisiana Coastal Subcatsgoiy NPDES
General permits.
Boesch. D.F., and Rabelals. N. M., 1989.
Produced Water In Sensitive Coastal
Habitats: an Analysis of Impact. Central
Coastal Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study, MMS—
89—0031, 157 pp.
Boesch. D.P. and Rabalais. N.N.. 1989.
Environmental Impact of Produced Water
Discharges in Coastal Louisiana. Final
Report to The Louisiana Division of the
Mid Continent Oil and Gas Association,
Louisiana Marine Consortium. Clauvin.
Louisiana. 287 pp.
Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corp.,
1982. “Data Report for EPA Priority
Pollutant Sampling Program. Offshore 011
and Gas Industry” for EPA. 84 pp.. tables.
Continental Shelf Associates. 1991. Produced
- Sand Discharge Monitoring Study. West
Delta Area Block 103 Platform “B”.
Prepared by Shell O hore Inc.
Daniels, C.B. and Means, J.C., 1989.
M ent of the genotoxicity of
produced water diachargara associated
with oil and gas production using fish
embryo and larval test. Mar. Environ. Re...
voL 28, pp. 303—307.
Danekar. R.L and Jirka. G.H.. 1990. Expert
System for Hydrodynamac Mixing Zone
Analysis for Conventional and Toxic
Single Port Discharge. (a)RMIXI).
Prepared by Cornell University for EPA.
Environmental Research Laboratory.
Athens. GA. EPAJ600/3-90/012.
Eastern Research Group. 1991. Cost
Effectiveness Analyses of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and Standards of
Perfonnance for the Offshore Oil and Gas
Indusoy, Produced Wa . Prepared for
EPA. Offic, of Science end Technology.
Energy Information AdmInIstration. “Costs
on Indices Domestic 011 aM Gas Field
Equipment and Production Operations.
1987, 1988. 1989”.
EPA. 1985. Oil and Gas Point Source
Category, Offshore Suboategory. Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Perkz , nr, Standards: Proposed
regulation and request for cr mmRnta, 50
FR 34592. August 26, 1983.
EPA. 1988. Wastas from the Exploration,
Development and Productloa of Coade OiL
Naturel Gas end Geothermal Energy.
Interim Ter4 iib I Report. EPAJS3O-SW—
88—051. October 1988.
EPA. 1988. Quality Criteria for Water, 1988.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
EPA 4-S-.8&-00l.
EPA to Louisiana Department of
Environmental QualIty, 1990. Letter
“Implementing Louisiana Water Quality
Standards” to M. Fannaly. December 6,
1990.
EPA. 1991.011 and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category. Offshore Subcategory
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards: Proposed
rule. 56 FR 10684. March 13. 1991.
EPA. 1990. Proposed NPDES General Permit
for the Oil and Gas Coastal Subcategaiy in
Louisiana. 55 FR 23348.
EPA. 1990. Proposed NPDES Geesral Permit
for the 011 and Gas Coastal Subcategal7 In
Texas. 55 FR 23348.
Fischer, H.B., et. aL. 1979. MIxing in Inland
end Coastal Water.. Academic Press.
Harcowt Brace, Jovanovich Publisher .. 483
pp.. Illus.
Moore. L.P. 1974. Drilling ManuaL
The Petroleum Publishing Company.
Tulsa. 0km. 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, B.A., Reed. D.J.,
Means J.C.. 1991. Fate and Effects of
Nearshoie Discharges of OCS Produced
Waters. 3 vole.. 609 pp.. OCS Study, MMS
91-0004—0006.
Rlttenhouse. G.. Fulton III. RB.. lU.,
Grabowaki arid Bernard, J.L. 1969. MInor
elements in oil field waters. Clam. CooL.
voL 4. pp. 189—209.
Shapiro. J. 1981. RadIation Prutuction. A
Guide foi Scientists and Phya4r 4 an
Second Edition. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge. MA.
Shell Offshore Inc. 1991. Produced Sand
Discharge Shady. Interim Data SubmittaL
Letter toD.J. Bourgeois. MMS Regional
Supervisor Field Operations. 15 pp.
SL Pa. 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.
St. Pa, KM., at al., 1991. An Assessment of
Produced Water Impacts in Louisiana.

-------
60946
Federal ftegister I Vol 57. No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22. 1992 / Notices
Proc. 11th Ann. Gulf of M ”4’ ’ Ink Trans.
Mtg.. OCS Study, ?I(MS 91-0040. pp. 17$-.
Stephensoc. MT. 1991. Component. of
Pioduond Wetor A Cempilsden of Results
from Sevasal lndustiy Studios. Soc. Pe oL
Eng.. SPE 23313. pp. 2 5 —38.
Venar Inc.. 1991. Toide Weighing FscTh for
Produced Weter Pollutants. Draft Report,
Properud for EPA. Region 6, Weter
Management Division.
Walk. Haydel a At odates. 1989. Water-
based Drilling Fluids and Cuttings Disposal
Study Update. Offsh ’ , Effluent
F and
Administered by Llakow end Lewis.
DNc gs aid ps.r8

.
TAS 1.E 1.—PERMfT REQUIREMENTS AND
STATUTORY BASIS—Continued
. —

p_ Snat
No Ja Vs
BCT.
BAT.
Ls.WQS
Ti. WO $ 100.
TASLE 2.—Av GE PacoucED WATER
EFFWENT CONCENTRATIONS
Cu. .jws
TABLE 2.—AVERAGE PRODUCED WATER
EFFWENr CONCENTRATiONS ‘—Continued
I
Msdum S. —
Sels.*an.
SIIvw....__ —
Tolusns
Z u ______
1I0pO6
34
41
1510
toa O
aiI d Sen
La C,..s... _ ... _ I
(thEO) asw ’ ps.u ‘Sat
Wd d I SO WW PC0. n I Si ..
n d uen in M _. S
siwuisd iSAi m wo . iw b A Cn
TABLE 3.—REIruECT1ON Costs FOR
Mco€i. INJECTioN Wa s
Ifl. i . on W,g t Ifd I Yfl
S
3.
toad
u.ooo
La’d $0.38 $0.29 $0.21
M m d i ________- 0.41 0.2? 0.
Bay .._. __, 0.30 0.24
in hat dallom. From kair 8 P” ’.. . p
Avid .Mb . 1N2
TABaE 4.—CosTs FOR Moos. On. PRcouCiiOw FAcLmEs
T*&E 5.—BAT CosT EFFrvENE
SUMMARY FOR VARIOUS INDUSTRIES
k
10
—
AIim*wm FouMrIV —________
8a33 y Manutsce .
Can hd3ç
Cc Mmen
Cd Casaiç
EI .J ..sI —_____________
Fo ig i lss ______________________
Med P.J.1i
N n M M Fam
TABLE 5.—BAT Cost EFFECTIVENESS
SUMMARY FOR VARIOUS INDUSTRIES—
C d
—
Cd de -
=
c s ( end aster
md Pepsi ( PCB saas to,
De .d onIØ —-
La and Ti C ’ OS and Gas
TAB&.E 5.—BAT Cost EFFECTiVENESS
SUMMARY FOR VARioUS INDUSTRIES—
Continued
ay
Coat d.
=
Mean
‘014
bt30
30
‘ieo
1.4
0 .082
‘7
120
159
0.0125
t3 8
0 .475
18
SO
99
T .iii 1.—PERMrr REOLJIREM8ITS Nffl
STATUTORY BASIS
Piodaced Wsd
No dwgs
c
OX
Em L.nz.ns —
Laid
P d
BAT.
Ti. Re u.
L& WO .
Ti. WO
1.399
U”
$4 ,410
8. 560
77
77
148
138
12.800
130
1.100
3.400
132 pc&t
I
.
Gul-12
L sbey’
S dbs
dgs
“ W I.
Sill
listatid
81.780.700
114.000
624.300
8192.811
37
200.019
*2.507.000
18.910
100.010
•G4 .12 (12 GuI Mdoo p i$ bo , ’ I-A... .n P4M Ih. . vi . I W D..n c 05 wid Ba. Fu £ou .,i. md 0...... . 1557.
lees. tear. T1e 0— I.
• . .g i b 011 W 0.33 C I Oi lS ). 0.33W i ias 4 err& 0.33 M i
• sill.. Si t iOi • ‘4 CI
• M d siomi IlLMg . WI.
f . . l Sai)
8460.569
1*150
9.406
51.505
*218 . 125
$109000
8118.042
$121
2
10
•0
49
405
.4
12
N
(b I iilMIrg) .
S l4( iToms)
15 P $si _____ 71
(Al cosat m lilt 8, Avid Jidy 1982)
T*eu 8.— .COMPARISCN OF PRODUCED WATER Pouuwr CoNcENTRATioNs Wm Louisi .u PcicoucED WATER REGUIATIONS•
12 •Mt — aPT. , I . . . ilS & .. . iOiit
—
-
Tclasns (n l —
Cs id05
-
Ef aul . ,,... L _ & _ .

-------
TABLE &—COMPARISON OF PROO$JCEI ) WATER EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS WITH T CAS WATER QUAUTY-6ASEO EFFLUENT
Federal Reer I VoL 57 No. 246 / Tuesday. Deceather 22. 1992 I Notices
60947
TABLE &—COMP IeON CF PROOu WATER PCWITmT CONCENTRATIONS WITH Lcu,SIN.A PRCoUC WATER R MTICNS’—

?c l 4 $ $
EBLiI .
I
Mu
Ms
T d y (Todelty wdN)
idMfle -
•
—
Sl 9 b.IdC1v0 c
13
37
1
12.2
113
54
413
40
1
1
1
1
•M %uIl 1 c m LeFO C l. Ms T 2. P ’ S c m t *1*.?.
d d as. I cm bu liii. m$ US UmrIUd . I
, uls dvmul y cm ICC. ius
TABLE 7-A.--COMPARIsON OF MEAN PROOUCED WATER EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS AT EDGE OF O j -c MxNS
ZONE WITH LOUISLAI4A WATER QUALiTY 1 DAROS’ -
Pc0j ,5
EI tSconc.
Coi .ilZID 2 ”
Cc .ulW’
sods
I .Wis Jviad.
H
M,urdc
Bunzuns
C4$iiUn.________
C er ..
La id
uei aj)
N i.
Vno
46?
2550
77
14$
12500
1
ties
1096
57 D)
3I 1V1)
Il l S)
3.1 (11)
12 5 0(9 2 7)
16( 10)
153(54 )
153(81)
54(277
W (I
1 9
20 (1
‘ ‘ (
14( 9 7
1 (73)
147(73)
‘44
‘1.0
60
2700
•45 .6
4.4
225
2.1
75
96
13.3
13.3
1375
10
4.4
L i
oms
£3
60
( 1.6)
(1. 5)
. —
t2.S

.
To ddty
MØ4 v s (S .
m l)
— c
(%. miuil
C... _ .... . u ______ x1 m l - — s L s. Al liuu Sm . ‘I. ml
t90 . .!O .Ms ( C1 . 72 mllq ._ . dl..lq ills (ml 136 ml 19 n
_____ ml ll • 1.5 .i.JU. — 11.2 cm l. ____
1 5 :19 ; ;--— • ml — mlls mum d1 161ll91 (Sm. d I—LI -J . ml ml t Smi 51119 M l J.JL _ v .
1c (11 J,..J N mud cmmu
mum 11% 1M19 mu u dvdi . 1cm) Ii cu 11 IsI, l.,. . .
TABLE T-a—COMPAP4 J4 OF MEDIAN PROOU WITER EFFUeIT flRA11CNS AT EDGE OF ZID mo MOONS
ZONE WITh LOIJIS 1AI WATER QUALiTY S73153u19s’
Laud
T dIy
SudI .
ml )
6aiI .
Camu. 1 1 D’
Cmic.udI ’
ml 09
u as
wmuL
I - M
It
41
$5.
500
1.3
310
73,
16 0
0.9
14$
2.9
12
37
1.1
8 6
Is
5.
2790
11.5
4.4
2.1
75
580
90
5.
IS
11
03
21
4.
16
22
‘22
a
1375
16
4.4
03
8 . 3
4$
5 ’
-— —-----—- - ----- —---— ____ ___ .11 mlms Smil Nuuuisud 41. .mu mlllp.
- 15ll — C) .l3.S u ms u
‘DSMll . l. ll ml ll 1ml19 U I&I 1 1 5 1N
SS J _ . . ...S.4 •S le Su ml cwai .
‘71cm % d%cm mllus N wu $ MN • Slul 63 (l Vlsl — 11 51 lS . .....11....& l Lau 51 Wllm OuuiWy ld iuqi*s ,
dVmrc p ud cmm
___—
-‘
.
r-
4 1 c m ’
95 p j 3
L 1 5ml 4
-
L ’
- - r Ottp mMN m
Ds mmu s I,
407
2.550
77
77
12000
510
779
W i
2.011
*1 0?
257
.1A32
4812
-

-------
6O94
Federal Register (Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22. 1992 / Notices
TABI.E 8.—CoMPARIsON OF PRoDucED WATER EFFWENT CONcENTRAnopIs Wmi TEXAS WAlER OuAi .rrf-BA5ED EFR.UEI T
LiMITS ‘—Continued
Pofriesi
Msas s
95 ,i1I$
L.M n’
LJTita
CaSy r
Daly m.r
Daly svsm s
Daly enstman
Cocoer .
Laed_
Melosy -
N aS
SeI *ers
Sftver
c
141
12,600
130
1,100
34
41
1,090
470
34.000
2,100
2,100
500
200
4.000
07
199
0.5 1
179
1.641
29
1,001
142
421
12
378
1890
I I
2,244
30
98
0.28
00
100
14
- 554
10
200
0.54
100
1,800
30
1.172
II lot
00 L060 Ot %5IIN isle end to Iss 5
‘es
Lr ran er mseai e JNd JI. ., . i
useg men pmOjNd lo .
Ll SS0 se rui,en tiueai Wr
TABI.E 9.—COMPARISON OF PROOUCED
WATER EFFUJENT CONCENTRATIONS
Wmi TExAs HAZARDoUs METALS REGU.
LATICN, 31 TAC 319
PoluteM
Muse’
Psp to
mWl
Daly
coi ,
0.
AisiiE —
Bwtan_
LeaS ..._..
—
0.407
544
12.6
0.13
0.1
1.0
0.6
0.006
0.2
2.0
1.0
0.006
0.3
40
1.5
001
‘PmOssd Wee, bee T0 2.
Appendix A United Slatse E.vl, al
Pro’ A cy Region S-Admth eths
(Docket No. Vl-{DNO)3
in the matter of NPDES General Permits for
Produced Water and Produced Sand
Discharges from the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category to Coastal Waters of
Louisiana and Texas; Proceedings Under
Sectton 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 US.C 1319(a)(3) , and duly
delegated to the Regional Administrator.
Region 0. 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.
I
Pursuant to the authority of section
402(a)(l) of the Act, 33 US.C. 1342, Region
6 issued National Pollutant Discharge
El ’”l”tion System (NPDES) Permits No..
L.AGZS0000 and TXG2s0000 with an
effective date of IHPPEC’TlVK DATE). These
permits prohibit the discharge of produced
water and produced sand derived from Oil
and Gas Point Source Cat . ui y facilities to
“coastal” waters of Louisiana and Tome in
a dsrics with effluent limitations and
other conditions set forth in Parts I and U of
these permits. Facilities by these
permits Include those In the Coastal
Siibcategory (40 R part 435, subpart D), the
Shipper Suboategory (40 (] ‘R part 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” water, of Louisiana
and Texas.
II
Respondents herein axe permittees subject
to General NPDES Permit No.. LAG290000
end/or TXG290000 and who:
A. Currently discharge produced water
derived from an existing Coastal. Shipper or
Offshore Subcotegozy well or wells to
“onastal” waters of Texas, other than “ InIawI
sad fresh waters”, or
B. Currently discharge produced water
derived from an existing Coastal, Shipper or
O hore Suircategory well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Louisiana. other than
“upland ares waters”,
C. Currently discharge produced water’
derived from a Coastal Subcatagory 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 s defined In NPDES Permits
LAG290000 and TXG290000. The term
“Inland and fresh waters” is defined in
NPDES Permit TXG290000. The term
“upland area waters” is defined In NPDES-
Permit LAC290000. The term “existing”
ns spudded prior to the effective date of
NPDES Permits LAC290000 and TXG290000.
w
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 jed
their produced water. A lack of access to the
finite number of existing Clue II disposal
wells, state UIC permit writers, and drilling
contractors may cause non.compllance for a
stgt”°’ ”t number of Respondents. In
additice. time will be required for some
Respondents to reroute produced wute?
collection lines to transport the produced
water to injection wells.
I V
Respondents may reasonably perform all
actions necessary to cease their disc arges of
produced water within three year,.
Ord
Based on the foregoing FINDINGS, It is
Ordered that Respondents:
A. Fully comply with all conditions of
NPDES Permits Nos. LAG290000 and
ThC290000 except for their prohibitions on
the discharge of produced water and
requirements that all discharges of produced
water be reported within twenty.four bows.
a Complete all activities no ry to
attain full and continuance compliance with
NPDES Permits No. LAG290000 and
TXG290000 as soon u p 1h1. , 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 oil/water separation equipment. in
such a manner as to , ,iinlmi 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.i.d of said
permit, requiring that Respondents meet any
mote stringent requirements contained in -
Louisiana Water Quality Regulation. LAC:
33JX,7.708.
The effective date of this ORDER shall be
(EFFECTIVE DATE).
DATETh
Director. Water Management DMsion (6W).
NPD General Permits for Produced W.t
and Produced Sand Discharg From the Oil
and Cu Extraction Point Source Category to
Coastal Waters of Louisiana and Texas
Permit No. LAG200flOO, Permit No.
TXG290 00 0.
In compliance with the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Contiol Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq; the “Act”),
these permits prohibit the 1 4 I ]ta?ge of
produced water and produced sand derived
from Oil and Gas Point Source Category
facilities to “coastal” waters of Louisiana and
Texas, as desalbed below, In accordance
with effluent limitations and other
conditions set forth in Parts! and IL

-------
Fed l RagMer I Vol. 57, No. 246/ Tue.day. Docemb 22, 1992/ Notlc99
10940
Fecliltise A uvJ by thee. pmasft Include
tbme to theCoasmi Sub , i.i (400’R pert
435. subpart 0), the Sbipper Subcate oy (40
G ’R part 435, subpart F) that discharg, to
ccastal ” water, Of Louisiana and Terms. and
the offsb.,. , S I, ury (40 C R pert 435.
subpart A) which discharge to ‘coastal”
watara of Louisiana and Tams.
These permits do not authorize discharges
from nsw sow’ces” as defined In 40 (7R
122.2.
These permits, except for certain portions
listed in Part L. a., shall become
effective - and expire at ml.li Ighi on
(Five years from effectiv, date).
Signedthia dayof .1992
Director, Water Management Dr4ovon, ‘A,
Region 6.
Part I
Section A. General Permit Covernge and
Notification Reqrnrements
1. Permittees covered
Penuittess tndudai
(1) Operators of facilities in the Coastal
Subcategory (40 R pert 435. subpart 0)
located in Louisiana and Texas. Location of
a Coastal Subcategoi’y facility is determined
by the location of the welihead as iated
with that facility.
(2) Operators of facilities in the Offshore
Subcaiegory (40 R part 435 subçail A) and
the Stripper subcatsgory (40 R paIl 435
subpart F) which discharge to “coastal”
watsea of Loanalana or Texas.
(3) Persons who dispose of pmd&iced waler
or prodi sand for operators of Ceestal
Subcategmy facilitie, located in Louisiana or
Texas.
(4) P ,re. . s who dispose of pollutants to
j•• waler, of wsaana or Tame for
operators of S lpper or Offshore Suboalegory
facilities.
2. NotificatIon Reqwxements
Permittee , covered by these permits am
auPn iir=Ily cevered a writtas rfl cn
of intent to be covered by these permits is not
required. Since these permits cover only
produced water and produced sand.
discharges of other waste waters Sum Coastal
Subcategory wells in these Slates must apply
to be cov d by NPDES Permits LAG330000
or TXC3 O000.
Section a General hmet LI
1. Permit Conditions Applicable to
LAC29 0 0 00
a. P OhthfliOJIS. Permittass shall not
discharge nor shall they cause or contribute
to the discharge of produced water and
produced sand.
b. Other requirements. All dischargers
.nust comply with any mor, stringent
requirements contained in Louisiana Water
Quality Regulations, LAC 33iX.7 705.
2. Permit Co”’ ”- ’ Applicable to
a. Prohibitions. P ittees shall not
discharge nor shall they cause or contribute
to th. discharg. of produced water or
— am
Past U (App 1 t. to LAGa00000 sod
1 GaaQnoo)
Section A. Genezm’ Condition,
1. intrnd’
In accordance with the provisions o(40
R 122.41 et. seq., this permit ha. . . . . ...ies
by reference ALL conditions and
requirements applicable to NPD permits
set forth In the Clean Water’ Act, as amended
(hereinafter inown as the “Acti as well as
all applicable EPA regulations.
2. Duty to ply
The parmittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit non-
compliance constitutes a violation of the
Clean Water Ad and Is grounds for
enfot eot ion and/cr fa requiring a
permitte. to apply for and obtain an
individual NPDES peimiL
3. Permit Flexibility
This permit may be cuodifled. revoked sail
reissued, or terminated for cause. in
accordance with 40 Q ’R 122.82-44. The
Sling far a permit . rn ttRr .tioL rormatlon
and reissuanos. or termination, or a
notification of pJ ni i .d change. or
anticipated noncompliance, does not stay
any permit condition.
4. Property Rights
This permit does net convey any pe.perty
rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges
nor does It authorize any ln uzy to private
property or any Invasion of persona! lights.
nor any Infringement of Federal. State or
local laws or regulations.
S. Duty To Provide Information
The pernuttee shall furnish to the Regional
Administrator, within a reasonable thus, any
information which the Regions!
- Administrator may request to da .rmi
whether cause exists for madifyuig. revoking
and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or
to determine compliance with this permit
The permittee shall also fin nish the Regional
Administrator, upon c op t . . of
records required to be kept by tins permit.
8. and Clvil 1J hiliIy
Exce as provided In permit condition. on
“Bypassing” and “Upsets”, nothing in this
perudi shall be construed to reliese the
per’mitts. from civil or or ’ -’-- 1 pomltle. f
noncompliance. Any false or matenally
mlslii -’d’ng reprasentadon or r,,lm.., , Of
Information required to be reported by the
provisions of the permit. the Ad or
applicable (7R regulations which avoids or
effectively defeats the regulatory ‘pos. of
the Permit may sublect the pexuilnee to
aimlnal enforcement pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1001.
1.011 and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing In has permit shall be construed
to preclude the institution of any legal action
or relieve the permutes from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to
which the permutes mey besubject under
section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
8. State Laws
Nothing In this permit shall be canefrued
to preclude the institution of any le. l action
or relieve the pasauIMa from any
om 1 ,onithmH , fl ..hiIiH . or ______
eatabII hM i”’ ’ to any applIr. 1 I Stats
law or regulation under authority jnc.srvad
by i .ictinng l0oftheCleanWaterAct.
9. Sevambility
The provisions of this permit ass severable,
and if any provision of this permit orthe
application of any provision of this permit to
any circumstance is held Invalid, the
application of such provision to other
are ifn M ,res. and the remainder of his
permit. shall not be affected thereby.
Section B. Proper Operation and
Maintenance
1. Need to Halt or Reduce Nets Defense
It shall bern tnf , ,ae for a parmiutas Lu
an eniorcemsot anion chat it would have
been n. ’ ’y to halt or reduce the
permitted activity in order O %.inMin
compliance with the r wilfr n* of this
permit.
2. Duty to Mitigate
The permUtes shall take all reasonable
steps to or prevent any discharge
Lu violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood Of adverseLy a cting
human health or the anv onment.
3. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The psmattee shall at all tunas properly
operate and intR(n all facilities and
systems of tivalment and control (and related
appurtenances) which are , nts ft ’,d -
by the permUtes to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit. This provision
requires the operation of h .4r .p or auxiliary
facilities Of similar systems which are
Installed by a peimattee only when the
operation is necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of the permit.
4. Bypass of Facilities
a, Deflmtions. Cl) “Bypass” means the
Intentional diversion of waste streams from
any portion of a facility.
(2) “Severs property dnmu ,s ” means
substantial physical 4 *mag . . to property,
____to the tteaonant facilities that cans- ’
them to be inoperable, or iuh i.nIii and
permanant loss of natural resources than can
reasonably be expected to occur In the
absence of bypass. Severs property d ’ ni ’s
does not mean economic loss caused by
delays In production.
b. .Notice. (1) AntIcipated bypars. lithe
permattes know, In amoco Of the need frr
a bypass, Itslmllsuton at prmruodce. if
poanbi. at Least tan day, before the data of
the bypass.
(2) UnantIcipated bypass. The permitte.
shall, within 24 hours, submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as requ vd In Fart
ll.D.2.
c. Prohibition of bypass. (1) Bypass is
prohibited. end the Regional Administrator
may take enforcement actio, against a
parmitte. fur bypa.a . unleer
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal Injury or severe property
damage:

-------
u0950
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22. 1992 / Notices
(b) There were no feasible alternatives to
the bypass. such as the use of auxiliary
trea ent facilities. retention of untreated
wastes. or maintenance during normal
penods of equipment downtime. The
condition is cot satisfied If adequate back-up
equipment should have been installed in the
exercise of reasonable engineering tII!g! I nt
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 1L8.4.b. (2) The Regional Administrator
may approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering Its adverse effects. If the Regional
Admt,i( trator determines that It will meet
three conditions listed at Pest ILB.4.c.(1),
5. Upset Conditions
a. Definition. “Upset” means an
exceptional incident in which there Is
unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with t rhnnlogy.based effluent limitations
because of factors beyond the r.einiiebl’e
control of the perinittee. 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 Ej cta of an upset An upset constitutes
an affirmative defense of an action brought
for noncompliance with such technology-
based permit effluent limitations If the
requirements of Past fl.ft.5.c. are met. No
determination made during a1 4 !Ilinitrative
revrew of rIaI,n that noncompliance was
caused by upset, and before en action for
noncompliance, is final administrative action
subject to judicial review.
c. Conditions necasswy for a
demonstrotion of upset. The pennlttee 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 permittee submitted notice of the
upset as required by Part ILD.2: and
(4) The permittee complied with Pest
U B.2.
d. Burden of Proof. In any enforcement
proceeding the permittee seeking to establish
the occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proot
6. Removed Substances
Solids. elud8es. filter backwash, or other
pollutants removed in the course of treatment
or control of waste waters shall be disposed
of In a manner such as to prevent any
pollution from such materials from entering
waters of the United States.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
The permittee shall allow the Regional
Administrator, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of
aedentiala and other documents as may be
required by law to:
1. Enter upon the permittee premise .
here a regulated facility or activity Is
ated or conducted, or where records must
1 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 records shall be kept for a
period of at least three years from 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 activity
which may result in noncompliance with
permit requirements.
2. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
The perceittee shall report any
noncompliance with this permit, bypass or
upset. Any information shall be provided
orally wIthin 24 hours from the time the
permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall
also be provided WIthin 5 days of the time
the permittee becuwes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission shall
contain a desoription 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. 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
ocour which would result iii 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 “notificatiura levels” described
In 40 R 122.42(a)(2).
5. Signatory Requirements -
AU 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 persona
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. Fore municipality, State, Federal or
other public agency. Either a principle
executive office or tRnking 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 g, .ographic 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 desnibed above or by a duly
authorized representative only It
(liThe authorization is made in writing by
a 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 a&the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or oil field,
superintendent, or position of equivalent
responsibility, or an Individual or position
having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. A
duly authorized representative may thus be
either en individual oran 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 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 (or 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 R 122.7. any
information submitted pursuant to this
permit may be claimed confidential by the
submitter. If no claim is made at the time of
submission, information may be made
available to the public without further notice.

-------
Federal RegiSter / VoL 57, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Notices
60951
Section & Penakie, fez Violations of Permit
Conditions
1. minal
a. Negligent violations. Tb. Ad provides
that any person who negligently violates
permit conditions Implementing sections
301. 302, 306.307 or308 of the Act I. subject
to a fine of not less than $2500 nor more than
325,000 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 simian.
301,302,306,307 or 308 of the Act Is subject
to a fine of not less than 35.000 par day of
violation nor more than 350.000 per day of
violation, or by Imprisonment for not more
than 3 years. or both.
c. Know ing endon germ ant. The Act
provide. that any person who knowingly
violates permit conditions implementing
sectIons 301,302, 306, 307 and 308 of the
Act and who knows at the time that he is
plaang another person In 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.
S False statements. The Act provide, that
any person who knowingly makes any false
material statement, representation, or
certification In any application. ze rd ,
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 upo. conviction, be punished by
a fine of not more than $10,000 per day, or
by Imprisonment fir not more than 2 years.
orby both. Uaconvlctlonofa person Is for
a violation cn in .tted after a first conviction
of such a person under this parageeph.
punishment shall be by a fine or not more
than 320.000 per day of violation. orby
Imprisonment of not more than 4 years. or by
both (See section 309(c)(4 1 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 . . .c ed
325.aoo per day for each violation.
3. Penalties
The Act provides that say p . . . who
violates a permit condition Implementing
sections 301,302, 306,307, 308.318. or 405
of the Act lssubjecttos dvii penaltynotto
mooed $25,000 par day for each violation.
a. a i penalty Not to uce.d 310.000
per violation nor shall the maximum amount
Mj—Dd 32’.000 .
b. aos. II penalty Not to enceed 310,000
per day for each day during which the
violations continues nor shall the m.ylmum
amount exoaed 3125.000.
Section F. Definitions
All definitions In section 502 of the Act
shall apply to this permit and are
Incorporated herein by reference. Unless
otherwise specified In this permit, additional
definition. words or phrases used In this
permit ate as followat
1. “Act” means the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C 1251 at seq.) as amended.
2. “Applicable effluent standards sad
limitations” means all state end Federal
effluent standards and limitations to which a
discharge Is subject under the Act. Including,
but not innited to, affluent limitations.
standards of performance. toxic effluent
standards and prohibItions, and pretreatment
standards.
3. “Applicable water quality standards”
means all waler quality standards to which
.dlschezge 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 Aeh nnhatrator pursuant to section
303 (b) or 303(c) of the Act.
4. “Bypass” means the IntentIonal
diversion of waste steams from any portion
of a treatment facility.
5. “Coastal waters” are defined as waters
of the United States as defined at 40 Q”R
122.2, located Iandward 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 3(e) and Include those
Texas waters that are not offshore or in
adjacent estuarine waters.
8. “National Pollutant Discharge
RIk , .4n jo System” means the national
proçam far Issuing, revoking and reissuing.
terminating, monitoring and enforcing
permits , and Imposing and enforcing
pi.u tment 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 weil as source sand
and hydrgbiic sand. Produced sand also
Indudes sludges generated by any chetni&
polymer used In a produced water’ treatmet
10. “Produced water” mesas water and
particulate matter as odated with oil end gas
producing formations. Produced water
Includes small volumes of source water and
treatment ch . .th .mI that return to the surface
with the produced formation fluids and pass
through the produced water treating systems
currently used by many oil and gas operators.
11.”Reglonal Administrator” means the
Administrator of the US. Environmental
Protection Agency, RegIon 6.
12. “Severe property . 4g,,,i, i, ” means
substantial physical damlr to property,
dam s g . to treatment facilities which causes
them to become Inoperable, or substantial
and permanent lou of natural resources
which can reasonably be expected to occur
lathe absence of bypass. Severe property
dAmag . . does not mean economic loss caused
by delays In production.
13. 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 arid 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,IX.7.708 and Includes “any land not
normally inundated with water end that
would not, under’ normal circumstances, be
characterirad u swamp or fresh,
Intermediate, lnw-klth or saline marsh”.
‘l’he 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 Atchafolyeya River,
Including Wax Lake Outlet, below Morgan
City ore not upland area waters fir purposes
of this permit.
15. “Upset” means an excepti’onal 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 1 , ,uvnodve maintenance, or
careless or Improper operation.
IFR Dcc. 92-30779 Plied 12—21—82; 3:45 aml
SWiS cocs es N

-------
60444 Federal Regiater I VoL 57, No. 244 / Friday , December 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
0CFRPart1
1 FRL—454&-8]
National Pollutant Dlscharg.
ElImination System; Storm Water
Discharges; Permit luuancs and
Permit Compliance Deadlines for
Phase I Storm Water Discharges
A0E 4 Y: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: 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 Natural Resourtes Defense
Council v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cfr.
1992). This action also clarifies that
application requirements and deadlines
for certain discharges which EPA had
previously exempted from the scope of
the NPDES storm water regulations are
reserved pending further rulemaking.
hese Include discharges from
.onstructlon sites disturbing less than 5
aces of land and discharges exempt
under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(xi) 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 20460. Appointments to review the
record may be made by CnitITlg Nancy
Cnnningham at (202) 260—9535. A
reasona 1e fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR PJRTHER 4FORUAT)ON CONTACT The -
EPA Storm Water Hothne at (703) 821—
4823.
SUPPLEMENTARY aIFORMATION:
I. Authority
II. Background
A. Water Quality Act of 1987
B. November18, 1990 Rule.
C. Later Deadline Extensions
D. Ninth Chcwt Decision in MRDC v. EPA
111. of Today’. Rule
A. Deadlines for Phase I Permit Issuance
and Compliance
B. Requirements for “Ught Industries” and
“Small 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.
IL Background
A. Water Qualify Act of 1987
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
4O2(p)(l) provides that EPA or States
cannot require a permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge
‘ 1 ation System (NPDES) for certain
storm water discharges until October 1,
1994,’ except for storm water discharges
listed under section 40 2 (p)( 2 ). Section
402(p)(2) lists five types of storm water
discharges which are covered under
“Phase 1” of the program and are
required to apply for a permit prior to
October 1, 1994:
(A)Ad lsth argewlthrespecttowh lch
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 tl i at 4 utrge 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 Stales.
The WQA clarified and amended the
requirements for permits for storm water
discharges in the new CWA section
402(pX3). The Act clarified that permits
for discharges associated with industrial
activity must meet all of the applicable
‘As erI tnaily adopted. se ton 402(pX I)
spedn _ ths* the “motstwtum ou per ftthsg of
there sterm vet scwces. which EPA refers to as
“Pb ... U” sermas. would erpir. es October 1,
1992. SuctIm 312 of the Weler Reaawce
D...lopmeat Act of 1992. WhiCh wu siped by th•
Prerideat October31. 1992, wit..ded the
morstwtum to October 1. 1994.
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
(BCT) (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
ma dmum extent practicable As
with all point source discharges under
the CWA, storm water discharges are
subject to applicable water quality-
based stand ards.
Section 4 O 2 (p)(4) established
deadlines to implement the permit
program for Storm water discharge , ’
associated with Industrial activity; t
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 mare 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 for such discharges were to
be submitted no later than February 4.
1990 for Industrial and large munidpal
systems. and no later than February 4,
1992 for medium municipal 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 4O 2 (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 toa violation of water
quality standards.
B. November 16, 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 diedharges
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
‘R 122.26(b)(14)(i)—(x)). One of the

-------
Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 244 / FrIday, December 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60445
categories included discharges from
construction sites larger than 5 aces (40
CFR 122.26(b)(14)(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 C R
122.26(b)(14)(xi)). For these discharges,
by contrast, EPA presumed that there
would be no storm water discharge
associated with Industrt al 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 sat 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 G ’R 122.26(c)(1).
Generally, the applicant must provide
comprehensive facility specific
narrative Information and quantitative
analytical data based.on samples
collected on site during storm events.
Under S 122.26(e)(1) of the November
16,1990 nile, individual applications
were to have been submitted by
November 18, 1991.
The group application process allows
for facilities wiih . i,nilnr operations and
storm water discharges to Join together
and file a single two part permit
application. Part I of a group
application Identifies the facilities
within the group and includes
qualitative information desaiblng the
facilities. Part I of the group application
was to be submitted to EPA no later
than March 18, 1991. The regulation
provides that EPA has a 60 day period
after receipt to review the Part 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
infor mation, Including sampling data,
on roughly ten percent of the facilities
in the group. Under the November 16,
1990 regulations, Part 2 applications
were to be submitted no later than 12
months after the date of approval of the
Part I application.
The November 16. 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 axe 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,
48074). The regulations provide that
Pert I 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, 19 2. Part I
applications for discharges from
medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems (systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more, but less
than 250,000) were due on May 18,
1992. Part 2 applications for discharges
from medium systems are due on May
17, 1993.
C. Later Deadline Extensions
In light of substantial concerns raised
by the regulated community regarding
the complexity of the new storm water
regulations, the difficulty In
deternlning whether particular facilities
were subject to the new nile., and
adminigtratlve 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
(56 FR 12098 (March 21, 1991)). Later,
EPA also extended the deadline for
submitting an individual permit
application for storm water dIwhi rges
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 come. 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 (57 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.
En December 1991, the President signed
the Intermoda,l 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 portion, of
section 1068 Into its rules (57 FR 11524
(Apr. 2, 1992)).
D. Ninth Circuit Decision in JVTIDC 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 F.2d 1292 (9th CIr. 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 I 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 aci’es 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’.
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 I 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 had proposed to exempt only sites
smaller than I acie. In the final nile. the
exemption was maeased to 5 amos,.
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 lees than five
aaes are non-industrial in nature.” 966
F.2d at 1306. The Court rejected EPA’s
argument that the 5 ama cutoff
constituted a de mizwnis exemption,
finding the record lacked information to
suggest whether smaller discharges
ould be de minimis. 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
the deadlines as NRDC had requested.
The Court did, however, order EPA to
promulgate additional rules spedfying
dates for permit approval or denial and
for permit compliance, as contemplated
by the statute. The Court 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. 966 F.2d at 1300.
JL Summ ’ry of Today’s Rule
A. Deadlines for Phase I Pennit Issuance
and Compliance
In response to the mandate of the
Ninth Circuit, EPA is today issuing rules
to specify dates by which Phase I storm
water permits are to be issued or denied
by EPA or authorized States and to
speQfy the dates by which the
discharger shall comply with the
permit. Section 4O 2 (p)( 4 ) provided that
EPAlStates were to issue or deny
permits by February 4. 1991 for
discharges associated with industrial
activity or discharges from large
municipal separate storm sewer
sy s tems. 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 specifies that
permits are lobe issued at denied by
one year after the regulatory deadline
for submitting complete permit
applications. I.e., October 1, 1983 for
mast discharges associated with
Industrial activity, May 17, 1994 for
discharges usociated with industrial
activity from municipalities with a
population lees 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. For 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
application. 2 This one year time frame
is consistent with the intent of Congress
reflected in section 402(p)(4) that
permits be issued or denied one year
after the permit application deadline.
Section 4O 2 (p)14) 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 Cowl’s
mandate, today’s rule codifies this
provision in the regulations at 40 CFR
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 Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA. 966 F.2d 1292,
1299—1300 (9th Cit. 1992) holds the
following with respect to EPA’,
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 Industnes”
and “Small” Construction Sites
In lt opinion, the Ninth Circuit
invalidated EPA’s exemptions for
construction sites lass than five aces
and for light industry categories where
there is no exposure of industrial
3 A1 1 of lb. ,oi.v .nt claim wat p mit
spphulioa sad pmmft ‘--de.dIlam are listed
Is Appsadiz A at the sad .1 lbs. otl .
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 construction sites and
light Industries with no exposure of
industrial activity to storm water subject
to the current application requirements
for discharges aoaated with industrial
activity.
EPA does not believe that the Court’s
opinion had the effect 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 Court’
opinion Is quite clear that the two
exemptions were remanded to EPA for
further rulemaking 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 fadlitles
under the storm water program.
Therefore, EPA believes that a specific
change to the currant 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 small
construction sites and light industries
with no exposure are reserved pending
the further rulemaking. Such facilities
need not submit permit applications
until the EPA conducts furthar
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 4O2(p)(4) and the opinion of the
Ninth Circuit
EPA notes that the Cowl’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 discha as 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.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must determine whether this regulation
constitutes a “major rule”, requiring a
regulatory impact analysis. This rule

-------
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 244 / FrIday , December 18.1992 / Rules and Regulations 60447
imposes no new regulatoty
requirements; the requirement to submit
an NPDES permit application was
contained in the November 16, 1900
rule. This rule merely codifies existing
statutory deadlines for NPDES storm
water permit issuance and compliance.
Thus, the rule meets none of the aiteria
of a “major rules’ underE.O. 12291. This
rule has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.
B. Popeiwork 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. Regulatoiy Flexibility 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 makes 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 01 Pail 122
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Water
pollution control.
Dated: December11. 1992.
William K. Reilly,
Admuustrotor.
APPENDIX A TO ThE Pc wI&E—NPDES STORM WATER PERMrT APPUCAT1ON AND ISSUANCE DEAOLJNES
• In viduaI
E sftn facteas -.
Faolme. m waad tram a gmi agtoicaXn
New Iac4iees
New asn m ... -
Al us 51aI ect Ides eme Slose O wnsd or ageesad
by • tmamc ei5y wISi a pcp iaeon 01 lam Sian
250.000.
In samsI actvidea owned or aDulated by a mun aUty
wim a pop iaaon 01 loss Sun 250.000.
• Lai e MunI aI Systems
• Melium Murnclçs 5 Systems
October 1.1992... -
OooCer 1.1992
180 days pitor to acmm.r emem 01 (iduslnal acd’ ity wf ctt
may mine. atom ester dtedlalgs.
90 days pnoc to cotwnsncemsss 01 coiweucton
Past 2
w1.1g92.__
May 17. 1993
Patti Past2
Novsiober 18.1991 ..__. No sntoui 18.1992
May ie. 1992 May 17. 1993 ......
October 1.1992
Omsoer 1. 1991
One year after receel of corn.
plots penval aaDIlCSSOlt
One year after receet 01 corn
—. penTl4 aaDl oOlt
Novaiobor 18. 1993.
May 11, 1994.
F ii blest warn waw pwi ,es. ew aimless mi 10 11 105 l d punilt ye wIu, awl S yam Asi us 01 purni
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40, chapter 1. of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 122—EPA AOUlNISi nED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
EUMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for ;c1t422
continues to read as follows:
Authority The Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C
1251 etseq.
2. Section 122.26 is amended by
adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as
follows:
• 122.26 Storm water dlscltvg.a
(appllcabl. to State NPOES program., see
• 123.25),
5 5 • S S
(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:
(iUA) Except as provided In paragraph
(e)(7fli)(B) 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 yeai 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)(illB)
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 U 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
Type of soplicaSoadype of dlaaul9e
Pomst apelcaSon dee e
. Gsoup
Peima Issuance deatSine
Pail I
September 30.1991..
May 18. 1992
Onober I. 1993.
May 17. 1994

-------
60443 Feaeral Register / Vol. 57. No Z44 i Friday. Decemoer 18. 19 2 I Rules 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 e dsting
sowvse which fail to submit a complete
permit application by May 17. 1993, one
year after receipt of a complete permit
application.
• 1 .42 Additional conditions uppUcebi,
io specified cat.gorlss of NPDES permits
(applicable ts Stats NPDES pro ams, -
• • • • S
(d) SWmi ter disdierges. The Initial
permits for discharges composed
entirely of storm water Issued pursuant
IFR D cc. 92—30778 PIled 12—17-42;8:45 aml
. wim coca
3. Section 122.42 Is amended by to § 122.26(e)(7) of this part shall require
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: compliance with the conditions of the
____ permit as expeditiously as practiceble,
but In no event later than three years
__ after the date of Issuance of the permit.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 220 / Friday. November 13. 1992 I Notices
899
... ...
resokitloir mass spectrometry in allyl
ether of tetrabromobisphenol-A. These
chemical analyses are required by this
test rule.
Test data for 4-VCH were submitted
by the Chemical Manufacturers
Association Sutadiene Panel on behalf
of the test sponsors and pursuant to a
testing consent order at 40 GR 799.5000.
They were received by EPA on
September 15. 1992. The submission
describes testing 4-VCI-l In the mouse
and rat bone marrow micronucleus
assay by Inhalation. Health effecta
testing is required by this testing
consent order. This chemical is used as
an intermediate in. 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
antioxidants.
Test data for MO was submitted by
the Chemical Manufacturers
Association on behalf 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 doSe 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.
IL Public Record
EPA has established a public record
for this TSCA section 4(d) receIpt of
data notice (docket number OPPTS—
44592). This record Includes copies of all
studies reported in this notice. The
record is available for inspection from 8
a.xn. to 12 noon, and 1 p.m.to 4p.m..
Monday through Friday. except legal
holidays, in the TSCA Public Docket
Office. Rm. NE-GaOl. 401 M SL SW..
Washington, DC 20460.
Autborky 15 U.S.C. 2092.
Dated: October V. 1992.
Chad.. NI. Au. ,.
Director. Chemical Control Dlvi. ion, Office of
Pollution Pre veniwn and Tox,cs.
IFR D cc. 92-V595 Filed 11-12-91 8:45 aml
rwna coos ssi .
(FRL-4533-3 1
Revision of the Delaware National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program To iuue
General Permits
*GENC’r Environmental Protection
Agency.
Acn0t4 Notice of Approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Fiiminatjon System General Permits
Program of the State of Delaware .
suvusaar On October 23. 1992. the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region D l 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 the.following 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC1
Kenneth J. Cox. Chief. Program
Development Section. U.S. EPA. Region
Dl, 841 Chestnut Street. Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania, 19107, 215/587-8211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOtC
L Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate the discharge of
wastewater which results from
substantially similar operations, are of
the same type wastes, require the same
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 indude 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 activities:
construction and vehicle maintenance
ites. recycling facilities (junkyard$l and
marinas; conqQntrated aquatic animdl
production facilities; non-contact
cooling water discharges: underground
storage tank remediation sites: borrow
pits; well testing: concentrated animal
feeding operations (manure
management); filter backwash wati ’I ’
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.i h
general permit will be subject to EPA
review and approval as provided by 40
‘R 123.44. Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing is dls
provided under Delaware law for rech
general permit.
II. Discussion
On September 16. 1992 the State of
Delaware submitted in support of itS
request copies of the relevant statutes
and regulations and an amendment to
the Memorandum of Agreement dutcd
May 4. 1983. The State has also
submitted a statement by the AttorneY
General dated September 18. 1992
certifijing. with appropriate citation of
the statutes and regulations. that thu
State will have adequate legal authoritY
to administer the general permits
program as required by 40 CFR 123.:3(c)
upon adoption of it’s proposed
regulations. In addition, the State
submitted a program description
supplementing the original applicatIon
permits program. including the authiifltY
to perform each of the activities set rorth
in 40 CFR 123.44. Based upon
Delaware’s program description and
upon its experience in administering sri
approved NPDES program, EPA ha.
conduded that the State will have the
necessary procedures and resources tO
administer the general permits program.
III. Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Programs or
Modifications
EPA must provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDr.S
program. The following table provides
the public with an up-to-date list of the
status of NPDES permitting authority
throughout the country. Today’s Federal
Register notice Is to announce the
approval of Delaware’s authority to
issue general permits.

-------
‘A.
uer .i. , c.. . :.. :.., i .. :‘ i .. :%‘)uces
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
A80t ed
Slate P4POES
permit
AWu 08 t.
,egi.4te.
Federal
Ap erI
Slate
preveatiTlent
*wuwed
general
periTTiti
j .. .4 5M
facilities
pivgiutn
progiini
-S
Alabaea
A,lien,a&. . . . .._____________
.. —-_________
10119179
11/01/08
10119179
11101108
10/19/79
11101186
06/28/91
11101186
-‘—-—a
a
boA
....... .
. . ...
._ ._...__.
06/14/73
03/27/75
09/26/73
04/01/74
06126/74
05/05179

09/22/89
06/ 0 3/01
09122139
03/04/83
03 / 10/92
10/23/92
01/28191
01/09/88

1V08180
Georgia
..
03112181
H 5w .._
11/25/74
06/01/79
09112/83
09/30/91
limes
—
10l23 177
09/20/78
01/04/34
India n e.
—
01101175
12109178
04l02/91
i owa
._._._________________
00110178
08/10/78
06/03/81
08 11V92
..-——-—
06/28174
09130/83
09/05/74
10/17173
06/30/74
08/28/85
09130/83
11/10/87
12/09179
12/09178
.
09130/83
09l30/91
12/15187
09/30/83
09(30/85
06107/33
07/16/79
-- . .
— —
. . . __________________________________
....
05/01/74
10/30/74
01128/83
06/28/79
051 13/82
06/03/81
.09/27/91
12112/85
Neø r aslia_______________
Nevada
New Jersey
New Vera
Norm Cwolwia
06/10/74
06/12/74
09/19/75
04/13/02
10/28/75
10/19/75
. 06/23/51
11/02/79
08/31/78
04/13/82
06/13/80
09/28/34
.___
09/07/34
04/13/82
06/14/82
04/29/83
07/20/09
07/27/92
04/13/82
10/ 15/ f l
09/06/91
— ..._..._
—
— —_____________________________
.. . .._._..
No rtn0ako i.a
.. — —
06/13/75
01/22/90
01/22/90
Ohio.
— .‘.............._.
03/11/74
01/28/83
07/27/83
08/17/92
Oregon
09/26/73
03/02/79
03/1218I
02/23/82
Peibr.
Rh005 Island
South Cerowis
Tennessee
ut a h .
Vermo nt
Virgin Islerida
Virginia
•
...__....________________________________________
.__.. .__..__ —
08/30/78
09/17/34
06/10/75
12/26177
07/07/81
03/11/74
0 9130/76
03131/75
08130/78
09/17/04
09/26/80
09/30/50
07 107 1V
09/17/34
04/09/02
08/10/83
01/07/07
03/18/82
08/02/91
09/11/84
09/03/92
04/18/91
07/07/37
_——
.

. —
02/09/82
04/14/09
05/20/91
11114173
09/30/86
09/26/89
went Vup
Wiscoriesi
WpV n w i
05/10/02
02/04/74
01/30/75
05/10/62
11/20179
05/10181
05/10/52 05/10/82
12/24/00 I 12/19/86
.....4 09/24/91
Toed__________________________________________________
39
34
VJ
35
Number of Fully Authorized Programs
(Federal Facilities. Pretreatment.
General Permits)=24
IV. Review Under Executive Ordm
12291 and the Regulatory flexibility Ad.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to sectIon 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entitles.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et sag.). 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 the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. Approval of the Delaware
NPDES State General Permits Program
merely provides a simplified
administrative process.
Dateth November 2.1992.
Edwin B. Erickson .
RegionaIAdmzras zator.
(FR Doc. 92-27547 Filed 11-12-92. &45 ami
8000
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Requirement 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
U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be
purchased from the Comznlssigp’s copy
contractor. D .wntown Copy Center.
1990 M Street. NW. suite 640.
Washington. DC 30038. (202)452—1422.
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
NEOL Washington. DC 20503. (202) 395-
4814.
0MB Number 3060-O3
Title: Part 21—Domestic Facilities
Fixed Radio Service..
Action: Revision of. currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (including small businesses).
Frequency afResponsa
Recordkeeping requirement. semi-
annual and annual reporting
requirements.
Estimated Annual Buivien: 100
recordkeepers. 2 hours average burden
per recordkeeper. 200 hours total; and
28.616 responses. 1.9 hours average

-------
45112
Corrections Federal
Register
Vol. 57.
No
190
Wednesday.
September 30. 1992
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains eddonal corrections of previously
published Presidential, Rule, Proposed
Rule, and Notice documents. These
corrections are prepared by the Othce of
the Federal Register. Agency prepared
corrections are issued as signed
documents and appear in the appropriate
document categories elsewhere in the
issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION
AGENCY
(FRL—451 1—23
Final NFDES General Permits for
Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Sites
Correction
In notice document 92—23326
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 DAlES section. the effective date is
corrected to read September 25. 1992.
BIWNO coor 150541-0
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
ISW-FRL-4191-6 1
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing 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 37926. in the flrst column.
in the sixth line, “become” should read
“becomes”, and in the last paragraph. in
the fourth line, insert”)” after
“annually”..
4 On the same page. in the second
column, in the fourth line. “create”
should read “treat”.
BIWNO CODE 1505-01-0
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
LSW-FRL-4197-7 1
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing 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 “of’.
2. On the same page, in the third
column, in the second full paragraph. in
the second line from 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. “semivolatile” 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 I 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 heading for
Table 10. in the second line. “(SSR)”
should read “(SRR)” each time it
appears.
Appendix IX—{Correctedj
ii. On page 37936. the heading
‘Appendix XI “ should read
“Appendix 1X •
12. On the same page. in Appendix IX.
in Table 1. in the third column. in the
first line. “F004” should read “F005”.
BIWNG CODE 1505-01-0
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Heaith Care Financing Administration
42 CFR Part 433
M8-35-fl
RIN 0938-AE3S
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
correction:
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)(5)”
BIWNO CODE 1505.41-0
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
42 CFR Parts 405,411, and 413
(BPD-725-FCI
RIN 0938-AF27
Medicare Program; Self-implementing
Coverage and Payments Provisions:
1990 Legislation
Correclion
In rule document 92—16447 beginning
on page 36008 in the issue of
Wednesday. August 12, 1992. make the
following corrections;
§ 405.502 (Corrected I
1. On page 36013. in the third column,
in § 405 502(a). in the fifth line.
“services” should be deleted the second
time it appears.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 190 I Wednesday. September 30. 1992 I Corrections 45113
§411.62 (CofTectedi
2. On page 36015. in the second
column, under § 411.82(b)(1), in the
second line, after “receive” insert “a”.
3. On page 36018. in the first column.
under § 411.82(c)(3)(ii). in the first line.
“other an” should read “other than”.
§413.118 (Consctedl
4. On page 36017. in the second
column. in § 413.118(d)(4). in the fourth
line. “payments” should read
“payment”.
I&UNG coac tsae.os.O

-------
Friday
September 25, 1992
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
industrial Activity; Notice

-------
44438
Federal_Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
(FRL.-4511-Il
Final NPDES General Permits for
Storm Water Olacharges Associated
With Industrial Activity
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTTOPc Notice of Final NPDES General
Permits.
SUMMARY The Regional Administrator
of Regions I. II. 111. and IX (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.
DATE& These general permits shall be
effective on September 25. 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 (NOI) to be
covered by the permits.
Deadlines for submittal of Notices of
Intent (NOIsJ are provided in part ILA of
the general permits. Today’s general
permits also provide additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the permit
and for submitting monitoring data
where required.
AODRES8E Notices of Intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permits should be sent to: Storm Water
Notices of Intent. P0 Box 1215.
Newington, VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
reqwred 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 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
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 CONTACT
For further information ott 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 INFORMAT10tC
I. Introduction
Ii. Regional Con tacts
III. Section 401 Certifications
IV Economic Impact (Executive Order 122911
V Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. 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 State of
Massachusetts.
Region 11—For the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and for Indian lands located
in New York.
Region 111—For the District of
Columbia and for Federal Facilities in
Delaware.
Region 1K—For Guam thid American
Samoa.
On August 10. 1991. (58 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 todays 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.
Boston. MA and Manchester. NH.
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 Ii
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 1.
Introduction: Section II. Coverage of
General Permits: Section III. Summary L
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 16. 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 authotize
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
The September 9. i992. ract sheet. incorporate
portion, of the draft qeneral permii. puolished on
August 18. 1991 (58 FR 409481 The.. portions of the
August 18. 1991. fact sheet. are also incorporated
into today • permits. Section. of the August 16 1991
fact uheet being incorporated are section 1.
Backgrouesk section 4. Summary of Options for
ContruUuzg Poliutanis: and sectIon 5. The Federali
Municipal Partnership The Role of Municipal
Operator. of Large end Medium Municipal Separate
Storm Sewers.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25, 1992 I Notices
44439
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
ictivities and several additional classes
of storm water discharges.
Today’s notice contains four
appendices. Appendix A incorporates
Appendix A—.Sumznary 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.
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 to
diachargers 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.
U. Regional Contacts
Notices of Intent to be authorized to
discharge under these permits must be
ent 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 concernuig
discharges in any State. Indian land, or
from any Federal facility covered.
should be sent to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office listed below:
AThssachuse s
United States EPA. Region i—Water
Management Division. (WCP—2109). Storm
Water Staff, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building. Room 2209. Boston, MA 02203,
Contact: Veronica Hamngton. (817) 565—
3525.
New York (Indian lands). Puerto Rico
United States EPA. Region Il—Water
Management Division. (ZWM—WPC). Storm
Water Staff. 28 Federal Plaza, New York,
NY 10278. Contact: Jose Rivera. (212 ) 284—
2911.
Disir:cs of Columbia. Delaware (Fedemi
facilities)
United States EPA. Region 111—Water
Management Division. (3WM55). 841
Chestnut Building. Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Contact: Kevin Magerr. (215) 597—1851.
“uam and American Samoa
,ited States EPA. Region DC—Water
4lanagement Division. (W—5—1 ), Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco. CA 94105. Contact: Eugene
Bromley. (415) 744—1908.
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, 300,
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 C! v1R 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 Cl ,4R 4.04(3) and
part 111 C.1 of this permit (as amended
by the special requirements for
discharges in Massachusetts), are not
eligible for coverage under this permit.
Permittees in Massachusetts are to
submit NOIs to the following address:
Storm Water Staff, Storm Water Notice
of In tent, US EPA Region 1. MA, P0 Box
1215, Newingtori, 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 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
disthargers aie seeking to increase the
discharge or change the site drainage
system: all new discharge outfalls must
be set back from the receiving water.
Receiving awales 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 BMPe.
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
swale, 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 under section 401 of the
CWA. 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 NOl 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 I VoL 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
89 Kings Highway. P.O. Box 140. Dover.
DE 19903. All Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMR3). 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 LU.
Water Management Division (3WM55).
Storm Water Staff, 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia. PA 19107.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
See the following discussion and part
LB of the general permit for additional
401 conditions.
The Environmental Quality Board
(EQU) 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 I I Environmental
Protection Agency’s certification request
of November 1. 1991.
The EQS ’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
GWQC 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 CWQC contains.
among others, the following special
conditions:
Quarterly Monitoring shall be
performed. Parameters to be sampled
are the following: 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 KieldahI
nitrogen. nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen,
and any pollutant limited in an effluent
guideline to which the process
wastewater stream at the facility is
subject.
• 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 permittee shall operate all air
pollution control equipment I a
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
• The permittee should install a rain
gauge and keep daily records of the rain.
a Within 180 days of submitting the
Notice of Intent (NO!). existing
dlschargers shall submit a Certification
stating that the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan was developed.
• One year after submitting the NO!.
existing diachargers 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 dischargers
shall submit a certification stating that
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan has been developed and
implemented.
• The Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan should be reviewed at
least once every three (3) years to
determine the need to update the Plan.
• Within forty.flve (45) days after the
effective date of the permit, the
perinittee shall submit to EQS 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
EQB GWQC Into the final general
permit for Puerto Rico (PR) as described
in Part U of the general permiL 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 EQB 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 n
EPA’s general permit were expanded
slightly in order to incorporate more
detailed and specific EQS requirements
(e.g. Part VILO.. 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 CWQC
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 (Federnl facilities)
See the following and part Xl.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(0li3)(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 pernnttee
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 pernuttee 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 I VoL. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
44441
Federal airport facilities in the State of
Delaware. not just airports with over
50.000 flight operations per year. sample
far Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (tug!
I .).
Applicants are required to obtain a
certifica Lion 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 oncessary to ensure
compliance with water quality concerns.
All Federal facility permittees covered
under this permit must meet all
applicable District of Columbia laws.
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 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 rug/I
total suspended solids. Coal pile runoff
iall not be diluted with storm water
.rom other portions of the site or other
flows an 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 50 mg/I limitation for total
suspended solids. Failure to
demonstrate compliance with these
limitations as expeditiouuly as
practicable, but in no case later than
October 1. 1995, will constitute a
violation of this permit.
I ii addition to submitting the following
to United States EPA Region Ill Office
(as provided in parts I through X).
signed copies of discharge monitoring
reports required under Parts V1.D.1.a.
Vl.D.1.b. arid VI.D.1.c. individual permit
applications and all other reports
required herein, shall be submitted to
the District of Columbia at the following
address Government of the District of
Columbia. Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs. Environmental
Regulation Administration. 2100 Martin
uther King. Jr. Avenue SE..
ashingtori. DC 20020.
.imerccn Samoa
See the following and part XLE of the
general permit for 401 conditions. As a
condfttoit for certification under section
401 of the CWA. the territory of
American Samoa required Inclusion of
the following special conditions.
Permitlees must submit a copy of all
NOls and pollution prevention plans to
the American Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency.
Guam
See the following and part XI.F of the
general permit for 401 conditions. As a
condition far certification under section
401 of the CWA. the territory of Guam
required inclusion of the following
speaal conditions.
Permittees must submit a copy of all
NOIs to the Gusm Environmental -
Protection Agency at the following
address: D-107 Harmon Plaza. 130 Rojas
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
39 1)
EPA has submitted this notice to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review under Executive Order 12291.
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 eL seq. EPA did not prepare
an Information Collection Request (Ia)
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
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
U.S.C 601 et. seq.. EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of rules on
small entities. No Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is required. however, where
the head of the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Today’s permits provide small entities
with an application option that is less
burdensome than individual
applications or participating In a group
application. The other requirements
have been designed to minimize
significant economic impacts of the rule
on small entities and does not have a
significant impact on industry. In
addition, the permits reduce significant
administrative burdens on regulated
sources. Accordingly. I hereby certify
pursuant to the provisions of the
Regulatory flexibility Act, that these
permits will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Authority Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251 el
seq.
Dated: September 17. 1992.
Paul Keough.
Acting RegionolAdnvn:stjutor. Region!.
Dated: September 16. 1992.
Constantine Sidamon-Eristaff.
Regional Administ mtor. Region 11.
Dated: September 11. 1992.
A.R. Morris,
Acting Reg:c ioI Adaizn:strotor. Region II!
Dated: September 16. 1992.
John Wise.
RegionalAdmtnis ztor. Region LZ
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the August 1L
1991. Draft General Permits
The summary of responses to Public
Comment on the August 18. 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 Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Industrial Activity
[ Permit No. MAR000000J
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Vhminntion
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
asaccictcd 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 Pail 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.

-------
Federa1 Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday, September 25. 1992 / Notices
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25. l997
Signed and issued thi . 17th day of
September1992.
Larry 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 XI
which apply to facilities located in the
State of Massachusetts.
(NPDES Permit No. NYR00000F )
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 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 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
p (nut.
‘rhis 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.E..
Director. WaterMonogement Division. US.
Env,mnmenialPm&ecuon Agency. Region II.
(NPDES Permit No, PRR000000I
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Fliniinntlon.
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”.
lace ted 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 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.
Signed and issued this lath day of
September1992.
Richard L Caspe. PZ,
Director. Water Management Division. U.S.
Envzronrnento/Pmtectwn 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 R000000I
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge flh,rnnalion
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
assomated 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 18th day of
September. 1992.
A. R. Moms,
Water Management Director or Regional
Administretor.
(Permit No. DE R000000F (for permits that are
only for Indian lands and/or Fed. faclj
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 iii
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
September25. 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. Moms.
Water Management Director or Regional
Admznistzvtor.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Exduding
Construction Activities)
(Permil No. CtJROOOOCO
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge mir,th afioa
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
(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 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 U of this permit
are not authonzed 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 Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
44443
Signed end issued this 16th day of
September. 1992.
Catherine Kuhlman.
Acting Director. Water Management Division
This ss iature is for the permit
conditions an Parts I through X and for
any additional conditions in Part Xl
which apply to acilitlee located on the
Island of Guam.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
(Permit No. ASR000000J
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 associated with industrial
activity (excluding construction
activity), located on American 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
tnst submit a Notice of Intent in
:cordance with Part U of this permit.
uperators 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
Sep teinber 25. 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 27. 1992.
Signed and issued this lath day of
September. 2992.
Catherine Kuhtnian.
Acting Director. Water Management Division.
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
American Samoa.
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water -
Discharge. Associated With Industrial
Activity
Table of Contents
Preface
Part L Coverage tinder This Permit
Permit Area.
Eligibility.
uthorizalion.
.i Cl. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification.
B. Contents of Notice of Intent.
C. Where to Submit.
D. Additional Notification.
E. Renonficabon.
Part W. 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..
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Coal Pile RunofL
Pail VL Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Failure to Certify.
B. Monitoring Reqmrements.
C. Toxicity testmg.
D. Reportmg Where to Submit
E. Retention of Records.
Part VIL 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 Mitigata.
B. Duty to Provide Information.
F. Other Information.
C. Signatory Requirements.
H. Penalties for Falaification of Reports.
I. Penalties for Falsification of Monitoring
Systems.
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K. Property Rights.
L Severability.
M. Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
N. State/Environmental Laws.
0. Proper Operation and Maintenance.
P Monitoring and records.
Q. Inspection and Enti ’
R. Permit Actions.
S. Bypass of Treatment Facility.
T. Upset Conditions.
Part VIII. Reopener Clause
Part IX. Notice of Termination
A. Notice of Termination.
B. Addzemes.
Part K. Definitions
Part XL Stale Spedhic Conditions
A. Massecheeetls
B. Puerto Rico
C. Delaware (Federal facilities)
D. District of Columbia
B. American Samoa
F. Guam
Addea A—Pollutants Listed in Tables H
and Ill of Appendix D of 40 CFR 1
Addendum B—Section 313 Watsr Prionty
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 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. 36. 37 (except 373).
38. 39. 4221—25, (and which are not
otherwise included 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 water.’
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
established the Storm Water Hotlice 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
NPD storm water regulations.
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas ofi
june 4. 1552. the United St.te, Court of
Appeal. to, the Nuiuli Circuit remanded the
seclusion of m ifacmrm facilities In csue 5oTy (x li
which do uwi hive nuetenal. or acnvitiei exposed to
storm water to the EPA for twitter ruiemakrn
(NowmiRerouive. Defen,. ijuncaI v.EPA No..
90-70071 mid 91-70200).

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
Region 1—the Stata of Massachusetts.
Region 0—Puerto Rico and Indian lands
in New York.
Raglan 111—the District of Columbia and
Federal facilities in the State of
Delaware.
Region DC—American Samoa and Guam.
BL Eligibility.
LThis 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 l.B.3.
2. This permit may authorize storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are mixed with
tut’xiz water discharges associated with
inthzstzial 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
fisllawing storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
s o S authorized by this permit:
a. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are mixed
wrth sources of non-storm water other
than non-storm water discharges that
are
(j) In compliance with a different
NPDES permit: or
(II) Identified by and in compliance
with Part II1.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
ideline addressing storm water (or a
combination of storm water and process
water) 3;
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 V11.M (requirements for
‘F the purpose of this permit, the following
elSueni limitation guidelines address storm water
(or a combin.uon of storm water and preces.
waf!r ( cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411). feedios
(40 CTR 4 12h fertilizer manufacturtng (40 CFR 418):
pe reieum rtlining (40 CFR 419). phospl’ate
r . .m .f .tunng (40 CFR 422 1 steam electric (40 CFR
ai mining (40 tiR 434). mineral mining and
pe ssing (40 CFR 436): ole mining end dressing (40
R 440 . and asphalt emulsion (40 CFR 443 Subpart
A). Thi, permit mey authonze storm water
disdiarge. assoaaied with indu.triei activity which
air not subiect to an effluent limitation guideline
e,ml where a different storm waler discharge at the
faaløy .s sub ecI to en effluent llmil4tton guideline
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
122.28(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;
1. 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(bJ(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!) lfl
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 .ippro%ed ‘ OI form us provided in
Appendie C of this notice
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification.
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
11.A.4 (rejected or denied municipal
group applicants). l1.A.5 (new operator)
and II.A.B (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
ILA.3 (oil and gas operations). ILA.4
(rejected or denied municipal group
applicants). II.A.5 (new operator). and
Il.A.6 (late NO!) operators of facilities
which begin industrial activity after
October 1, 1992 shall submit a NOl in
accordance with the reqwrements 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
122.28(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 11.0 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 1 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 opera tar
of the facility must submit an NO! 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

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday, September- 25, 1992 I Notices
44445
an NO! in accordance with the
requirements of this part after the dates
provided In Parts IIA.1. 2. 3. or 4 (above)
of this permit In such instances. EPA
may bring appropriate enforcement
actions.
B. Contents of Notice of IntenL The
Notice of In tent 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 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 sectioni
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
ntity
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 waler(s).
or if the discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
munic:pal 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:
arid
8. Fur any facility that begins to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity after October 1, 1992,
a certification that a storm water
po!lu!iori prevention plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
‘ith Part IV of this permit (A copy of
a plan should not be included with the
)1 submission).
C. Where to Submit. Facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity must use a NO! form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
therecfl. The form in the Federal
Register notice In which this permit was
published may be photocopied and used.
Farina are also available by calling (703)
821—4823. NOls 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.
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
II.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 ILA
(deadlines for notification) of this -
permit
B. Renotificotion. 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 Conditioes
A. Prohibition on non-storm water
discharges.
1. Except as provided in paragraph
I11.A.Z (below), all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water.
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
II1.A2.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 nan-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: 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
perinittee 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—426—2875) 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 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
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph LU.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.
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 occurring within the

-------
8
R I
L th N ir I Priday Sep1 vnh r 25 199Z ( Notices
scope of the rerevant operatfag system
stall:
a. Submit notiffcationa in accordance
with part I II aLb (above) of this permit
for the first such release that occurs
during a calendar year(or for the first
year of this permiL 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
ainewW of materiof released, and the
circumstances lead1r to the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
identify measures to prvv int or
minimize such releases and the plan
must be modified where iprvpnate.
3. Spilis. 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 previ nhoa
plan shall be developed for each facility
covered by this permit. Storm water
pollution prevention plans shall be
prepared in accordance with good
en neering practices and in accordance
with the factors outlined in 40 CFR
125.3(d) (2) or (3) as appropriate. The
plan shall identify potential sources of
pollution which may reasonably be
expected to affect the quality of storm
water discharges aseocia ted 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 La 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 ass
condition of this permit. -
A. Deadlines j’oz Pksi Preparation and
Compliance.
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
IV.A.3 (oJ and gas operationaL 4
(facilities denied or rejected I rv in
participation in a group application), S
(special requirementsJ and 6 hater
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 appropnatel
b. Shall provide for unplementatian
and compliance with the terms of the
plan on or before October 1. 1093;
2. a. The plan. for any facility where
industrial activity commences after
October 1. 199 %, but on or before
!lecember 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 ptan for any facility where
Industrial activity commences on or
after fanusr)’ I. 1993 shall be prepared.
and except as provided elsewhere an.
this permit. shalr 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 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. 199% in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.26 cJ(IJ(iii ), but after
October 1. 199Z has a discharge of a
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
substance for which notification is
required pursuant to either 40 CFR iio.a
40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.& 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 retected 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 an appropriate3
b. Except as provided elsewhere in
this permit. shall provide for compliance
with the terms of’ the plan and this
petmiton or before the 545th day
following the date on which the group is
rejected or the denial is madm and
5. PortIons of the plan addressing
additional requirement. for storm water
discharges from facilities subject to
Parts !V.U.7 (EPCRA Section 313 and
IV.D.g (salt storage) shall provide far
compliance with the terms of the
requirements identified in Parts IV.D.7
and IV.D.8 as expeditiously as
practicable. but except as provided
below, not later than either October 1.
1095. FacilitIes which are not required to
report under EPCRA Section 313 prior to
luly 1.1992. shall’ provide for compliance
with the terms of the requirements
identified in Parts IV.D.7 and WJJ.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 suh ect to
the additional requirements of Part
IV.D.7 and !V.D .5. 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.
I 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 NO! in acz ordance with Part
U.A.2 )deadlines. far notification—new
dischargers) of this permit (and updated
as appropriate).
B. Signature and Plan Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part V1LG (signatory
requirements). and be retiiu d on-srte al
the facility which generates the storm
water discharge in acoordance with Part
VI.E (retention of records) of this pernut.
2. The pernuttee 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 sewersysteni, 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 mesa 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.
Withirr 30 days of such notification from
the Director. (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized
representative, other pernuttee 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
perrnittee shalt 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

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I 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).
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
luring 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
nm’.imunu
a. Drainage.
(1) A site map indicating an outline of
the porticns 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
generstes storm water discharges
socjated with industrial activity with’
easonable potential for containing
‘iificant amounts of pollutants. a
fiction of the direction of flow. and
dii 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 waten 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
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
signiflcant.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 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 end unloading operations;
outdoor storage activities: outdoor
manufacturing or processing activities;
significant dust or particulate generating
pracesses: 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
pollutants to surface waters, and
ensuring appropriate maintenance of
such equipment and systems.
c. 5 piii 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
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 storm 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

-------
reeAIrgL Rigiate _ r / VoL 57, No. 1&7 / Friday. September25. i99 I Notices
4 4& ___
management practices. A pollution
prevention plan. shall kfenIil t periodic.
dates for such training.
f. RecardLeepzag and latervai
Reporting Procedz,xea .—A. de.criitton of
incidents (such as spiiis, or other
discharges), along with other
information descnbing 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
s,urces. of non-storm water at the site, a
description of the results of any test
and/or evaluation for the presence of
ion-storm water discharges. the
evaluation criteria or tasting 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 faciflty 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 certiftcation required by this
part was not feasible, along with the
identification of potential significant
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 VLA (failure to cartlfyj of this
permit
‘(2) Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed. in Part ITLA2 (authorized non-
storm water discharges) of this peit
that are combined with storm water
discharges associated’ with mnduatrial
activity must be identified in the plan.
The plait 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 identifj 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 &ineff—The plan.
shall contain a narrathe consideration
of the appropriateness of traditxona
storm water management practices
(practices other than thea.which
control the generation or souree( ) of
pollutants) 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 shall provide that
measures that the permmttee 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 LV.D.2.
(description of potenital pollutant
sources) of this permit) shall be
considered when determining
reasonable and appropriate measures.
Appropriate measures may Lnclude:
vegetative swales and. practices. reuse
of collected storm water (such as for a
process or as en irrigation source), inlet
controls (such as oil/water separatars)
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, bat, 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 measeree are zmeeded.
Structural storm water management
measures, sediment and erosion control
measures, and other structw’aL 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
iii accordance with Part LV.D.2
(description of potential pollutant
sources) of this permit and pollution
prevention measures and controls
identified in the plan in accordance with
paragraph [ V.0.3 (measures and.
controls) of this. permit shall be revised
as appropriate within two weeks of such
inspection and shalt provide for
implementation of army changes to the
plan in a timely manner. but in, no case
more than twelve weeks after the
inspection_
c. A report sununarizing the scope of
the inspection. personne’ 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 VILG (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 remate
location and inaccessibility of the site.
site inspections required tinder 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 Mornr
water discharges associated with
industrial activity through municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of iCO.C 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 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.
8. 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 Praclices (BMP) Programs
otherwise required by an NPDES permit
for the facility as long as such

-------
Federal’Regisler / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
44449
requirement is incorporated into the
storm water pollution prevention plan.
7. Additional requirements for storm
.vater discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities subject
to EPCRA Section 373 requIrements. In
addition to the requirements of Parts
IV.D. I through 4 of this permit and other
applicable conditions of this permit.
storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities subject to reporting
requirements under RA Section 313
for chemicals which are classified as
section 313 water pnority cheinicals in
accordance with the definition in Part X
of this permit, shall describe and ensaro
the implementation of practices which
are necessary to provide for
conformance with the following
gwde1u ie
a. In areas where Section 313 water
priority chemicals ate stored, processed
or otherwise handled. appropriate
containment. diamage control and/or
diversionary stnictwes shall be
provided. At a imnimum. one of the
following preventive systems or its
equivalent shall be used:
(1) Curbing. calverting. guuers. sewers
or other forms of drainage control to
prevent or minimize the potential for
storm water run-on to come into contact
‘ith significant sources of pollutants: or
‘!) Roofs, covers or other forms of
ropriate 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
eouipment. Lank, container, or other
vessel used for Section 313 water
priority chemicals.
(a) No tank or container shall be used
for the storage ola 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.
(bI Liquid storage areas for Section
313 water priority chemicals shall be
operated to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals. Appropriate
“‘ asuras to minimize discharges of
on 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 spill
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 than liquids which are subiect to
runoff, lenching, or wind shall
incorporate drainage or other control
features which will minimize the
discharge of Section 313 water priority
chemicals by ieducing storm water
contact with Section 313 water priority
chemicals.
(3) Thick and roil car loading and
unloading areas for liquid Section 313
water priority chemicals. Truck and rail
car loading and unloading areas far
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 load inglunloading docks shall be
provided as appropriate. Appropriate
measures to mimmi discharges of
Section 313 chemicals may include: The
placement and maintenance of drip pans
(including the proper disposal of
materials coLlected in the drip pans)
where spillage may o r (such as hose
connections. hose re els and filler
nozzles) for use when making and
breaking hose conneclionm a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing pIan
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 rniniuuze 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 shaU be
provided for overhead piping convcyuig
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 valves 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
eectors: 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 rinal discharge
of all an.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
shafl 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 matenaLs.
waste materials or products. In
particular. facility piping, pumps.
storage tanks and bins, pressure vessels.
process and material handling
eqwprnerit. 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
noncoritainment 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

-------
44450
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
leak or noncontainment 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 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
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 Certificotion.—The
storm water pollution prevention plan
for a facility subject to EPRCA Section
313 requirements for chemicals which
are classified as “Section 313 water
prionty 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 b iai 8 fdmiliar
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.
& Additi onal Requirements for Soil
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. 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
endosed 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 8.0-9.0. 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 Certifr.—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 after
October 1, 1992. 180 days after
submitting a NO! 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
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 authonzed 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 VLB.2
(semi-annual monitoring requirements)
and V1.B.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
Vl.B.2 (semi-annual monitoring
requirements) or Vl.B.3 (annual
monitoring requirements). that it shall
conduct the annual discharge sampling
required by Part VI.B.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) exce
as provided in VLB.5 (sampling waiver,
VI.B.6 (representative discharge). and
VI.C.1 (toxicity testing). Permittees with
facilities identified in Parts Vl.B.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 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 VLB.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

-------
Federal Register / VoL. 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notice.
44451
unloading area where a Section 313
water priority chemical is handled for
Oil and Grease (mg/L) Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/U; Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/U); Total Suspended Solids
(mg/LI; total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
(mg/LI; Total Phosphorus (mgJL); pH
acute whole effluent toxicity and any
Section 313 water priority chemical for
which the facility is subject to reporting
requirements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1988.
b. Prlmaiy Me Wi Indusznres. Facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity classified as
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
33 (Piiinaiy Metal Industry) are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged front the facility for oil and
grease (mg/U): chemical oxygen demand
(COD) (mg/L): tatal suspended solids
(rnglL ) : pit acute whole effluent
toxicity total recoverable lead (mg/U);
total recoverable cadmium (mg/U): total
recoverable copper (mg/L ) : total
recoverable arsenic (mg/L): total
recoverable chromium (mg/U; 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
-nd/or semiconductor grade silicon are
.it 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 D:sposoi (1nits/Inc,nerators/
B1Fs. 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 front the
facility for Magnesium (total
recoverable) (mg/L). Magnesium
(dissolved) (mg/Li. Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) (ing/L). Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/I.). Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/LI, Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/Li. oil and
grease (mg/LI, p1-i. total recoverable
arsenic (mg/LI. Total recoverable
arium (mg/U). Total recoverable
dmium (mgIL). Total recoverable
.romium (mg/L). Total Cyanide (mg i
.4. Total recoverable Lead (mg/U. Total
Mercury (mg/L). Total recoverable
Selenium (mg/Li. Total recoverable
Silver (mg/U). and acute whole effluent
toxicity.
d. Wood TreotmenL 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
preseritng or wood surface facilitie, are
required to monitor such storm water
that is discharged from the facility for
oil and grease (mg/Li. p 1 1. COD (mg/L).
and TSS (mg/L). In addition, facilities
that use chiorophenolic formulations
shall measure pentachlorophenol (mg/U)
and acute whole effluent toxicity:
facilities which use creosote
formulations shall measure acute whole
effluent toxidty and facilities that use
chromiwn..arsemc formulations shall
measure total recoverable arsenic (mg i
L). total recoverable chromium (mg/U ).
and total recoverable copper (mg/Li.
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 facili
for oil and grease (mg/U. pH. TSS (mg
U). total recoverable copper (mg/i). total
recoverable nickel (mg/I) and total
recoverable 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 (inchading 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/U); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/Li; Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); 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.
perinittees with facilities identified in
Parts VI.B.3. a through d. (below) must
monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least annually (1
tame per year) except as provided in
VLa5 (sampling waiver), and VLB.8
(representative discharge). Permittees
with facilities identified in Parts VLB.3.
a through d. (below) are not required to
submit monitoring results, unless
required in writing by the Director.
However, such permzttees must retain
momutoring results in accordance with
Part VI.E (retention of records). 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 and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled
a.Aizparts. 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 deimng
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/U);
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) (mg/U); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/U); Total Suspended
Solids (ISS) (mg/L): pH; and the
primary ingredient used in the deicing
materials used at the site (e.g. ethylene
glycol. urea, etc.).
b. Coal.’flred Steam Electric Facilities.
Facilities with storm water discharge,
associated with industrial activity front
coal handling sites at toal 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 (mgfU), pH, TSS (mg/U). total
recoverable copper (mg/I). total
recoverable nickel (mg/I) and total
recoverable 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 Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (801)5)
(mg/L): oil and grease (mg/U); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/U); Total
Kpeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/U): Total
Phosphorus (mg/U): plu and fecal
coliform (counts per 100 niL).
d. Additional Facilities. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that

-------
Federal Register I ’ Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday, Séptèinber 25. 1992 / Notices
(I) Come in contact with storage piles
for solid chemicals used as raw
materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities dassified 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 followingi (A)
over 250 auto/truck bodies with
drivelines (engine, transmission, axles.
and wheels). 2.50 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 facthties
(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:
are required to monitor such storm
water discharged from the facility for
Oil and Crease (mg/Li; Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/I.); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/I.); pH; and
any pollutant limited in an effluent
guideline to which the facility is subject.
4. Swnple 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. 11 the
collection of a grab sample during the
r t 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
rninimwn 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.
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.
8. 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 permittee 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 pernuttee
indudes 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 area (in squdre 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. Pernuttees
required to submit monitoring
information under Parts VLD.l.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 VU.G (signatory requirements).
that material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials, intermediate
products. final products. waste
materials. by-products. industrial
machinery or operaticns. 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 VI.D of
this permit.
8. Alternative to WET Parameter. A
discharger that is subject to the
monitoring requirements of parts VI.B.
a through d may, in lieu of monitoring
for acute whole effluent toxicity.
monitor for pollutants identified in
Tables II and ill of Appendix I) 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
iii parts V1.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 shal! conduct acute
24 hour static toxicity tests on both an
appropriate invertebrate and an
appropriate fish (vertebrate) test species
(EPA/600/4—9O-027 Rev. 9/91. Section
0.1.) 2 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.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I “Notices —
44453
b. All test organisms. procedure. and
quality assurance criteria used shall be
in accordance with Methods for
‘vfeasuring the Acute Toxicity of
:ffluanis 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).
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’eJ. On the
DMR. the permittee shall report “0” 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 çsermittee 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
1995, in storm water discharges. the
“mittee shall review the storm water
lution 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
VI.B.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 fiat report
may include lees than twelve months of
information.
b. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VI.B.2.(b) (Primary Metal facilities). (eJ
l Pile Runoff), and (1) (Battery
timers) shall monitor samples
ted during the sampling period
.ing 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 Monitonng 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
Vl.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
perinittees 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
f’irst report may include less than twelve
months of information.
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
V1.D.1.a. VI.D.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:
1. Massachusetts
United States EPA. Region I—Water
Management Division (WCP-2109 1. Storm
Water Staff. John F. Kennedy Federal
Building. Room 2209. Boston, MA 02203
2. Indian lands in New York Puerto Rico
United States EPA. Region 11—Water
Management Division (2WM —WPC). Storm
Water Staff. 28 Federal Plaza. New York.
NY 10278
3. District of Columbia. Fedemifacilities in
Delaware
United State. EPA. Region rn—Water
Management Division (3WM55). Storm
Water Staff. 841 Chestnut Building.
Philadelphia. PA 19107
4. Florida
United States EPA. Region tV—Water
Management Division (FPB—3). Storm
Water Staff. 345 Courtland Street. NE.
Atlanta. GA 30365
5. Guam. American Samoa
United State. EPA. Region tX—Water
Management Divi.lon (W—5.1). Storm
Water Staff, 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105
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 (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 VLD.1 (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. need not
comply with this provision.
E. Retention of Records. 1. The
permittee shell 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 alternative provisions of this permit
(see paragraph VIE.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 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 surr inary
of such results as part of renolification
requirements in accordance with Part
lI.F (renotification).
Part VIfl.—Standard 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
actiozu 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 L Friday September 25 1992 / Notices
a. Cri,ninoi. (I). Negligent Violations.
The CWA provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301. 302. 300. 307.
308. 318. or 405 of the Act is subject to a
fine of not less than $2500 nor more
than $25000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year.
or both.
(2). Knowing 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 $5000 nor more
than $50000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 3 years.
or both.
(3). Knowing Endongerment. 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 5250.000. or by
imprisonment for not more than iS
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 510.000 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 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 subiect to a civil penalty not to
exceed 325.000 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 te snb ect to
an administrative penalty, as follows:
(1). C/au/penalty. Not to exceed
$10,000 per violation nor shall the
maximum amount exceed $25,000.
(2). Class II penally. Not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues nor shall
the maximum amount exceed 5125.000.
B. Continuation of the E.xpired
CenemlPennn. 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 1! of this permit.
using a NO! 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. 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.
S. 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
furnish to the Director upon request
copies of records required to be kept by
this permit.
F. Other Information. When the
perinittee 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. Sign atoiy Requirements. All
Notices of Intent. Notices of
Termination, storm water pollution
prevention plans, reports. certifications
or information either submitted to the
Director (andlor 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.
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 safe
expenditures exceeding 525,000.000 (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 a8ency. or (2) a
senior executive officer having
responsibility for the overail operations
of a principal geographic unit of the
agency (e.g.. Regional Administrators of
EPA).
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director shall be signed by a person
described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person
is a duly authorized representative only
if:
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above
and submitted to the Director.
b. The authorization specifies 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 V1T.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: 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 propr
gathered and evaluated the informat
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons who manage the

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I 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
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 Substance
Liability. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
ny 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 riot 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 Genera/Permit, 1. The
Director may require any person
authorized by this permit to apply for
and/or obtain either an individual
‘ PDES permit or an alternative NPDES
neral permit. Any interested person
iy petition the Director to take action
. .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 Vl.D.1.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
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.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
perrnittee 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 NPI)ES 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 Lows. 1.
Nothing in this permit shall be construed
to preclude the institution of any legal
action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities. cr 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
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
procedures. Proper operation and
maintenance requires the operation of
backup or auxiliary facilities or similar
systems, installed by a perinittee 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 onginal strip chart recordings for
continuous monitonng instrumentat:on.
copies of the reports required by this
permit and records of all data used to
complete the application for this permit.
for a period of at least 6 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 rir 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

-------
Federal Resister I Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
44456
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 130, unless other test
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
Q. Inspection and &itry. 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 perrnittee’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 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. Th.
permittee 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 tUne the
pernlittee 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 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:
(21 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 permittee 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 Vfl.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 permittee provided oral notice
of the upset to EPA within 24 hours from
the time the perinittee became aware of
the circumstances. A written submission
shall also be provided within 5 days of
the time the perinittee became aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description
of the 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
permittee seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
Part VIII. Reopener aause
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 reqwred 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
122.82, 122.63. 122.84 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 VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit. The Noti
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 has been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges has
changed: and
5. The following certification signed in
accordance with Part V1I.C (signatory
requirements) of this permit: l 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 o
that I am no longer the operator of the
industrial activity. I understand that by
submitting this notice of termination.

-------
Federal Regisier / Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday. September 25, 1992 I Notices
44457
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 NPDE 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. Address. All Notices of
Termination are to be sent, using the
form provided by the Director (or a
photocopy thereofl , to the Director of
the NPDES program in care of the
following address: Storm Water Notice
of Termination. P0 Box 1185.
Newinglon, 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.
Coal pile runoff means the rainfall
runoff from or through any coal storage
pile.
CWA means Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendzndits of 1972).
Director means the Regional
Administrator or an authorized
representative.
Flow-weighted corn p091:8 sample
means a composite sample consisting of
a mixture of aliquots collected at a
constant time interval, wher. 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.
Land application unit means an area
vhere wastes are applied onto or
corporated into the soil surface
‘A copy of ihe upproved NOT tox . pvovtded le
Appendix Vol thu nntu .
(excluding manure spreading
operations) for treatment or disposal.
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 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 H and
I of 40 CFR 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 U of this
permit.)
NOT means notice of termination (see
Part II of this permit.)
Point Source means any discernible.
confined, and discrete conveyance.
including but not lim ited 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 axe or may be discharges.
This term does not include return flows
from irrigated agriculture or agricultural
storm water runoff.
Section 313 water priority chemical
means a chemical or chemical
categories which are: (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 Ifl of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1988); (2) are present at or
above threshold levels at a facility
subject to EPCR.A 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 U (organic priority
pollutants). Table UI (certain metals.
cyanides, and phenohi) ‘ r Table V
(certain toxic pollutants and hazardous
substances); (ii) are listed as a
hazardous substance pursuant to section
311(b)(2liA) of the CWA at 40 C ’R 116.4;
or (ill) 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 materials
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 FR 110.10 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 row
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
camera 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
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
materials, by-products. or industrial
machinery aze exposed to swnn woter.
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 I Notices
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, Slate or municipally owned or
operated that meet the description of the
facilities listed in this paragraph (iHxi)
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
poQutant effluent standards under 40
GR subchapter N (except facilities with
toxic pollutant effluent standards which
are exempted under category (x l) of this
definition);
(ii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 24 (except
2434), 28 (except 285 and 287), 28 (except
293 and 285), 29, 311. 32 (except 323), 33,
3441. 373;
(in) 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
tmnsmission 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 mine
but which have an identifiable ownerf
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 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 pa’tiona 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
(iHvii) or (ixHxi) 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 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 or development of
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. 38,
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 aliquota
collected at a constant time intervaL
On June 4. 1592. lb. United Slate. Cowl of
Appeal, rot the Ninth CircuIt remanded the
exclusion for msnufacturin fsc2iitie . in cats 5oly
(x i ) which do not have material. or .cnvitle
expo..d to stone w ate, to the A for further
rulemakrn . (No.. 59-70671 and 9i—7mi0).
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 perinittee.
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.
nonE lowing 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 defin!tion:
(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 (I) 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 I 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 follow&
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part!. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. This permit covers all
areas of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
B. Eligibility.
3. Limitations an Coverage.
• . 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
ACEC. please contact the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs. Coastal
Zone Management at (617) 727-9530);
i. new or increased discharges. as
defined at 314 CMR 4.02(19). which meet
the definition of “storm water
distharge. ’ 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.
• S S S S
2. Part II of the permit is revised to
ead as follows:
Part Ii. Notice of Intent Requirements
• S S • S
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 notice in
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling the Storm Water
Hothne at (703) 821—4823. or the NPDES
Programs Operations Section at US EPA
Region I at (817) 585—3525. NOIs must be
signed in accordance with Part VILG
(signatory requirements) of this permit.
NOls are to be submitted to.the Director
of the NPI)ES program 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 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 Water
‘Totice of Intent, BRP—WP 43, P0 Box
182. Boston, Massachusetts 02211.
For details on filing for permits with
A DEP see 310 CMR 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 I II of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part Ill. Special Conditions
• S S S S
C. Set Backs and Best Management
Practices
1. Storm water discharge outfall pipes
to public water supplies and other
Outstanding Resource Waters shall be
removed and set back when diachargers
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
maiwnize 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.
Discharges shall employ Beet
Management Practices (BMPe) 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 existing
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 BMPs
should be prepared with the goal 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. Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Port L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region II in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
• S S • •
2 Port III. Special Conditions
S S • S S
B. Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities.
1.
• S S • •
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 occwied. the
circumstances leading to the release.
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph ULB.i.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
Vl.D.1.c (reporting: where to submit) of
this permit
• S S S S
C. Commonwealth Special Conditions.
1. 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.
2. The permittee shall operate all air
pollution control equipment in
compliance with the applicable
provisions of the Regulation for the
Control of Atmospheric PoUution, as
amended. to avoid water poUuuon as a
result of air pollution fallout
3. The permittee shall submit to EQB
with a copy to the Regional Office, the
following information regarding its
storm water discharge 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
discharge associated with industrial
activity outfall and its respective
sampling point:
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
November16, 1992.
b. For industrial activities that have
begun after October 1. 1992. the
perinirtee 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
Muestreo de Aguo de Lluvia.
3. Part I V, Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
• S S S S

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 I 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
October 1. 1992:
a. shall be prepared on or before April
1. 1993 (and updated as appropnate):
L No later than Apnl 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 EQS 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 requuaments in accordance
with Part VU.G 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
industrial 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
VIl.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 thai 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
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
substance for which notification is
required pursuant to either 40 CFR 110.8.
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 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.C of this permit.
C. Keeping Plans Current.
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
polluta’ ts 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 lV.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 EQS 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. or
b. 11 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 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 wiih Part VILG 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. ,Vumer,c and Narrative
Effluent Limitations
. . S S S
B. All Permittees. 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 Reporrirg
Requirements
• • .
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 EQS with a copy to the
Regional Office, in accordance with Part
VI.D (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 VI.B.2. a
through j. must monitor those storm
water discharges identified below at
least quarterly (4 times per year) except
as provided in Vl.B.5 (sampling waiver).
VI.B.6 (representative discharge). and
VI.C.1 (toxicity testing). Permittees with
facilities identified in Parts VI.B.2. a
through j. (below) must report in
accordance with Part Vl.D (reporting:
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permittee

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 I 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
siches) 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.B.2.b through j., 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
‘ emand (BOD5) (mg/L); Chemical
)xygen Demand (COD) (mg/L): Total
Suspended Solids (mg/L): Total KeldahI
Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L); Total
Phosphorus (mg/L): pH; acute whale
effluent toxicity; and any Section 313
water pnority chemical for which the
facility is subject to reporung
requirements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1988. 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 deicing activities
are occurring for Oil and Grease (mg/LI:
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) (mg/L): Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/U; Total Suspended
olids (TSS) (mg/U): pH: and the
imary ingredient used in the deicirig
•natenals used at the site (e.g. ethylene
glycol. urea. etc.).
h. Cool.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— ,hich 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/U). pH. TSS (mg/U), total
recoverable copper (mg/I), total
recoverable nickel (mg/I) and total
recoverable zinc (mg/I).
i. 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/U: Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/LI; Total
Phosphorus (mg/L): ph; and fecal
coliform (counts per 100 Ml).
j. Additional Facihties. 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) (mgi
U); Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/LI;
pH; and any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the facility is
subject. Facilities include those that:
(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
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 A /I
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 VLB.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.8 (representative discharge).
Permittees identified in this paragraph
are required to monitor such storm
water discharges from the facility for:
Oil and Grease (mg/L); pH; Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand: Biological
Oxygen Demand (mg/I); Chemical
Oxygen Demand (mg/I) (mg/LI; Total
Suspended Solids (mg/L); 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 VI.D (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 tne runoff coetficient
of the drainage area {e.g. low (under
40%). medium (40% to 65%) 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 permittee shall
attempt to meet the sampling
requirements specified in this permii
even if this requires sampling after

-------
4 1462
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 I 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 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. Grab
samples only must be collected and
analyzed for the determination of pH.
cyanide. whole effluent toxicity, fecal
coliforin, 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 perniittee should
attempt to meet the above protocol and
collect samples beg,nning on the first
day of the reporting period in order to
ensure compliance with the specified
sampling protocol and reqwrements.
7. Alternative to WETParwneter. A
discharger that is subject to the
monitoring requirement. of Parts VLB.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 0 of 40
CFR 122 (see Addendum A of this
permit) that the discharger know. 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. Di schargers must also monitor
for any additional parameter identified
in Parts VLB.2. a through d.
C.
0
2.
• I • I
• • . S
D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
1.
a. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VI.B.2. a through j., or Part V!.B.3. shall
monitor samples collected during the
sampling periods on a quarterly basis:
i. 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 3th 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 LI. Water Management
Division, (2WM—WPCJ, Storm Water
Staff. 28 Federal Plaza. New Yt,rk. NY
10278.
2. Addition a! Notification. Signed
copies of discharge monitoring reports
required, individual permit applications
and all other reports required herein.
shall be submitted to the following
Conunonwealth Agencr Water Quality
Area. P.R. Environmental Quality Board.
P.O. Box 11488. Santurce. Puerto Rico
00910.
• • • , S
8 Part V I I. Standard Permit Conditions
• S S S S
C. Signatory Requirement i. 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.
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 if:
0. Proper Operation and
Maintenance. The pernuttee shall at all
times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
perinittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution 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 perauttee 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
reath
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Arzo. The permit covers all
Federal facilities administered by EPA
Region 3 in the State of Delaware.
2. Part II of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
S • • 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
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, P0 Box 1215.
Newington, VA 22122.
2. A copy of all Notices of Intent
(NOla) shall be submitted to the State of

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday September 25. 1992 I 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 I V Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
. . . . .
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.
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.
• . . • .
D. Contents of the Plan.
• • • I I
3. Measures and Controls.
• . • I I
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 structural 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 time
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 V I of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• I I I •
B. Monitoring Reqwrernents.
• . . . .
3. Annual Monitoring 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 deicing activities
are occurring for Oil and Grease (mg/L
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) (mg/U; Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); 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 I S I I
D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
1.
I I I I •
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.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. DE. DC. MD. PA. VA. WV.
United States EPA, Region II I, Water
Management Division, (3W? 1 155).
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. Distract of Columbia. District of
Columbia 401 certification spec!al
permit conditions revise the permit as
follows:
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
read:
Part!. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Pen’nit Atea. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 3 in
the District of Columbia.
2. The following sections are added to
Part Ill of the permit:
Part III. Special Conditions
. I I I
C. Applicability of Disinci of
Columbia Lows. All Federal facility
permittees covered under this permit
must meet all applicable District of
Columbia laws.
D. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Remo vol.
The Director may notify any permillee
that additional control measures are
required in order to achieve the 4
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.
3. Part V of the permit is revised to
read:
Port 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 6.0-8.5. 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 V I o(the permit is revised to
read;
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• . S I I
D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
1.
d. Signed 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, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office:
3. DE, DC. MD. PA. VA. W½
United States EPA. Region Ill, Water
Management Division. (3WM55).
Storm Water Staff, 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia. PA 19107.
and to the District of Columbia at the
address below:
I S • S

-------
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! of the permit is revised to
read:
Part L Covera.ge Unde r This Permit
A. Permit Area. The perrnitcovers all
areas aI minhtered 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 S
C. Where to Submit.
1. FacilitIes which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use an 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
ibis 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! shall be
submitted to American Samoa
Environmental Protection Agency at the
same time as submittal to the U.S. EPA.
3. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part iv: Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
S S S S •
B. Signature and P!on Review.
LThe 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
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
reach
Port I. Coverege Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region LX in
Guam.
2. Part II of the permit Is revised to
read as follows:
Port IL Notice of Intent Requirements
S 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. NOIs
must be signed in accordance with Part
VII.G (signatory requirements) of this
permit. NOTe 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! 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 Ropas St.. Harmon, Guam 95911
• • S • S
3. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
I
S S S I
a Signature and Plan Review.
1.The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VII.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—l07 Harmon Plaza. 130 Rolas
SL. Harmon. Guam 95911.
• • • . S
4. Part VI of the permit is revised to
read
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
S S • I
D. Reporting: Where to SubniiL
1.
• • S • S
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a, VLD.i.b. and VI.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: 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— 107 Harmon Plaza.
130 Rojas St. Harmon. Guam 95911.
Mdesdum A
Table Il—Organic Toxic Pollutaata in Each of
Foar Fractions in Analysis by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectroecopy (CS!
MSj
Volatiles
acrotein
acrylonitrile
benzene
bromoform
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chlorodibromoinethane
chioroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
chloroform
dichlorobromomethane
1.1-dichioroethane
1.Z .dichloroethane
1.1.dichloroethylene
1.2-dichloropropane
1.3-dichloropropylene
ethylbenzene
methyl bromide
methyl chloride
methylene chloride
1.1.2.2-tetrachloroethane
tetrachioroethylene
toluene
1.Z.trans-dfchloroethylene
i.1.i.trichloroethane
i.i.2-trichloruethane
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
Acid Compounds
2.ch lorophenol
2.4-dlchiorophenol
Z,4-dzmethylphenol
4.O-düutro-o-cre,o l
2.4-duutrophenol
2-nitrophenol
.t-nitrcphenol
p-chloro-m.cresol
pentachioruphenol
phenol
2.4.8-Inch lorophenol
Base/Neutral
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benridine
benzo(ajaanthracene
benzo((aflpyren.
3,4-benzofluoranthane
benzo(ghi)pery lene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
bietZ-ch loroethoxyJmethane
bis(2.ch loroethy l )ether
bis(Z.chloroisopropyl)ether
b is(Z .ethylhexy l)phtbalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
butylbenzyl pbthalata
2.chloronophthalene
4.chlorophenyl phenyl ether
chrysene
dibezo(a.h)anthracene
1.2-dichlorobenzane

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. i I Friday. September 25. 1992 / Nozices
44465
1.3-dichlombenzene
1.4.dichjorobenzene
3.3-dichloivbe e r i dwe
diethyl phthalate
damethyl phihalate
di-n.butyl phthalate
2.4-dinitrotoluene
2.6.dirntrotoluene
di.n.octyl phthalate
1.2.dipheny lhydrazin e
fluroranthene
fluorene
hexachlorobenzene
hexechiorobetadiene
hexachiorocyclopenta
hexachloroethane
indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyreee
isophorone
napthalene
mtrobenzene
N.nitroeod imethy 1 ininie
N.nitosocb.n.propyIam e
N.nitrosodiphenylamine
phenanthrene
pyrene
1.2.4-tnchlorobenzene
Pesticides
aldnn
alpha.BHC
beia-BHC
garnma.BHC
delta.BHC
thiorxlane
4 4-OUF
4.4.DDE
4.4-ODD
dieldrin
ilpha-endosulfan
ieta.endoeulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endnn
endnn aldebyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-aZ i
PCB -1232
PCB-1Z48
PCB-1260
PCB-ioie
toxaphene
Table lil—Ciher Toxic Pollutants (Metal.
and Cyanide) and Total Phenol.
Antimony. Total
Arsernc. 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 MunicipalIties in the
rn-Delega ted State of Florida: Broward.
.,ade. Duval. Escamb,a. Hillsborough.
Orange. Palm Beach. Pinellas. Polk. and
75-07-0
75865
107-02-8
107—13—1
309—00—2
107-05-1
7429-90-S
7664—41—7
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440—36-0
7647188
28300745
7789619
10025919
7783564
1309644
7440-38-2
1303328
1303282
7784341
1327533
1303339
1332-21—4
542521
71—43—2
92-87-5
100470
100—44—7
7440-41—7
778747$
77874g7
7787555
111-44-4
75—25—2
74 . 43—9
85—68—7
7440-43.4
543908
7789426
10108642
7778441
52740166
13765190
592018
133-06—2
63-25-2
75—15-0
56—23—5
57—74—9
7782-50-S
59-60—7
108—90—1
15-004
67-86-3
74—87—3
95-57—8
106-48-9
1066304
11115745
10101538
7440—47—3
130 8 - 1 4 -1
10049055
7789437
544183
14017415
7440.50.8
108.39.4
9548.7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
142712
12002038
7447394
3251838
7558987
10380297
815827
57—12-5
506774
110.42-7
94—75—7
105-83-4
84—74—2
25321—22-6
95-50-i
541-73-1
106-46—7
9 1-94-1
75—27—4
107-004
540-894
120-83-2
78-87-5
542-75-6
62—73—7
115-32-2
17741.7
84—66-2
105-67-9
131—11—3
534-52-I
51-28-5
121-14—2
606-20-2
117—84-0
122-68-7
106-80.8
100-41-4
106934
76—44—8
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47—4
67-72-i
7647414
74—90-8
7684—39—3
7439-92—I
301042
7784409
7645252
10102464
7758854
13814945
7783462
10101630
i 0099748
7428480
1072351
cevonnea 0.).
Oroen
Cobaitnu. L. o.
Cobaflous lomisie.
Cobaltou. uuSWflatO.
C 0p9ar.
S — aomers).
‘C& nc teia
C90nc thlOliOe.
Cup.c otiata
Cupnc s ate.
Cup, italate. ai... .iu.uted.
C-
C anagin e.
2.4.0 (Acetic acid. (2.4 o
ptiano .y) .2.
I ,cetheae lEthyline 4 ro .
-
ed icoen
1.2 - Oscba90enaene.
iJDot o,oeeisgi. (Ethylen. dicNo .
ads).
12.D’cl’Ioroeti iØsne.
&4 -C orc flud.
1.2.Osc t eorcptopans.
1.3.0.thior09rc Oy4ens.
Dsctilervas
ctiloraetiIu%y1 dumethyl ester).
44.ch lomchayl ).
a lp _4t i icfl l e rometr tyl) -J.
0-t2.ethyQiexyl lubalate (DEHP)
Oseetyl phthaiale.
2.4- O ime lnytpl ienol.
Dimethyt phthaiate.
4.6 . .Oinuvo .O -aeSO l
2.4-Dim Vop tienal.
2.4.Ounuti ototiuene.
2.6 .0.n.Votoluene.
n.0.octyl plIthalate.
12.Oiplienylhydranne (lIy*az000n.
r on.)
Eh lo rohydia i.
EthytbeI ene.
Ethylene dubronude.
Fe rTn a idehy0e.
Hectacteor (1.4.5.6.7.8.8.tlepIacSi.
lo ro-3a.4.7.7a -te t iahydu’o-4.7-
meth e no H deneJ.
H.xach loroet hane.
H don . ao
H ugen m nde
Lead acetate.
Lead arsenal..
Lead
Lead e.
Lead flu.nde.
Lead daie.
Lead istiats.
Lead slearate
Ce.
Sarasota Counties, and all incorporated
municipalities, the Florida Depwtment of
Transportation. and Chepte? 298 Speciol
Diatricta within these counties where such
entities own or operste . in whole or in part. a
municipal separate storm aewer system.
Addendum B
Section 373 Water Prsonsy Cherascols
(a. azobenzenej
CAS o
Gotiunut nun.
CAB No.
Conunon flWTIO
Ace &
Acatens aI
-L _
Aldum C1.4;5 ,8- netha... , . ,ltais-
line. 1.2.3.4.10.10.li oro-
1,4.4a.5.8 .Ba ieashY0rO-
(1. . ha..4alpfla..4a.betL.5.a Itn..
8..ipfla.. .ti sia )-J
M l Chl.06t
Miimman ( aee or Jsl).
. 4 .
— —.
Amsuony potesaum tareate
— thcstonds.
Ate. .o. 9 , tsdkaotide.
Amarec
Amarac
Mauac
Amuse mn 66e.
Aabeetos ( li).
Benasne.
Benao V64 .
Benaoyt cteonde.
earUM onds.
Be.yflesn chtond..
Be m fluonde.
Betyilluin monte
BIs (2 .ctiloroethyl) ether
Biomoloirn
Bromoinethan. (Methyl brQnuUe )
BUM benayl pflthatate.
Cadmsan acetate.
Cadmies brottede.
Cadmitsn citlonde
Calcium arsenate.
Calcium assent..
Calceun thromate.
Cal m .
Ceptan (IH.lsdndole-1.3(2H)-
d ione.3a.4.7.7a4eeafly o.2-
((tncfl loromethyl)th ioi .J.
C (1-Napmoa4nol . m
ceibsitiatel.
Cubondusuffide.
Carbon tetiact Oiide.
chiondan. (4.74.4eti ianoin-
dan.1.2.4.5.6.7.8.8.cctacti ic r o-
2.3.3a.4.7. la4 texahyoro-3.
a ilcrne.
chloro.4-methy$-3-gtienot p.Ghioro-
cNorobonzens.
Q oroanane (Ethyl cteorde).
c c noloim
Q eronnethan. ethyl chtend
2 o nopMnol
Chiotnic acetate
Ovomic

-------
44466
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday. September Z5. 1992 / Notices
52652592
7448142
1314870
592870
58-89-9
14307358
1C8—31.8
592041
10045940
7783359
592856
7782567
7438-97-8
72-43-5
80-62-6
91-20-3
7440-02-0
15699180
37211055
7718549
12054487
14216752
7786814
7697-37-2
98—95—3
88—75—5
100-02.7
62-75—9
88-30-6
621-84.7
56—33—2
67-88-S
108-85—2
75.41—S
7664.38—2
7723-l a-C
1338.38-3
7784410
10124502
7778509
935—95—s
78002
1440-28-0
10031591
108-88 . 3
6001-35-2
52-68-6
120-82- I
71—55-6
79—00—S
79-01-4
95—95-4
7440-62—2
15645-4
75-01-4
75—35-4
108-38.3
95—47-6
106-42-3
1330—20—7
7440-68—8
557346
Potassium ctvomete.
opy1ene owde.
Ownelme.
Se
Selersum oxide.
Sdvor.
Silver nivate.
Sodium arsenate.
Sodium alsenlfe.
Sod bo mmo
Sodium cftromate.
Sodium cya lide.
Sodium ’selenilo.
Strontium cfunmate
Styreno.
Suffunc acid.
1.22.Tetrac l l l or oetflane.
TeeacfMoroelhylene (Percl,ioroetfly.
lone)
2.3.5.6-Tettacti loroDtieno l.
Tevuetilyf lead.
Th a lhu
Thallium sulfate
Toluene.
Toxaphene.
Tnctliorfon (Ptiosptiomc acid. (2.2.2•
1 e yI).
dimeiy lester l.
l.2.4.Thchto roOenzene.
1.1.1.Tnctiloroeihane (Methyl cnlo.
rolorm).
I.1,2-Tnchloroe thano.
TncftiOroe lflylene.
2.4.5Tncnlcropl Ier l
a4.6 .Tnd llo xoolian o l.
Vanadium (fume or dust).
Vinyl acetate.
Vinyl cfllc.ida
Vinylidene chionds
m.Xylene.
o.Xylene.
p .Xy lene.
Xylone (mnad isomeral.
Zinc (fume or Oust).
Zinc acetate
CAS Ne. Common name
CAS Ne.
Common name
CAS Ne.
Common name
7789006
151508
75-56-9
91—25-S
7782-49.2
7446084
7440—22-4
7761888
7631892
10588019
7775113
‘43339
10102158
7782025
1789052
100-42-5
7664—93—9
79—34—5
127—18-4
14639975
14639986
52828258
1332076
7639458
3486359
7546857
557211
7783495
557415
7779884
7779886
121825
1314647
16871719
7733020
Lead sulfate.
Lead Soe.
Lead cyanate.
Lindane (Cycloliexane. 1.2 3.4.S.6.
hexactlora.
(1 alpha.,3.beta..4 alpha..S.alona..
O.betaj-l.
ljthiwn olvomate.
Maine anhydnde.
Mercunc cyalade.
Mercuric fiesta.
Meicunc iulfate.
Mercuric thaocyanata
Mercurous rivals.
Meiciap.
Mee oxyd or (Bensene. 1.I ’ .(2 ,22-
lfIcflaroethly lidene)0 is(4.ms i s lnxi .
Meth y4 memaciyfale.
Nagn tflalene.
Nickel.
Nickel ammonium sulfate
Nickel chloride.
Os.
Nickel hyivo e.
Nickel nivate.
Nickel sulfate.
Nime acid.
N i vobe ene.
2.Ni vopl ienoL
4-Niv og l ien o l .
N-N i eosodmiethylamine.
N4 .litivsod,g heny t anw Io.
Zinc anirnonium chloride
Os.
Do
Zinc borate.
Zinc
Zinc cautonate
Zinc chloride.
Zinc cyanide
Zinc fluoride.
Zinc formats.
Zinc hydrosuffite.
Zinc nivate.
Zinc phenolsulfonate
Zinc pflospllide.
Zinc sulicotuonoe.
Zinc sulfate.
Poramion (Ffias flototnicic .
O.Odxitny(4 i t w t i !14 l
ester).
P_el
Phenol.
Phosgene.
Phosphoric ac
PflO3 .fl.jn4 (yellow or whitet.
Polychtonnated biphenyta (PCBsI.
Potaswn arsenate.
otassr ,uTi arsende.
Potassium bicfvomate
Addendum C
Municipalities With Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
Delaware
New Castle County
District of Columbia
District of Columbia
Florida
Broward. Dade. Duval. Escambia.
Hilisborough. Orange. Palm Beach.
Plnellaa. Polk. and Sarasota Counties. and
all incorporated municipalities, the Flonda
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 Yoth
Buffalo. Bronx Borough. Brooklyn Borough
Manhattan Borough. Queens Borough.
Staten island Borough
SIUJNO CODE 5560.40-U

-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 199! / Notices 44467
Appendix C—Notice toteM d k i 1 ctiuns
ee svsre far Iaitwctlons Fonn iovod.
liMed SMes F ervnened P .o $on em
P0 53 WMeI 1. DC 2D4
FORM Notice of intent (NOt) icr Stoim Wnter Dl.char ee As o 4atl wdJI Ii ustrI
Actlvdy U ar the NPDES eisl Peiwe
Sutndsslon of l e Nodes of iatnt redtuats ncd fiat lie petty ideratfed ki Se on I of fiat 1 u nde at at1i ... yatiOES peru Isusd rs ,n
. at datdiaI m SIme slaMded atoll cues idies 4 a .
lie smat and eerie. .LM CESSARY INFOaMUlOa I U5T 5 PROVIDED ON ThIS FORM.
I. Faolty Opataatr kiliniaeon
1.Iaem: I • £ a a a a I Pltio,,e:I I I I • I • • • I
O f
dress: 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 ner4Opera :
city• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SI :t..J....J I I I I I1 • I I I
ii. FaobtylSlto Lo lan kionnadon
a ,iecl?ytccead
P a,m. I • • , . . • . . . • • . • . . a I bld l..La.ds’P(Y.N)
Address: I • a t a a a p a a . & i a • p a a • i • p • a p • I
City: I a a a a a a p p p p 4 a a p p i a I SMs L.....ja . ...J ZIPCcdeI I I I I 1i I I I I
I • I • t i I Lerçmade:i • i I • I iQprerjjJSec on:L..j...JTCatflsIiip:I . . IRwçe:I I I I I
III. Site Mdvl?y IifWfl 1 . ai
P S4 OnataDPa I . • . a a I I I I P I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Rees.vuigWaterSndy I a a a a a a a a a a a . a . a
itYcu ate Filing es a Co .petmilee. Are There Existing Is lie Faallry ReqpIed ie Submit
Enter Stoim Water General Permit Number I I Quanmarve Date? (V ci N) Monitervig sate? 11.2. ci 3)
SIC ci Ooagns
Ac ?v ityCoGe: pieswy:I,.,I id.IltaI 3IdIIIII4li.IaaII
it ma FaaIIty at vteer.of a .te
Ia a
II You NoatCllw Exateng NPCES
Pemus. Enter Fc i tx deanlleIs I . • . . . . a 1 1
IV. Additional kiformakon Reqused for Corseucson Mtenaees Only
roledi
Stan Date: O : Is lie Storm Water PcIIu i PiouerMnPIan
a a a • • Estimated Aveab be • in COmpkan with Sen. and.u Loed
I • I • I • I I I I I I a sftifbed(In ae5): I I I I I I I
V. Ceritliestlon: I certify wider penalty of bm fiat lie document and g acadimpils viem xepared under my di,eceon ci supervision lii a .rUwi will a
eystem desagvaed at ceata. list d pseervaul operfy gather ate erenate lie sliormabon 5I .tIvJ Sesed on my anquity of lie person ci.perscna ofie
owiege lie s ileru1. or erieiis AreMpiesaoMMe icr g iemig lie a tormMen. lie utiermbeonaaaII at. at S t e l at my h . &.aIg. , Me f. flat
•esasata. endeneØ . I .em Stat tiers ate sçndcael penai.es icr subn ig faise aoformaucn. andudutg rae possibaily of line au ruipratorenent be
kMe’mg - .
Pint Name: Date:
I i i i I I I I I P I I I I I I I I I P 1 I I I p p I I I I I • I • I I
EPA Fcim 35104 fe42)

-------
F.srd — at 40 GFR Pat l piatcia p_s attic. aocwes of satin war
— will 1iCa35 a_sty St a _s bod 4StSP Ill U.S wililut a is_s.
Po*j_s sdatqOJr. &.. Syaam(yWOES) ouuid Thsoowsai of at
atIvity Owl Ms audi a satin atat wr ullilt siCaist a NOS St oOofit vst.s
uI li Ill NPCES SNm W_s Gatrd Peln aL V pint I R s. Silas_s about ofwO lw
pint tiled 5 Su!lt Utidli 1* NPCES Satin War piop n .-J ysu need mbwwlqn
as St I puitcid , jo 5 ,am Is 10u.s .sal.d by EPS a sat. qeiicy. atract
51, Saw. Wiat HOOuSt at (.‘23) 5014125
WIN, To III , MCI Fcrw
NOls i_ut be sI ll St lie StSowvi _si.i .
Satin Waat Nolee of SI_s
P0 0 0 ll2l S
N.. pasi . VA
Cioupisslig The Pout.
You i_il type ou Clint 111 119 I -Wl StRsl lii 1St . .....-O.il1 . li_s inuy. P 1 1_s
_s _sIi ,atu, bIteelyl lie I IStI& Albiuwil II lilinsaty St say wilIn Oil
,swvw of drrtsrs slowed tar i I_s. Us.ons i_ow (or t.eata INsisi words.
bit not (or pitiCaluflat i_i s is unless lily W . rl d St_sty yp.. rI_sine. S
Pu% any eeatne Oil 01w but owl lie Satin Whir It.bue at (703) 12 1-4a23 .
SluRs, I noiSy Opsi_or In1inn t ll
Ow Ilati ,lwuil 01 V I . pu _i. ibis. puolic orgw.atlun. or my ols. uu.iy IRs
oplr_s di. INtip or sill dseatbud I , Id. latiowlout Pie w.uSt of Owopsami i_p
or tiny not a. Ils san, as I i . i_VSt of lie Stoaty. Pie relCoinabil peip lilt. taQat
sitty lilt catlols Vie St01iI a Opll*_s. Islili Sat Oil p ( oIIIor sill IIiliSt9li 00 lilt
Ull 5 d IW, Elir V I, ownNlll edIlSIS liSt wl MISt iIlriCe f Si.
Op u i
)ielS (latlillS lilt 111131 sIbat li_1St 1vi9 Call (e.g.. ctatCs in SecOon 313
EPCRA botiels piwiwip meW biCau uss IN, dsoo— 1 _s_sj5lC _s
OlSOuilil (odSOlir lobilS eWl owl p S iwWI; end bSRsy is_si rs.
LI I. St J.. .l..g odor OS up St (ow Irdupt SiS idIld lsWijsSul
dass5catian (S )codas IN blat U spivicipal pmOidli orsawosa provudsd
at Ow luofly or Ill I_slId ii SIc_s 1101 las l9piICaXft
For vidusled ac_suS de mud In 40 CFR I L20(b ( (14) (.).(ii) Owl Ca lilt IRvi iSC
ow_s dill sowusaIy des_s. lie piTwipUl OiJC Cl_seed 0i NuIii_, . .J.J . Di.
(ocosivig 2.d’ar.dor inCas us, St bl UN,:
HZ • HaZardous weSt. V_silent lStlI . 01 u_s Ill (ioU_s. Iinfudn Ow .. IN
51 001150119 thur It_sm CaSts at a penilt hider u t_s. C a s I RA (40
CFR 12525 (b)tllXr#*
LF • L ,t lta. IN, s _sol siRs. end Open ulvies dial ,_siv. at I Rv I luclued
aiiy ICaaIN weaRs. I ’idudliig 105. SIlt si. Ib SC I St reguttasgil wider
utb_s 0 of MCRA (40 CFR 12525 (b) ( l4Xvfl;
SE • S n_sssipw.srgunr_s Nosos.v_sdrgowal Iatidirgu.tes(4OcFR
12525 (bKlLXvv)I
1W • Tresuulsil wells elsug _susslc i_ S Ql at any DIr I_sQl lb dQl
i_low_s beslilla 0. 5w. 0 , sysculIt u_s v i d i . si_ps. Vlsi_nt
rucydug, od reodlilton of i tr pel a, dOirlax s_sg. (40 CF 122.25
(b)(llXIiflat. —
CO - Ccnslucsenlcw uialS(4OCFR 12225 (bKI4fl ’)L
It S. fuohty had In S.c_s liSts PullotiatuS si Put 101 ii i utioiatsd satin wetor
gioup aid a gina it.mb ‘as beat S Iegel. 511111 Die goup sopI’owxr
( ‘untIl II lie StIl. ClinudIt
S OllIsi_Olili NPCES pumeau piiali 1111110 N lii lecdoy or lit. sll0 lii SICIO I 1
IL N DII Cahill mayors. Mlii log_soon for SI. tadliry has OS. ,, stillIltIld Sul Ill
plumE humOur has 0_s sssqld. I_s hI apes_sOil h ’ uJflilSl.
S_satiN AddlIlonut Itifatnation Raqulrad Ia, Cana udIon AoivIIJe.Onty
CWi30 IcIOh scu ’Oua v It al ownNsIs Sucotn IV in eddiGan St S.csoa I Sv0u Ill.
Odp in l_saC_s scanDea inud St ownupsls SIc_s IV
EMs , lie pe(ict SrI dsilI end 1. IlonilIld ow ’Øaoat dIll tot P. sits,
d .L . ....l plait.
P1atuds en esdnwll OS 1St _sI mar01 ’ of acm. c i Ita at. on waat 501 .11 bs
_sill.d (ha_s St lie i_teat 5015).
bucat. wisher VI. satin waiSt caltalon puueneon pen tot 5, sill III C D I70liiflCS
will s ovud Catl atll’ai i_s sad_ni lid ahOlhA plans plinita. 0 , satin wits,
8_sat, V C.utlltcalo t ,
Fuaturtil s wa. CamEl to, _sa. p_siDes N sut01uwnmg ( ott. pIamiet.n en his
5gb_son Iatn. FedrI :rgjlatjanl rsqjvw Ow. ,pObca_s St bs signed as Now,:
F.. iniperibur by • myooiw01l owaossill oRe.,. wfudi i_am: () president.
sweaty. S_sir. or vw. ’pesidw. ci lie atipulboon Ii CPrQl of 5
bullieS. 11115101% OlIflV 0_s (llii N, p_sm alidir policy or 6.0_s nas rg
ia_si ,..- (s 5, 11Sth19 of atie ,u e I UIUcDjrIlq. pedO000it at ape istig
1501011 . rØ3 ,.i 9 i_i Sat 250 puii_s ai MsirQ i_sarlllsI 5515. OVSICS IIC.blreS
l. U ..p $25 iT .IIlitl (iii 55irSt ’ 5 1Wt 1 1 1950 0db . ). if luL ’ilflly St sl n deojilatsi
Usa been assigned at oc l eg10o St 4 i_twa.- I n u_s i_sc. will co,patat.
Fli I 1 .Il.JiI% . at 5011 pO iStrciIg.0p S gum pa ils, Or Oil 1,
F.-anIorla I ) slits. F_sM orohatputlo llobty” lip au_s I p ,m_s l_slIvs
olikor or aideg efedlld o8ad.
Ps,ik 11.4_so. Act i_sc.
PuoUc , .‘w ’ budln (or d i. epØ c ax ,i a eel_stud St swipe 05 li_s pu
ap 5I iCaban. lidudilig Sine N lilSUcloli.. ll.1Oil.9 lu l iOiIQ dill ltilJlc. 5.
gsS_siQ lit flhhiStJWiQ Sue_s iI.udsd lid owuraleavg N, ratiurig OStca ltecxn
of In_swOon. Slid e.flITIe (1w tSQIIdli9 Ow buiden .saiww any O em . ont” 5,
e.ClcGan o 5 Sifenraaon. or atgpsaaom far iTup_swug di i tans. utwUIdinQ any
Iuigglalam weal nwp Inaress, or tediw. 015 buivdsfl aZ C um4. In_swOon Policy
Biridu. PU 223 U S E....... -.......J Pidluctan Agency. 401 ii 51.1,. SW.
Washington. OC 20450.0, Duiecat Of loch lnb .r an slid Reguleaty Altuis. 0Il’c.
of Mwwgsmsnl slid Oudgat. Wsaiwigain. 00 20503.
44468
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 187 / Ftiday. September 25. 1992/ Notices
bllauabISh• EPA Pa. , 50101
Natal CI NuN (MCI) For Shim Watur OlucR5gus I rlw Wat hO_slut AaIvUy
Ti S. Cowed u_sr ills 953 SIn_s Parla
En lie lOplopihIll Nor Ii i t. lie legI swats of Sw opuisat of lie Stotlip
F • Foul U - Pubbc (ad,.- ShIn taduui Ot state)
P. PIllaR
Sashes I FaciSipSits Locsdoul latanwaltas
Ow rys or itWa olihoal or Ia miii. aid owimasa .,ess _seea. vutudlig
dip. sa code. S lii Nutyor eta RCas a soul atoass. id_s Ow sate.
It. tao_s aid IcrupSids of di, Nuhy St 515 lI_st IS se_sd .. or Is qirat.
lIaRs,. il01 I N, slugs (St 1St _ssatqiuusr season) 01 lIe sperosv_s csn:ur
045,
Id_s id_sr Ow Stoihy isle_sd at k’idan laid..
5 110w. a us *ulutty kdOiTRsIoII
itS, sarnesat dtsdatg St a i_i_psi si_mt. satin Pp_sn (USE). mat
lie i_ui. of I I. 00_sOl 05 Oil 3155 (e.g.. 11 1 1 1_sI l t y i_ui.. ustilip now) slId Ow
resw ..uug we of lie ui_sc. (inn Si. 31St. (A USE Ii d.l_s as a owiesputwe
or ups_s of owseep_sa (huvalsig to_s_si dluow ‘yslerm, 11 5 ,_sCsi sVl.ls
ca_s Nui 01i 5 151, 1, diN,L 1Tat-hiadI .2l , or satin Orese) IN is
i_led or aplIslud bps stall. oip, west borouVu. c_sty. p.011. 1.51 1. — - — I---. ,
or c_s pitOoc xop w_s l. ossqas or uaud (or owasceigor satin i_Il)
S 1St f_sty usa’iuapei satin dmcty St . .. , ...4.. wsat (s). sib it. ItahiStOf II.
‘—‘we—.
I psi i i Slog us cs-p.smates aids_sun guru penust mIs_sr Ms bssn
hit_s. our Iwl 111 1 1_s 1151. up_s
b ll IdwI l i, or not Si. _s a, opestor of di. (iddy his .disng 51,11151 VS
dull Cat . .. Its lw ,, N, . . . . . . . .i_ OS poliCaas Ii Si_il waat
bidS_s idwSr lie INlay o tpetvW St subistliillwi_ig Ca. Op aiUUte19 Sin 05 Die
U—.., .
I — NI mOteud to lu_si liatiatsig CaSt;
2 • Ra nied St itOuw meiusinyo CaUc
3— Not reqjso St lu_s . ....l... , Call. aisbn.lvrg ceillhcttioii to ’ tuatsatutig
i .dus l ln

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25, 1992 / Notices
44469
Appendix D—Notice of Termination and Instructions
I. Permit lnlomtation
NPDES Storm Water Citedi Here If Yati we No Lenger Citedi Here If Pie Storm Water
GerilPermit Number: I I I I I I I meOgera a t rctvteFaakty: wwge isøeaigTermmated:
II. Faolify Op.raat . InformaXn
Plane: I . • . • . • , . , i I . IFhaJIO :I I , I I • I , , I
Address:’ 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
City: I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I i I I I I I State: L..j.i ZlP de’ I I I I II I I I I
III. FaaiityiSlta Locason nlomtadon
N e: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Address:’ 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 II•II I
City: I • i i , i , i , . i I I State: t......i......i ZJPCOdo 1 I I I I II I t I
Lasbide. I I i I i I I.cttgia do. I i I i I i I QtisjtW Se i timE Towasitip: I . • I rge: I I I I I
IV Cereuicaticri: I certify under penalty of tow Stat all stcnn water disdiarges assodatad wet Indusmal wsy front me tdenttfied toaSty Stat we arniortzed by a
NPDES general permit have been efrnwtaatd or Stat I an rat fonger Ste operator of Ste toatty or censmiction site. I understand mat tip submitting Ste Notice of
Termatason. I an no longer aithorzod is d tsa twge Stalin water eascoatod with attisioStal asceity under Stis general pemm. aid Stat dediarging pofuwte at
starin west assodated with etituscial vity is waters at Ste United States is unlawful water at. Clean Water Act where Ste iteatarge is not aithorized by a
NPOES permit I also underslasio mat me submittal of Otis Notice of Termination aces not release an operator from tabibly for army vdiaaore of me permit or ma
Clean Water Act.
Form 4proved owe w
P1.... Se Instructions Before Completing Tbls Form
United States EreVo.vnenetl Protection Agency
Wasiwigess. DC 20et0
NPVES
FORM EF 1 4 Notice of Termination ( NOT) of Coverage Under the NPDES General Permit
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity
Submission of Otto Notice 01 Termination corstisites nedos mat me par, y idenofled In Section 1101 One ferns Is no longer adiso,lzed is dlechwge stems water
tescoated with lndusltual actiwly unseat ate NPDES program. ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM.
Pnnt Plane: L
Signa t i#o: —
Instiuctlons for CompletIng Notice of T. ,mmnstlon (NOT) FoISts
J Oaie I I I , I
Wit. May P11.. NetIca of TiffitIltutlon (NOT) Foes
Psesatses ens we gresiray Wrstud un at. EPA 1 5usd Neaer Polbitaiti
Olctmwg. Elmeesan System (NPOES) General P.mat for Stems Water
Oiamsrgss Aucoated win Inmettte Acortip iney susme a NOticed Tem.vieuon
(NOT) toes waws Stein lactate. ‘at asger revs ely savm *21st dtscns ’g.s
utecItSd wtm movattlel wetly as Ceflnad at me storm wawi IegulaltJls at so
GFR 122.26(6 1( 14). or wren Stay a ,. no asger me cosrator of ate taclitlea.
For eanssi i aisMSsl. elImInatIon of all storm water issaianges allocated
wiSs blOultital welly coca. wren estirtied eats at as, censaucmon in. teve
built fruity siatiluz.d we temycrwy erosion are tedimini coned Ineasules
I .e. ce.n , stv so or ewl es n,mre.d at vs aaomcnet. Sm.. st at51 all aatrm
wall, ellcttetgiS esasastec eltIt bsOusDtl weity (ran ass censotcas iii. mat
we sua tweid by a I POES ginural DSrns* I.VS orwea seen rimated.
P 5 111 taeau masna mat I I soldiheaw Ig awrmu. at as. we tIleS Car l
eamShsisti. we at.. ,etams purelveal ulgar _ ,. . are ’ wims iSslIlly 0170% c i
am. wg d eves, we sties NO .sd by ...t siltIctIea Is..
Curs eltedlenud. or serseaem psmwissm stacubsatass measures s eat as me
us. ci ‘Wisp. gsfrch%s. or ge.tesustf ‘tar. olin enitticyad. -________
WISer. 10 att. NOT Foes
Sane ass tote at as. sie fOllowaig Iddiess:
Storm Waler Notice of Temimation
-PD eta 1165
NeeirQtan.VA 22122
Compisting II. Foes
Type or pratt. using uocer.cas. lila’s. lii ate acercoitate still ally. P1eas.
place eaas aswacer aetween ma mats. AOCu ivistS if rte swy at way warn
as, minuet 01 olsawen. waned to 55015 lIens. Use way ens tear to
bIMirs ecids. btit riot to pramctiatton nets. sPlIsus itsy we ,sssdsd at Cell p
yaw .usones. If yw rev. ut, questass sanit ala bum. Call sue SatIIII Waler
NOOnS 11(703) $214033.
REASE SEE REVERSE OF THIS FORM FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONO
LPA Fwm 3SlO 7 (692)

-------
44470
Fedefal Register I VoL 57. No. 187 I Friday September 25. 1992 / Notices
• WA -
N Ics Ta .— - - - (Not) thi i 1 s 10(S ian Panel
S m Waler Oladiergus Aausdawd WWi a60W Ad1vl
Ener d ’s .marg NPO ie Wj G Patma manow .d * di ,
aobly at v ’ s Walollid l S.clen I L Iy ‘ s i bsima d’s smu iiianoat.

bi al ’ s ys, rs mi b siAeeati 0* Naoa ol Tanvin’s’sn by 0*
111*. I bean a d ’s ol cpataer and y’sa we no Iongw l ’ s agsre’sI
ci me ip at ‘ s d ii Ssat60 III. iat me an seoan ng x i.
lid stam4I -..w 1a, me . dJ J m Ss Il bs’si
‘ sanra ans d’s I aNoig box.
Section I Paddy O ...1 mtcnwIm ,
G.I..lnoneisati.dmi. liictc atgwn any meat an die
.,wslaems (achy at sat dstaibud i die wv’ cox . Th.nan. ci 0*09 11601
may at may ma be die san ’ s mans at die ladily. Th. .aan 0(0* ay us
lie 4g unvy eledi n ds me faaatys c ein0ati. mdw 0*fl die plee at m ’ s
not us. a no’cip-V ‘ian’s. Eu ’ s, di. ecmpIst. address ad
*I .(ie . mimOw ci i i. 09siaat.
Section Fadi Is ‘ —‘n —
Erie dIe IacIlI s at WW$ olIb at 91 h ’ s !. and xmplei. sddresL sidudhig
alp. sme ad ZiP ads. If 0* macdIp i a alsot address. mdjas’s di. see.
di. . ad O i acte om die Itp *0* noons! IS s m e r W a. at 0*
ssco’sI. ee%Wsp. and rang. (10 l ’s flsats s ! QUWUr s.oxou% ci 515 . fl60
ee ci 0* ice.
Session IV CeutHIadun
Faded s ats evade be ss,wo punches be sh...imi , box. irbemsoon on
Ills epdcssat bin. Fedatdesgulacons reqicre d es ancdoxtai m be mgnsd at
F a t ’. ev.adby arepsadeonoxini. oA .aliel as (I) sidwi.
u.amey. vsatisat. at v pr55dSm ci die . 4 . .hl In tH. . cii s d
(a xiiuss baicxn. at any diet puman w i’s puufonns detiat patcy at tucson
maiwig rs. at (u die an. ci d i ’ s or n u msno ( aaiig.
at 00516019 IS nX VIO 1605060 O ps.w’s at heeç we ‘sued
51.5 at .lpun0*ses .maadrç $20 m(eon (In-seonidq. wie 1910 dclwio. d
‘sees,. I tuQJnI60 160 bowl NIguid at *5* IIwe . . SI
. J. will oxipatsi. cdime
Fatap..oiwexp ated 09duatVIp. by a gales! ponie at tie plapnee at
Fat a mi eWj * FNis* at diet puabk lantrg sy cdi i i a pviapi
ezecies ciuicatat ,wlkmg euclid offici.
Pa.s.....lk Reuboctin , Ad Notice
Public ranciwq (ardun In, the atØaoon s .samai.d boning. OS ha,ga put
Øoxnon . kidudhig sins far ie.esw I,ieiucdwe, edlng eaeng d i ’ s
601me — ‘sot . . l ’ s dme ceudui . sot 00iqi.*l s
l ’s atlucton ci IIliomlSxC lL Sand _ h1 ’ s ,i aidtl9 5* (asdso
esvi ’ se. any cow upuct ci die ceulecoon ci mbem l. at aaggesxn. far
ui’çretvlg 115 ben. widudng any suggsioans wiedi map s euae at m ox Ins
ec anaL bllatmsme Polap Batdi. U.S. Eus..er .... .
Piosiclon Agincy. 401 U Sliest. SW. vn ’ sn. OC 20460, at Onecer, OnCe
ci SIiei’i .’s and Regijiamly Maim. Office ci Nonagunuull and Budget.
Wssswugm CC 20503.
(FR Dcc. 92-233 ) Filed 9-24-92: 8.45 amj
wu.eio coot s -e

-------
Friday
September 25, 1992
Part Hi
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges from Construction
Sites; Notice

-------
44412
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 1 Friday. September 25. l99 I oflces
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT 1OM
AGENCY
IFRL—451 1-21
Final NPDES General Permits for
Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Sites
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
*ctiow Notice of Final NPDES General
Permits.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administra tars
of Regions I. II. ill. IV. and IX (the
“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).
Mnssachusetts. the District of Columbia.
Guam and Amencan Samoa: on Indian
lands in New York: and from Federal
facilities in Delaware.
These general permits establish
Notice of intent (NOl) 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.
OATE These general permits shall be
effective on November 25. 1992. This
effective date is necessary to provide
appropriate dischargers with the
opporturuty 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 (NOl) to be
covered by the permits.
Deadlines for submittal of Notices of
Intent (NOIs) are provided in Part ILA of
the general permits. Today’ . general
permits also provide additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the permit.
ADORE! Notices of intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permits should 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 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 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
iU be made available at the
appropriate Regional Office as
requested.
FOR FURThER INFORMATiON CONTACT:
For further information on the final
NPDES general perimt.s 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)
821-4823. or the appropnate EPA
Regional Office. The name. address and
phone number of the Regional Storm
Water Coordinators are provided in
Section 11 of the Fact Sheet.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT1O
1. Introduction
U Regional Contacts
111 Section 401 Certification
IV Economic Impact lExecutive Order 1 1)
V Paperwork Reduction Act
V I. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Other submittal. of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should
be sent to the appropnate 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 I I 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
appropilate Regional Office as
requested.
I. Introduction
The Regional Administrators of the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) are lsswng final general
permit. for the ma orlty of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from construction activities as
follows:
Region 1—for the State of
Massachusetts.
Region 11—for Indian lands located in
New York.
Region 111—for the District of
Columbia and for Federal facilities in
Delaware.
Region tV—for the State of Florida.
Region IX—For Guam and American
Samoa.
On August 16.1991(50 FR 40048). EPA
requested public comment on draft
Na:ic.nal Pol :a t Discharge
Ehaimation S stem INPOES) gene:a
permits that were the basis for too.
final general permits. In addition t
addressing storm water discharges Ir(’r,
construction activities, the August 16
1991. draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges frcm ether
indistrial activities The perm!:s :r t
notice only address storm w :er
associated ith construction act.’.
EPA received o’.er 125 ccn’t e’iS o’
construction issues assoaa!ed w.ih !?‘e
draft general permits. In addition p’ib t
hearings to discuss the draft !enEral
permits were held in Dallas. TX.
Oklahoma City. OK. Baton Rouse L
Albuquerque. NM. Seattle. WA Bo’sr
ID: Juneau. AK. Pierre. SD Phoe i AZ
Orlando. FL. Tallanassee. FL. Aeit .’a
ME. Boston, MA. and Manchester -l
On September 9. 1992 (57 FR 411’6)
EPA published final National ‘oIlutant
Discharge Elimination Sys m ‘. ‘PDES)
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with indus’ncl
activity from construction sites i i If)
States (Alaska, Arizona. Idaho.
Louisiana. Maine. New Hampshire \ew
Mexico. Oklahoma. South Dakota and
Texas); the Temtories of Puerto Rico
Johnston Atoll. and Midway and Wak ’
Islands; on indian land. in Alaska.
Arizona. California. Colorado. Flonc
Idaho, Maine. Massachusetts.
Mississippi. Montana. New Harnp ’r.::e.
Nevada. North Carolina, North Dakota
Nevada. Utah. Washington. and
Wyoming: from Federal facilities in
Colorado. and Washing1on and frc—
Federal facilitie, and Indian lands in
Louisiana. New Mexico. Okiahorra ar.d
Texas.
EPA is incorporating portions of :he
detailed fact sheet for the general pen iI
for storm water discharges from
construction activity published on
September9. 1992. as part of the rinal (act
sheet and statement of basis for tod3y S
final permit. The sections of the fact
sheet published on September 9. 1992’
being incorporated are Section I.
Introduction: Section [ 1. Coverage cf
General Permits: Section II]. Sunrnar.
Option. for Controlling Pollutants
Section IV. Summary of Permit
Conditions: and Section V. Cost
Estimates: and Appendix A—Sur” ..
‘Tb. September 9. i . faci stto .i . ,nco r -
portion, of lb. d,’uIt e.n.val permil. pubis, — -
Au ual 16. 1991 156 FR email. The.. portJ7r.
Au uui i S, 1991, lad iiw.ts a,, also uicoro.
Into tod . permit.. Sectors. of the Assg .s’
fact sbe.I b.ut ui rpor .t.d ar. ..coon i
D.ck owid. secoan 4. Suiiimai of Opisos’s
Coiievliin PoilutaatL md sectors 5. The F.
Muniap.i Perthetobip Tb. Rol, of rawi’ .
Ope ior , of La e a,id Mad im M.i,.,c ,p.
Storm Sewer.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
44413
ol Responses to Public Comments on the
August 16. 1991. Draft General Permits.
Todays 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: arid from Federdi
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 rinal general permits.
The permits in Appendix B are similar.
and are similar to the final permits
published on September 9. 1992. Except
as provided En Part X of the permits.
Parts I through IX apply to all permits.
Part X of the permit contains conditions
which only appiy to dlschargers in the
State indicated. Appendix C is a copy of
the Notice of Intent (NOl ) form (and
associated instructions) to be used by
diechargers 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
dischargers wanting to notify EPA that
their storm water dischargers have been
terminated or that the perinittee has
transferred operation of tha facility.
IL Regional Cootacts
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
wnttert 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:
Massachusetts
United States EPA. Region I. Water
Management Division (WCP—2109).
Storm Water Staff. John F. Kennedy
Federal Building. Room 2209.
Boston, MA 02203. Contact:
Veronica Harrington. (617) 565—3525
New York (Indian Lands)
United States EPA. Region U. Water
Management Division f2WM—WPC),
Storm Water Staff. 26 Federal Plaza,
New York. NY 10276. Contact: Jose
Rivera. (212) 264—2611
District of Columbia. Delaware (Federal
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—1).
Storm Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne
Street. San Francisco. CA 94105.
Contact: Eugene Bromley. (415) 744—
1906
[ H. 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.
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 w .iter segments
within Massachusetts designated as
“Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC)” (for information on
A EC. please contact the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs. Coastal
Zone Management at (617) 727—0530). 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(Z)(a)(1) or (21(b). to Outstanding
Resource Waters which have not met
the provisions of 314 CMR 4.04(3) and
Part III C.i of this permit (as amended
by the special requirements for
discharges in Massachusetts). are riot
eligible for coverage under this permit
Permittees in Massachusetts are to
submit NOls to the following address.
Storm Water Staff, Storm Water Notice
of Intent. US EPA Region 1. MA. PC Box
1215. Newing!on, VA 22122. A copy of
the NOl for all discharges to
Outstanding Resource Waters Shdll be
submitted to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at the following address
Massachusetts Depariment of
Environmental Protection. Storm dIet
Notice of Intent. BRP—Vb’P 43. P0 Box
4062. Boston. Massachusetts. 02.fll
For details on filing for permits with
MA DEP see 310 CMR 4.00. T,r.;el .
Action Schedule and Fee Provisions For
other information call the MA DEP
Information Services at (617) 338—2235 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 outfail
pipes to Outstanding Resource Waters
shall be removed and the discharge set
back from the receiving water when
dischargers are seeking to increase the
discharge or change the site drainage
system: all new discharge outfalts 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, filler 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 wates thol
are not classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters shall be sub ect to the
requirements of this permit New
discharge outfall pipes shall be desigr.ed
to be set back from the receiving water
when site conditions allow. For e IstzI
discharge outfall pipes. when the si r—’
water drainage system is undergoiia
changes. outfall pipes shall be Se’ back
from the receiving water. A rece ’. :na
swale. infiltration trench or baiiri. f:t . ’
media dike or other BMP should be
prepared with the goal to minimize
erosion yet maximize infiltration or
otherwise improve waler quality pr
discharge.
All discharges to Outstanding
Resource Waters authorized under
permit must be provided the besi
practical method of treatment to pr

-------
44411
Federal Register/Vol. 57. No. 187 I_Frida September 25. 1992 1 Notices
and maintatn the desi natcd use of the
outstanding resource.
De/aiva.e
See the following discussion and Part
X.C of the general permit for additional
401 conditions. As a condition for
certification under section 401 of the
C A. the State of Delaware required
inclusion of the following conditions
necessary to insure compliance with
State water quahty concerns.
In addition to submitting all NOEs to
the central NO! receiving office in
Newington. VA. permittees in Delaware
also must submit a copy of all NOIs 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.S. EPA Region Ill.
Water Management Division (3WM55),
Storm Water Staff. 841 Chestnut
Building, 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
(C.ZMA 1972. 16 U.S.C. 1451).
District of Columbia
See the following discussion and Part
X I ) 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.
honda
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 that prior to
submitting an NOl. the owner of a storm
water management system must recet’. e
a State of Florida storm water permit
from either the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FUER) or a
Florida Water Management Dis ct
(F’NMD).
The permittee shall submit a native
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 FOER or a
FWIvID 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.
Hillsborough. 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
District, 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’s 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 thi, permit. The
applicant may seek coverage for these
discharges under NPDES General Permit
No. FLG830000. published on July 17.
1989 (54 FR 29986) and modified on
August 29. 1991 (56 FR 42736).
Permuttees must submit a copy of all
pollution prevention plahs 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 water, of the United States,
includz g the additinn of or chance in
locat on of storm water d sciar
pc;nts. Amendments to the plan
s mitted to the State agency winch
issuad the State storm water permit.
In proviaing an estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the site before, during and
after const-uction. permittees must
utilize the “C” from the Rational
Method: also. permutcees must provide
an estimate of the size of the draina ie
area for each outfall.
All storm water management controis,
required pursuant to Part IV of ibis
permit, shall be consistent with the
requirements set forth in State Water
Policy of Florida (Cnapter 17—40. Florida
Administrative Code). the applicabe
storm water permitting requirements of
the FOER 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.
Florida’s general permit requires that
site stabulization 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 prevention
plan. permittees must provide a
description of structural practices to
divert flows from exposed soils, store
flows or otherwise tunit 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 FWMD. Structural practices
shall be placed on upland soils unless a
State of Florida wetland resource
management permit issued pursuarii to
Chapters 373 or 403, F.S.. and the
applicable regulations of the FDER r
FWMD authorize otherwise.
The description of controls In Part t.
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 Wa:.
permitting regulations of the FDE-
appropriate FWMD. and the gun..
contained in the Florida Develoç
Manuali A Guide to Sound L.anu
Water Management (FDER. 198k
any subsequent amendments. S
measures shall be placed on u1 -
soils unless a State of Florida
resource management permit i
pursuant to Chapters 373 or 40
and the applicable regulations
FDER or FWMD authorize oth’’

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57’. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
4441
The installation of these devices may be
subtect 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
s;te has undergone final stabilization
Permittees are onl) 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
industral activity have been eliminated
from the site. However, all storm water
management systems shall be operated
and maintained in perpetuity after final
s te stabilization in accordance with the
req’ irements 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 pro-
development and post-development
storm water peak discharge rate and
.olume 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
thorized by a Section 404 permit and
oy a Slate of Florida wet and resource
management permit issued pursuant to
Chapters 373 or 403. F S.. ano the
tppluca’oie regulations of the FDCR or
VVvMD.
Tne plan shall address the proper
r;1ii !ion rates uid methods for the
u e of fertiiz rs and pesticides at the
.i IlsIruction site an se’ f, tth how th se
D’c edures will be impkmented and
rforce .
Ftr da a general permi’ reqi ires tl’3t
ri.’. ! 1ied personnel (provided b) tI.e
cischarger) inspect a points of
Jcch irge into waters of the t , Initpd
‘a;es or to a n urucipal separate atorm
sewer system. In addition to those items
required o ‘o inspected under Part IV of
t ts permit. desigi 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. the)
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
FOER or appropriate FWMD
Perm itees must allow the Director or
an authorized representative of EPA. the
State. or a munic:pal 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
HiIlsborou h. Orange. Palm Beach.
Pinellas. PoLk or Sarasota Counties, to
the owner of that system. Included
wnhin these counties, the Florida
Department of Transportation (FOOT).
incorporated municipalities, and
Chapter 298 Special Districts also shall
be notified where they own or operate a
munictpal separate storm sewer system
roceivi g storm water di5charges
asso:tae i with construcion acti’.ity
co’ ered b) this perm:t
Amerz a.’, So r oa
See the followrg d.scussion a ’.J r
X F of the gcieral permit for a d :,cr l
401 :o;: .i ‘—c .\S . .i fur
cct’tifkaticn tinder section 4r ’l f
CW . t Ter: torv .31 Amer’ E r’.oa
requved in-I ..,. .yi ,t the kiio’ Z2
sr ci l ond:t oos.
Pe’m:t;ttes uit subm t a cnp u: a
Ou ar.d pclution prevention puns t.
toe Amr ican Samoa Envt:onmental
Protection Agency
See :Iie fohot .ng and Part XC for 401
conlitions. As a condttion for
certification t.r.der sect;or. 401 of the
CWA. the terntory of Guam requ:rei
inclus on of the f lIowa’g special
conditions.
Permittees must submit a copy of all
NOIs to the Guam Environmental
Protection Agency at the following
address. D—107 Harmon Plaza. 130 Put
St . Uarmor.. Guam 95911. and to
appropriate Government of Guan
agencies. All pollution prevention
and discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs) also must be subn1 t:ed ic
EPA
IV Economic impact (E ecutit e Order
1291)
EPA has subm :ied th. r’t.. e ‘.
Office of Mar.age’nen’ d ct flu. et f..
re iew under E ’eci..t e Cirie;
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the re: — ’”
imposed on regulated !a: thtiec .‘. -
final general pertr.its under the
Paperworx Red* cticc Act of 1 óJ 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq EPA dia ioc prepd;e
an Information Col!ectio Requ s 1 ICR
document for today s permits because
the information collection ren irer ’er. s
in these permits have aIread oeer.
approved by the Office of M 0 nu2c’n ’:
and Budget lO ) in subr :ssicns
for the NPDES permit prograrr. under i
provisions of the Clean Wd ler A t
VI. Regulator) Flex biiity Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibi:iit A
U SC. 601 et seq.. EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
.nal )sis to assess the impact o ru’ei c
srna i er.titles. No Regula:’r Fl. h:i t.
.Ana! sis is required. howe er t ’re
the tead of the agency ce tif c ! .j; “e
rule will not have a sigv’tficar’ c.’norir
imp id CO d b,tar.t al .‘rtbcr
e .it.i.eb
Tcca) s permiPs protide srr._lt r
v.i ’. an ipolic iinn opticn th.i’ - I
bt r :n ome tPian tndivicu t
.&pplc.’ ticins or partictpa ti ..
application. The cihvr rccu:re r
. . e beer’ eqgn. J tc
s ’. ri.fic nt economic ir.4.c. , if t
co sm iil ent.’:e and uue u’ -
i? it c r.t iirr’iict Gn Ir. js”t I
duitioii. t e ‘qrmits red ’u’
adir.rnis’;otive buruena .
sources. Accoroingt . I hert’c’ c. -
pu suart to the çrovt :c s
Kegui tor)’ Fle b lity Act. i d’
perm:ts will cot han- a
impact or. a suhstantii! r”j’r.t.
er.t:’ies
Authont C1ti n Wdler A.: 3: 1
et seq
Dated September 17. 1992

-------
44416
Federal Resister / Vol. 57, No. 187 1 Fnday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
auI Kewgh.
Acsin RegsonolAdrn istrotor. Region I.
Dated. September 3. 1992.
Coustautine Sidamo,’Enstofl.
Reg:oncJAdaiitns ’ctor. Region IL
Dated: September11. 1992.
AR. Morris.
Act:ng Reg:onalAdm,nistrctor. Region Ill.
Dated: September 17. 1992.
Donald J. Guinyard.
Acting Regional Admm,sjmior. Region IV.
Dated September18. 1992.
John Wise.
Regional Administrator. Region A’.
Appendix A—Summary o’ Rcpoase to
Public Comments on the August 18,
1991, Draft General Permits
The Summary of responses to Public
Comment an 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.
Appenáx B—NPDES General Permits
for Storm Water Discharges From
Construction Activities That sin
Classified as “Associated With
Industrial Activity”
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge fli” ” ’6on
System
(Permit No. M.4R100000 1
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 ‘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. 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 17th day of
September 1992.
Larry Brill.
.4czrng Director. WoterManogement 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.
(NPOFS Permit Number NYRIOIXJOfl
Authorization To Discharge Under the
Nahn tn1 Pollutant Discharge F limin tioa
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
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
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 Pert
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 end Issued this 3rd day of
September1992.
Richiird L Caspe. P.E..
Director, Water Mwicgemenl Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agencj Region II.
(Permit No. — — R1 OOO or DE RI00000F
(for only Indian lends and/or Fed. fac)J
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge ihi .vtion
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
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 waler 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
11 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 nudwght.
September 25, 1997.
Signed and issued this 16th day of
September1992
AJL Morris,
(szgnatwe of Water Management Dwec .,r or
Regional Adnu.isslrotor)
(Permit No D.’C R1( OOO or — — R I00000F
(for only Indian lands and/or Fed facil
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
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with uidustnal
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 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
U of this permit are not authorized under
this general permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 25, 1992.
This permit end the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25. 1997.
Signed and issued this 16th day of
September1992
A.R. Moms.
(signature of Water Management Dire wr r
Regional Adnunistrotor).
(General Permit Number FLRI00000J
Region IV : Authorization To Dischar e
Under the National Pollutant Discharge
F1immntio System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (13
U.S.C. 1251 el seq.. the “Act”). except ac
provided In Part I.B.3 of this perm:t.
operators of storm water discharges
from construction activities that are
classified as “associated with industri .

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday, September_25. 1992 / Notices
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
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 expue at midnight.
September 25. 1997.
Signed arid Issued September 17. 1992.
Allan E. Antley.
ict,ng Disector. 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 in the
Slate of Florida.
(Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activitiesi
(Permit No. GURI00000 )
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. . . 12.51 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
fiotice 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 accordcn:e 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 ICuhlman.
Acting Director. Water .‘tionogement 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 onthe
Island of Guam.
(Storm Water General Permit for
Constriction Activit iesj
(Permit No. ASRI00000J
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge ciitn.ngtion
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 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
U 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 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 £ through IX and for
any additional conditions in Part X
which apply to facilities located on
American Samoa.
NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges From Construction
Activities That Are Classified as
“Associated With Industrial Activity”
Table gi Ceeteei.
Part 1. Coverage Under this Permit
A Permit Area.
S Eligibility.
C. Authorization
Pa il I I. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification
B. Content, of Notice of Intent.
C. Where to Submit.
D. Additional Notification
E. P.enotification
Part UI. Special Conditions
A Prohibition on non-storm ater
discharge..
B Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
4441
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plans
A Deadiines br Plan Preparation ani
Compl;ance
B Signature and Plan Re iew
C. Keeping Plans Curreii
D Contents of Pian
£ Contractor,
Part V. Retention of Record.
Part Vi. Standard Permit Conditions
A Duty to Comply
B Continuation of the Expired Gene,ii
Permit.
C Need to halt or reauce act: l!) no: d
defense.
D Duty to Mitigate.
E. Duty to Provide Information
F. Other Information
C. Signatory Requirements
H Penalties for Falsification of Reports
I Oil arid Hazardous Substarce Liabihi)
Property Rights
K Severability
L Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
M State Law.
N. Proper Operation and Maintenance
0. Inspection and Entry.
P. Permit Actions.
Past VU. Reopener Clause
Part VIII. Notice of Termination
A. Notice of Termination
B Addresses
Part IX. Definitions
Pail X. State Specific Condition.
A. Massachusetts
B Delaware (Federal facilitiesi
C. District of Columbia
D Florida
8. American Samoa
F Guam
Preface
The Clean Water Act (CWA) pro i .
that storm water discharges associatr
with industrial activity from a point
source (including discharges throu i
municipal 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 activit
“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 LX) of
permit.

-------
44418
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 199 I Notices
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 1—the State of Massachusetts.
Region U—Indian lands in New York.
Region Ill—the District of Columbia and
Federal facilities in the State of
Delaware.
Region !V—the State of Florida.
Region IX—Aznerican 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 fl’ e
or more acres total land areas). 2
(henceforth referred to as storm water
discharges from construction activities)
occumng 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 !.B.3.
2. This permit may only authorize a
storm waler 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 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 waler discharges associated
with industrial activity from the areas of
the site where industrial activity other
than construction are occumng
(including storm water discharges from
dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated
concrete plants) are covered by a
different NPDES general permit or
individual permit authorizing such
discharges.
On tune 4 1992. the United Stale Court of
App.cI. for he lJinth Ciivwt remanded the
exemption for concuruction cite, of le a. then five
acre. to the A for further rulemaking iNos. 90-
70671 I and 9i-70X0)
3. Li n,tot:ons on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges from
construction sites are not authorized by
this permit:
a. storm water discharges associated
with industnal 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
lll.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
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 II of this permit.
using a NO! form provided by the
Director (or a photocopy thereofl, in
order for storm water discharges from
construction sites to be authorized to
discharge under this general permit. 3
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 II. using a NOt 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 day,
after the date thai 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 NOl form us provided in
Appendix C of thi, notice
re ew of the NO! or other information
(see Pa;t VI.L of this permit).
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadhnes for Notification
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
lI.A.2.. lI.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 (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 for
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 (NO!) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part at least 2 days pnor to the
commencement of construction
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 NOI has
been submitted under Parts ll.A.I or
U.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 NO! in
accordance with the requirements of
this part after the dates provided in
Parts Il.A.1. 2 or 3 of this permit In suL i
instances. EPA may bring appropriate
enforcement actions.
8. Contents of Notice of Intent. Thi’
Notice(s) of intent shall be signed tn
accordance with Part VLG of this p..rn
by all of the entities identified in P4rt
IIB2 and shall include the foIIo s ir. . ,
information:
1. The mailing address of the
construction site for which the
notification is submitted. Where..
mailing address for the site is nut
available, the location of the
approximate center of the site rr
described in terms of the latitud,
longitude to the nearest 15 secor
the section. township and rang.
nearest quarter section:
2. The name, address and tel.
number of the operator(s) with
day operational control that h..
identified at the time of the N fl
submittal, and operator status

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No,. 187 I Friday. September 23, 1992 / Notices
44419
Federal. State. private, public or other
entity. Wnere multiple operators have
been selected at the time of the initial
NOt submittal. NOls must be attached
and submitted in the same envelope.
When an additional operator submits an
NOt for a site with a preexisting NT 1 DES
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
arid 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) irocu 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 NO!): and
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.
and such plan provides compliance with
approved State and/or local sediment
and erosion plans or permits and/or
storm waier 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
NOl 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
V1.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. Newingtori, VA 22122.
2. A copy of the or other
indication that storm water discharges
from the site are covered under a
NPDES permit. and a brief description of
the protect shall be posted at the
construction site in a prominent place
for public viewing (such as alongside a
building permit).
D. Additional Notification. Facdities
which are operating under approved
State or local sediment and erosion
plans. grading plans, or storm water
m. nagement plans shall subaut signed
copies of the Notice of Intent to the
State or local agency approving such
plans in accordance with the datelines
in Part ll.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 fl.C.
E. Renotification. 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 wafer
discharges.
1. Except as provided in paragraph
l.B.2 and IILA.2. all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm wate;.
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
IlI.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 lV.D.5:
discharges from fire fighting activities:
fire hydrant flushinge; waters used to
wash vehicles or control dust in
accordance with Part IV.D.2.c.(2);
potable water sources including
waterline flushings: irngation 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 alt spilled
material has been i inoved) and where
detergents are not used; air conditioning
condensate; springs: uncontaminated
ground waten and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with proces. materials
such as solvents.
B. Releases ut 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 niimmized 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)
(800-424—6602. in ice Washingtc.m DC
met?opolitdn area 202 .-426- .2875) in
accoroance with the requirements of 40
CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 as soon as he
or she has kr.owledge of the discharge
b The permittee shall subm:t within
14 calendar days of knoi ledge of the
reiease a written description of the
release ( ncludtng the type and estimate
of the amount of material released I thr
date that such release ocrurred thr
circumstances leading to the reiea
and steps to be taken ir. dccordar.ce
wrth Part tuB 3 of this permit to th’
appropriate EPA Regional Office at the
add’ess provided ir. Part V C
(addresses) of this perm:t. and
c. The storm water pollution
prevention plan required under Par: l
of this permit must be modified wirhr’
14 calendar days of knowledge of ih
releases to: pro .ide a descript ur. of the
release, the circumstances iead.rcc.. to tr.e
release. and the date of the reiea e 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 i’nere appropriate
2. Spills. This permit does riot
authorize the discharge of hazardous
substances or oil resulting from an on
site spiii.
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 descri’ue
and ensure the implementation of
practices which will be used to reduce
the pollutants in storm isater discharges
associated with industrial activity at the
construction site and to assure
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit. Facilities musi
implement the provisions of the storm
water pollution prevention plan required
under this part as a condition of this
permit.
A Deadlines for Plan Preporat:on arr
Compliance
The plan shall:
1. Be completed (including
certifications required under Part IV I ’.
prior to the submittal of an NOl to be
covered under this permit and updai :
as appropriate:

-------
44420
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
2. For cor.struction 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.
199 2 ;
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 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 waler
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 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. 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 !V.E).
Amendments to the plan may be
reviewed by EPA in the same manner as
Part !V.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 aite 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 nonstructwal 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 lV.D.i.b appropriate
control measures and the tuning 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). Siab,l,zas on Practices. A
description of interim and permar.enl
stabilization practices. including site-
specific scheduling of the
implementation of the practices. Site
plans should ensure that existing
vegetation is preserved where atta.nab e
and that disturbed portions of the site
are stabilized. Stabilization practices
may include: temporary seeding.
permanent seeding. mulching.
geotextiles. sod stabilization. vegetati ’ e
buffer strips, protection of trees.
preservation of mature vegetation, and
other appropriate measures. A record uf
the dates when mayor grading acti’,ities
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.Z.(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 temporanly
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.tneaeures 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 010 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 i
precluded by seasonal arid conditiunc
stabilization measures ahaH be in,t:... .,l
as soon as practicable.
(2). Structural Practices. A descri v -
of structural practices to divert flu
From exposed soils, store flows or
otherwise limit runoff and the dis.
of pollutants from exposed areas
site to the degree attainable. Such.

-------
Federal Register / 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, gabion.. 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
f’mal 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 dowaslope 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 weler
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.
Perminees 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 indude: 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.
(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 dispoeal.
sanitary sewer or septic system
regulations.
d. Approved Slate or Local Plans.
(1) Persnittees which discharge storm
water associated with industrial 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
permittee shall provide a recertificatiw’.
in the storm water pollution plan that
the storm water pollution prevention
plan has been modified to address sucl’
changes.
(3) Dischargers seeking alternative
permit requirements shall submit an
individual permit application in
accordance with Part V1.L of the perm:
at the address indicated in Part V C of
this permit for the appropriate Regional
omce. along with a description of wh
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 beer
finally stabilized, areas used for sior i
of materials that are exposed to
precipitation, structural control
measures, and locations where enic’s
enter or exit the site at least once e’.c ’
seven calendar days and within:;
hours of the end of a storm that isO 5
inches or greater. Where sites hd’. ‘
finally stabilized, or during seasonu:
arid periods in arid areas (areas
average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 i:i
and semi-and 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
precipitation shaH bu inspected 1.
evidence of. or the potential for.
pollutants entering the drainage
Erosion and sediment control rn ”
identified in the plan shall be ob’.
to ensure that they are operatin$
correctly. Where discharge loca:
points are accessible. they shall
inspected to ascertain whether
control measures are effective

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday, September 23, 2992 I Notices
preventing significant impacts to
receiving waters. Locations where
vehicles enter or e,cit the site shall be
inspected for evidence of ofisite
sediment tracking.
b. Based on ‘he results of the
inspection, the site description identified
in the plan in accordance with
paragraph lviii 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 VIG of this
permit.
5. Non-Storm Water Discharges—
Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed in Pert IIIA.2 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 pI n 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
of this permit in accordance with Part
VI.G of this permit. All certification.
must be included in the storm water
pollution prevention plan.
2. Certification StotemanL All
contractors and aubcontiactor .
identified in a storm water pollution
prevention plan in accorJance with Part
IV.E.1 of this permit shall sign a copy of
the following certification statement
before conducting any professional
service identified n the storm water
pollution prevention plan:
“I certify under penalty of law that I
understand the terms and conditions of
the general National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit that
authorizes the storm water discharge.
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
VI.G of this permit; the name, address
and telephone number of the contracting
flrm the address (or other identifying
description) of the site; and the date the
certification is made.
P.,t V. Retention of Records
A. The permitlee 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 NOIs (see Part ILC of this permit), all
written correspondence concerning
discharges in any State. Indian land or
from any Federal Facthty 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 StafL John F. Kennedy
Federal Bwlding. room 2209, Boston.
MA 03
2 Indian Lands in New York
United States EPA. Region U. Water
Management Division. (2WM—WPC),
Storm Water Staff 26 Federal Plaza.
New York, NY 10278
3. District of Columbia. and Federal
focsiiL,es in Delaware
United States EPA, Region Ifi. Water
Management Division. (3WM55).
Storm Water Staff. 811 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia, PA : o:’
4. Fioriac
United States EPA. Region IV, Wcter
Management Division. !FPB—3). Stor.
Water Staff, 345 Courtland Stree!, 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
Paxt VL Stant 4 iird Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply
1. The permittee must comply with a”
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation 0:
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 32.500 nor more
than $25,000 per day of violation, or b
imprisonment for not more than 1 year
or both.
(2). Knowing Wolations. The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 3(11, 302. 306, 307,
308. 318. or 405 of the Act is subject to a
fine of not less than 55.000 nor more
than 550.000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 3 years.
or both.
(3). Knowing Endan.germenL The
CWA provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
inipiementthg Sections 301. 302. 306, 307,
308, 318, or 405 of the Act and who
know, 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 StatemenL The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false mater, .,l
statement, representation, or
certification in any application. re’ . . ‘
report, plan. or other document f’i!.’
required to be maintained under “ ‘
or who knowingly falsifies. tampr’.
with, os renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method req
be maintain under the Act. shall

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Frida 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 $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 Patio/ties—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 a civil penalty not to
exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation.
c. Administrative Patio/ties—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
510.000 per violation nor shall the
maximum amount exceed $25000.
(2). Class II penalty. Not to exceed
510.000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues nor shall
the maximum amount exceed $125000.
8. Continuation of the Expired General
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. Peimittees must
submit a new NO! in accordance with
the requirements of Part II of this permit.
using a NOt form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof) 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 bad 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
permittee in an enforcement action that
ii 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 step. to
minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of tins permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the
environment.
E. Duty to Provide lnforrnauon. 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.
G. 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 perinittee. 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)irig more than 250
persons or having gross annual sales or
expenditures e ceed:ng S5.000.000 (in
second-quarter 198(3 dollars) if authority
to sign documei :s has been assigned or
delegated to the mana :r in accordance
with corporate procecures:
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship b a neuJ partner or
the proprieto. rea . ‘. :. ey: or
c. For a muiiciç aiit’.. state. Federal.
or other public a er. y ‘ either a
principal exe ut.’. e offi .er or ranking
elected official r.. purpc.es of this
section. a pri:i .iI’d: tve .t .tive officer of a
Federal a inc ii. .i .u s (1) tl.e chief
executive officer o he agency. or (2) a
senior executive o ricer having
responsibility for the overall operations
of a principal geegrap c 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
rtting by a person described abo e
and submitted to the Director
b. The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position ha trig
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or ac’ivity such
as the postlion of manager. ope-otor
superintendent, or position of equI aient
responsibility or an individual or
position having overall responsibi!.i for
environmental matters for the company
(A duly authorized representati e mae.
thus be either a named individual or dfl
individual occupying a named pcsiticr.
c C ’hanges to aathor,za:;on If an
authorization under paragraph II B 3 is
no longer accurate because a difierer.t
operator has responsibility for the
overall operation of the construction
site. a new notice of intent satisfying ft.e
requirements of paragraph ll.B must be
submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports. informaiior..
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative
d. Certification. Any person signing
documents under paragraph Vi C shaii
make the follo ng certification.
‘l certify under penalty of law that
this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a St stem
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
arid complete. 1 am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information. including the possibil:t of
fine and imprisonment for knowing
iolations
H. Penalties for Fo/s,fica ,on of
Reports. Section 309(cI(4 1 of the C!ean
Water Act provides that any person
who knowingly makes any false
material statemer.t. repres ntnttc-i nr
certif’icatio.-i in any record o oOier
document sul,m:ttecj or reqt.ired to h. ’
maintained under this pcrm’t includir
reports of compliance or nuncompIi tr
shall, upon Conviction, be puri.shed h .
fine or not more than $10,000. or b
imprisonment for not more th3n 2
or by both.
I. 0 ,1 and Hazardous Substo’c.
Liability Nothing in this permit ‘.;
construed to preclude the institi.’
any legal action or relieve the pi--
from any responsibilities. liabi!,:
penalties to which the permute.’

-------
4
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 1 Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
may be subject under section 311 of the
CWA or section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and Liability
Act of 1983 (CERCI.A).
J. Property Rights. The issuance of
this permit does not convey any
property rights of any sort, nor any
exdusive 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 ?ermit. or the
application of any provision of this
permit to any ci.cunistance. 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 in di v/dual permit or
an alternative general permiL
1. The Direc’or may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and/or obtain either an
individual NPDES permit or an
alternative NPDES general pe it. Any
interested person may petition the
Director to take action under this
paragraph. Where the Director require.
a discharger authorized to discharge
under this permit to apply for an
individual NPD 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 thi, 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
application 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 CPR 1 .28(c)(1)(il).
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
subject 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 permittee is
r.utomatically 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. Stote/Envi ronmental Laws.
1. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the pemuittee
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 permittee shall at all
time. property operate and maintain all
facilities and system. of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or uaed 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 operanon and
mith Panance requires the operation of
backup or auxiliary facilities or similar
.ystem installed by a permittee only
when necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of the permit.
0. Inspection and Entiy. The
penmttee 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
authonzed n pra entative of the
municipal operator or the separste
storm sewer receiving the discharge.
upon the presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by
law, tar
1. Enter upon the permitlee’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 tincluding
monitoring and control equipment).
P. Penn/f Act ions. This permit may be
modified. revoked and reissued, or
terminated for cause. The filing of a
request by the perinittee 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 VU. Reep er 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 alternatrve
general permit in accordance with Pert
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
12182,122.83, 122.84 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 h..
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”
desaibed In terms of the latitude ,1
longitude to the nearest 15 second’
the section, township and range ti’
nearest quarter section:

-------
Fedet’.! Register / Vol. 57 , No._187/ Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
44425
2. The name. address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Termination:
3. The NPOES permit number for the
8t0t10 water discharge identified by the
Notice of Termination
4. An indication of whether the storm
}vater discharges auociated with
industrial activity have been eUm inated
or the operator of the discharges has
changed: and
5. The following certification signed in
accordance with Part V 1.G (signatory
requfrements) of this p rmft
“1 certify under penalty of law that all
stomi water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified
facility that are authorized by an NPD
general permit have been ahminated 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. 1
also understand that the submittal of
this notice of termination does nut
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 discharge.
associated with indesthal activity
means that all disturbed soils at the
identified facility have been rmelly
stabilized and temporary emmon 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 NPDFS general
permit have otherwise bean elimin tad.
B. Addresses. 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. PC Box 1185. Newmgtoo.
VA2212Z
Past I X. Definitions
Best Management Piontims ffl s)
meansachathiles of acnvitie..
prohibitions of practice., maintenance
procedure., and other management
practices to prevent or reduce the
pollution of waters of the United States.
BMPs also include treatment
requirements. operating procedures, and
A copy of iii. approved NOT fon i. provided in
Appendix C of this nonco.
practices to control plant site runoff.
spillage or leaks. sludge or waste
disposaL or drainage from raw material
storage.
Commencement of Consb’ac on—Tha
initial disturbance of soils associated
with clearing, grading, or excavating
ectivities or other construction
activities.
CWA means the Clean Water Act or
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Dedicated portable ouphaft plant—A
portable asphalt plant that is located on
or contiguous to a construction site end
that provide, 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 CFR 443.
Dedicated portable concrete plant—A
portable concrete plant that is loceted
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 Envnonmental
Protection Agency or an authonzed
representative.
Final Slobilizotion meene that all soil
disturbing activities at the site have
been completed, and that a uniform
perennial vegetative cover with a
density of 7tYF. of the cover for unpaved
areas and areas not covered by
permanent structures has been
established or equivalent permanent
stabilization measures (such a. the use
of riprap. gabiona. 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 ci each aliquot is proportional to
the flow rate of the discharge.
Large and Medium municipal
sepoicla storm sewer system means all
municipal separate storm sewers that
are either fi) located in an incorporated
place (city) with a population of 100.000
or more a. 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 (it) located In the counties with
unincorporated tirbazur.ed populations
of 100.000 or move, except municipal
separate storm sewers that are located
the incorporated place.. townships or
towns within such counties these
counties are listed in Appendices H and
I of 40 CFR Part 122); or (ni} owned or
operated by a muni.cipshty other than
those described m 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 VIII of this permit).
Pornt Source means any discernible.
confined, end discrete conveyance.
including but not limited to. any pipe.
ditch, channel. tunnel. conduit. well.
discrete fissure. container, rolling stock.
concentrated animal feeding operat:on.
landfill leachate collection system.
vessel or other floating craft from which
pollutant, are or may be discharges.
This term does not include return flows
from ii’rigated agriculture or agricultural
storm water runoff.
Runoff coefficient means the fraction
of total rainfall that will appear al the
conveyance as runoff.
Sloan Water means storm water
runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
Storm Water Associated with
industnalAcsivity means the dischar e
from any conveyance which is used !or
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 inchjde
discharge, from facilities or activities
ex.clnded 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 years: immediate access
roads and rail line, used or traveled by
camera of raw materials, manufactured
products, waste material, or by.products
used or created by the facthty; material
handling sites: refuse sitesi sites used for
the application or dmpoeal 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 (mcluding tank
farms) for raw materials, and
intermediate and finished products. and
areas where industrial activity has
taken place in the past and srgnificar.t
materialaremaui and are exposed to
storm water. Fur thai categories of
industries identified in paragraph (..., ..1
this definition, the term uidudes or.!
storm water discharges from all ari
(except access roads and rail linect
listed in the previous sentence whi-•
material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials. intermec
products. final products. waste
materials, by-products. or indust

-------
IIL’fi
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
machinery are exposed to storm waler.
For the pwposes of this paragraph.
material handling activities include the:
storage, loading and unloading.
transportation, or conveyance of any
raw matenal, 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 th d”scription of the
facilities listed in this paragraph (iHxiJ
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 Inciusthal 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 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/operatot-
(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 ap’lication sites,
and open dumps that have received any
industrial .va tes (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 ingd 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. 267, 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 (i}-(x)). 5
On june 4. i992. the United State. Court of
Appe.is For the Ninth Circuit temanded the
exclusion for inanufacturin facilities in cate 5ory
(x l) which do not have maleneis or activities
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 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). mudflats.
sandflats. wetlands. sloughs. prairie
potholes, wet meadows, play a 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:
fd) 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 (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 X. State Specific Conditions
The provisions of this Part provide
modifications or additions to the
applicable conditions of Parts I through
LX 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 Slates and Federal
facilities specifically referenced.
A.Massochusett.s. Massachusetts 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Pail I of the permit is revised 0
read as follows:
exposed to storm waler to the EPA (or fur .
ruiemaking (No. 90-70671 and g%-70 X)i

-------
Federal Regiztex I VoL 57, No. 187 1 Fnday. Septezx ber 25. 1992 I Notices
4447
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. This permit covers all
areas of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
• B.EIigabthty.
3. Limitations on Coverege.
• S S S S
h. new or increased steam water
discharges to coastal water segments
within Massachusetts designated as
Areae of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC)” (for information on
ACEC. please contact the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs. Coastal
Zone Management at (617) 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(Z)(a)(1) or (2)(b). to Outstanding
Resource Waters which have not met
the provisions of 314 Clv 4.04(3) and
Part UI C.1 of this permit.
2. Part II of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part T i. Notice of Intent Raquiremeuts
. . I •
C. Where toSubrniL
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
Hotline at (703) 821—4823. or the NPDES
Programs Operations Section at US EPA
Region 1 at (817) 565—3525. NOls must be
signed in accordance with Part VILG
(signatory requirements) of this permit.
NOIs are to be submitted to the Director
of the NPDES progiarn in care of the
following addre.s Storm Water Notice
of Intent. US EPA Region 1. MA. PC Box
1215. Newington. VA 122.
2. A copy of the NO! for all discharges
to Outstanding Resource Waters shall
be submitted to the Coimnonwealth of
Massachusetts at the following address:
Massachusetts Department of
Envirorwiental Protection, Slorm Water
Notice of Intent. BRP—WP 43. PC Box
4062. Boston. Massachusetts 011.
For details on filing far permits with
MA DEP see 310 4.00. Thnely
Action Schedule and Pee Previsions. For
other information call the MA DEP
Information Services Section at (817)
336—2255 or the Technical Services
Section of the D!PDfvisfon of Water
Pollution Control at (5061 77 —747O.
3. PBrt 111 of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part m. Special (atnditions
• . S S
C. Set Backs and Best Management
Practices
1. Storm water discharge outfall pipes
to public water svpplie and other
Outstanding Resource Waters shall be
removed and set back when dzschargers
are seeking to increase the discharge or
change the site storm water drainage
system; all new discharge autfalls must
be set back from the receiving water.
Receiving swales for outfall pipes shall
be prepared to mininime eroeion and
maxrmize infiltration prior to discharge.
The goal is to infiltrate as irwch as
feasiblin infiltration trenches and
basins, filter media dikes and/or other
EMPs shall be used to meet the goal.
Discharges shall employ Beet
Management Practices (EMPs) for
controlling itorin water. See Protecting
Water Quality U7 U banAreos 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
requu ments 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 prpes. when the storm
water drainage system is undergoing
changes. outfall pipes shall be set back
from the receiving water. A receiving
ewale. infiltration trench or basin. Biter
media dikes or other BMPs should be
prepared with the goal 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. Delowaj’e. Delaware 401
certification specie) permit cxuidltions
e nse the permit as follows:
1. Part I of the permit is revised to
readi
Part I. Coverage Under This Parmit
A. Permit Area. This permit covers all
Federal facilities administered by
Region 3 in the State of Delaware.
2. Part II of the permit is revised to
read as follown
Part II. Notice of latent Requirements
S S 5 5
C. Where to Si,bizut.
1. FacilIties which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NOl form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereofl The
form in the Federal Register ndllce in
which this permit was published riay Li
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821—4823 NOIs
must be signed in accordance with Part
VlI.G (sigr.atory requirements) of th:s
permit. NOIs are to be submitted to the
Director of the NPDES program in cate
of the follow:ng addresr Storm ! ‘.‘ater
Notice of Intent. PC Box 1215.
Newington. VA 22122.
2. A copy of all Notices of Intent
(NOls) shall be submitted to the State of
Delaware at the follow cg address:
Water Pollution Control Branch PDES
Storm Water Program Deiawa’v
Departmeni of Natural Resources ard
Environmental ControL 89 Kings
Highway. PC Box 1401. Dover. DE
19 3.
3. The following section is added to
Part 111 of the permit:
Part III. Special Conditions.
Management Practices and Other Nun.
Numeric Limitations
. S S S S
C. Special Conditions The permnee
must comply with the reqinrernents of 7
Delaware Code Chapter 40 arid the
Delaware Sediment and Slorm Water
Regulations (January. 1991).
4. Part IV of the permit is rerised to
read as follows:
Past IV. Siesta W.t Poiluticu
Pzevenlioe Plan
B. Signature and Plan Review
• I • I
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VILG (signatory
requirements}. and be retained an-sue at
the facility winch generates the slorn
water discharge in accordance wi; ii
VIE (retention of records) of this ‘.
A copy of the plan, as well as
subsequent revisions. shall also U -
submitted to the State of Delawa:’
the following address: Water Poll
Control Branch. NPDES Storm W.
Program. Delaware Oepartmen
Natural Resources and Envtror..-
Control. 89 Kings Highway. P.O
1401. Dover. DE 19903.
C. District of Columbia. Dis:-
Columbia 401 certification spe’...
permit conditions revise the p.
follows:
1. Part lof the permit is rev-..
read as follows:
Part I. Coverage Under T s P’ —
A. Permit Area. The perm1
areas administered by Megior.
District of Columbia.

-------
44428
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
B. Ehgibi/ity
3. Limitations on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges from
construction sites are not authorized by
this permit:
. . S S I
1. unpermitted discharges that are
subiect to the NPDES program.
excluding discharges associated with
construction activity.
D. Florida. Florida 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 Areo. 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 II. Notice of Intent Requisesnents
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 (NOt) 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 NOl. the owner of a
storm water management system must
receive a State of Florida storm water
permit from either the Florida
Department of Ernnronmental
Regulation (FDER) or a Florida Water
Management District (FW!vW).
B. Contents of Notice of Intent.
6. 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 f the plans or permits should
not be included with the NOl
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
plans. The applicant shall also 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.
I I • • I
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 [ LA 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 U.C. Facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
construction activities to a municipal
separate storm water system within
Broward. Dade. DuvaL Eacambia.
Hillsborough. Orange. Palm Beach.
Pinellas. Polk or Sarasota Counties shall
submit a copy of the NOl to the operator
of the municipal separate storm sewer
system. Included within these counties.
the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOTJ. 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 111 of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part UI. Special Conditions,
Management Practices and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
A. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Dischorges
2.
I I I .
S • •
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 lV.D.5 and
the storm water management system is
designed to accept these discharge. and
provide treatment of the non-storm
water component sufficient to meet
Florida water quality standards:
discharge. from fire fighting activities:
fire hydrant flushing.: waters used to
wash vehicles or control dust in
accordance with Part W.D.2.c.(2)
potable water sources including
waterline flushing; imgation drainage;
routine external building washdown
which does not use detergents:
pavement washwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
ha%e not occurred (unless all spilled
material has been removed) and where
detergents are not used; air conditionirip
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. FLG830000.
published on July 17. 1989 (54 FR 29986)
and modified on August 29. 1991 158 FR
42736).
4. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read as follows
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
B Signature and Plan Review
. I I I
2. The permittee shall submit plans to
the State agency which issued the storm
water permit and 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.
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
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United Slates.
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!.4
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 controllini
pollutants in storm water discharv’
associated with industrial actuvit.
addition, the plan shall be amend
identify any new contractor and
subcontractor that will implemer
measure of the storm water poll..
prevention plan (see Part lV.E)
Amendments to the plan may b
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 I Notices
44429
plan must be submitted to the State
agency which issued the State storm
water permit.
D. Contents of Plan
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;
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 control. 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 control.
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 FWIW, 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
minimwn components:
a. Erosion and sediment controls
(1) stob:hzotion proctices. A
description of interim and permanent
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
butler strips, protection of trees.
preservation of mature vegetation, and
other appropriate measures. A record of
the dates when major grading activities
occur, when coastruction activities
temporarily or permanently cease on a
portion of the site, and when
stabilization measures are initiated shall
be included 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) Stivcturai Proctices. 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. gabions. 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.
• . S S S
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.J. 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
FD or FWMD 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 water management
measures, and not the ultimate
operation and maintenance of such
structures alter the construction
activities ha .e been completed and :he
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 elimiri ted
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.
(1) Such practices may include, storm
water detention structures (includirg
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 quaity
standards (95 percent if the system
discharges to an Outstanding Florida
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 str c ure
to a watercourse so that the natural
physical and biologic 1 characteristics
and functions are maintained and
protected. Equalization of the
predevelopment and post.development
storm water peak discharge rate and
volume shall be a goal in the desigi of
the post-development storm water
management system.
c. Other controls
(1) waste d,sposal. No solid materials.
including building materials, shall be
discharged to waters of the United
States, except as authonzed by a sect;on
404 permit and by a State of Florida
wetland resource management perrr.t
issued pursuant to chapters 373 or 41)3
F.S.. and the applicable regulations .1
the FOER or FWMD.
. . . . ,
(4) The plan shall address the p -
application rates and methods fo;
use of fertilizers and pesticides at

-------
41430
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 187 1 Friday. September 25. 1992 / Notices
construction site and set forth how these
procedures will be implemented and
enforced.
• I • • •
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. end locations where vehicles
enter or exit the sue 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 oL 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
dischaige 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 in State Water Policy
(chapter 17—40, FAC.) and the
applicable storm water permitting
regulations of the FD or appropriate
FW?W. Locations where vehicles enter
or exit the site shall be inspected for
evidence of ofisite sediment tracking.
• I I I •
5. Part VI of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part VL Standard Permit Conditions
• S S • S
0. Inspection and E ntry
• S S I •
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.
• • I S S
8. Part VID of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part ‘JUL Termination of Coverage
I S S • I
C. Additional Notification. A copy of
the Notice of Termination shall be sent
to the State agency winch 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.
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
readi
Part L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas ai minictered by EPA Region DC in
American Samoa.
2. Part U of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirement.
• I S S S
C Where to Submit
1. A copy of the NOl 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 • S S
B. Signature and P/on Review
• I • S S
4, All pollution prevention plan. for
storm water discharges iii American
Samoa shall 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 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
• S • S •
C. Where to Submit
I Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial actl’ it)
must use a NO! form provided b-v the
Director (or photocopy thereofl. 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
Vll.C (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. PC Box 1215.
Newtngton. VA 221 .
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 addresr 0—107 Harmon Plaza.
130 Ro as St., Harmon. Guam 95911
• • S I •
3. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Preveatioe Plan
• S S I I
8. Sign atwe and P/wi Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VU.C (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.
A copy of the plan shall also be
submitted to the Guam Environmental
Protection Agency at the following
addrees 0—107 Harmon Plaza. 130 Rojas
St.. Harmon, Guam 95911.
. I I S S
4. Part V I of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
. S S • •
D. Reporti Where to Submit
1.
• I S • S
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Pan,
Vl.D.ia. Vl.D.i b. and V1.D.1.c.
individual permit applications and d
other reports reqwred herein, shall 5”
submitted to the Director of the NPDF’-
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office: Urn ted
States EPA, Region DC. Water

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 187 I Friday, September 25. 1992 I Notices 44431
Management Division. (W—5—1). Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105. and to the Guam
Environmental Protection A8ency at the
following address: D—107 Harmon Plaza.
130 Rojas St.. Harmon: Guam 959911.
muins coos SNO- 5o

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 I Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
Appendix C—NOI Form/Instructions
Fon, A o,eo c
See Reverse for Instructions
Waaningten. DC 20460
1 .0 5$ I EPA United Siates Etiviomtentel Prote on A eitey
FORM Notice of Intent (NOl) for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity Under the NPOES General PermIt
Submoslon of S’s P4oSos of kflent SOMeI nos mei me peny sOen 6ed in SacSon 101 this toirn mends 0 be aiSlorized by a NPOES o,imt esued
ds larges ‘sm incuemal !v in me Slate isenshed u Seceen 1101 Sue to,m Beecirma a osenthee o iga1os suen disenafQet te ny with
‘ sm ’ s aid r ’ sncj’s of me peirnit AU. NE CESSARY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON ThIS FORM
I. Feobrj Op a ’ sr $annaSan
P ,s: I IPnonei I I I I
Stesat 01
Addios: I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I p I I I I I I I I I Qw,. j Opaw
City: I • I I I I i i i i i i t • I State 1......i.......J ZIPCedS I • . i I
IL F IdyI l0 Lo ao i In lomlaSan Is me Fedb y Lo 0d en
14,. I • I I1III• I I I I I P I I I I I • I I
Adtees. I . . I I1 I I I i I I I p I I I I
liii iii i ,iiiii ii ii i Iste ’ s.L...... ... . .J ZIPCodeI 1111111111
‘ e: I I I , I LcngrSido I • i I i I • I Ouarwr I__j .J $e on. L... _ L....I Towiishup I . . . I I , i I
I II. S i’s Aedvey bd omia t ion
I _4 Op.mPAa,.. I . . . . . . i • • . . . . . I
Reesr. .g W e8ady I . . . .
IIVai 5 IP wi I C lfflIteI• i ke The,e Ea ang is me FwIIrr Re uied 0 SubnIl
En ’ srStonnWa*Gene,eiPo ,mdNumbo, ‘ I onmeweoa’s? (VeiN) L..J MotetorngOa ’ s?(I.2.013)
SIC ei 0esi ia
AcSvnyCo oe. Plsiiaiy:I.i.I 2ndIIIII 3rd IIIII45 III,l
If This F Iy II k mbwi of a cup
Ester aup Number I I I
It Vai Itowi Other Exteng NPDES
PseT1 ’ s.Es%ter nnitNunIb.ts: I . I I . . . . . p I I . . I
IV. Addson Uib ,nalcn Requred for Ccncmacaon Actvmes Onty
Con ’ s Ieton
S 1 O Oats: Is e. Storm water Polubn Preventen Plen
Estenated Area’s be ii CompIai with S aidatr Lc
I . . I . I I • I I • I aa 5 (lnA l I • . . I I [ ]
V. C.1II..L.. : I eerily wider psrafly of ‘sw mat S ’ s do anem aid d l a nien’s e n areo under my Urs n er sscs beai fl rdaIee ‘sen a
system desq.d 0 s Stat qudified pereennd picoesly gaSar aid ev*jaw me wdeimaeon submItted Besed at my Viqiay of S’s pessOit a peisoiw w
S’s system. a ewes psicoiw direofy mipoiwicu. ga’ ..... Ste tisamason. S’s mlonnaaon uuCmitbm a. te me best a my h owtod aid beUs& sue.
aiwjra’s . ed ste . I an avas that there as signdiiwit penance Ia subumteng foise idormaSon. Including its p— iy of ts ai bnpre@uvn.nt (or

Pflntkans. -
II ilillil liii 1III1IIIIII 1111111 III • III
CPA Feim 3 5104 ( 542)

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices 44433
• DA Pci 33104
1.ciN (1101) Pw mi.. Wous 0 i. - WUS Owu A Ivtty
ToDI Covws Undul TOt. NPOIS Qsns,01 PciedI
TOw. Doaw. Iwi .oug aab1$ du (s. dcici 2) sci Secici. 313
£PCPA w. wN .Nww Dole 0wc wad
,w.w. we t cis pie oo ci DoW
Lad. m ..aub1 , WOW 01 . vici,w. uD 1. Ow Laipi sDo d co .sWO
d Wi (SIC) cad., Owl SOW dIsSIOS Si W,w.l p ie ci SW0w$ p.. u.u
SI SI. ciot. Ifi40m Swait Dc l S t .
F. S iciUJ . loes dslbwd ee 40 CF I .23(b)(141 (i).(u) Slit do 11.1 P SIC
wOw Ow NcuI Wp O walb. I i , pivle jciOwJCa pioWiwdor 1W4ICIS pov.cid. 11.
OtdI—. , 2atwscw wOes sie 1. be I IOIO
HZ • Hciado ,s wate piw it. $1.I s. ci dupood 5se rc idrq Ow.. Owl
S I. c SwIg 1 1MW IwnI. oust. ci s ‘m t.ow iliOcie C 01 AGFA (40
CER 125.33 (SXIS)(s) )
IF - Lci 11 IwO cilon Ow. em opon Owi s Owl ,sw i ci twa
WI, i mWO watst lMl I9 01.05 Ow ii. S1SIS 1. Squ 1 .W I dow
aiNSe Cal RA (40 CFR 125.33 (b)(l4Xv) ).
• Sisuci OSOOw p IlSmStQ MOIOSL ‘IOuO ’ç cisi llerdIv Ides (40 CFR
125.21 (bK 14Xv.)L
1W • Tiw .nw es owuig Owiusic ..g. ci SI , 00W ge shops ci
e— _ UvuuileSt NW SI iyslim. used ci Ow smiops b050Vw’t.
NM iUrwan 01 c i wnseoc swag. (40 CFR 125.26
(b )(l4Nli) SI.
CO - Cawwecm (IOCFA 125.33 (bXl ) (’*
I Ow d4o IwO ci $.cDon II PSS NWaSIsd ci Pul 101 U, st..n SWhii
SISIt. SM S gS1. item SeW ’ sM.5’led. pit, 01. ,Vup .acIcit..
1 0 1 1 0W 5101. w. Wci.Usd .
O0t,s vs 0 0w PSICES p itu picissiep .11.1.0 0 ’s 1 v4tp a. eu hOed in Sec .on
II . Do ow porno Iit1’MW P l ii l O O M S Ion Do Si. OwI, Ii. . con suonenso bi ,I 11.
5. 1 1 1 11 ouffSci Ii.. Owl u.qI i .O. Snur lie lpgbcsWI nusiter
Se IV R.quWsd Do Cow.uctson Aedvilsu O&y
CwOWwSa n outs Seccin I V ci sedOOn 1. Swans I svouØ i Ii
CI-ip UuNW . gW .ss 11.101. wrnpi.w S.cWI N
FleW Ow .ct IDol Oe I . .01 the espiwled w ’U.. .... . c i . 1., S w ieWe
_ ... . ‘ _t
Pieces si NWs e 0101.1.1.1 mrleui SI SOres 01 SI. 01. WI 01051 wI ci i Ss
SM (.1.001 1.01. I We)
Ow IDorn NW polSjlon piNcIlicIr pUn UIO. O!a .s 51
SMt 5 ec10 U — Ow wOnwS e lM ciNW OM* p ’ou . ci swrn
owlivIfiwl -
SwOan V 0 . 1 1 1 0 5 1 w
P10 .5 ouluss piac10 Do svsss 1.JISS Do u ,StI10Ig Doll ciI lrnliXf l on Ow
Unit P.0.5 IspuMloc ’ s “SI’S 00$ . 1 }v- 1. Is sqw ci Shows
F.. an aWtb S i.sposudus owoasut. oFow. __. s ,wns. (‘1 wicirt.
_,. w.NW. SI MW-,......J...l 01 01. wSa11 ‘ Ciwps of a piuro .oO
01lNcss MteNI% ciul I , cow, WI NM IS IJhii . wOS 51.07 ci cianeW 5I1.MIg
Scic iu. ci(s) Ow ITWt,. . SI NM SI 111.I. ui iDohauig. piOW S1.t SI
Owl 250 OSINc SI IWlIIg 0u. 1100111 5.05W Iopoortutes
4. J- . , , $25 11 1 11w (51 lwa* W 1033 dOw .). ii laiO iciitp 1. sql dIain ’ srte
lb bi SISqIed SI — I 1. II. IIW SI &.....W. . 1.011 wpaIS 1 .
Fcie .Si....A , JI . D S 9ulWd P 5 0 W ci Ow , . L.. . SI
F.. aa* F Sf . edpubie I7 0, .01, a piw Un ecicuu,
e lla, ci vNWi . 0wO dOWO.
r... _ s P—’ - ts Do d ,.
PubIc . ...... ,St , , bow. Do eDo - ,-,-- — - , 1. beMSd 1. wa.g. 03 twos a,
SIpiwcn. w. ig SUM Do I1,lioww. .w 5w .Q wuiq ci . w.caa.
wITle WO . ._ SI.d Iu10S NMw .Uesi SM Ieswa Ow
01 ,Owww. . 5.01 . . J1 . l sjOe I i . bad is$n.u. en, cOw 515050101.
ii SiDosiuea. ci Do bn,.,...n , 00$ Dons IwIedvç wiy
S ,ggciNns 01051 ii i . , NWm ci Owos Sb Do . 0n 1. 005. hipwcin Poscp
pi51, P5. U.S. riust ... . v. 401 5po 5W
WsOw I. CC 20460.. C)uow. 00w 01 so R .gu p *10w. Olfce
Of Mw .g wS WO BUOpsI. Wsinsig.n. CC 200 .
M Pie A USd5101 DoWO (N0 Fu
P50u011 140 CFP PsI 125 . ,J .I.es peso ciuw I.JgN 01 c c i , . NW
_____SMI S*JIDad y1.S NW badp(I.s) 010w US. ciOwt S Nowed
PoS w.0.dwge EDo. ..mci Spsurn (N S ) pwat li i . . . 01 r
.ccvn, 01.1 Pb S c Si S wirn wW dIcIW95 “11.1 si.100s MCI 1. sawn
01. NPO€S Sw. , Wow GsU Pu, , I cii Ow .soasv Docit 01 1 5 0w
post swed S p 51111 u sMW Ow 50E3 Ow’s’ Wo w w . ci I oWO
U 1 . 0 1 0 5W sp5b , .... _ S by OPA ci i Sp5Oy.owIusI
Ow Sws’ WiW HeSs. at ( ) 1514
WItu To File MCI Porni
11w. be suit MOle LDo...4 ae
Sbs’ul Wow Noaw ol Oiled
PODii 1215
N— .w . . VA 25125
CWI DoII3 Sits F.i .
You 1, 11011555 ci 5IWlt Uci I5a, lbS. SlOw 505$ 1.115
M cli C?UISOW h b.. . Ole iw.& M01evw 1 . II ‘ wow. , , 1.51.7 SOhn Ole
01 cfwecWs s1.wd Do 0051 UINI. Use co upsss Do Shoed. La.... . eW .
out ‘wt Do pa ms.i i’w*s usisci Ow, 55 waded 1. WOOp w, ‘pos ’ sl I pest
Ow WI, WIsw. 1 . on Ow Dove. cii Ow SOnvi Wow P 0 10W S I ( S21-4
I sc Ost I PscIIy Op..iWs. UnciISUa
On ’s Ow Ipel NW oP Ow P5IWI. Pi i e . pSOM cip5I1.lW ci elI, DOW sop Owl
00IISb Vi. Sahiy UI Ills d.. d Slow .ppMSIOIt The iwi’s . 1015 cocisci siwy
c i ‘vi.y 1.1 5 Oil SN’S 5$ 01. wow 001. boOty The I.sOvsO, cony. Ow UpS
inn, Ow a,iTaIi O le tidily. , Isilci ._ Ow 5Do$ ci ow Do nst
ci , ‘ y- wow. Few v i . citvu edSIcis SM ci flin wrc, 01 Ow
0 5 0 1 . W.
Eu. ow Ow 1. the UpS 11.01$ ii Ow... ci SI. Owp.
F • PositS 1. • PstOM (ol M i Owl 110 . 5ci seW)
5.51. ?. P.Pws
SOWIetI U PciIetylII . LwaUsi l OtetanSUn
alp. an uMZP SM ,. low Owp 50 Owe a NW dci . Ow U.
01. 110.0 01 ow OwIp i. Ow iw.SM IS sw.es. SI Ow ciaciw.
MU. SM ‘ wç. pest. flU INW sciON) of Ow
slOw MS
01 1 .0w Ole Idly is lobed on Owl
SOWIcis• 5$ . *0110117 J _ . .
POw scirn ‘sit, 1 .S liewOpol 55555?. WIlls’ .pawn (1154). ml,
SI. wow of es occiow of ow 1154(53. I 101NW0 15 wow. cissty wile) uiM 015
1SO5W 1 5 OWW 01 Ow cis. Own W li sa. (A 1 1 54 . 4 0 1 . 1 0w. __
ci P5SU ’ s at Wen,U (5011.015 lesdI ON I..... p 55w. illN 501.11..
cisI Owi. cats. sfl.5 ll01le5 flwl-lludS ci swa SIecle) Ow is
SI OOSISISO by I U. 017. U. bes*l. 01.11 (7. 55011 SII1.. - - — ‘
ci SOW WOw Xdp 010511. d . , .S ci wei Do wI&1.h SI y . Sw. ’ ‘seW)
Sow tidlp J.Ji.. . .msrn.5ci WOpi. ........-. ,,NW(s). .1w Ow wow of ow
._ ci _ .v NW.
O psi so 110115 us s ci . NMa NW g .Ow p.u ,it .wtci two SUN
.1.10. NW 11. 110 1110W mOw ics p5. .U..d
hOwls 01 1,01, ci PSI Ow 0WW ci u , L . 01 Ow Id*v Ii. . 51WI 1 5 51 5151.51$
U Ow . ou the ofwlUici .01 UNWISI 01 I I NW woW
I • MW ‘S 50d I. mieN IIWawOI 5 U.
2 • R.s , ,.d 1. IlIdeli
S - Ow 105. 11.01. piwO . ....JIS.... U. .ube ISrg cuiifhci ar Do PS 1 0WVQ

-------
44434 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 187 / Friday, September 25. 1992 I Notices
Appendix 0—NOT Form/Instructions
Form Aperovec ace
Please See instrjetlons Before Completing This Form A. .e.s S ’SIS
United Slates Enviorenentet Pfotec on Agercy
NPDES Wesnington. DC 20460
FORM W Notice of Termination (NOT) of Coverage Under the NPDES General Permit
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrlai Activity
Submission of this Nobee of Temilnebon eonsarjtes noooe Slat Vie party ide ’tabed ii Seceon lie, this term m ho tinger &idio’ized 0 disOtd,90 stems w
ass aed with induabtal iiy w er me N?O€S prcgrwi ALL NECESSARY INFO M TION MUST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM
I. Permit lntcrnaoon
NPDES Slomt Water CNedi Hee I? Yei ate Plo Longer Chie Here it the Storm Water
General Permit foirnber I • • n • i I I Opataar 01 the Faonly Disci arge us Being Termunatea
Ii. Faolirg Oporater kitcnnaucn
Nan’.e I I,II,ihII ,nI .Inh .p,IIIIIIII ,, IPI ierie I • I • . I
Address:’ 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
city’ luluiulIllIllil 11111111 State L. ,. ,i....J ZIPCcdeI I I I Iiilii I
Iii FaotltyiSite Locabon INCIT?.aOeit
Piwi 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
Aodress • ‘ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
City’ I a i i , • , i a • i a i • I s e’ L... 1 ....J ZtPCcde’ I • • I ii I I
i. rj0e: I i I I i I Longitude. I I I I I I I I Oi.ai er. LJ.....J SeOlon. (_.,,L,,,,,J Toer’wip I • I I i i i I
IV Cettftcabon: I caddy urder periatty ci tew that aitarges ass aatd with mduamal 1,p bern me erOf,ed tacitly Stat at. aJO .d by a
NPDES general permit hare been ebmv iated or liii I sin ne b gor Vie ocorsaw of the laisity or cewDuobon sate I understend Slat by submitong the Peace of
Temunaaon iwn to tengor aimenzee 0 disunwg. seim w wecoatad with Incuaaia wiy waler thus genera permit. 510 Stat dedtargmg pcluwi tte I,
stomi water cescoatad with Indusmal aty 0 wawrs ci Ste United Slates us unlawful waler St. Clean Water A ofiere the disaliarge us riot aJU i oncad by a
NPDES permit I ceo unoelatand that tie Submatlal of St. Places of Tetmutaeon does rot releatest cp trom kacIPly tot any vclaacna of this permit or ow
Clean Water Act
PnntPIa,,e’ I nn . III IIII.IIIIIIIIII I O I I I I
bistvuedons for Completing Nodes of Twintinstion (NOt) Form
teliurete PUS NOT Foim
SIn4 01 , 5 Ni le o ow ow term”g uezu’_s
Stone Watsa Places of Trewiaeon
P0 Be, 1155
P1a _ wi . , VA 221fl
Cosuplating Uiu
Type or mvii. aenlg Sort. Ii ow .ceorwi. sues Oly Piwiuu
owes esOl isiseOS bucesil ie limes AOerwms if ilucetosty S ite wove
ow h1,ianbIr of Otsa *rs alceus tor sect ‘turn Us. , ens upwe tot owes.
OuwisSIt d5. teif twi N ’ Ois’CQIssen mwes ususu lily W I lSstwi to CatlIf
y i moons. I ei ‘wit. wy qataeon. wee Otis fotm, cal vie S rnt Wale’
HOGInS (7a3)act4 5
PI.EASS SEE cew e OF INO FORM FOR PIJitTNER lNSTRUCTlOt
*1w Nuy PIN. Nodes c i T w iatNn (NOT) Foil.
P,mvnu.s .rc use wi isteel ow EPA suat P.001* ‘ stii’ s lt
Ouamwg. Liamiweet Syssun (NPOES) Gwerat Psawia N’ Soii Waist
D wrgss AiwoaSO wet rusatr.a Acavity e Sante a Macce of Trrtmaoon
(NOT) teni ans i Its? P0 1 4155 10 P0gw usip stem water e iIcwgsu
wet InOiatmsI iiy ua Osillild ii ow item we e.gii.eona as 40
CFR l .25 (b)(I 4), or *151 1 Step we to teig. ow cow at ow P04 1055
For ce .wmeswii wows.. di si stem swmgw macuse
wet neJss tau wvup ccc i i alan 5sts uO souls si ow omsei w usi. hOve
test P Issues we sow, we . . . acrvis lT eew.t
twe 05511 ._ m ..o or wu os e4 as an aoerorws lute. or that at stone
waist owaiwg.e aaaooazes wios wsusss a i men ow wevt esi we stat
we suVlaizsd or . NPOES gsnune pumos we coterum. buIlt .imunatea
Fits assianen huts hal at stI.iouertwg ecowiss at ow ii,. tev• bull ’
acingulue . we em a uPitorni persvvu Isosmows wet a ostety C l 70% Cl
ow N’ ,esvsd sew we sees rot .eres or pr”unui’I smicwes nsa
bus ’ sasslinuc. or s si 5stt peii’ it iresas,. ( li l a ’ U I ’ S
use of s eo. aoms. or guotewsu iss bust
EPAFerm 3510.7(0.02)

-------
Federal Re lster I Vol. 57, No. 187 / Friday. September 25. 1992 I Notices
• CPA Fm *7
Nueles ol tw ,iUia Ias NdT) 01 vunegs Un r YPs NP (S G. 1i01 PseniO
* onn WeOs 0 dwp.s or1a sd W0’I bi j5jtl Ac*IvUy
44435
U s I PsmiN bl u Ns
£rw Ois .LssiIg NPOES Sen’s W r O.wi Psn’s ‘unbu’ Usign.d S IS
haSty or sits 111.15610 m Seceni. II. I ysi 15 1 k s I?ts pemsi ru15.
Its Smnii Wsw IhSne g 7 ) I i. *23
rOses y’si isenen uibmsrg 015 OsScs 01 Temwtaxn by dts iAg IS
pib Il boi:
I IS is 151 been I disIgs of itooreen end ysi . 5 longer IS
01 Its ‘p or I II. idun Sed ii S.econ UI. 56.56 Il cerrespng,boI .
001 senmess, ss1.tbe àIyor esden dnSealst II I Nens been
W111m5s0, 111156 015 boa.
Sidle., U Faculty Ope.edei bi h...Jhen
0,.. lislegel .iem c i Os owes. R. ,n. c orgwessam. or eny oI ls. .iuty l I lt
. ,e .ss IShdity or sits dsealbed m 056 eegeaxn. Th.nw.oI IS opsissi
mey or mey net be Is sans nwtis — Is Sobty. Th. i .rw ci Its tscaay us
m. w Il e y su It ww11u IS leobtys opelloIl. . 10w 15.1 I I. plaIt or sits
ma sr. Os not usa a ‘ , ad ns. Enw Is wnplsS sdOses ad
lsloW’ws mimoer ci Its opesSi.
Sadie., UI PecIfltyiSlt. Lr ’.. , Misnidbs
Em.. Is Iacbty’i or ess dUal or legel nays silO wnoless sddrsu. leduOsg
aep. Ian ad ZIP an. If Is toasty lads a coast orsu, e ms san
lis leU 11s sils loripIds of IS hofIty 50111 VSSItSt 15 sl I51 . Vs
N le1. esn IIIp. silO S (tO Its newest is.W NCXnI ci 1* vilttM5
anee ci Its sai.
S.a 1 , N Ce.dSadhsn
F.de.sl u5105* 1.en IOs b sees. penades b si iang use mf onneDOit on
Its opp on born. Fsoe,i vsgiiaess sass lIe ‘spades SOS signed Is
Fern uon. by e ,suporislbs ewoomis o 1¼s.. ItIt wts. O f orsIlOe’It.
SsaISiy. PSsaWS!. or vcS.0’5SIdSn1 ci Its esporapon In ø ags o le av sI
bee.sss ta n. or sly cd l ii owes’ s’ts p5 , 511115 111111W ys or OSOIICII
madig bat nI. or (I) Is matsg s i of arts or less manuladivig . oroG on.
or cpa.cung fsabsesentploymg 0ws men 250 pomona or iwwç gious avIrel
ides or sapensioss .aasotig $25 IIIdIorI im esesd.sSimr 1910 dolwel. 0
si001y e S0’I 005051151 ,51 been espued or oobgaso s Its mensge . m
‘sm pucoadlilu.
For. p 1Sid or ad by $9 11515 p1.015 ’ or SI. puc0.5 or
For. arnmnsekiy. F.d.u* or 00 5W — dolly by el l is. a pv el
df or ursoig slsoua o Uaw
P14. ,A Se delsn Ad NcIlc.
P *l5 ipoeWi9 hadn bo Its webcsaon S susnand s anape 05 ioitu oar
‘ s es. 11561019 $1115 her irs ig wuwnldsoys. snaseng .asu ,lg a
wan. geItunng aid msiiesw l ’s Oats IISIOSO 510 oaucpiserg aid
Os sli 01 luhernIssan Send ‘veszs sgaorug Os burden
issues. eny o$sr used ci Is cd’sccnl of in56nsjo . or wgges11ns dci
m ju g 01a born. eldu05ng eny siiggs.w 511111 may eass or rsdude lIs
b.sden of• llI u,ie on Polcy BrvIt, PM. 3. U.S EnVWOnIr .I ’tS
Aqsn ao l USc .. ,. SW, Wwung i. DC 20160. ci Qs ,. Orics
of end P.p in.y Altaa*. Oboe I Management end Duaget.
Weulvigenu. DC 2060a
IFR Doc. 92-23320 Filed 9-24-52 &45 anti

-------
F R r ft VoL 5 two. U ft Tue y, !eptesnber 22 1B ft Notices
43733
incm red a the Fbr Wayne P Lc vu
Sue in’FotWaywerbidlaitM.
OATES Comment. must he 1 iwvJed Off
or before Noweether 23 i z
ADDR Comments should be
ad dressed to the Dbcket Crerk, S.
Environmental Protection A vw . .
R gion V. 7 W. Jackson Avenue
Chicago. illinois. 6000L and shau1d refer
to: litRe FartWaeReductiorrSiteut
1 ’ofl Wayne. rfldiano U ’S. EPA Dociet
No. V-W-g2 -C.-159
FOR FURl WlNcORMaTlON NTAcT
Kare irL 2 acentaxr. tLS. En roumental’
ProtectiorrAgency, Offfce afRegionnl
Counsel. SCS-TUB4, 77W. Jackson
Avenue. Chicago, fund,. 6OL (312)
888-5323
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOIC Notice. of
Adnistrative Settrement rn
accordance with section 122(i)(Tr of the
Compreheos*it vinmme
Response. Linbihty
Act of 1984. as amended (CERCI.A .
notice in hereby given.of a proposed
admini atfve settlement concarrnng
the Fort Wayne Reductian SRs a! 5 5
Old Manmee Road. 1tll nCoimty. Street
in Fort Wayne. ithana. Subject fe
review by the pubhe pumimntte . this
Notice; the agreez uI has been
approved by the United State,
Department of Justice. Below are listed
the parties who have executed binding
certification. of their consent to
participate in the settleinenerA &
Enterprises; Allen Couni Motors ANR
F. ht lne.;DoirAyres
Pontiac. Inc.; Bor -Waaier Corp.;
Cha1fant-Perry-l(bi.hi Chrysler
Corporation/Accustar lbc.: Collins
Oldumobile: Con ntal Grain Co.;
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.: Custom Tube
Co. Dehin Brother. Roaffng Co.: Dan&
Corp./Weatherheud.Dayton Hudson
Corp./Target Diane CorpjLake End
Sales William A. D P u4 Ca.:
Essex Group. Inc.; Fort Wayne Childu .
Fort Wayne Foundry’ Corp.; Fox & Faa
Frame Service: Frseba Corporatimu.
C eral E1ectrieC ’e.; Gfadleux Refinery
Glidden Paint Co.: ffartia-Kayot. Inc.
Hoosier Solvents (Chemcentral
Corporation): MirhIg n Powar
Co.; rrr Aerospace; Fosyin Stainless
Steel/Slater Steel: Jinr/Ta Xdiley
Buick; Kelly Chevrolet Knepper
Cartage: Lydall Midwest. IncjCorcap
Midweat/Corcap. nc . :.Magnavaz
Maremont Corp. MdCeeson Corp (&,r
Lnland Chemical); Moans Auto Co.;
Meyer Stamping: C.. MUTer and Sonsi.
Mobile Aerial Towees.. Inc.; Mungavan&
‘ons; Navajo Freight tines (ABF Freight
Ystems); Navistar NIPSCO: Norfolk &
Western Raifroad: North American Van
Lines/Triangle Fleet Superior
Companjes/Omn gur Corp.; Phelps.
Dodge Corp.; Potlatch; Pretha Jthot
Inc.; Prentice Prodnc ; Protective
Coating Co.. Re Steckbeck Paint. C
Rea Mageet Wire Co .;R rdaa 1ruck
Saunders track. Scott PaparCo ..
Sheller-Globe. Cosposationi Takbeim.
Corp... Tn-State Automall. Inc./Bob.
Jaekaon/DeLag:ange Fort UniroyaL
oodrich/E F.. Good .‘ lalspar Corp :
Van Wart.. Ohio-Transfer Station:
Whitley Producte; and the United States
Alt Force. and its. component eomn ds
and units (including the NationaL Cuath
Dmuee’andall operatloacandactivities
of the Indiana Air National Guard in the
performance of ita federal mission);
A Consent Decree was ente me July’
18. 1899.. whereby SCA. Services 0*
lndian tap ”fiwm
ther .. ..- .h..I.acthin attheFort Wayne
Site • tapay l -.-.-.-. . ‘
(Intact taexce.0 ua3 .L
response het InrNrgcast.0*tES .
EPA andthaStatao1lTi. .. .. .- à
after the ea of the.Conse Demee. ia
over i ethg imp l ntat lm ratthe
remedih1 amimL.Th flvr..EPAi and
the State of Indiana canrhirt
n nt4 t4 withthe. ..m ..mmg
potenfiallyrenpoizathla par fmoro
than 1 liparties) a! theSi torecaver
their u bm , ,pd response aunts. Thin
Administrative Order. which is also
slhrthaStstea*hsdran . inthe
result of those efforts.. -
The 04 parties named above have paid
$T.599.145.96 in a’ settlement payment
under the agreement. sobject to the
contingency that EPA may elect not to
complete the settlement based on
matters hiought to its ii.in j
the publieconnuent period estebliehed
by this Nath . This amount would
reimburse EPA. for 100 per cent oflta
past respmme costs. nclnrling interest
accumulated thereon, which were
incurred andpaid with respect te’the
Fort Wayne Reduction Site up to and
including October 31, 1989. The settling
parties have nIne agreed to r .imh e.
the State’ ofindiana $20.00O foe its
response coats incurred and puid prior
to October 31. t989. The Mmfni trative
Order does not. settle any dj,img EPAur
the State of Indiana may have for
response costs incurred afterOctubvt
31. 1989.
EPA is. entering into this agreement
under the authority of section 1,22(h and
107 of CERCIA. Under this authority.
the agreement proposes to settle wt
these parties for unreimbursed Costs for
response action taken at. the Fart. Wayne
Reduction Sfte
The Environmental Protection Agency
will receive written comments relating
to this agreement for 30 days. fran. the
date,oi publication of this notice.
A copy of thapropoeed administrative
satdemsritagraemenv may be obtained
in p arb rwail hnni .thaEPt i’s
Region V Oflüz o* R- we1 ! rm k 17’
W. Jadcsoniivenue. Chicagre lllinsm
80044L
Rus lty rThe ’Comprehemive
Envtzmazztal iSVsponse Compensation.
UabihtjAcr..asa thd. .U.S.C. aecume
96m.-897L
Division.
(FR . -arssa Fi1.d a-ZL-g2 aes anil
I FRL 489&-$l
O?thtSOU rCaTOIIfla
N.ub r Pollutant Diactiarge______
øb 1 h . .4& Syotem NPDES7 PVO m
To Iuue GnerafPe lt.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
AcnoraNot of appinwul .1 the
N & L Pullutant Dmd airgu .
ElimizmIln. System. P.,miM Program of
the State of South Carolina .
SUMMARY: On September 3. 1992. the
Regional Administrator for the
EnvIronmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Region IV. approved the State of South
Carolina National Pollutant Discharge
Piiminalion System General Permits
Program. This action authorires the
State of South Carolina to issue general
permite in heir of lndivTdun} NPDES
permit!.
FUMEaINFORMAt IOM COKTACT
Ji PeInek. Chief. Permits Section.
Water Permit! & Enforcement Branc&
US. EPA. Region IV. 345 Courtlancl
St,p. Hnntn c ’nv a . stP. c. 404/’
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
t Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate the dIscharge of
wastewater which. reaulL from.
subeiaisthl!y similar operations, am of
the-sane typo wastes. requ re thc nie’
e uen! mnitatlans or operating
conditions, require similar monztarin&
and are. appropriately controlled wider a
generel permit rather their by individual
ptruJ ltR.
South Carolina was authorized to
In, Fune
IW&. The Sletes progre as previously
.i ,inuvect did’ not include provisions for
th issuance of general permits. There
am MVAe L categories. of discharges in
theSietewhlth could appropriately be

-------
43734
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 184 / Tuesday. September 22. 1992 I 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 IsauRnrie of
general permits. The categories which
have been proposed for coverage under
the general permits program tncludr
storm water discharges, non-contact
cooling water discharges of one million
gallons or less, backwash from potable
water treatment plants. small domestic
waste discharges. ground water
remediation discharges. concentrated
aquatic rniiri z l 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 permite
under section 405 of the Clean Water -
Act. At such time as the sludge program
is authorized In South Carolina, that
category mayalao be Included in the
general permit program.-
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review as provided by 40 CFR-
123.44. Public notice and the opportunity
to request a hearing also Is provided for
each general permit . -
IL Discuselon
The State of South Carolina
submitted. in support of its request.
copies of the relevant statues and
regulation.. The State also has
submitted a statement by the Attorney
General certthjlng. with appropriate
citations to the statues and regulation.,
that the State has adequate legal
authority to administer the general
permits program consistent with 40 CFR
122..2i . In addition, the State submitted a
Program Description 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 123.82. 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 NPD program. EPA has generally
viewed approval of such authority as
non-substantial because it does not alter
the substantive obhgations of any
discharger under the State program. but
merely simplifies the procedures by
which permit. 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 age. While not
required under §123.82. EPA is
publishing notice of this approval action
to keep the public informed .if the status
of its general permits program
approvals.
[ IL Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Program or
Modificatlona
The following table provides the
public with an up-to-date list of the
status of NPDES permitting authority
throughout the country. Today’s Federal
Register notice is to announce the
approval of South Carolina’s authority
to Issue general permits.
- STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATU8 -.
.
i89 sd Sisis
NPO€S pined
r-r
.4o
rep Federi
I
A vo, .iiad S
p,oVeeOnenI
pro e
Approved S83e
genoed p0 17835
pw am
ioiiana
11/0I 186
06/06/78
10/19 179
11101/N
osimise
01/09 186
06103/SI
06/26/91
11/01/88
09/22/89
mio isu
03110192
12/06188
06101 ITS
92/12/SI
06112/92
Sr
p
p
I
I
I
I
I
I
p
p
p
p
p
C
I
I
1
12/09119
08/10/73
06 /03/81
01/29191
09130191
01/04/04
04/02/91
08/12/92
10/19/79
11/01/86
05114113
03/27/73
09/26173
04/01114
06/28/74
11/29174
10 123 1•77
01/01/75
08/1017 5
051 2 9174
09 / 3 0192
• 09/06/14
• 10/17/73
09,30,74
- - 05 /01 74
10/30/74
• • 06/10114
06 /12174.
09/19 1 15
04/13/62
10/29115
10 /19173
• 00/13/7 5
92 111 174
09/20/73
0913W 7 9
09/17/04
06/10 / 75
12/26/77
01/on.?
03/11174
09/30/83
09 130/86
06/07192
01/16179
05/13192
06/03/81
09/30/9 1
09/30/91
06/30/92
11/10/81
12 109/76
12109173
01/25 192
86/ 2 9179
06/22/81
11/02179
09/3111 5
04/13182
06/13/80
0 9/ 2 8/04
• 01/22/90
01/29192
03/02/79
08/30/19
09/17/64
09/26 /80
09/30/ 06
07/07/97
861 0 1/04
12/15/81
09/27/91.
12/12/05
04/26/92
07/20/89
07 /27/92
04/13/02
04/13/92
06114/82
07/27/03
03/12/61
• 01/22/90-
01 122/90
09117/92
0 2 123/62
0 6/02/92
• 09/17/64
• 04/09/92
06110/92
07/37/67
03116/92
09/03/92
04/ 18/91
07/07/07
04/14/St
09/30/ 96
05/20. -
09/26/09
03/31 175

-------
FW e,sL Ee 1eIar Vo 57, N T F Tts ay Sep k vr 2%, !9 2 N tfcee
43735
STATE PD€S
.
=1
ø—,
o am
— to
— Fade,
t 5es .
. sui 5’
,._......
y .Ifl
! cv

Wt i# .
West Vk me

/? / 52
05IO SVTC
0U38i75.
38
05J1Q/ 8
1T 12 817!
05118181
34
05/1Q18
T27Z4I80
ZT
I
05110183
TV19788
l21I9?
32
Wyon g
Totals____________________________
I V .. R.vww U de, Exscsff dsv
1 and . ar rP dbWly d
The Offl of Ianagemant and B uIget
has exempted thin rule from tha review
reqjEements of ce ithie Order X 9T
pursuantto aecttbn 8tbtof that Order.
Under the Regu yFre hty Act
EPA is reqafre te a Regulatory
lial sfr ralfinIes which
Insyhavee sifir pect air a
substantial number of small utIGuS .
Pursuant to seetleir 099(d) of thr
Regulatory Tetcibilify Act [ LJ 5.C. 00?
et aeqj P certify theit,Stnt,General
Permits Pt . gesm wiW not haves
si ullcan impact one sebetustiaF
ntmibersmall esttiffes. Appr .aFofthe
South Cai’olfna’ NP S to .G J
Pernn ’ Program estabI hes-im .new
eubstanth!.requiFemen4I nurkes i
alteTthvragnMfci control o v any
ndua1cafegoey Appruv Pef the
South C zeflna NPD Sto$e’Ceneral
Per teProgam.niere1 rpreef e , e
simplified a bna ative procesa
DMs± September 3. tnrz
ona1d Ctanyaad,
Assialent R!onafAisiozferlahcy
and Managen ienL
[ FR Doe. 9z- zPlfe-21’-92: R48amL
nuem cone
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
( MA 5 CR
Flortdà n ,L,Ifltt Maj r Dluster
Dectaraflon
AOENC Federal Emergency
Mauageinant.Ageney [ E tA) 1
ACTIDIC Notice.
asnciiv! oarm September 6
SUMMARY Thfs notice amend’a the notion
of a major disaster for the State of
Florida (FEMA.-055-DR). dktecf August
24. 1992 anè rclutcd dct,iiwuicitlu,ur .
FOR FURTHEaIMORMe.TIOIICOIC A .
Paulint C. t’amphafl , ustaa’
Assie” a
Emergency Management Agency.
Wash - n DC 20422.. (202) 5 -383t.
SI t U MVaIFOIN*T1OIe Notice in
hereby givumthath. inofdanrperiod.fiir
this disaster Is dosed effec ve August
25,1ggz
Catalog of Federal floemstlc. sistanca.
No.83.518. Diaauer Assistance.
Giant C. P’ ’on .
A soc rnrecw2sh ta aadL aLProgzazn&
and support.
[ FR Doc. 92-22883 Filed - -9Z.&4S 4
lU I 5 5 cOOS sS- -
(FEMA-lOl-ORI
I ti na AmendmenttoUaLpz
Dlaaeter Qe fnratIn. .
AGENCV?Fedora Emergency
Manageivezit Agency (Y ’.M)
EFFICT1V OM Se .i has fib 1992.
SUSIMARV This no amends imdce
ofam*r disastar fortlw ’Stat,of
Louisiana, (F A ,-95 J 1 . dated
August 2 1992.. and related .
determinations..
FOR FURTH INFORMATION CONTS
Pauline C. Campbell Disaster
Assistance Progr Jederal
Emergency Management Agencyb
Washington.. DC204 2 , 2O2}64&-36 ..
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM*T1OI NOtlamie
hereby given that. in & letter dated
September 51992. the President
amended. the cost-sharing arrangements.
concerning Federal funds prt dded .
under the . .iithririty of the Robert t.
Stafford Disaster RelIaLand.Emergpncy
Assistance Act (42 USC 5121 et seqj.
In a fetter to Wallace E S ckney.
Director of’ the FetferatEmergency
ManagmneurAgency. as fl,liows:
I have determined that the damage in
certain areas of the State of Loui ian&.
rev.ddng hvm Ifairicane Aathwou August
25.1992. Ls.of sufficient sa,erityaad
magnitude tharspecial cusdiltons are
warranted regarding the cost-sharing
arrangements cncerningFedaraLfunda.
piuvided’ under the Robert t Staford
DlsasterReltef and Emergency Assistance
Act rth..Slaflb,d Act foi .th.Publlc
Aseistansa pi’ogram..
Therefarsi Sameudmy prw aua
dedaratios. which limited the. FederaL
reunhursainenLahare for cectain.case onss.ot
expenditures. andtfiereby authorize en
Increase In Federal reimbursement to 100
percent of eligible blicamia ncecoats
exceeding $10 per capita, where allowad
undertha’ law rairtzerae dlaaaters . This. 100
percent reimbursement for costs above 510
per capita applies te alL aiizhonzed p!.ktiP
assistance coats. including debrts.renioval to.
eliminate immediate threats to public health
and safety, emergency work to save lives and
protect public health and safety. andrepau
or reconetrucdoe of wanawed public. and
private nonprofit facilities. Temporary
houamgessaetanca. mortgage/rentaL
assistance. crises. rfihIn i.Img asaI . .tan e. and
disaster uuempfl,ymenr assistance will
continue.to he flflpercniir federally funded
wherealloweduader the law’. Funds flir
public aeeistenceup tompercaptts will be
reimbursed’ pursuant to the conditiocis set
forth in cay prsvcaus.dec!aritkor. Huweeoi if
the Ii ’ ’a costs of ree ’ 4 ” ’9 ie. Hnrricane
Andrew in Louisiana do not reach the laveL of
$10 per capita, then the cost sharing fny ,nuI
which lest forth in my original declaxauou
letter of August 28. i892 still applies
This wajeerof State end local cost.sharmg
requiremeutreboveSloper capita’ applier To
all public assistance costs. eligibFe for such a
waiver underthe. law. The’ law specifically
prohibits a similar waiver for funds. pravicted
to States.f.or the ftidlviduaL and FsunlyGraiit
program. These funds will conlv I..a to be
reimbursed at 75 percent o( total eligible
costs.
This amended declaration is consistent.
with, the request made to you by the.
Coveinor of the State oflouisiana.
Rboeenotif the eveniorof the State of
Louisiana and the ’Federal Eoordmating
Off cerof tht a .urv ,dn . .mI toiny mao
disaster declaratlom
Catalog of Federal Domestic. Assistanca
No.83.518. DIsaster Assistance.
Wallace S. Stlclcney.
Director.
(FR Doe. 92-22892 Filed 9-21-02.8.45 ainl
FEDERAL MARITiME COMMISSION
Th. Port of New Orleans at aL;
Agre.minI a) FUsd
The Federak Maritime Comsarseton
hereby gives noticeof the filingof the’
following agreement(sJ pursuant to
section 5.ef the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may ihspect arid
obtain a copyof each agreement at the
Washington. OCOffice of the Federa’

-------
42572
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 179 / Tuesday. September 15. 1992 / Notices
approximately $12L000-00 to the
Hazardous Substances Superfued.
For thirty (30) days following the date
4 the publication of this Notice, the
Agency will accept written comments.
relating to the settlement The Agency’s
response to any ctmim nt . received will
be available for public Inspection at the
EPA Region VU Office, located at 728
Minnesota Avenue In Kansas City.
Kansas 66101.913551—7000. and at the
local repository for site Information
located In the Poplar Bluff Public
Library. 318 Main Street. Poplar Bluff,
MissourI 03901,314680-8639.
DA1I Comments must be submitted on
or before October15, 1992.
ADDIIUSU The proposed settlement
and additional background information
relating to the settlement are available
for public Inspection during weekday
business hours at the EPA Region VU
office at 728 MInnesota Avenue in
Kansas City Kansas 68101. A copy of the
proposed settlement may be obtained
from Vanessa Cobb.. Regional Docket
Clerk. EPA Region VIL 720 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 68101,
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. VII-92-F-
15. and should be addressed to Ms.
,obbs at the above address.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTAC1
Ms. Anne Rowland. Assistant Regional
Counsel. EPA Region VII. Office of
Regional Counsel. 720 Minnesota
Avenue. Kansas City, Kansas 68101.
telephone: 913 S51— V9,
Dated Augiet 3.1992.
David £ Wqossc.
Director. Waste Management Division. U.S
EPA Region VJL
(FR Dcc. 92-22250 FlIed 9-14- 815 emj
IILLIIO cOOS I S IS
IFRL-4285-6I
Proposed Administrative Settlement
Pursuant to th. Coinpr.han&vs
Environmental Response ,
Compensation, and Liobility Act,
Amended by the Superlrmd
Amendments and Rsauthor tion Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
*cnoic Notice and request for public
comment
suuisaav In accordance with semios
1 (1) of The
Environmental Response,
umpensatinn, and Liability Act of 1990
(CERCLA). as amended by the
Superfand 4IL1!IR,IdI , I,Ib and.
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
notice Is hereby given that a proposed
adn inlstratIve cost 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 itnii.t 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 to pay response costs
in the amount of approximately $150.00
to the Hazardous Substances Superfund.
For th rt l , (30) days foliowlz rg the date
of the pnhlirntion of this Notice, the
Agency will accept written comments
relating to the settlement. The Agenc s
response to any comments received will
be available for public Inspection at the
EPA Region VU Office, located at 720
Minnesota Avenue in Kansas City,
Kansas 00101, and at the local
repository for site Information. The City
Clerk. City of SprIngfield. 830
Booneville. Springfield. Missouri. 658 .
DATES: Cnniments must be submitted on
or before October15.
aooRe es The proposed settlement
and additional background information
relating to the settlement are available
for public Inspection during weekday
business hours at the EPA Region VII
office at 728 Minnesota Avenue in
ICanaas City. 88101. A copy of
the proposed setth. m ”nt may be
obtained from Venessa Cobbs. Regional
Docket Clerk. EPA Region VU, 720
Minn..ota Avenue. Kansas City. Kansas
68101. telephone number 913—551—7630.
Comments on the proposed settlement
should reference the Resource Services
Superfund Site. Springfield Missouri and
EPA Docket No. Vfl-92-F-0018. and
should be addressed to Ms. Cobbs at the
above address.
FOR rimviem WIFORMA11ON CONTACT
Ms. Anne Rowland, Assistant Regional
Counsel. EPA Region VII. Office of
Regional Counsel, 720 MInnesota
Avelue, Kansas City, Kansas .66101 ,
telephone: 913—551—7279.
Dated August3. 1992.
David A. W.gce ,
Dfr Waste
EPA Region VA
(FR Dcc. 92-22251 Filed 9-14-82: 8.45 am]
(FRL-4204-63
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Draft
General Permits for Non .Contact
Cooling Water In the State. of Mains,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIOI Notice of draft general NPD
permits.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator
of Region II . providing Notice of a Draft
General Nrut s Permit for non-contact
cooling water In certain waters of the
States of Maine, Massachusetts. hd
New Hampshire. These draft general
Nvu Permits propose effluent
limitations, standards, prohilitions and
management practice, for these type. 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 1. a notice of intent to be
covered by the appii, iate general -
permit and will receive a written
notification from EPA of permit
coverage and authorization to discharge
under one of the general permits.
DATES: Interested persons may submit
comments on the draft general permits
until no later than November 16, 1992.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted to: Sharon M. Leitch. U.S.
EPA, Region 1. Wastewater
Management Branch. Water
Management Branch. WMN. John F.
Kennedy Federal Building. Boston.
Massachusetts fl2 I2 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 4 p.m.. Monday
through Friday excluding holidays.
Copies of the NPDES draft permits and
additional information con ’ 4 ’ the
draft permits may also be obtained at
this location.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CON1ACY:
Sharon M. Leitch at (017) 565—3585.
tLPIS CoOSI IS U
ARYASPORMATIO

-------
Federoi Reiater j VoL 5. No. 1 9 I Tuesday. September 15,. 0aF No ceo
FA 1 IW MID IPVLEUEMTA Y
INFORMA1tOt
L Background Informadon
A. General Pannita
Section 30 1 (e) o(the aean Water Act
(the Act? provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful excapt in
accordance with a National Pollutant
Discharge F i . ttcn System (NPDES)
permit. Althcngh such permits to date
have generally been issued to in&vithmf
discharges. E PA ’s regulations authorize
the isa ance of ‘general perimrf to
categorieeof discharges. See 40 CFR
122.28(48 FR 1414L 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 NPD} permit
program Is authorized to issue a general
permit If there are anirniber of point
ourcee operating in a geographic area
that
1. hivolve the e or substantially
similar types of operations;
2. DisrJ rg ’ the same types of wastes;
3. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
4. Require the same or similar
monif’ ring zeq I and
5. In the opinion of the Ra onal
Administrator, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
under individual permits.
Violations of a condition of a general
permit constitatee a violation of the
Clean Water Act and subjects the
dls h rg r t the penalties in section 309
of the Act.
Any owner or operator auihnr ,.d. by
a general permit may be excluded, from
coverage of a general permit by app lying
for an Individual permit This request
may be made by submitting a NPD
permit_application together with reasons
supp rtLg the request no later than 90
days after publicatIon by EPA of the
final general ptrzzut in the Federal
• Regiatei The Director mey require any
person authorized by a g J permit to
apply forand obtain en ladhidimi
permit Any taneested person may
petition the Director to take thi, action.
However. Individual permits will not be
issued for sources discharging non-.
contact cooling water covered by these
general permits mileta it can be clearly
demonstrated that inclusion under the
general permit Is Inappropriate. The
Director may consider the issuance of
individual permits wham
1. The discharge(s) Ian significant
contributor of pollutiam
L The discharge(s) is not La
compliance with the terms and
conditions of the general permit
3.Athe c edththe
availability of I ...MtraCed technology
or practices foe the central orabat . .n. ’4
of pollutants applicable to the point
4. Effluent limitations guideLines are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit
5. A Water Quality Management plair
containing requirements applicable to
such point sources is approved: or
6. The requI ents listed In the
previous paragraphs are ant met.
B. Non-Contact Cooling Water
Description of Discharges
The proposed general pP?ITnM are for.
1. Massachusetts operators of any
faviliiie , with, cooling water discharges.
2. Maine operators of industrial
facilities with cooling water discharges.
3. New Hampshire operators of any
Industrial facilities with cooling water
discharges.
Non-contact cooling water is water -
used to redone temperature which does
not come into direct contact with any
raw material. intermediate product.
waste product (otherthan heat) or
finished product Non-contact cooling
water dischargea are similar in
composition event though they are not
generated by a single industrial categpry
or point source.
The similarity of the discharges has
prompted EPA to prepare this theft
general permit for public review and
comment. When issued, this permit wlfl
enable facilities to maintain compliance
with the Act and will extend
environmental and regulatory controls
to a large number of disrhlrgp’s and
reduce some permit backIog . The
issuance of this general permit forthe
geographic areas described below Is
warranted by the similarity of (a?
environmental conditions. (bi State
regulatory requirements applicable to
the discharges and receiving waters, and
(c) technology employed.
Maine
In the State of Maine. thereare V T
Industrial applicants or ptrwitlvel. It ii
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 Hampshire. there
are 17& industrial application, or
permittee.. It is eatironted that 23 of the
indusines that have the direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly non-contact cooling water.
In the Commonwealth of
Massadiosetta. there are 05 ! industrial
applicants orpermltteee. It Is estimated
that 129 of the Industries teat have
direct discharges to the waters of the
State are strictly non-contact cooling
water.
IL Conditions of the Draft General
NPDES Pe
A. Geographic Areas
Maine (permit No. MEGZ50000). All of
the discharges to be authorized by the
general NPDES pet for the State of
Maine from diachargers are into all
waters of the State. except Lakes.
Massachusetts (Permit No.
MAG2S0000). Ali of the discharges to be
authorized by the general NPDES permit
for the Coa’ ’n wealth of
Massachusetts diachargers are into all
waters in Water Quality Classifications
B and. C as designated in Massachusetts
Waxer Quality Standards. 314 CMR 4.00
et seq
New Han,pshire (Permit No.
NHG 0000}. All of the discharges to be
authorized by the general NPDES permit
for the State of New Hampshire
diachargers are into all waters of the
State of New Hampshire unless
otherwise restricted by the State Water
Quality Standards. New Hampshire
RSA 484-k&
B I tification by Peimitteea
Operators of facilities whose
discharge. or &sâharges me 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 appn, 1 n-lata general permit. This
written notification must include the
owner’s or operatar ’ 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
and In the State of Maine. only, a special
list of chemicals must be included. The
facilities authorized to discharge under
a final general permit will receive
written notification from EPA. Region I,
withinjo dajis 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
dlschargere to meet effluent limitations

-------
42574
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 179 / Tuesday. September 15. 1992 I Notices
based on the technological capability of
dischargers to control the discharge of
the pollutants. Section 301(bJ(1)(A)
equires the application of “Best
Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available” (BPTJ. 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 I 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 axe
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)(AJ.
and (F) requires “Best Available
Treatment Technology Economically
Achievable” (BAT) for nonconventional
pollution by July 1, 1984, and 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
imItatIons
EPA has not promulgated National
Effluent Guidelines for non-contact
cooling water discharges. For a category
where Guidelines have been
promulgated. such e• !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 utfli mg best professional
judgement to meet the above stated
ciiteria for BAT described in sectioxt
304(b) of the Act.
The pH has been defined as a
conventional pollutant. A review of the
BC’r regulations reveals the test cost ii
Inappropriate because (1) The pH is not.
adjusted as nothing but heat Is added o
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 pollutants. 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 Standards
Non-contact cooling water discharges
.0 not contain or come in contact with
raw materials, intermediate products,
finished 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 ha. 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.
Requirements
Effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements axe 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!. 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 -
and 40 CFR 122.410), 122.44(i) and
122.48 and as certified by the State. The
monitoring frequency is dependent upon
the flow rates. -
UI. Other Requirements
The remaining conditions of the
permit are based on the NPDES
regulations 40 CFR parts 122 through 125
and consist primarily of management
requirements common to all permits.
IV. State Certification
Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act
require. 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 12433.
V. Mmhil.txative Aspects
A. Request to be Covered
A facility 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
•by EPA that it is covered by a general’
permit. If ft 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 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 by the close of
the public comment period, to the U.S.
EPA. Wastewater Management Branch.
W J, 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 A. 4 m ni trator 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 Management Act -
The Coastal Zone Ma za ement Act
(CZ!vIA). 10 U.S.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? W) be determined to be
consistent with the CZMP. EPA, Region
I. has determined that these general
NPDFS 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.
0. 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 pf
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. ‘-

-------
Federal Ri = I VoL 57, No. 176 / Tuesday. Sept aber 15. 19 . j Notices
£ £nvironm z W i Impact Statement
Requirements
fle . l permie do oat authorize
the constructfon of any water resources
profector the fmpwrnthnent of any
water body or have any effect on
historical propert c and are not wafer
Federal activities needing preparation of
any &avfroi ntz} Impact Statement.
Therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. 16 U.S.C. 1273 et seq., theNatlonal
Historic Preservation Act of 1966.16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.. the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act 16 U.S.C 611 etseç,
and the National Enifronmentaf PoiTcy
Act. 33 U.S.C. 32! et seq.. do not apply
to the issuance of these general NPI]
permits.
VL Other Legal Requirements
A. Economic Impact (Executive Order
EPA has reviewed the. effect of
Executive rda, t a. draft.
generaL permit and hea.dethrmiia d that
it is not awajor rule’ under tlmt other.
This regulation was £Ilhmitled.
previously to the Office olManagement
and Budget for revfew as requfredhy
Executive Order 12291. The Office of
and Dt 1 d t bee sm d
this action from the review req . . weuts
of Executive Order 12291 pursuant to
section 8(b) of that Order.
B Papeiwork ffed ’uc(fon Act
EPA has reviewed the reei, ø t
imposed on regulated facilities by these
draft generaL I’WDES permi a . under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of i9 1, 44
U.S.C. 11350! eL seq. The informatron
collection requirements of these draft
permits have already been approved by
the Office of Mansgement and Budget
under submissions wade fer the I’WOES
permit program under the pr ions of
the Clean Water Act. No runi,,, ts from
the Offir of Management’ and Budget or
the Public were received on the
Information collection requirements In
these permitn.
C The R gzrfatory Ffexi ility Act
After review of the facts presented in,
the notlcepdntedabove..I h& .ir by
certify, pursuant to the. provisions of S
U.S.C. 605(bJ) that these permfts do not
have a ‘ fcaat impact oe.a
substantial number of ms .fl pn1fH ’Q
Moreover. thadraftp rmif will reduce’
a si u nn1 ath Ini’.teatLvebunfen.oc.
regnlat edsou rces.
Dated August 32.1990.
Ju l i e
Region !Adwmiaii
Appenrflz A—Draft Genera} P ua .ts
Proposed Omit General Pezmits Llirder
the National Pe/JusaatOinchoigs -
EJiminat ion £)istem (NPDF4 1
Note: Tb. following three draftgeasral
NPDES p ’ ” have
purpose. of this Fd. ..1 .rim& ta
order to eliminate duplication of material
coon tu a permite f r the tndfvtduat
states.
1. Mazeanlmsetta Draft Cenerar Permit
1ianr ..wtheprovieini w of
the Federal Clean Water Act, as
amended. ( tLS.C.. at seq.: the
“CWA1I. operators of faciliiiws located
in Massachusetts, which. dischvsg.
soMy eon.contact coc,flntwater as
defined in Part IL at a rate of one milB oa
gallons per day or less to Class B and C
waters as designated in the
Massachusetts WaterQualfty
SLanrTRrr! . 314 4.(Xl et seq. are
authorized to discharge toafl Class a
and C waters in accordance with
. ulTIiiwnt limitations, monitoring
r quir m rrt and other condilians set
forth herein.
This permit shall becbms effective on
the date of the signature hei a
This. pei t and the authorization to
discharge expire at midnight. five years
from dote of lseiance.
This permit const’te of 0 pages in Part
I incl uding eM i ’ .t liozitatloos,
monttogmqnfremen . sin, and 18
pages io.PaztII im4 . gC aI
Conditions and Dwfiuiitfnri .
Operators of lities within the
ganeral permit area whu L to imilfy
the Director at fr I..Lrnr in be covered.
by zw i .L permit and xi
written notlfi on. of p coverage.
or those’wl am clenfedbTthe Director
are t ai1fhnr ,pcf under thin general
permit to Lrige frmn those facilities
to the receiving w or areas n w d .
SIgeecfthir_dayof_
Dav dA . !lerra. -
Director. Water no .gemertrLrnos(ori .
En vi rvnmentci Pr eta ‘on Agnricp Region 1.
Boston. MamarJ,usetfs .
•Perfl
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements
1.Th.riT g the powin I b g4nnin
effective date and lasting through
expiration, the penalties in anthnr cf to
discharge from seth outfall c i non-
contact ceoling’weter tee drainage
basin classified as a m or cold water
Eshery as designated below.
a. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored by the perinittee as
speafied below
b. The discharge shall not cause or
contribute to a rise in Cemperatura of the
receiving waters resulting from artificial
origin of greater than 47 (Z2 ’CT.
C. This permit’ does not allow for the
addition of any blocide or chemical for
any purpose to the effluent
d. There shall be no- discharge of
floating solids orvisible foam in other
than tram amaents.
e. The effluent lirmta If one. are based
on the state water quality standards and
are certified by the Stare’.
f. Samples taken in compliance with
the monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the point of
discharge.
g. The pH of the effinentshail not be
less than norgreater than the range
gven fur the receiving water
classifications, unless these values are
exceeded due to natural causes.
Other
(Speafy)
Avg.
— Mu dnty
M ....I.4l.4 iv aamsn
M I’I
frequanc
Sample type
Flow
ç
sac eaa ’q
88F (20’C)
(ma Pet
LAt.g)
RepcnOi4
t&i I ,_

tP,/tIAr.NP......
401to. . .w .dIL.9 nies and avg.
r dIri mmiTw, and mu*mim values
1 ab
Temperati,. (v er tew $’
( ld water IteisM’
pH......
LC.&CNOEC ,&(ss.P.tLA.1i )
ThS otm a wuvw wee: ftemi.s al aD b mat pravided in ma Mmas mseai W0t OusSly StaiW.i at. 3.14 R 4 (4) d 4.05(5) Tedles I -

-------
42576
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 179 I Tuesday. September 15. 1992 I Notices
Ousiflcsbsn Rang.
6.5-0.0
6.5-0.0
h. One chronic Toxicity Screening
Teat 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 fadility - .
operation. The Ceriodaphnio dübia shall
be used as the test organism in the test
procedure and protocol detailed In
Attachment A (Attachment A Is -.
stztnd tvd EPA toxicity protocoL A copy
will be provided upon request from EPA.
Region I). A portion of the grab sample -
will be analyzed for: total copper, total
lead, total xinc and total residual
chlorine. The results of the chronic
biological test (C-NOEC and lAo) and
chemical analysis tests will be -
forwarded to State and EPA within
days after the completion of all the tests.
The test method shall follow those
recommended by EPA Weber, C.L et a!.
1989, Short Term Methods forrn -
Eslimathig the Chronic and Acute
Toxicity of Effluents and Jiecel ving
Water to Freshwater Organisms. 2nd
Edition. Office of Research and
Development. Cincinnati. OH. EPA-&0/
4-89-OUt. -
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 Industrial -
facilities discharging solely non-contact
cooling water, as defined in Part II.
located In Maine are authorized to
discharge to all waters In accordace
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
from date of issuance.
This permltconsists of 7 pages in Part
1 includIng effluent limitations. -
monitoring requirements. etc. and 18
page. in Part II Including General
Conditions and Definif ions.
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 todiscbarge from those
facilities to the receiving waters or areas
named.
Signed thfs ..........dayof........
David A. Flerra.
Director,. Water Management Division,
En vironmentol Protection Agency. AegionL
Boston. Massachusetts
Part l.
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.i.f.
below) into fresh and marine water.
a. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored by the pernilttee as
specified balaw ’.
dilution factor is the sum of the 7Q10
low stream flow at the facility site and
the daily 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 T?eatment Additives
• Non-toxic watd 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 folloãlng water treatment
additive biological and chemical data
must be supplied in the letter of intent to
be covered by this general permit.
• - - -
.:
EffbJant cliw.CteñaUc . -
- . •
. . i.U omur
..
: . .
Mean eme
—
.
.. . ,. . -
-. -. -
-.
n
—. -. .

Flow see. LA.1.g.)’ - -
- —
See Rgias 1_
See Fi ,e 1_.
.
Man y
Montdy
Ou.nsr?y __.
DeOp resags.. -
4 6. mar and avg. - -
Grab.. . . - -
T . sse (see LA.1.g.)’
To t eJRes duaiCPWome(seeLAt.jJ .
. .
‘Noiisem COO 9 water may be dh . Sd only Fte Class B. C. 58. end SC waters that have a *unage wee beger ewn ten (10) so we maes m
Lea. See Patagsph L&1.g. or deta tar deh......... II the specnflc sctwtge(s) have eptebte di on end n be wered by the
b. The pH shall not be less than 8.0 prevent deposition of scale forming
standard units nor greater than &S materials which do not exhibit any
standard units and shall be monitored residual toxic effect on the receMng
monthly with 4 grabs. reporting waters. -
maximum and miT nmum values (see g. Discharge Temperature and
I.A.1J. below). . - Volume. :
c. There shall-be no discharge of - The temperature and volume of thern
floating solids or visible foam in other discharge shall not exceed 120 p and 3.0
than trace amountS. - - mIllions gallons per day (MGI)). The
d. The effluent limitations are ba,ed.. 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
e. Samples taken In compliance with graph on FIgure 1. The intersection of
the monitoring requirements specified the maximum effluent temperature and
above shall be taken at the point of the dilution ratio shall be in the
discharge. “acceptable” range shown on Figure 1,
f. Deflnltlonm - . titled “Effluent TemperaturelDilution
Non-contact cooling water is water Graph” for coverage by the Ceneral
used to reduce temperature which does Permit Program. lithe intersection falls.
not come Into direct contact with any within the “non-acceptable” area. thern
raw malaria!. Intermediate product.. . facility must e covered by the.
waste product or finished product . individual NPDES Permit not the
Non-toxic water treatment additives General Pémit Program.
are chemicals used In cooling wàte : - The effluent temperature is the
- .ysteth primarily to-control corrosion marr””um daily temperature. The

-------
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 I 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 I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. for
Indian Tribes located in the State of
Maine, are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm waler 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 1! 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 18th 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 Indian
Tnbes 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 I.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 I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of In tent in
accordance with part I I 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 Monagement Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts! through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
with storm water discharges. for Indian
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 !.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 appiy to facilities
and storm water discharges. for Indian Tribes
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 l.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 XI 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 industnal 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 Staie 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 I.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 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. Woter 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 in the State of Florida
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 I 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 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 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.
opera tars 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 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. 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 l.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. 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 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
Roberi F McGhee.
Acting Director. Water Management Dii ision
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
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 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 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 Ihis 27th day of August.
1992
Myron 0 Knudson. P E.
W3ter 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 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
provided in Part l.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 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. 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 Xl 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 1.8.3 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, 199?.
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 Xl which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana.
Permit No T X 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 Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part Xl 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.
opera tors 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 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 dough.
Acting Regional Administrator
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 Colorado 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 pros ided 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 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 waler discharges
assoc ctcd 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.
lCemgan Clough.
Acting RegionolAdrrnnistrctor.
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 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 I.B.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
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 Regionol Administrator
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 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
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 28th day of August.
1992.
Kerrigan Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
ln pcri; I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part Xl which apply to facilities
located in the State of South Dakota and the
portion of the Lake Traverse Reservation
located in the State of North Dakota.
Permit No. LJTR00000F
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 following Indian
Reservations in Utah (except for the
portions of the Navalo 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 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 dough.
Acting Regionol Adm,n,strotor
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 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 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 / Vol. 57, No. 175 I 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.
Kemgan Clough.
Acung Regional Administrator.
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 Wyoming.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Exduding
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 l.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 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. McGovern.
RegionalAdministrotor. 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 lends in California.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No AZR000000
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Diecharge Iinitnation
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 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 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.
RegionoiAdminsstrowr. Region 9
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Paris 1 through IX and for any additional
conditions in Pert XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Arizona (excluding
Indian lands)
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Exduding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. JAR000000
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
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 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 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.
Daniel W. McGovern.
RegionalAdministrotor. 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 MWR000000
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 activity
(excluding construction activity).
located on
Midway Island or Wake Island
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Opera toj s of storm water discharges
associatec 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.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
41303
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
Reg,onalAdmanastmtor. 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 Midway Island or Wake Island.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
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 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 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 Augusi.
1992.
Daniel W McGovern.
ReglonolAdfnin,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 I a 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 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 Nevada,
Including Goshute Territory 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 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. McGovern.
RegionolAdministrator. 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 the Indian lands specified above
General Permit No AK—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 el
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 thc
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 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 Alaska
General Permit No ID—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
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,
.4 cling Director Water Division. Region to.
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
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 I Vol. 57. No. 175 I 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. Waler Division. Region 10.
US Environmental Protection Agency
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 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 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 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 Parts 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-O0-000F
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. Water Division. Region 10.
US. En vironmental 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.: lD-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 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.
Acting Director, Waler Division. Region 10.
U.S. En vir’onmentol Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part Xl which apply to facilities
in the State of Idaho
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With industrial
Activity
Table of Contents
Preface
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A Permit Area.
B. Eligibility.
C. Authonzation
Part II Notic.e of Intent Requirements
A Deadlines for T ”.otilication
B Contents of Noiice of Intent
C Where to Submit
D Additiondi F .otification
E Renotification
Part III Specidl 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 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
E 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 or Monitoring
Systems
Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K Property Rights
L Severability
M. Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit
N State/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 IX Notice of Termination
A Notice of Termination
B. Addresses
Part X. Definitions
Port Xi. State Specific Conditions
A Maine,
B. Louisiana
C. New Mexico.
D. Oklahoma
E. 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
J. Washington (Federal Facilities and Indian
Lands).
ADDENDUM A—Pollutants Listed in Tables
U and III of Appendix D of 40 CFR 122
ADDENDUM B—Section 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 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
address 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. 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
diacharges 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 lune 4 1592 the United Siates Court of
Appeals for the Ninih Circuit remanded the
exclusion for manufacturing racilities in category
x, ) whitb do not hive materisia or activities
exposed to storm water io the EPA for further
rulemaking (Natural Resources Defense Cauncil v
EPA. Nos 90-70671 and 91—70200).
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 IV—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 VIII—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. Eligibility
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 1.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. Limitations 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
are
(i) in compliance with a different
NPDES permit: or
(ii) identified by and in compliance
with Part lII.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) 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 VII.M (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:
1. 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.
For the purpose of this permit the foliowing
effluent limitation guidelines address storm water
(or a combination of storm water and process
Water) cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411) feediota
(40 CFR 4121. fertilizer manufacturing (40 CFR 418)
petroleum refining (40 CFR 419) phosphate
manufacturing (40 CFR 4221 steam electric (40 CFR
4231. coal mining (40 CFR 434) mineral mining and
processing (40 CFR 438). ore mining and dressing (40
CFR 440). and asphalt emulsion (40 CFR 443 Subpart
A) This permit may authorixe storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity which
are not subiect to an effluent limitation guideline
even where a different storm water dischar 5 e at the
facility is subiect to an effluent limitation guideline

-------
41306
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
4. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity which are
authorized by this permit may b
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!) 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 .
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 II. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
II.A.4 (rejected or denied municipal
group applicants). lI.A.5 (new operator)
and lI.A.6 (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
(NOl) in accordance with the
requirements of this part on or before
October 1. 1992:
2. Except as provided in paragraphs
Il.A.3 (oil and gas operations). II.A.4
(rejected or denied municipal group
applicants), lI.A.5 (new operator). and
Il.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
122.28(c)(l)(iii). but that after October 1,
1992 have a discharge of a reportable
‘A copy of the approved NOt form is provided in
Appendix C of thu 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 302.6, must submit a
NOl in accordance with the
requirements of Part I1.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 NO1 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 NOl 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 VI! C (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. pri ate, 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 NOl).
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
6. 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
NOl submission).
C. Where to Submit. Facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity must use a NO! form
provided b 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 VII C (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.
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 pop’Jl3tIon 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
II.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 Il.A
(deadlines for notification) of this
permit.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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 Ill. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
1. Except as provided in paragraph
lII.A.2 (below), all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water.
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
Il1.A.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: irngatiori 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
I. 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 1ll.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—420—2075) 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 perinittee 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 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 ll1.B.1.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
Vl.D.i.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 occurring within the
scope of the relevant operating system
shall:
a. submit notifications in accordance
with Part lII.B.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
NOl); 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 matenal 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 appropriate. 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 lii
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 Preporat ion 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 NOl 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
transmission facility that is not required
to submit a permit application on or
before October 1. 1992 in accordance
with 4OCFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii), but after
October 1. 1992 has a discharge of a

-------
41308
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
substance for which notification is
required pursuant to either 40 CFR 1106.
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 lV.D.7 (EPCRA Section 313 and
IV.D.8 (salt storage) 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 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 lV.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 lV.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 NO! in accordance with Part
tI.A.2 (deadlines for notification—new
dischargers) of this permit (and updated
as appropriate).
B. Signature and Plan Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (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 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 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
industrial 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 I 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 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
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 Training. 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
address 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 spills, 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 Waler 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 fnr the presence of
non-storm waler 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 VII.G 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 III 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) 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 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 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 irngation source). inlet
controls (such as oil/water separators).

-------
41310
Federal Register I Vol. 57 . No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / 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 Vll.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 Ihe 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 o
population of 1t1i 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
pre%ent 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 con tact with any
equipment tan/c. container, or other
vessel used for section 313 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
313 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 roil car loading and
unloading areas for liquid Section 373
water pnor ily 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 I 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) Dischazges 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 fmm
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
noncoritainment. 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 noncontainment 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 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
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 iii order to
prevent discharges or spills from
occurring.
(10) Engineering certification The
storm water pollution prevention plan
for a facility subiect 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 e er
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 Soil
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. Dtschargers
shall demonstrate compliance with this
provision as expeditiously as
practicable. but in no event !ater 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. Cool 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

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41312
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
after October 1. 1992. 180 days after
submitting a NO! 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 nf non-storm
water discharges: the results of such test
or other relevant observations, potential
so’rces 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
I. Limitations on Monitoring
Requirements
a. Except as required by paragraph b..
only those facilities with activities
specifically identified in Parts V1.B.2
(semi-annual monitonng requirements)
and V1.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
VI.B.2 (semi-annual monitoring
requirements) or V1.B.3 (annual
monitoring requirements), that it shall
conduct the annual discharge sampling
required by Part VI.B.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 V1.B.2.a through
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),
Vl.B.6 (representative discharge). and
V1.C.i (toxicity testing). Permittees with
facilities identified in Parts Vl.B.2.a
through I (below) must report in
accordance with Part V1.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 V1.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 facilit
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/L): Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (11(N)
(mg/L); Total Phosphorus (mg/U: pH:
acute whole effluent toxicity; and any
Section 313 water ponrity 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 Metol 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
toxicit . total recoverable lead (mgIL).
total reco erable cadmium (mg/L): total
recoverable copper (mg/L): total
recoverable arsenic (mg/L). total
recoverable chromium (mg/L). 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 silican
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/lncinerotors/
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 (BIFs)) that burn
hazardous waste and operate under
intenm 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/U). Magnesium
(dissolved) (mg/L). Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/U). Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/L). Total
Dissol ed Solids (TDS) (mg/L). Total
Organic Carbon (TOG) (mg/U. oil and
grease (mg/U. pH. Total recoverable
arsenic (mg/L). Total recoverable
Barium (mgfL). Total recoverable
Cadmium (mg/Li. Total Chromium (mgi
L). Total recoverable Cyanide (mg/U.
Total recoverable Lead (mg/Li. Total
Mercury (mg/U). Total recoverable
Selenium (mg/U). Total recoverable
Silver (mg/Li. 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/U). p 1 - 1. COD (mg/L).
and TSS (mg/Li 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 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41313
L). total recoverable chromium (mg/L).
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 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/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); 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
Vl.B.5 (sampling waiver), and V1.B.0
(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 permittees must retain
monitoring results in accordance with
Part VI.E (retention of records). In
addition to the parameters listed below.
the perinittee 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 aireorts 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 occumng for: Oil and Crease (mg/Li:
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(SODS) (mg/L): Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/LI; 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). pH. TSS (mgJL). total
recoverable copper (mg/L). total
recoverable nickel (mg/L) and total
recoverable zinc (mgfL).
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 (BOD5J
(mg/L): oil and grease (mg/L): Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L); Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/U: Total
Phosphorus (mg/L); ph: and fecal
coliform (counts per 100 mU.
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 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 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 Crease (mg/U: Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/LI: Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/U: 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 prev:ous 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 period of
fifteen minutes. Grab samples only must
be collected and analyzed for the
determination of pH. cyanide. whole
effluent toxicity. fecal colilorm. 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

-------
41314
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
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.). Diachargers are precluded from
exercising this waiver more than once
during a two year period.
6. Representative Discharge. When a
facility has two or more outfalis that.
based on a consideration of industrial
activity, significant materials, and
management practices and activities
within the area drained by the outfall,
the permiuee reasonably 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 perrrnttee
includes in the storm water pollution
prevention plan a description of the
location of the outfalls and explaining in
detail why the outlalls 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 arca (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.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 VII.C (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
monitonng requirements of Parts
VI.8.2.a through d may. in lieu of
monitoring for acute whole effluent
toxicity. monitor for pollutants identified
in Tables Ii and III 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 Vl.B.2.a through d.
C. Toxicity Testing Permittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the senes
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).2 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 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 control consisting of
synthetic dilution water. Results of all
tests conducted with any species shall
be reported according to EPA/800/4—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 ‘•O” if
there is no statistical difference between
the control mortality and the effluent
mortality for each dilution. ii there is
statistical difference (exhibits toxicity),
the permittee shall report “1” on the
DMR
2. II 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
VI.B.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. Perrnittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
Vl.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

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 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
monitonng reports required under Parts
Vl.D.1.a, Vl.D.i.b. and V1.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
appropnate Regional Office:
1 CT. MA. ME, NH. RI, VT
United States EPA. Region 1. 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. 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 30365.
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.
6. AR. LA. NM (except see Region IX for
Navajo lands, and see Region VIII for
tile Mountain Reservation lands). OK.
TX
United States EPA. Region VI. Water
Management Division, (8W—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
66101.
8 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—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. CA. I-il, NV, Guam. American
Samoa. the Goshute 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 lx. Water
Management Division. (W—5—1). Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105.
10. AK. ID (except see Region IX for
Duclt 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 Vl.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 storm sewer system
in accordance with the dates provided
in paragraph VI.D.1 (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. need 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 afl 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 pro isions of thi& 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.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 eter 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 Comp/,t
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 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 5250.000. or by

-------
41316
Federal Register I 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 Civil 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 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 1/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 11 of this permit. using a NO! 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. 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 Mitigaic
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 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 permittee.
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 exceedui ’S25.00O.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 agenc includes (1) the chief
executi e 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 b 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 ma
thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position)
c. Changes to authorization If an
authorization under paragraph VII C 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 b 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 I Vol. 57, No. 175 I 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.
orby 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
Liabihty
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 raia3, ’peiition 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
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 1
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. Slate/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 period of at least 6 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
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 I Vol. 57. No 175 I Wednesday. September 9 1992 / 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 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
ariticipa ted 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
permittee sub)ect 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 prohibiled 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 permittee 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 VII.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
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
permittee 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 VIl.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. 122.64 and 124.5.
Part IX. Termination of Coverage
A Notice of Termination
Where all 53rm 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 VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit The Notice
of Termination shall include the
following information
I 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 indicatioi 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 I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9, 1992 / Notices
41319
that I am no longer the operator of the
industnal 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). 4 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
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.
Coal pile runoff means the rainfall
runoff from or through any coal storage
pile.
CWA means Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal
Waler Pollution Control Act or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972).
Director means the Regional
Administrator or an authorized
representative.
Flow-weighted composite sample
means a composite sample consisting of
a mixture of aliquots collected at a
constant time interval, where the
volume of each aliquot is proportional to
the flow rate of the discharge
Landfill means art 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.
P. copy or the approved NOT rorin ii provided in
Appendix Dot hi. 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 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 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
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 II 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 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 Ill 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 I! (orgnnic priority
pollutants). Table Ill (certain metals.
cyarndes. 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 materials
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 / Vol. 57. No. 175 I 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 produtts
located on the site of such operations:
inactive mining operations are mining
sites that are not being actively mined.
but which have an identifiable owner!
operaton
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment.
storage. or disposal facilities, 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, 265, 267. 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 Slates Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
exciusion for manufaciunng facilities in category
(xi) which do not have material, or activities
exposed to storm water to the EPA for further
ruiemaktng (Nos 90-70671 and 91—70200)
Time-it e,phted 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 perrnittee
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.
nonfiowing 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 b
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.
(1) The territorial sea. and
(g) Wetlands adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraphs (al
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 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 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I 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 7
A. Maine. Maine 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. This permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region I 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
appropnate 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 6
B Louisiana Louisiana 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
I. 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 8 in
the State of Louisiana.
2. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read:
Part IV. 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 I
3. The following section is added to
part V of the Permit:
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Coal Pile Runoff
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)
Q ii SG,ease .
50 mg/I
15mg/i
2) Oil & Gas Exploration and
Production Facilities: Effective 10/1/92.
Parameter
Daily maximum
Cheinucai Oxygen Demand
tOO mg/i
(COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
Oil 8 G’ease
50 mg/I
IS mg/I
Gfllondes
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 monitonng
requirements must insure the pollution
prevention plan developed in
accordance with part IV will insure
compliance with these effluent
limitations.
. I I I
4. Part VI.B.2 of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
B. Monitoring Requirements.
2 Semi..4nnual Monitoang
Requirements
I 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 for
parts Vl.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/L). Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
(mg/LI: Total Phosphorus (rng/L): pH.
acute whole effluent toxicity. and any
section 313 water priority chemical for
which the facility is subject to reporting
requirements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1988.
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
Crease (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/Li; Total Cadmium (mg/Li,
Total Copper (mg/L); Total Arsenic (mgi
L); Total Chromium (mg/L): and any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject
c. Land Disposal Units/Inc,neralors/
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/Li. Nitrate plus Nitrite
Nitrogen (mg/L), Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L). Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) (mg/L). Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/Li. Oil and Grease
(mg/L). pH. Total Arsenic (mg/L). Total
Barium (mg/L), Total Cadmium (mgfL).
Total Chromium (mg/L). Total Cyanide
(mg/L), Total Lead (mg/L), Total
Mercury (mg/L), Total Selenium (mg/U.
Total Silver (mg/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 for:
Oil and Grease (mg/L). Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/I); pH. Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/L), Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/U. and Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L). In addition.
facilities that use chiorophenolic
formulations shall measure
Pentachlorophenol (mg/L) and Acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity; facilities which
use creosote formulations shall measure
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity; and
facilities thai use chromium-arsenic
formulations shall measure Total
Arsenic (mg/L). Total Chromium (mg/L).
and Total Copper (mg/L).
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 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
p oducts, 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); Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) (mg/I); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/Li; Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/U): 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
• . • • S
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
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/U);
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/I);
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) (mg/Li; 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/U). Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) (mg/i). pH. Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L). 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 ia.discharged
from the facility for: Oil and Grease
(mg/I): Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
(mg/I); Five Day Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD5) (mg/U); Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/U); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/U); Total
KieldahI Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L): Total
Phosphorus (mg/Li; pH; and Fecal
Coliform (counts per 100 ml).
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. IA)
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 (mglL). 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
6. Part V1.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
• • S S •
c. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100 percent
.trength (no dilution) and a control
consisting of synthetic dilution water.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
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 Vl—A and submitted to EPA with
the Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR’sJ. On the DMR. the permittee
shall report results of the testing in
accordance with questions 1—4 of Table
VI-A.
Table Vl—A (Sheet I of 2)
NPDES permit:
Outfall(s):
Dophrna pulex Survival
Time Data
Composite sample
collected ..
Test initiated
Dilution water used. Receiving
stream synthetic water.
—
Time
I Percent effluent (%)
Replicate i
Jo 1 oo
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. TEESD. 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 ______
If you report a YES, enter a I on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TCE3D. Otherwise.
enter a 0.
Table Vl—A (Sheet 2 of 2)
Permtt iee :
NPDES permit:
Outfall(s)
Fathead minnow tPimepholes prome/os)
Sur :’. i!
I Time Date
Time : Date
Time
Replicate
Percent effluent 1%)
r—
0 100
24 11r
A
B .
C
0
Mean
!
.
..
.
3. lathe mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?
Yes ______ No______
If you report a NO. enler a 1 on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TGE6C. Otherwise.
enter a 0.
4 Is there a statistically significant
difference in survivat 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.
• • I I •
7. The following definitions are added to
Part X of the permit:
Part X. Definitions
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 (Sportino
patens). three-cornered grass (Scirpus
olneyi). coco (Scirpus robustus). and
widgeongrass (Ruppia maritime).
Interstitial water salinity normally
ranges between 7 and 15 parts per
thousand. (LAC 33:IX.708)
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 typically adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions. Typical
vegetation includes maiden cane
(Panicum hemilomon), Hydrocolyl sp..
water hyacinth (Eichhornia crossipes).
pickerek eed (Pan tedena cordata),
alligatorweed (,4lternanthera
philoxeroides). and bulltongue
(Sogitt aria sp.). Interstitial water
salinity is normally less than 2 parts per
thousand. (LAC 33:IX.708)
Intermediate Marshes—those areas
th3t 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 (Sporlina
patens). deer pea (V,gna repens).
bulitongue (Sog,ttario sp.). wild millet
(Echinochloa waiter,), bullwhip (Scirpus
californicus). and sawgrass (C/odium
jomoicense). Interstitial water salinity
normally ranges between 3 and 6 parts
per thousand. (LAC 33:IX.708)
Saline .t!orshes—those wetland areas
that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundnater of salinity
charactertstic 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
(Spartino a!tern,flora). glasswort
(So/icornia sp.). black rush (Juncus
roerner,canus). Batis mor,l,ma. black
mangrove (A vicennia nit/do), and
saltgrass (D,st,chl,s spicata). Interstitial
water salinity normally exceeds 16 parts
per thousand. (LAC 33:lX.708)
Up/and—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:
Test initiated “ I.... .
41323
Dilution water used: Receiving
stream synthetic water.
Composite sample
co liec iea

-------
41324
Federal Register / Vol 57 No 175 I Wednesday. September 9 1992 / Notices
1. Part LA. of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under this Permit
A Permit Are’i The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of New Mexico.
2. Part VI B of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
. . I I
B. Monitoring Requirements
2. Sem,.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 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 VI.B.6 (sampling waiver).
Vl.B.7 (representative discharge). and
VI.C.i (toxicity testing). Permittees with
facilities identified in parts VI.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 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.
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.6 (sampling waiver), and VI B 7
(representative discharge) Permittees
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 Vl.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
rainfalll storm event, and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled
4 Discharges to Domestic Waler
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
Intrastate 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 Vl.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
V1.B.2 (semi-annual monitoring) or part
VI.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 i Quantity action
level
Dissolved arsenic
0 05 mg/I
Dissolved barium
1 0 mgi 1
Dissolved cadmium
0010 mg/ I
Dissolved chromium
0 05 mg/i
Dissolved lead
005 mg/I
Total mercury
0002 mg/I
Dissolved nitrate (as N)
100 mg/I
Dissolved selenium
0 05 mg/I
Dissolved silver
0 05 mg/I
Dissolved cyanide
0 2 mg/ 1
Dissolved uranium
5 0 mg/ I
Radium-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 OCCU Ifl on Indian
Nations shall submi’ the required report
directit to EPA Recion 6 at the address
specified in par t \‘I D with a copy
prot ided to mi Got erning Body of the
lndidn Nation
5 Sanzplr Ttpi 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 da ’s between sampled
events for facilities required to monitor
semi-annuall (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 flott.
weighted or time-weighted. Composite
sampIe ma be taken with a continuous
sampler or as a combination of a
minimum of three sample atiquots 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 and analyzed for the
determination of pH. cyanide. whole
effluent toxicity. and oil and grease
6. Sampling Waiver
7 Representat , r’e Discharge
8 Alternative Cert,f ot ,on
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 I Vol. 57, No.175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I 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 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
VI-A,
Permit tee:
NPDES Permit-
Outfall(sJ:
Dophn:o pulex Survival
Time
Composite sample
collected —
Test initiated
Dilution water used: Receiving
stream Synthetic water.
Percent effluent (%)
Time Replicate
o ioo
‘A.. ..
2414
:C

Mean *
Ye5 ______ No ______
II you report a NO. enter a I 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 ______
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. ‘I’EE3D. Otherwise.
enter a 0.
Permittee:
NPDES Permit:
Outfall(s):
Fathead Minnow (Pimepholes promelos)
Survival
Time
Dale
Composite sample
collected
Test initiated . . .
.
Time
Replicate

Percent
effluent (%)
100
24hr
A
B
C
D
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. TGEOC. 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 2 on the DMR
Form. Parameter No. TEE6C. Otherwise.
enter a 0.
4. Part Vl.D.1.e of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• • . .
D. Reporting’ Where to Submit.
1.
e. Permittees with facilities identified
only in Part Vl.B.3 annual monitoring)
or Vl.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 Vl.B.4.b. (discharges
to domestic water supplies: 24 hour
reporting).
5. Part Vl.D.2.b of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
0. Reporting. Where to Submit.
2. Additional Notification
• • . • .
b. Facilities located in the following
States shall provide copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
Vl.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
No.
APPENDIX’ • ‘—NEw MEXICO RIVER SEGMENTS DESIGNATED FOR USE AS A DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY
Description
2-106 i The .lemez River and all its tributaries above State Highway 4 near the town ol Jemer Springs and the Guadalupe River and all its
tnbu lanes.
2-107 Perennial reaches of Otueweter Creek, Rio Moguino, $eboyata Creek. Rio Paguate. the Rio Puerco within the Santa Fe National Forest.
and all other perennial reaches of tnbutane to the. ‘o Puerco includrng the Rio San Jose in Cibola County from the USGS gaging
station at Correo upstream to Horace Springs.
2-112 . . .. The perennial reaches of Rio Velisotos and its tnbutaneg, and Rio del Oso. and El Rile Creek above the town of El Rito.
2-116 ... . All perennial reaches of Inbutanes to the Rio Chama above Abiquiu Reservoir excepi the Rio Gailina and Rio Puerco so Chama north of
State Highway 96 and the main stem of the Rio Chama from the headwaters of El Vado Reservoir upstream to the Now Mexico.
Colorado line.
2-118 .... . Perennial tributaries to the Rio Grands in Bandelier National Monument and their hoadwaters in Sandoval County. all perennial roaches of
tributaries to the Rio Grande in Sent. Fe County unless included in other segments
2.120 The Red River upetream of the mouth of Piecer Creek, all tnbutanee to the Red River. and eli Other perennial roaches of tributanes to the
Rio Grande in Taos and Rio Amba counties unless included In Other segment,.
2-209 Eagle Creek above the Alto Reservoir. Bonito Creek upstream of Angus, end the Rio Ruidoso and its tributaries above Seeping Springs
Lakes.
2-212 The Gellinas River and all its tributenea abov, the diversion for the Las Vegas municipal reservoir end perennial reaches of Tecolote Creek
and its perennial tributanes
Dilution water used: Receiving
stream Synthetic water.
Date
1. Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?

-------
41326
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
APPENDIX • .—NEW MEXICO RIVER SEGMENTS DESIGNATED FOR USE AS A DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY—Continued
No
Descnption
2-214
Cow Creek and all its tributaries and the main stem of the Pecos Rover from one er mile below me oruoge on State Highway 223
upstream to its headwaters including all tributaries thereto
2-306
The Mora River and its tributaries above More, all tributaries to the More River upstream trorn State highway 518. Coyote Creek the
Cimarron River above State Highway 21 in Crmarron, all tnbulanes to the Cirnarron River, Rayado Creek above Miami Lake Diversion
Ocate Creek and its tributaries upstream of Ocate. and all other tributanes to the Canadian River nortnwest and noflh of U S Highway
64 in Collax County unless included in other segments
2-503
The main stem of Gila River from Gila Hot Spnngs upstream to the headwaters and alt perennial tnbutaries to the Gila River at or above
the town of Cliff
2.603
All perennial reaches of tnbulanes to the San Francisco River at or above the town of Glenwood
2-802
Perennial reaches of Three Rivers
2-804
..
The Mimbres River upstream of the USGS gaging station at Mimbres and all perennial tnbutanes thereto
2-805
.
.
Perennial reaches of the Sacramento River (Sactamento.SaII Flat 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
read:
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 l.B.3 of the permit:
B. Ehgibility.
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 waterbodies located
within the watersheds of waterbodies
designated as “Scenic Rivers” in
Appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards: and
(in) 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 Vl.C.1.c of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• • • • •
c. Toxicity Testing.
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 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 Vl—A and submitted to EPA with
the Discharge Monitonng Reports
(DMR’s). On the DMR. the permittee
shall report results of the testing in
accordance with questions 1—4 of Table
V1-A.
Tabie VI—A (Sheet I of 2)
Permittee —
NPDES Permit
Outfali(s) —
Dophn,o pulex Survival
Time Dale
Composite Sample
Collected . I
Test Initiated
Dilution Water Used: Receiving
Stream —— Synthetic Water
I
Time Replicate
I
Percent Effluent (%)
0
100
IA ...
24Hr lB
C
0
Mean
1. Is the mean survival at 24 hours
>50% in the 100% dilution?
Yes ____ No ____
If you report a ND. enter a I on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TGE3D.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
2. Is there a statistically significant
difference in aurvival at the 100%
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?
Yes ____ No_ ..
Yes____ No____
If you report a YES enter a I on the
DMR Form. Parameter No TEE3D
Otherwise, enter a 0
Table Vl—A (Sheet 2 of 2)
Permittee
NPDES Permit.
Outfall(s)
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelos)
Survival
Time Dale
Composite Sample
Collected
Test Initiated
Dilution Water Used Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water
Time
Replicate
Percent Effluent (.l
o too
24Hr
A
8
IC
D
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 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 a.
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 ! Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 199 I Notices
adopts new or revises existing water
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 I. Coverage Under This Permit
• • . S *
A. Permit Area. 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
• S S S S
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:
Total metal
avem
c p s -
Atsenic.._
0.1
0.2
03
Banum
1.0
20
40
Cadmium
005
01
02
Chromium..
0.5
1 0
5.0
Copper...........
05
10
2.0
Lead -
05
1.0
15
Manganese. ...
I 0
2.0
30
MercutV
0.005
0005
001
Nickel
10
2.0
30
Selenium
005
01
02
Silver -
0.05
01
02
Z inc
10
2.0
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 metal
co s.
Aisenic
0.1
02
0.3
Benum
10
2.0
40
Cadmium ..
01
02
03
Chromium
05
10
50
Copper
05
10
2.0
Lead
0.5
10
15
Manganese
10
20
30
Mercury
0005
0005
001
Nickel
10
20
30
Selenium
0.1
02
03
Sdver
005
01
02
Zinc
10
20
6.0
3. Part VI.B.2.d of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• I • I I
B. Monitoring Requirements
I I I I I
2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements
I I I I
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 (mg/U,
COD (mg/L). and TSS (mg/L). In
addition, facilities that use
chlorophenolic formulations shall
measure pentachlorophenol (mgfL) 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/Li,
total chromium (mg/L). and total copper
(mg/U.
4. Parts VI.C and VI.C.i of the permit
are revised to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
I I I I •
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 Procedures
a. The permittee shall condutt 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.
41327
The following tests shall be used:
1. Acute static 24-hour definitive
toxicity test using Daphnia 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
(Pimepholes 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 .“Jethods for
Measuring the .4 cute 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
summarized 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 Vl—A.
Table VI—A (Sheet I of 2)
Permittee:
NPDES P rmit
Outfall(s):
Dophnio pulex Survival
I Time I Oate
Composite Sample
Collected
Test initiated.
Dilution Water Used: Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water.

-------
41328
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
Time
Percent Ettluent (%)
Replicate
0 IOC 50 25 13
6
A
2dHr
iB
C
:o
Mean
I
1. Is the mean survival at 24 hours
Yes_____ No_____
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelos)
>50% in the 100% dilution?
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 ioO%
If you report a YES, enter a I on the
DMR Form. Parameter No. TEE3D.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
Table VI-A (Sheet 2 of 2)
Permittee.
NPDES Permit.
Survival
Time Date

Composite Sample
Cotected
Test initiated
Outfall(.)
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?
Dilution Water Used Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water
Time
I Percent Effluent (%)
Replicate I
0 100 50 25 13
A
6
24Hr
,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. 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 I on the
DRM Form. Parameter No. TEE6C.
Otherwise, enter a 0
5. The following definitions are added
to Part X of the permit:
Part X. Definitions
“Inland Waters”—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 thom portions of the river
systems which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tides, and to the
intrusion of marine waters.
Re8ion 8
F. Colorado (Federal facilities and
Indian londs). 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:
I 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 llI.A.2.b of the permit is revised
to read:
Part III. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on non-storm waler
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 III.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.1.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
VI.D.i.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
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South. Denver.
Colorado. 80222—1530. Attention: Permits
and Enforcement.
. S S S S
4. Part IV.B.2 of the permit is revised
to read:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
. a . a S
B. Signature and Plan Review
S S • S •
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.
5. Part VIII of the permit is revised to
read:
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. 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.
Region 9
G. Arizona. Arizona 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 9 in
the State of Arizona. excluding all
Indian lands.
a . a • .
2. The following section is added to
Part II of the permit:
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
a a S a
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 S
3. The following section is added to
Part Ill of the permit:
Part Ill. Special Conditions
a S • S
C. Compliance with Water Quality
Standards of the Slate 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 (AG.
Rule No. R92 .-006).
• . • a a
4. Part IV.D.7.b.(1).(bl of the permit is
revised to read as follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
• a • • a
D. Contents of Plan
. a • a a
7. Additional requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities subject
to EPCRA Section 323 requirements.
b.
S 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.
• a • a a
5 The following section is added to
Part IX of the permit
Part IX. Termination of Coverage
• a • a a
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.
• . a • a
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 CFE 117.211 or section 102 of
CERCLA (see 40 CFR 302.4).
Region 10
H. Alaska. Alaska 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 10 in
the State of Alaska. except Federal
Indian reservations.
2. Part II.C of the permit is revised to
read:
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
• a 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
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. P0 Box 1215.
Newington. VA. 22122.
2. A copy of initial Notice of Intent
(NO!). any NOl for the continuation of

-------
41330
Federal Register I 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 Corndor
Regional Office. 411 W. 4th Ave.. Suite
ZC, Anchorage. Alaska. 99502. (907)
278—8594, Fax: 272—0690.
3. With the NO! 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.
• I I • I
3. Part IIl.B.1.c is revised to read as
follows’
Part Ill. Special Conditions
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities
1.
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 lII.B.1.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
VLD.1.d (reporting: where to submit) of
this permit and to the appropriate State
regional office at the address provided
in Part ll.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
(IV D.2 c) from the Pollution Prevention Plan
shall be submitted by the plan preparation
date stated in Part lV.A to the appropnate
State Regional office.
5. The following section is added to
Part Vl.D.2 of the permit:
Part VI. MonItoring and Reporting
Requirements
I I I I I
D. Reporting: Where to Submit
I I I I I
2. Additional Notification
• I I I I
b. Facilities located in Alaska shall
provide copies of the discharge
monitnring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a, VI.D.i.b, and Vl.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) 465—5350.
Fax: 465—5362.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southceritral 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—0890.
• I I I I
1. Idaho.
Idaho 401 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
2. The following section is added to
Part III of the permit:
Part Ill. Special Conditions
• • I I 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”
J. Washington (Federal facilities and
Indian lands) Washington 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows.
1. Pert 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 Ill 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—
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 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 I

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
41331
discharges and to require additional
monitoring.
Addiedum A
Pollutants Identified In Tables 11 and lU of
Appendix 0 of 40 CFR 122.
Addendum A
Table 11—Organic Toxic Pollutants in
Each of Four Fractions in Analysis by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectros.
copy (GS/MS)
Vololiles
acrolein
acrylonitrile
banzene
bromoform
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chiorodibromomethane
chioroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
chloroform
dichlorobromomethane
1. 1-dich loroethane
1.2-dichloroethane
1.1-dichloroethylene
1.2.dichloropropane
1.3-dichloropropylene
ethylbenzene —
methyl bromide
methyl chloride
methylene chloride
1,1,2,2 -tetrachloroethane
tetrach loroethylene
toluene
1,2-trans -dichloroethvlene
1.1.1 .trichloroethane
1.1.2-tr lchloroethar ie
trichioroethylene
vinyl chloride
Acid Compounds
2-chlorophenol
2.4-dichiorophenol
2.4-dimethylphenol
4.6 -dinitro.o.cresol
2.4 -dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4 .nutrophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
pentach lorophenol
phenol
Table 11—Organic Toxic Pollutants in
Each of Four Fractions in Analysis by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectros.
copy (GS/MS)—Continued
2.4.6 .trichlorophenol
Bose/Neutral
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzidine
benrolalanthracene
benzo(ajpyrene
3.4-benrofluoranthene
hsn.nIohi lnapuIa,,a
benzo(k)fluoranthene
bi.(2-chloroethyl)ether
b la(2.chlorotsopropyl)ether
bia(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
butylbenzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
chrysene
dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3.3’ .dichlorobenzidine
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
di.n-butyl phthalate
2.4-dinitrotoluene
2.6 -dinitrotoluene
di.n.octyl phthalate
l.2-diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)
fluroranthene
fluorene
I exachlorobenzene
exachlorobutadiene
exachlorocyclopentadieni
hexachloroethane
indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene
isophorone
napthalene
nitrobenzene
N .n ltroaodimethylamine
N.nitroaodi.n.propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenanthrene
pyrene
1.2.4-trtchlorobenzene
aidrin
alpha-BHC
beta -BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
chlordane
4,4 .DDT
4,4-DDE
4.4 ’-DDD
dieldrin
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
PCB—1242
PCB—1254
PCB—1221
PCB-1232
PCB—1248
PCB-4 260
PCB-.1016
toxaphene
Addendum A
Table Ill—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
Silver. Total
Thallium. Total
Zinc. Total
Cyanide. Total
Phenols. Total
ADDENDUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRuoRrrv CHEMICALS.
Common name
75—07—0
75865
107-GZ-6 ..
107-13- I
309-00—2 —
107-05-I
7429—00—5
7884-41—7
62—53—3
120—12—7
7440—36-0
7647189
28300745
Acetaldehyde
Acetane cynohydrin
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aidrin (1.4:5,8.Dlmethanonaphthalene. 1.2.3.4.20.
5.alpha..8.alpha..8a.beta.).J
Allyl Chloride
Aluminum (fume or duet)
Ammonia
AnIline
Anthracene
Antimony
Antimony pentachloride
Antimony potassium tartrate
.i... .hI. ..n_1 a a
.alpha.. 4.alpha..4a.beta..
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 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
ADDENDUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS—Continued
CAS number Common name
77B9619 Antimony tribromide
10025919 Antimony trichloride
7783564 Antimony trifluoride
1309644 Antimony trioxide
7440-36-2 Arsenic
1303328 Arsenic disulfide
1303282 Arsenic pentoxide
7784341 Arsenic trichloride
1327533 Arsenic trioxide
1303339..... .. Arsenic trisulfide
1332—21 —4 — Asbestos (friable)
542821 Barium cyanide
71-43—2 - .. Benzene
92—87—5 .. Benzidine
100470 .. Benzonltrile
00-00—4 - Benzoyl 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
75-25-2 Bromoform
74—83—9 Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
85-68—7 Butyl bentyl phthalate
7440-43-9 Cadmium
543908 Cadmium acetate
7789426 Cadmium bromide
10108842 Cadmium chloride
7778441 Calcium arsenate
52740168 Calcium arsenite
13765190 Calcium chromate
592018 Calcium cyanide
133-06—2 Captar. IIH.lsoindole.1.3(2H) -dione.3a.4.7.7a-tetrahydro-2-Htrichloromethyl)thiol-J
63—25—2 Carbaryl (1 -Naphthalenol. melhylcarbamatej
75—15-0 Carbon disulfide
56—23—5 Carbon tetrachloride
57—74—9 Chlordane 14.7-Methanoindanj.2.4.5.5.7.8.8- octachloro.2.3.3a.4.7.7a-hexahydro .)
7782—50—5 Chlorine
59—50—7 Chloro-4—methyl-3-phenol p-Chloro-m .cresol
108-90-7 Chlorobenzene
75—00—3 Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride)
67—66-3 Chloroform
74—87—3 Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
95-57—8 2-Chlorophenol
106-48—9 4.Chlorophenol
1066304 Chromic acetate
11115745 Chromic acid
10101538.... Chromic sulfate
7440-47-3 Chromium
1308—14—1 - Chromium (Tm)
10049055 Chromous chloride
7789437 - Cobaltous bromide
544183 Cobaltous formate
14017415 Cobaltous sulfamate
7440-50-8 Copper
108—39—4 m .Cresol
9548—7 o-Cresol
106-44-5 p-Cresol
1319-77—3 Cresol (mixed Isomers)
142712 Cupric acetate
12002038 Cupric acetoarsenite
7447394 Cupric chloride
3251238 Cupric nitrate
5893663 Cupiic oxalate
7758987 Cupric sulfate
10380297 Cupric sulfate. ammoniated
815827 Cupric tartrate
57—12—5 .. Cyanide
506774 Cyanogen chloride
110-82—7 Cyclohexane

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices 41333
ADDENDUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS.—Contlnued
J,,LI I
106—46—7
-.J.M”a’vwu n’ nc
1.4.Dichlorobenzene
91—94—1
3.3 -Dichlorobenzidine
Dichiorobromomethane
Hexachloro .1.3.butadiene
Hexachlorocvclonentadiene
67—72—1 Hexach loroethane
7647-01—0 Hydrochloric acid
74—90-8 Hydrogen cyanide
7664—39-3 I 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 steerate
1072351 Do.
52852592 Do.
7448142 Lead sulfate
1314870 Lead sulfide
592870 Lead thiocyanate
58—89—9 — — — If ’..I_L ,
14307358 ..
108—31—6
592041
10045940
7783359
592858
7782887
7439—97—8
72-43—5
80—62—6
91—20-3
7440—02—0
15699180
Lithium chromate
Maleic anhydride
Mercuric cyanide
Mercuric nitrate
Mercuric sulfate
Mercuric thiocyanate
Mercurous nitrate
Mercury
Methoxychlor (Benzene. 1.r-(L2.2.tnchloroethylidene)bis(4.methoxy-J
Methyl methacrylate
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nickel ammonium sulfate
37211055 Nickel chloride
7718549 Do.
12054487 Nickel hydroxide
CAS number
94-75—7
106-93-4
84—74—2
25321—22-6
95-50-1
Common name
2.4 .D (Acetic acid. (2.4.dlchlorophenoxy) .J
1.2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)
Dibutyl phthalate
Dichlorobenzene (mixed isomers)
1.2.Dichlorobenzene
r.!_LI___L.
107-06—2
eA_ 1 •1
78—87—5
542—75—6
62—73—7
115—32—2
177—81—7
84—68—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
50-00-0
76—44—8
11 6 -7 4 -I
87—88—3
77—47-4
1.2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)
1.2-Dichloroethylene
2.4-Dichlorophenol
1.2-Dichioropropane
1.3-Dichioropropylene
Dichlorvos (Phosphoric acid. 2.2.dichloroethenyl dimethyl ester)
Dicofol (Benzenemethanol. 4.chloro-.alpha.-(4-chlorophenyl)-.alpha.-(trichloromethyl)-J
Di.j2.ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
Diethyl phthalate
2.4.Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
4.6-Dinitro.o.crego l
2.4 -Dinitrophenol
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
n.Dioclyl phihalate
1.2.Diphenylhydrazine (Hydrazobenzene)
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor (t4.5.6.7.8.8-Heptachloro-3a.4.7.7a.tetrahydro.4.7.methano-IH-indenej
Hexachlorobenzene
_I_I__. — I__. .
k.... . ‘.1

-------
N.Nitrosodimethvlamine
N Nitrosodip henyiamine
N.Niirnandi.n.nrnnvlatnin p
41334 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
ADDENDUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY C I4EMICALS.—Continued
CAS number Common name
14216752 Nickel nitrate
7786814 Nickel sulfate
Nitric acid
Nitrobentene
2-N itrophenol
4 -Natrophenol
Parathion fPhosplrothioic acid. O.O-diethyl-O-(4-nitrophenyl) eater)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Phenol
75-44—5 Phosgene
7864—38—2 Phosphoric acid
7723—14—0 Phosphorus (yellow or white)
1336—36—3 Polychlorina ted biphenyls (PCBs)
7784410 Potassium arsenate
10124502 Potassium arsenite
7778509 Potassium bichromate
7789006 Potassium chromate
151508 Potassium cyanide
75—56—9 Propylene oxide
91—22—S Quinoline
7782-49-2 Selenium
7446084 Selenium oxide
7440—22—4 Silver
7761888 Silver nitrate
7631892 Sodium arsenate
7784465 Sodium arsenite
10588019 Sodium bichromate
7775113 Sodium chromate
143339 Sodium cyanide
10102188 t Sodium selenite
7782823 Do.
7789062 Strontium chromate
100-42—S Styrene
7664—93—9 I Sulfuric acid
79-34-S 1.1.2.2 -Tetrach loroethane
127—18-4 Tetrachloroethylene (Perch loroethylene)
935—95—S 2.3.5.6 -Tetrachiorophenol
78002 Tetraethyl lead
7440—28-0 I Thallium
10031591 Thallium sulfate
108—8 6-3 Totuene
8001—35—2 Toxaphene
52—68—6 I Trich lorfon IPhosphonic acid. (2.2.2-trichloro.1.hydroxyethyl)-dimethylester)
120—28—1 I 1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
71—55—6 I 1.1.1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)
79-00—5 1.1.2-Tnchloroeihane
79-01—6 Trich loroethylene
2.4.5-Trich lorophenol
2.4.6-Trich lorophenol
Vanadium (fume or dust)
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Vinyludene chloride
m Xyleae
o .Xylene
p-Xylene
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Zinc (fume or dust)
Zinc acetate
Zinc ammonium chloride
Do.
Do.
Zinc borate
Zinc broMide
- Zinc csrbonate
7646857 Zinc chloride
557211 Zinc cyanide
7783495 Zinc fluoride
7697—37—2 —
95—95—3
86-75-5
100-02—7
82—75—9
O4
621—64—7
56—38—2
87-88-5
95—95—4
88—06—2
7440-62—2
108-05-4
75 -01—4
75—35—4
108—38—3
95-47—8
106—42—3
1330—20—7
7440—66—6
$57346
14639975
14639986
52828258
1332078
7699458
3488359

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices 41335
ADDENDUM B—SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY CHEMICAL .S.—COntIrIUed
CAS number
Common name
557415
Zinc fonnate
7779864
Zinc hydrosuifite
.
.
7779888
Zinc nitrate
127822
Zinc phenolsuifonate
1314847
Zinc phosphide
18871719 ..
Zinc silicofluonde
7733020
Zinc sulfate
Addendum C
Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems
BIWNO CODE 6510-5O-M

-------
41336 Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992! Notices
Addendum C
State
Large and Medium Municipalities Located in the Non-Delegated States
(Including Co Zorado, Delaware and Washington because they do not have
Federal Facility permitting authority)
AX
Anchorage
AZ
Mesa
Phoenix
Pima County
Tempe
Tucson
FL Apopka Davie Homestead
Atlantis Deerfield Beach Hypoluxo
Bal Harbor Village Deiray Beach Indian Creek Village
Bay Harbour Island Duvall Islandia
Bay Lake Eatonville Jacksonville
Belle Glade Edgewood Juno Beach
Belle Isle El Portal Jupiter
Belleair Escaisbia County Lake Buena Vista
Belleair Beach Florida City Lake Clark Shores
Belleair Bluffs Ft. Lauderdale Lake Park
Belleair Shore Glen Ridge Lake Worth
Biscayne Park Golden Beach Lancana
Boca Raton Golf Village Lauderdale-by-the-Sea
Boynton Beach Golfview Lauderdale Lakes
Briny Breezes Greenacres City Lauderhill
Broward County Gulf Scream Lazy Lake Village
Century Hacienda Village Lighthouse Point
Clearwater Hallandale Maitland
Cloud Lake Haverville Mangonia Park
Coconut Creek Hialeah Margate
Cooper City Hialeah Cardens Medley
Coral Gables Highland Beach Miami
Coral Springs Hillsboro Beach Miami Beach
Dade County Hillsborough County Miami Shores
Dania Hollywood Miami Springs

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices 41337
Addendum C
Stat.
Large and Medium Municipalities Located in the Non-Delegated States
(Iacluding Colorado, Delaware and Washington becaus. they do nor have
Federal Facility permitting authority)
FL
(Cont.)
Miramar Palm Springs South Miami
North Bay Parkiand South Palm Beach
North Miami Pembroke Park Sunrise
North Miami Beach Pembroke Pines Surfside
North Lauderdale Pennsuco Sweetwater
Oakland Pensacola Tamarac
Oakland Park Pinellas Tampa
Ocean Ridge Plantation Temple Terrace
Ocoee Plant City Tequesta Village
Opa.L.ocka Polk Virginia Gardens
Orange County Pompano Beach Walton Manor
Orlando Riviera Beach Vest Miami
Pahokee Royal Palm Beach West Palm Beach
Palm Beach Sarasota Vindermere
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
N M
NM
Albuquerque
OK
Oklahoma City
Tulsa

-------
41338 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
Addendum C
State
Larg. and Medium Municipalities Located in the Non-Delegated Stat..
(Traa 1uding Colorado. DeLaware and Washington because they do not have
Federal Facility per 1tting authority)
SD
TX
Abilene El Paso Lubbock
Amarillo 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
Pierce County
Seattle
Snohomish County
Spokane
Tacoma

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices 41339
APPENDIX C—Notice of Intent and instructions
Form Approved c es. te tes
Sis Rsvsrus for Instiuctions
United S1ws E,wrcrvnentai Protec 5on A eiwy
W a siungten.OC 20460
POES
FORM EP 1 4 Notice of Intent (NOl) for Storm Water DIscharges Associated with Industrial
Activity Under the NPDES General Permit
Submlsslen of 1w Nodes of Intent caitaltetes nodes 1w 1w peity ld.ilflad bi Seeson 101 1w Ienn Intends te be ouItor ed by a NPDES permit usued tor sterm
wow, d1wtlrges wodated wilt Induelli irv In 1w S1w Idenliled In Se en II of this m Becamlno u pemittee oUlgow, sudi Cisdwger te npIy with
the teem. end uwiidwi . of 1w permIt ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON This FORM
I. F ly Cperater Infonnaeon
Nenis: I . . • n I Pti i 0 l I I I i i I i I I I
Stab of
Address: 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 noraOperater
City: I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I Stats:’ ‘ I ZIPCOde I i t i i•i I I I
Ii. PaaIItylSlte Locadon biformadon I
us lie Fa Iity Locatad a
P ara. I . . . . . , . , , j . i . i . , i , , , p n . , p 1 Indiaj,LanOs (VorN) [ ]
Address. I . . . . p • n . p I p p • i . i I I
City: III 11111 11111111111 11111 St a teI..i._J ZIPCodel i I i i I I I
Latlids: I i I . i I i I I.CflgibIdO.I t I I I I IOuatter I J Sedan Ij _ J Township I . • I Farce I I I I I
III. SIte S vfty lntomtaoon
r. 1S4 Opaa P 4 ano I . . i . I i i • t• .. . .i
Receiving WaterBxy I .i........n.... . ... .
If You ow Fihng as a Co smviIee. A,o There Esisong r—i Is Ste FaaI Ro u ed te Submit
Enter Sterm Water Geneisi PeririiI NWflbef I I uatetasve Data’ (‘1 or N) L..J Moiwonng ata’ Ii 2. or 3)
SIC or 0sI ta
A ’ lt yCode PIItIaIY I I I SItd liii , IIIIl4th
It The FedltvwahWnberOlaGroup
Sites Group Appiicason Number I I I I I
If You Hues Other Ezisong NPDES -
Psmvs .EnterPemutNwnbe,s I I I I I I I I I I . • I I • I
IV AdImoni inlonnaxn Requled for GonslueSon MiviSes Only
Data.
1 51w Slerm Water Pollubon Preveneon Plan
Bidmated *jss te be In Complanes wilt Stow atdfor Land
I . I I . I I I I I • I Da 5iJ 5 (InA ) I —i I SedurnentawiEtoclcnPtans?(YwN)
V. L ..iton : I ceelly iawiee peewly of 1w mat mis desanent awi od aas Iwn...is g ersd wder my dcecbcn or wpeetns n In accardance with a
system designed te assure mat qu3if ied powonnel property gather aid .eodiow 1w urdoemason .ubmissd Based on my mqu iry 0 11w person or persons wi
nwiwga 1w system. or these persons direcly responsible for gediervig me ildomlaten. me intonnalon sutevutted . te me best of my iscwtedge and belel. Vue.
acisiate. aid omiØete. I on aaow stat mere are iIgndlcenI patowes for .ubnumng laise srdorma 5on, Induding me p blbty of lIne aid umpnsonmeni lot
Pmit Nuns: Date
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
Sç t ain:
EPA Fiswi 3510-5 11. 5th -

-------
41340
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
I I IMNC I I OIII • EPA Porn 33174
NitI.. 01 littufIt (NOl) For Slit’. Wutsr DIuiIsvg Aaeoclasd With Widuilfisi AitIWty
To 7. Co,eod Undo, TM. NPOES Geesol P5, 1101
W I ’ . MU pus A ItuIlos 01 burn (1101) Porn
Fids ,uj at 40 CFR Past 122 iMu 00511 100105 diidittgss 0! ilefIl slit
- ‘ urOt urdusOid scWity it a sole bodp(so) of W e US el7Wjt I MOOMI
Poit,’.nt Ondwgs Dorweiri Spit’. (NPCES) pefifl Th. oporaiti of en riluIDlul
lCWvIty 7111 l w_i 51055 SWIll i .W ucfwgs float 5501115 1101 it ab51n
Uf1111 We €S Sm .’. Wsm. wL Puirlul. I you I i .. qu.lso U.ut U.7W
you n..d a prnvt ulw Si 102S Sit’. W Ile pogivn. or if psi fluid itbeweson
as it 10is7w a puiOctif 11 papa’. Is sitiIlllU.d by EPA or a u aguiwy, cuirtct
71. Mimi WI , HOitI. II (703) I.42
WI’. .. to PU. NOt Porn
NOS 11101* Ms .Ini it lit itMu Sit u.
Sit’., Wait N .h of bits
P0 Dot 1215
NitOilit ’s. VA 22122
CorWithig TM. Porn
You noat type or OUt using 5r-u.5 1501,0 in We CoCIOPflIII Slul 5,47 Puss.
plarn u.n cituctr besoor 715 lIwba. Ab5,u.t• if , i tcsuWy it Sty itOh O Il
humour of cM.rui.r. ultowud for 1105 urn U.. on. spec, for tasdo Osiwsen words,
bet rot it, sir 7j.Dor ’ ntis. unto.. Pity US litudud it Cw ’$p you, 1110. 15, I I you
M i s ally QOISOS ’S on 7. forti, O We Sm ”. Wa !. , Holin, at (703) S21-4 3
Suction I P.cUIy Operstur In .bn
Give We topel ‘WIt 01 We or son, 31, 11. gubhc org.,lz.lon. or ShIp sOle unIty 71st
0 s5i. We foal lip or sits dSWlbld In 05$ .010555 1 TIll we of It. ooraw may
or may vet M l We wit u We ,w_rit of We fsahty Thu moon.uil. pely w_Oi s togul
WI lly Wet CWIOOIS We Iselity S op.ostar. 1.7,7.5 171.011,11 or sit II 1 1 ’*gI ’ On ‘itt
soa ‘i.- mire Enw I i . it idOrlIa 1110 SI 111W lsaIIbor of We
opa.it
n11r We agpogrw_t. 1111W it 510105!. We Ilgil 11101$ 0101. OPS(Sit Of Oh foohty
F - Floral U • Public (0715’ Were Isda,51 or sit!.)
S -Set. P.Pw , .t.
MUon U P11017 1 5 1 55 L11it101u lisMUtitlon
Entsr We hiabty so’ sits s oPa isi or Isgul Iwle 5110 ColTitlit. lOst iddr.u including
aip. at. 1110 ZIP onds IIWIS fucody or sits Uthsu boot loOmi s seoc,. 71111110
We .10101 used lCng’itds of 7. fiahly it 01. itsuit IS suCotel, or We aUWt.
11105,’ %ItSD lied Ilh9 1 lm 1* lhlarsIt silt ! .’ 511051) of It uorossn.t. wi.
Of OIl lit
b ts WIit7w We fsOluty is locitd on bl Ow_se Mit
it 51. ActIvity InIomw_tlo Iu
1 17. Stint SSI dus ’ .9ss its ni, ’ Woil suos’.t. ito. su.r syss.’. (USS ) srn
01. fitIt Of Oil Oporse’ of 01. US4 Is . ntn.aDahtp rem. otunly “11111) SlId 015
ruc.w1. i.W Of 715 01505517. Ifan , We USA (A USA is d05 l I .d ii I miWS, 11101
or u em ol ewwuysews (urd50ng 10501.71 dmtitgu 57 111 1 15. 05II II IDIOt.
ostil M l ’s Outs. purrs. di ts sews-mads 05anrola. or sit’. Oven.) 0151.1
d or n.rlitd bps itt., aty. eon, borough. county. penth, delict, usoaulon.
or 07. piled body etictlui dueg ’ Sl uU. for allucCng or orwoping 501’. wh Ir)
If We Ip loWg.s still drucly it u.r .ing sole(s). umir It ret,. ol We
sole
11 you 515 flbl as a Co.CImV0ss U. i 1mm’. whir genral Delhi 1 1, 11101, Ma 111,1
lieU.. eli. Wet minOr SlOW 10505 . ....,.U.,ll
doosit allOw or vet We orw or Cgeoitr of We foahty Ms us ç 5 1w_Auth.
0111 7 I .t . We c?wucitrucs U. itcen1500n .f polutli. in semi osi.
bloOr 5 0 0 5w We Mahty e ri.uh. it s50wt no. 5 1. .. 5 5111 by s .itti on. 0th.
1 • Nit ‘sswod it stOlId 510
2 • A wid it sOot 5111,
$ • N ’ . vutirud it 55015 51t s lDNOrç Cr17.01 be mventm.vig
1st.. bolMu Wet nojit sOil ‘ Temwwç dots (50. Oveut 2) ii. S.ceon 313
EPCRA foafiOss. plnwy maid ISOSIOwS. l end *1005,1 lgvMtralr ,StrWDlFs. wood
0 1 101w 51 MiMes, MiMI.. ‘.7100.1 plo ,u15ft. U.. Mity
Lull. In g. _ s , sor of u.paSsemi. up 11 M v 4. giI sw d I leduSh.
dasuifoibon (SIC) oo Out MU Olu pai o*u or .Wwe , ,.,...J.J
hOe Mily or sit 0105.0 it Sucholt II of 7. agplMsboft
Fr Mush sO11 . ds*sud In 40 CFR 120.2 1(bXl4)(l).(sl) Wet do rot Mis SIC
Cod.. Oet wisuely du.lbs Its pvraL paw_act pasioid or wwuC.s po.so.c, he
fuMl -... Idwocti otdos u it Ms usud
HZ • H&U.sus sod. 7WDnr it. sle s. or disoosil fodiMu. unchadi hitss Wet
vu oprutaig 151011 ulurnn itOh I ’S OUthit itidor 100011 C of RA (40
CFR Ifl.26 (b)( 14X ,v)j.
If - L .,dlIIu. tOo uhOlColofi slut. wed o ri 0101105 Wet ‘lows or M.vl mowod
lily 110u 10 1 1 1 u. I nd sul sIg to.. 0151 Is o sub uc1 it mgumtin 0,0
usabhes D of RA 140 CFR 122.26 (bflI4)(vfl.
SE - Stsrniluctic p g..wsitig Miss.. uledudilç oil Pwedhng sit.. (40 CFR
122.26 (bXl4)lvufl.
TW • 1 svnur1 woHO OsillIQ domusic swoag. or any o W ec weg. shidge or
wu.ti.aitr luaP , i tnt 01.ce or .yst.m ulId In 7155111.9. 0110111,11.
‘i.ydir . U. r.d.neSon of nhuniapet or dom.sx swog. 40 CFR 122.26
(b)(14)(ui)J. or.
CO — Gcnutcuon aco.’... (40 CFR 12226 (b)(I4)(s)J
If Oil bodily hued iii Sucion II be. osiOan.t.d In Pelt ol sri 5it11 wile
pousp sppliolen uSed S got* rilIteor Mi u .n Iluigrild 5 11 1* 91000 appl .c,Don
hollOw In hIS S S05 P05 5 550
If Slur, stool, NPOES psrrnsi pussnly ‘ 55usd for W I. fochty or sits 15150 in S.c on
II. hut Ill purist ,ssIMiu. li uCOh0500n fur Its holly hIS Mu ll sublistlud bust no
pumirot munOur lw_a Mull .ssgrhld, uheta, ill upOliteon hunts’
Suloon IV *ddSIossd LL.....U... . Nsqullsd be Comlitfuetfon M51tU.. Only
Con.hjclon ScWtDSa nell w.. . 5It . Suclon fV in addiDorl it S.c ons I h v Oug I III
0147 05n.Oeucoon acVoms, 1151011 Comdate S.cton I V
Entr Si. sd 5101 d at. end his .somatac oumplolon 0.’. for I I. snOre
_________ putt
Ppoirid . In somat. Of hIS itti humOur Cf icr.. of ,t st. e, stud 50.1 itIl Os
0 .1 0th. (fOuled it Oh roasosi icts)
Irilots eleuhIsh 7. semi sotor otliulori orui.ntsn Dt.n 31 , Its ii, 5 In cornoliarics
wilt 5 Gr5d Itsit 1111101 10011 5 5ó 1i i t11 1 C r C l’O4 ’Ofl P1l I Du11 141 0’ 101111 Wile
man.gunont p 1511*
Suction V Crtllcalrs
Fuosmi stOilus posed, for svur. purhulbus for wUIhIitrIg Isles infommion on 75$
lOglitbon tore Floral topulbons .00,1.7. lOplidaSor it Os sigh. as toIIo
Fa, a miporuor by a ‘.saon.ubl. oo ’pe ,at. ow_cr SII IC II m.sre (i) psedret.
scrutry ploulu , or v po .i of We cs l51 l 150fl in cYW7. Of I phIrollo
buseit5, Mob ,,, or Sf1707. uh551 000 pseforfiel simuilr policy or d .o .d sehIhing
furfcbon.. 0q (ii) We flW .r of ore few. uTwnufuchrvlg. pmod.acton 0’ COuflIng
foal 55$ .nemyirIg ‘Iwo hon 230 pesorla or ‘trig gross stYlual iii . . or SIpIhIdilirSI
s..J..y 825 ITWIOn (If s *quaht.r 1950 dollars)..! auhwity it sçn sicturn.nt
Ms bum asusgnld or 0.1.9.1.0 it he. nsi*gr In a rOt. su It cr00 1 5 1.
Fit. 5mItu , or sOf p etWw by • gu.U pentir or We pu 1 ...asr . or
Fur. .,au.loI at* FudsoL it oOwpt,hSc belly by shies Dm010.1 .5,0,5,.
o r or mfitç .lscitd e5 .10
PI k Pa-’- - 01 fOol
P tuSdo ._ .a’.tg hiu ,Ols be 7. uhp7.hon I. uiifl 1 5 i td it wing, 0.5 mrs pr
ao obon. U.01 19 sire be lwo ictorw_ . ucroleig 11w_org 5511 uou,oa,
guo i .Tç U. li ’ . .Orwq IeOo leudid. U. OIPOSOIS wed We” —CtLt
of usbewsxn , Seed ,.... _ J$a i Id.ug 7. foaden uu$ hw_io, any lose Sopor of We
os.cbr I of s55nwtun. • — be . ......s’ , Oss bent, uncs4ng any
51 51 S WidI .117 Illus. or 1501w_s l v i bnitl it CMif. bOirelor P0 157
Drehe, Oe. U S P otaSOon Ag.ecy. 401 U S os SW,
Waulvipun. DC 20 1 10.it 01¼. of blt 51n slid Ruguuitiy AlIsru. 01¼.
of Uwwgunent Wed Sli47s*. Ws1*w ,gitr l. DC 20503

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices 41341
APPENDIX 0—Notice of Termination and Instructions
Fami çiw . c a
P 1.... 8.. Instmctlons Dsfom Compisthig This Foim AemS SW. IIN
(M l i i S s Vi ..,... iii Pro e scXn AQe cy
IDES ___ DC 20160
FORM w NotIce of Termination (NOT) of Coverage Under the NPDES General Permit
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity
$j i kn ci 0* Nado. of T.. &. . mrs*sess , m thi the emtv Seciesi II ci 0* cim ncv s 1z.d d dwge s m w
— ‘ iii, Ml*etU wI t y iicier Iii NPDES pio . ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION AOJST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM.
L Pem klbm.Uian
NPDES Smim W r CI.di Hess I Y.i emMa Lcs El Ch. Hem II e. S1wm WsW
I . i t I e. .& essFs L...J Dciw .IOsitigT.mth 1 sed:
IL ii 2 •ii 2
P ns: I 2 I I 2 I I I I I I I I I I I • I I . . lp i wjsrL..j ...j _ . .J... ..i I i
Sd s : I I I I • I I . . I I I I I I I I I I • I t I I I I . I I I
City: I I : I I I I I I I I I 50*: 1.......L....J PCods:’ 1 2 II
III. Fa ty Lo 0*m
Mafia: I • i I I • I I • i I i I I I I • I I I I I I I I : i I
Ad ss.:i I I I I • I I I I p I I I p p I I I I I p p I n
I p p I I I p I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50*:— L......L.... _ I VPC e: 1 t p
L i ikJd.:IIIIIil1a i fljd,:IiIIIIII alr1_ ._j ._JSI o I_j_jTCu mid, _____
IV. CaGO..mI.. 2 . . I osilfy sxdsr ps ’ y ci w 0* i i sesmi — d with V a0taI Iy from lie IdenOlled tadllfy list we Ws
NPOES gensli pemO 1si. s item’s Ilknliwed si list I an lie ngw lie of lie iy si emiefrucian ale. I imdweSnd that by su nIing eil Ho0 of
Tsi0*eecn. I an ses leigs aaewi d b d dwgo stain Sir with lidialli Sivtiy itide, Oils genesal pemill. end thai dlsdiargbig paluetie fl
stain -• - f with kidisOti thliy es watas ci 1w (MIed 50*51 ii*wt wider 0* CIemi Water Ast fltwe 0* dwdWgs I net ith iiZud bys
NPOES pesnOL I 0* . mdus0* 0* lie eSiSi of 0* Nofas of T....J..&. . doas nsrsess a’s (sam 0*Ity for any vfoI0*w of 0* psinl or lie
Clsan W.esr .
PtbitPluvie: I 2.2 :2.. I 2 2 p I I I I
W I .. May Rbs Sic. .1 tamSilen QICI)ra, %.ts$teNOT Fain
Psiali.. . atm em rsd lacier 0* EPA susd Pta. Piuitat SIsal lO s 0*1 , es 0* 1w Ides si 1wes:
e . g .. 1 1 EbsanOen Sysium INPOES) Osnual Psesi ta Stain Wac.
0ta ’ sv.. P—--1 ‘Si I*aSi AWdIV Ii ’ U sSat S Si ciT.IIJ IIIIII .... Warn WSsr Held iTannlnsten
tern Sin 0* sm taps 0*s sly stain aita d ie. 11 .s P.0.0*1155
I Si bIdoshat Si1 ’ dtIe . p5 ’p 5 in 115Si5w 540 U.,..SI,.... , VA
CFR Ita .a (bMt4). siwital Iwy em lie taps IIl’n—. iiI* 1U .
For emwlu0* s55 ms. . 51te..&. . . ill sam Ww 51s - ‘—O IM0* Pam
Si Sin 0*atsd sofa stew aiWISial ales (am
0*, buy — i .”.— ’ sal anita, sal . .4M 1.lI canS msemahs T7ps or W. ,sI ssps..am bare. I lie i,.,...,.1L.a wan nOy. sc..
lam (sUM . J si ‘S ta . .......d 551 Urns. eta ii stem. p .u daemer 1w aSia. A5L. . eses I necusasy es e wie(sn
— al.ISu — - Si ( staahw V ban 1w mSi0*l iw 0* 0. 1. 110* S w ws demOte stal Sum. U .s nOy a. upan tees..,.
em talite,4 by S PIsCES psSi penis lam ban . 1w& . S . waøs 1w m l ta pswaai nate mass Imp es. masse es
e. — -‘— .‘— , siwuw I t a ii ueI.dsaiw stemai wOes U lam lean pest m.,... . l iei lam sip q.peslesw daM lii bin. nOSe. Smni Wsa
em Was IIUbm p . . ...Jdi - Si SdiistP ci 70% ci ( 5 5 w i(705) tai .4we
1w cam ta s .c. sal san ita by p.. _ ....i alhsali .s Ian
Ws 0*lws. or enlists. p _ ... __ .’ —a——- , aweuwes (aid
(55 ci I ta. S 5. . -—- i
IPA Pam $110.7 (S .

-------
41342
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
• EPA Fern, Silo.?
Nd S of Torn Iin (NOT) ci IM r ml NPP Qs iwsl FormS
1w Dci’s WaIsr Dca .a —-‘--I.d WDi kidi I.I Ad1wy
D c sl1wI NPCES S D ’ s Dc ’ sr Gsiwi PwM manbsr ci.çnsd or d ’ s
dI or . Idoridl.d b S lit I psi do ma ki Dc pumut nir1w.
corDd 1w 8Dm Waw Itins or (710) l2l.4l .
bido psi msrn b II J Ida tides c i toruilialisi’ bt d ’ s ti m l
I l’ss 1 b.sn adwig. of ii. ’w sid you ors l ’ s blur 1w .ir r
Of V ’ s or de ldu%lSsd ii Ssdom Ill. d ’ s Ill sspdwi boa.
Idi nimawil 0 .s sills f00Ilpor Dcdundflsd ll Sudul U I I ubuun
5....kLJ..4 . d,sdi l ’ s box.
1wU mSIy ...l.. . . bdomaorboi
a . 1w U 5.l maui . 11w pUIUCII . luuti, plbo dalOl. orulyalior sully dual
. s 1w buy or Si’s doa01 I I i. 000es03u. lh. mal. dl’s i aorr
may of may i’ll bs 1w mauls mans l ’ s bd uy. Thi . qImaI 011w blIp
l i i ls idly uludu 03 1 11w 1w bUys 1 0 0 w 1w 1w Dcli i ’ s
ms sv. ma ia. a ‘ s’-upi ’ mans. Em.r Via cimpisor sdDcsa id
hh.,1 . . ISJIdw allis opmaw.
Sadlan UI FeslIlyiSl. ‘ bibonudhmn
Ens, Dc buy, or dws olbi or nuiw ad nuj1l ’s .Dc,us. Indudirç
alp. i’s ’ s sill ZIP 0315. 111w tdIly Ides a scud adllssa. Ides’s 1w s’sr..
Dciddsadoçsids Cf1wboyormlnwuslISuseslid..orml iWD.
ama ’ s, 1wrlidvp. sill ru. (Is ml ‘smasi ‘ saD 5.03011) iiI ’ s alpiciSuls’s
cuiw .11w sos
Sssibou I V SuF ‘— .
FsdumI a esa — bo ur, porwosi br s ,llnu tides mhmmialon’s
Ida. - . b’s. F.duid Isg idalr ’ s rictus ha or Is Sg Ml os
Fci ..J. bp a msparnb. ,..mIs ofbr. elibol ms’s.: (I) prssldsm.
vmai . or v1w ’pruslduul of ml . ..U..ii Ii dwps cia plllpal
lideuss budon. or sly 0 0 w pumat d ’ s pub’s. 5 100w pidoy or dsdidcn
mdeg b1wns. or ml . maua,s cissis or ,uws uworbosabig , prolljdcn,
or cpsisS blIss in lIig ulDs ml ii 0 psama or havlig prisa saw .!
Si or . iIpsi00a,,. .dog $25 mbau (I ..wid.q.jsiw a S IC dalors). If
‘shady or U i dominues mu lain esignid or dsUgaord Is 1w nesuagur Ii
alli wq.,...’s pIoosdam
For.paa oriisi.h by a gmad pore’s, or ml p.. ,n ,Iu . : or
Form nos Irj’ , * , Fsda’a a 00w p51ic lp by smlr a Fvmpd
sasasiss ciSD or isShig abmad cibi.
P ....... .it — Ad Nalbi
Piofc mcohng bids ’ • e ssemsz.d or ors s 0.5 Isis pur
buSh lii f bi ’ sb g au . .sutdurg .oseng ds
I s b N. gofuan. i s sill m Dimg ml d.ta Ilsudad. and esnglsang and
iscl.,.j11 1 Vii u00ic • c i b%b u uwdar. 35 .11 . ..4n ’ s rigsrdUug his bwdun
allli1w. sup c I s c upuci 011w coilseSor at tnIoim,tcn. or uiggsaDII to:
lr4 liwEi , 1w bIn. hidi51ng sly suggssoons deda may ln saa. or riduci S.
bulls’ or: CINI. bibmauai Poe’s’ Branch. PM . 3. US Esiuucnmssitl
Primaoii Apanip. 401 U 3 5 1 . 1.5W. W.ilvng I sn. 0020400. or Osimsr. 011w
01 bDcui i ad s’sibrfy *1 151.. of iagsm.ni siio B idgsu.
WesPligmn. 0020103.
IFR Doc. 92—21384 Filed 9-8—92; 8:45 aml
BIWNO COOS 0 5 5040C

-------
Wednesday
September 9. 1992
Non Construction—Industrial
Fact Sheet
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits For Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
Industrial Activity; Fact Sheet

-------
41236
Federal Register / 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
Notice of Intent (NOt) requirements.
prohibitions. requirements to develop
md implement storm water pollution
prevention plans. and requirements to
‘onduct site inspections for facilities
wiih dischargers authorized by the
pi’rmi l In addition, these general
pm’rmi ls establish monitoring
ruquirements for certain classes of
f.mi ilities and a numeric effluent
limitaimon for discharges of coal pile
runoff subject to the general permits.
AOOR!SSES; Notices of Intent to be
,muthurized to discharge under these
prrmits should be sent to: Storm Water
Nmitic;es of Intent. P0 Box 1215.
Nmwington, VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
ri quired under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
cent to ihe appropriate EPA Regional
OIfirp The addresses of the Regional
()Iuiirs ,ind the name and phone number
•if ihm’ Storm Water Reqional
(.iiiinlmn.itor is provided in section IV C
• f thm. F.ict Sheet
I hi. incjm”c in the administrative
ri’t ur(Is (or ihpse permits are available
ii thi. mpprnpri.itp Regional Office The
‘rniili’t,. •ulmlnistr.itive record is
• Ii ‘‘ I it EI’, I lr.mdqma.irters. 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 (NOl) 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 1I.A of
the general permits. Todays general
permits also provide additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the permit
and for submitting monitoring data
where required.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACfl
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
It. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges
Associtited With Industrial Activity
III. Coverage of General Permits
IV Summary of Permit Conditions
A Notification Requiremenis
a. Contents of NOIs
2. Deadlines
3. Additional Notification
4. Notice of Termination
B. Special Conditions
1. Prohibition on Non.Storrn Water
Discharges
2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil
C. Tailored Pollution Prevention Plan
Requirements
I. Pollution Prevention Team
2. Descnption of Potential Pollution
Sources
a. Drainage
b. Inventory of Exposed Materials
c. Significant Spills and Leaks
d. Non’storm Water Discharges
e. Sampling Data
Risk Identification and Summary of
Potential Polluiant Sources
3. Measures and Controls
a Good Housekeeping
b Preventive Maintenance
c Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures
d Inspections
e Employee Training
f Recordkeeping and lnierndl Re’purtmng
Procedures
g. Sediment and Erosion Control
ii Management of Runoff
4 Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation
D. Special Requirements
1 EPCRA Section 313
2. Salt Piles
3 Discharges to Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems
4 Coal Piles
E Monitoring and Reporting 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 rndustnal
activity as follows:
Region 1—For the States of Maine arid
New Hampshire: for Indian lands
located in Massachusetts. New
Hampshire. and Maine
Region /V—For the State of Florida.
and for Indian lands located in Florida.
Mississippi. and North Carolina.
Region V!—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 Coshute
Reservation and Navajo Reservation
lands). and Wyoming; for Federal
facilities in Colorado; and for the Ute
Mountain Reservation in Colorado and
New Mexico.
Region /X—For the State of Arizcria.
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 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 (or Federal facilities in Washington
Tl ese general permits may authorize
the malority 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 I Vol. 57. No 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
storm sewer systems. As discussed
below, these permits do not authorize
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities I and several additional
classes of storm water discharges.
This notice contains four appendices.
Appendix A summarizes EPA’s response
to major comments recei’..ed 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 Xi of the
permits. parts I through X apply to all
permits. Part Xl of the permit contains
conditions which only apply in the State
indicated. Appendix C is a copy of the
Notice of Intent (NOl) form (and
associated instructions) for dischargers
to obtain coverage under the general
permits. Appendix D is a copy of the
Notice of Termination (NOT) form (and
associated instructions) that can be used
by dischargers wanting to notify EPA
that their storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity have
been terminated or that the permittee
has transferred operation of the facility.
On August 16. 1991 (56 FR 40948). EPA
requested public comment on draft
general permits forming the basis for
today’s final general permits. In addition
to addressing those storm water
discharges from industrial activity
addressed in today’s permits. the August
16. 1991. draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges from
construction activities. The permits in
this notice only address storm water
associated with industrial activity other
than construction activities. Elsewhere
in today’s Federal Register. EPA is
publishing NPDES permits for storm
Elsewhere in :odai i Federal Regular EPA is
publishing final general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity from
construction sites in a number of States
water discharges from construction
industrial facilities.
EPA received more than 330
comments on the August 16. 1991. draft
general permits in addition. public
hearings to discuss the draft general
permits were held in Dallas. TX.
Oklahoma City. OK. Baton Rouge. LA.
Albuquerque. NM: Seattle. WA. Boise.
ID: Juneau. AK. Pierre. SD. Phoenix. AZ.
Orlando. FL: Tallahassee. FL. Augusta.
ME: Boston. MA: and Mancheser. NH.
EPA is incorporating, by reference.
portions of the detailed fact sheet for the
draft general permits published on
August 16. 1991. as part of the final fact
sheet and statement of basis for today’s
final permit. The sections of the prior
fact sheet being incorporated are section
1. Background; section 4. Summary of
Options for Controlling Pollutants: and
section 5. The Federal/Municipal
Partnership: The Role of Municipal
Operators of Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewers.
11. 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 occurrmg 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. 2 spills, and other
improperly dumped materials. may
increase the pollutant loads discharged
from separate storm sewers The
sources of pollutants in storm water
41237
discharges differ with the type of
industry operation and specific facility
features For example air emissions
may be a significant source of pollutants
at some facilities, material storage
operations at others, and still other
facilities may discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity with
relatively low levels of pollutants
From 1978 through 1983. EPA provided
funding and guidance to the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to study
runoff from commercial and residential
areas. NURP included 28 projects across
the Nation conducted separately at the
local level but centrally reviewed.
coordinated, and guided.
One focus of the NURP program was
to characterize the water quality of
discharges from separate storm sewers
that drain residential. commercial. and
light industrial (industrial parks) sites
The majority of samples collected in
NURP were analyzed for seven
conventional pollutants and three
metals. Table 1 summarizes the data in
the NURP data base on concentrations
for these 10 pollutants and fecal
coliIorrn. The data collected in NURP
indicated that on an annual loading
basis suspended solids in discharges
from separate storm sewers draining
runoff from residential. commercial. and
light industrial areas are approximately
an order of magnitude or more greater
than effluent from sewage treatment
plants receiving secondary treatment
The study also found that annual
loadings of chemical oxygen demand
(COD) are comparable to effluent from
sewage treatment plants receiving
secondary treatment When analyzing
annual loadings associated with urban
runoff. it is important to recognize that
discharges of urban runoff are highly
intermittent and that the short’term
loadings associated with individual
events will be high and may have shock
loading effects on receiving water, such
as sag in dissolved oxygen levels.
TABLE I —QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF RUNOFF FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS
Constituent
Average residential or
commercial site concersiration
Weighted mean residential or
commercial site concentration
NURP recommendations Icr
load estimates
TSS
SOD
COO
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Total K eIdahl Nitrogen
Nitrate-Nitrite
Total Copper
Total Lead
Total ZinC
Fecal Colilorin
Warm Weather
Cold Weather
.
.

.
239 mg/I
12mg/I
94 mg/I
05 mg/I
015mg/I
23 mg/I
1 37 mg/I I
53 gf I
238 Mg 11
353 pig/I
50240 cOuntS 100 gmt
22.918 counts! 100 gmi
180 mg/I
12 mg/I
82 mg/I
042 mg/I
015mg/I
I 90 mg/I
086 mg/I
43 jsg/l
182 uQ/I
202 g/l
27605 cour iIS/ 100 ml
7075 CounI S/ 100 ml
180-548 mg/I
12-19 mg/I
82-178 mg/I
042-088 mg/I
015-028 mg/I
1 90—4 18 mg/I
086—221 mg/I
43.118 g/I
182—443 M9/I
202-633 ug / 1
Source Developed from
Results of the
Nat
ionwsde Urean
Runoit
Program. Vol I—Final Repori. EP
A 1983
Illicit connections are contributions of
unpermitted nonstorm water discharge, to storm
sewers from any of a number of sources including
sanitary sewers industrial facilities commercial
establishments or residential dwellings

-------
41238
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
NURP also involved monitoring 120
priority pollutants. Seventy-seven
priority pollutants. including 14
inorganic and 63 organic pollutants.
were detected in samples of storm water
discharges from residential. commercial.
and light industrial lands taken during
NLJRP 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.
TABLE 2 —Pnionrrv POLLUTANTS DE-
TECTED IN AT LEAST 10 PERCENT OF
NLJRP SAMPLES
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 wnen
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
(p0 1 t) buildings located in Washtenaw County.
Michigan. and found that 14 percent of
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
2] 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 ma ority were
20 approved connections at the tune they
19 were built, but have since become
unlawful discharges.
NURP and other studies of urban
II runoff insight on what can be
14 considered background levels of
19 pollutants for urban runoff. as these
10 studies have focused primarily on
monitoring runoff from residential.
22 commercial, and light industrial areas.
‘ However. NURP concluded that the
IS quality of urban runoff can be impacted
12 adversely by several sources of
IS pollutants that were not evaluated
directly in the study dnd that are
generally not reflected in the NURP
data, such as illicit cunnections
construction site runoff. industrial site
runoff. dnd 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
ma or 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. Matenal spills or
losses may discharge directly to the
storm drainage systems or may
accumulate in soils or on surfaces and
Metals and Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cooper
Cyartides
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Pesticides
Aipna.endo suI f art
Chlordane
Lndane
i ’4atoqenated Aliphatucs
Methane CiCflioro.
Phenols and Cresols
Phenol
Phenol pentacnloro.
Phenol 1-nitro
Phtna lata Esters
Prilpialate b’s (2.ett yihaiiyl)
Poi’,cyctic Aromatic Hydrocs,bons
Chr sene
Fiuo,aninene
Phenantrirene
‘i’Pne
hr ‘‘..mpl.’ si . , (‘.uniritlI ,n Urban Runoff
Pr ii ii i .i for l’I.inning and Designing Urban
li%ti’.. \t.’i ipuiiui.irt %V.i flingion Counril of
rnm ’Ii ,q Iuiv tiPHT
‘See Beat Management Practices Useiui Tools
for Cleaning Up Rogo,hewski. p 1982. Proceedings
of the i982 Hazardous Materisi Spills Conference
Manual ol Practice On Site identification of itiicit
Connections The Cadmus Group 1990’ Design of
Urban Runoff Quality Controls American SocietY
ol Civil Engineers. 1988 Urban Stormwaler Quality
Enhiincement.Source Contrni Retrofitting, and
Combined Sewer Technology Torno American
Society of Civil Engineers 1989 NPDES Best
Management Practices Guidance Document EPA.
t979 Guidelines to Poliution Prevention The
Pesticide Formulating industry i990 EPA,825i—
90/004 Guides to Pollution Prevention The Paint
Manufacturing Industry 1990 EPA/62517—901005
Guides in Pollution Prevention The Fabricaied
Metal Products industry t990 EP i625!—’t0l( )b
md nalysis of Implementing Permitting ActivitieS
for Storm Water Discharges Associaied with
lndusiri.if Activity EPA 1991

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I 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 and/or
cleaning, timber processing. rock
crushing. vehicle maintenance and/or
cleaning, and concrete mixing, typically
occur outdoors. Processing operations
may result in liquid spillage and losses
of material solids to the drainage system
or surrounding surfaces. or creation of
dusts or mists which can be deposited
locally Some outdoor industrial
activities cause substantial physical
disturbance of land surfaces that result
in soil erosion by storm water For
example. disturbed land occurs in
construction and mining. Disturbed land
may result in soil losses and other
pollutant loadings associated with
increased runoff rates Facilities whose
major process actitities are conducted
indoors may still apply chemicals such
as herbicides pesticides. and fertilizer
outdoors for a ‘.ariety 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. These and other non-storm
water discharges to a storm sewer may
be intentional, based on the belief that
the discharge (condensate in the
example previously discussed) does not
contain pollutants. or they may be
inadvertent, if the operator is unaware
that a floor drain is connected to the
storm sewer
6 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 dewaiering
Facilities often conduct some waste
management on site
Cool Pile Runoff
The following descr.ption of coal pile
runoff is summarized from the ‘Final
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category”
(EPA-.440/1—82/029). EPA, November
1982. A more complete description of
coal pile runoff can be found in the
development document
The pollutants in coal pile runoff can
be classified into specific types
according to chemical characteristics
Each type relates to the pH of the coal
pile drainage The pH tends to be of an
acidic nature, primarily as a result of the
oxidation of iron sulfide in the presence
of oxygen and water, The potential
influence of pH on the ability of toxic
and heavy metals to leach from coal
piles is of particular concern Many of
the metals are amphoteric with regard to
their solubility behavior. These factors
affect acidity. pH. and the subsequent
leaching of trace metals
• Concentration and form of pyritic
sulfur in coal.
• Size of the coal pile:
• Method of coal preparation and
clearing prior to storage:
• Climatic conditions. including
rainfall and temperature.
• Concentrations of calcium
carbonate and other neutralizing
substances in the coal,
• Concentration and form of trace
metals in the coal. and
• The residence time of water in the
coal pile.
Coal piles can generate runoff with
low pH values, with the acid values
being quite variable The suspended
solids levels can be significar.t. 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
III. Coverage of General Permits
These final general permits ma
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 (NOt) to be
covered, using an NOl form (or
photocopy thereof) provided by the
Director Unless notified by the Director
to the contiary. owners or operators
who submit such notification are
authorized to discharge storm water
aasociaied with industrial activity under
the terms and conditions of this permit
Upon review of the NOI. the Director
may deny coverage under this permit
and require submittal of an application
for an individual National Pollutant
‘A more complete description of pollutants in
coal pile runoff is provided in ihe ‘Final
Development Docurneni for Effluent Limriaiions
Guidelines arid Standards .ind Pretreatment
Standards for the Steam Etecirir, Point Source
C iegorv lEPA.-$4o 1 -8 /OZ9l EPA November
1q 52

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41240
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 today’s 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 subiect
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 authonzed 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;’
• For the purpose of thus permit he following
effluent Iimiiations guidelines address storm water
or a combination of storm water and process waler
cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411. feedlota (40
CFR 412). Ferlutizer manufacturing (40 CFR 4i8p
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 436) ore mining and dressing 40
CFR 4401. and asphaii emulsion (40 CF1 1 4431 This
permit may authorise storm water discharges
associated with tnduatrtal activity hat are not
subject to an effluent itmttatuori guideline even
where a differeni storm water discharge at the
facility is subiect to an effluent lumitattort guideline
EPA us in the process of issuing separate qenersl
permits for ,iortn water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction activities in
SituationS where construction scti uties occur at en
exisiing industrial facility or where industrial
activities addressed by 40 CFR i22 20Ib 1 (‘I through
( ixi or tail such as aaph it plants and concrete
plants are emplo cd 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 occurnng 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 mudt require the submittal of an
NO! prior to the authorization of such
discharges (see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2J(i).
April 2. 1992. (57 FR 11394)). Consistent
with these regulatory requirements.
todays 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 thereof). A copy of the
NO! and accompanying instructions are
provided in appendix C. NO! forms are
also generally available from the Storm
Water Hotline ((703) 821—4823) and
appropriate EPA Regional offices (see
the Regional Offices section of todays
notice).
1. Contents of NOIs
The NO! must include the following
information;
Name. mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. Where a
mailing adaress for the site is not
storm water discharge .usaoctated with industrial
activity from he industrial .Ictt%liV •iddreised by 40
CFR1Z26Ibitulthrouan(i juri’iul, ,nbp
authorized by the permit ,iddrpssvd by thus f.uct
sheet
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 fac ilities. 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
rnurucipal operator of the storm sewer
and the receiving water(s) for the
discharge through the municipal
separate storm sewer
a 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!):
a 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
ump!ete description of these signatory
requirements are provided in the
instructions accompanying the NOI (see
appendix C). Completed NO! forms must
be submitted to the Director of the
NPDES program in care of the following
As discussed above discharger, that have
previoualy participated in a group application are
not precluded from submitting an NOt to be covered
by today t permits

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
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 NOl 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 quantity of oil or a
hazardous substance for which
notification is required pursuant to 40
CFR 110.6. 40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6
are required to submit an NOl within 14
calendar days of the first knowledge of
such release.
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from any facility
owned or operated by a municipality
that has participated in a timely part 1
group application and where either the
group application is rejected or the
municipally owned or operated facility
is denied participation in the group
application by EPA must submit an NOI
on or before the 180th day following the
date on which the group is rejected or
the denial is made, or on or before
October 1. 1992. whichever is later. This
deadline is consistent with section
1088(b) of the lntermodal 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 NO! or other
information (e.g. water quality
information, compliance history, histoty
of spills. etc.). Where EPA requires a
discharger authorized under the general
permit to apply for an individual NPDES
permit or an alternative general permit.
EPA will notify the discharger in writing
that a permit application is required.
Coverage under this general permit will
automatically terminate if the discharger
fails to submit the required permit
application in a timely manner Where
the discharger does submit a requested
permit application, coverage 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 NOl 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 todays 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 i 5
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 ihai all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified facility
that are authorized by a 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
• The terms large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems (systems serving a pupuietion
of 100.000 or more) are defined at 40 CFR 122 26(b)
14) and (7) Some of the cities and counties in which
these systems are found are itsied in ppenoices F
C. H and ito 40 CFR part i2 Other tare. and
medium sysiems have been designated b) EPA on a
case.bv.case beets
41241
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 thai 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.
Newington, 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 flushings. Irrigation
drainage: lawn watering: routine
external building washdown without
detergents. pavement washwaters
where spills or leaks of toxic or
hazardous materials have riot 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 thai are
combined with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
To be authorized under the general
permits. these sources of non-storm
water (except flows from fire fighting
activities) must be identified in the
storm water pollution prevention plan
prepared for the facility (Plans and
other plan requirçments are discussed in
more detail below). Where such
discharges occur, the plan must also
identify and ensure the implementation
of appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
component(s) of the discharge For
example. to reduce pollutants in
irrigation drainage, a plan could identify
low maintenance lawn areas that do not
require the use of fertilizers or
herbicides: for higher maintenance lawn
areas. a plan could identify measures

-------
41242
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I 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 CFR
117, and 40 CFR 302 as soon as they
have knowledge of the discharge:
• The storm water pollution
prevention plan for the facility must be
modified within 14 calendar days of
knowledge of the release to provide a
description of the release, an account of
the circumstances leading to the release.
and the date of the release. In addition.
the plan must be reviewed to identify
measures to prevent the reoccurrence of
such releases and to respond to such
releases, and it must be modified where
appropriate.
• The permittee must also submit to
EPA within 14 calendar days of
knowledge of the release a written
description of the release (including the
type and estimate of the amount of
material released), the date that such
release occurred. the circumstances
leading to the release, and steps to be
taken to modify the pollution prevention
plan for the facility.
Anticipated discharges containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of reporting
quantities are those caused by events
occurring within the scope of the
relevant operating system. Facilities that
have more than one anticipated
discharge per year containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reportable
quantity are required to:
• Submit notifications for the first
release that occurs dunng a calendar
year (or for the first year of this permit.
after submittal of an NOt); 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 noristorm
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)(i)).
C. Tailored Pollution Prevention P/an
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, casts 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.
(31 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 / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41243
EPA believes the pollution prevention
approach is the most environmentally
sound and cost-effective way to control
the discharge of pollutants in storm
water runoff from industrial facilities
This position is supported by the results
of a comprehensive technical survey
EPA completed in 1979,10 The survey
found that there are two classes of
management practices industry uses to
control the non-routine discharge of
pollutants from sources such as storm
water runoff, drainage from raw
material storage and waste disposal
areas, and discharges from places where
spills or leaks have occurred. The first
class of management practices includes
those that are low in cost. applicable to
a broad class of industries and
substances, and generally are
considered essential to a good pollution
control program. Some examples of
practices in this class are good
housekeeping. employee training, and
spill prevention procedures. The second
class includes management practices
that provide a second line of defense
against the release of pollutants This
class addresses containment, mitigation.
cleanup, and treatment.
Since publication of’the 1979 survey.
EPA has imposed management practices
and controls in NPDES permits on a
case-by-case basis The Agency also has
continued to review the appropriateness
and effectiveness of such practices. 1 I as
well as the techniques used to prevent
and contain oil spills Experience with
these practices and controls has shown
that they can be used in permits to
reduce pollutant discharges in storm
sater 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 \POES Best Manaqement Practices
(,uidance Document U S CPA December 1979
EP ‘s-6c% l9- 9-o s5
For e ampIe see Besi Managemeni Practices
seiui ‘tools for Cleaning Up Thron H
Rugoshewski P 1982 Proceedings of the i98Z
Hazardous Material Spills Conference The
Chemical Indusiries Approach to Spill Presention
l’hompson C Goodier 1980 Proceedings of the
1980 ‘Jaiional Conference of Control of Hazardoua
1aiei ials Spills a series of EPA memorandum
entilled Best Managemeni PTactices in JPDES
Permits—Information Memorandum 1983 1985
1986 1987 1988 Review of Emergency Systems
Report to Congress EPA 1988 and AneIvsi of
Implementing Permiittng Activities for Siorn’ Waler
Discharges Associated with Industrial Acitviiy
EPA 1991
See for ciample The Oil Spill Presention
Control and Couisiermeasures Program Task Forcit
Report EPA 1988 and Guidance Manual foi the
Des elopmenl of an Accidentai Spill Preventton
Program prepared by SAIC for EPA. 1986
implementing pollution prevention
measures
1 Pollution Prevention Team
As a first step in the process of
developing and implementing a storm
water pollution prevention plan.
permittees must identify a qualified
indi idual or team of individuals to be
responsible for developing the plan and
assisting the facility or plant manager in
its implementation. When selecting
members of the team. the plant manager
should draw on the expertise of all
relevant departments within the plant to
ensure that all aspects of plant
operations are considered when the plan
is developed. The plan must clearly
describe the responsibilities of 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 dr ’ 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
nonstruciural 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 ater draindge structural
features that control pollutants in
runoff. 13 surface water bodies (including
wetlands). places where significant
materials i4 are exposed to rainfall and
i Nonsiructurai features such as grass swal s
and vegetative buffet strips .iIso should be shown
iS Significant materials include but are not
limited to he lotlowing r.iw m.iierials fuels
solvents detergrnis .,nd pl,i iiç pi’ili’ts fini hrd
materials such as mpi.iiiii priiuucls r.iss m.iti rials
used in food processing ur production h.szardous
substances designated under section 10111*1 of the
Comprehonsise Ens irnnmrnt.iI Respnnsr
runoff. arid locations of major spills and
leaks thai occurred tn 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
andlor 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 nonstructural controls
that reduce pollutants in runoff and an
treatment the runoff receives before ills
discharged to surface %aiers 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 maierials to storm
water
c Significant spills and lea/ss The
plan must include a list of any
significant spills and leaks of toxic or
hazardous pollutants that occurred in
the 3 years prior to the effective date of
the permit Significant spills include but
are not limited to. releases of oil or
hazardous substances in excess of
quantities that are reportable under
section 311 of CWA (see 40 CFR iio 10
and 117 21) or section 102 of the
Comprehensive Envtronmental
Response Compensation and Liability
Compensation and i.iabiiiiv ci ICERCLA1 ins
hi’micai the fji.ilits is requirrd Ii rrport pursuani
Iii FPCRA S,.riion ii3 fertilizers pesticides and
waste products such as ashes slag and sludge that
have the poi niial to h rejeased with storm waier
disch .ir es See In CFR i 2 :6lblleIi

-------
41244
Federal_Register /Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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 spill or
leak. the actions taken to respond to
each release. and the actions taken to
prevent similar such spills or leaks in
the future This effort will aid the facility
operator as she or he examines existing
spill prevention and response
procedures and develops any additional
procedures necessary to fulfill the
requirements of part 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.
ihe 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, waler balance
calculations, and analysis of piping and
drainage schematics’ 5
Except for flows that originate from
fire fighting activities, sources of non-
storm water that are specifically
identified in the permit as being eligible
for authorization under the general
permit must be identified in the plan.
Pollution prevention plans must identify
and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
discharge.
EPA recognizes that certification may
not be feasible where facility personnel
do not have access to an outfall.
manhole. or other point of access to the
conduit that ultimately receives the
discharge. In such cases, the plan must
describe why certification was not
feasible Permittees whc are ct able to
certify that discharges have been tested
or evaluated must notify the Director in
accordance with part VI.A of the
permit.
In gener.ii smoke ipsis should nol be used (or
e diuduun5 the duschjrge of non-dorm w.sicr to .s
sepdrale dorm sewer us man’. sources of non s,orm
. ..Ier i’.psc.sliv p..es through .i trup ihai wouid limli
the r(fecui ’ .pnr of hi’ smoke iesu
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.
1. RisA identification and summary of
potential pollutant sources. The
description of potential pollution
sources culminates in a narrative
assessment of the risk potential that
sources of pollution pose to storm water
quality This assessment should clearly
point to activities, materials, and
physical features of the facility that
have a reasonable potential to
contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to storm water. Any such
activities, materials, or features must be
addressed by the measures and controls
subsequently described in the plan. In
conducting the assessment. the facility
operator must consider the following
activities’ loading and unloading
operations. outdoor storage activities.
outdoor manufacturing or processing
activities: significant dust or particulate
generating processes: and on-site waste.
disposal practices. The assessment must
list any significant pollution sources at
the site and identify the pollutant
parameter or parameters (i.e..
biochemical oxygen demand, suspended
solids. etc.) associated with each source.
3. Measures and Controls
Following completion of the source
identification and assessment phase. the
permittee must evaluate, select, and
describe the pollution prevention
measures, best management practices
(BMP5), 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 co’.ering. water di’. ersion.
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 lV.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 / Notices
41245
specify appropriate material handling
procedures. storage requirements.
containment or diversion equipment.
and spiii 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 spills.
d. Inspections. In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation, qualified facility personnel
must be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan. A set of tracking or followup
procedures must be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in
response to the inspections. Records of
inspections must be maintained.
e. Employee training. The pollution
prevention plan must describe a
program for informing personnel at all
levels of responsibility of the
components and goals of the storm
water pollution prevention plan. The
training program should address topics
such as good housekeeping. materials
management. and spill response
procedures. A schedule for conducting
training must be provided in the plan
Where appropriate, contractor
personnel also must be trained in
relevant aspects of storm water
pollution prevention.
f. Recordkeeping and internal
reporting procedures. The pollution
prevention plan must describe
procedures for developing and retaining
records on the status and effectiveness
of plan implementation. At a minimum.
records must address spills. monitoring.
and inspection and maintenance
activities. The plan also must describe a
system that enables timely reporting of
storm water management-related
information to appropriate plant
personnel.
g. Sediment and erosion control. The
pollution prevention plan must identify
areas that, due to topography, activities,
soils. cover materials, or other factors
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion. The plan must identify
measures that will be implemented to
limit erosion in these areas.
h. Management of runoff The plan
must contain a narrative evaluation of
the appropriateness of traditional storm
water management practices (i.e..
practices other than those that control
pollutant sources) that divert, infiltrate.
reuse, or otherwise manage storm 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 infiltratior. pond may contaminate a
ground water source unless special
preventive measures are taken. Under
EPA’s July 1991 Ground Water
Protection Strategy. States are
encouraged to develop Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSGWPP). Efforts to control
storm water should be compatible with
State ground water objectives as
reflected in CSGWPPs.
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation
The storm water pollution prevention
plan must describe the scope and
content of comprehensive site
inspections that qualified personnel will
conduct to (1) confirm the accuracy of
the description of potential pollution
sources contained in the plan. (2)
determine the effectiveness of the plan.
and (3) assess compliance with the
terms and conditions of the permit. The
plan must indicate the frequency of such
evaluation which in most cases must be
at least once a year.’ 6 The individual or
IS Where annual site tnspeci lon, are ihown tn the
plan to be impractical for inactive mining stie S due
to remote location and inaccessibility. atte
Inspections mutt be conducted at ie.at once every
three years However, at ieast one Inspection mual
take place before October 1 1994 For mining sites
thai become inactive after October 1 1994 the 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 de9ices 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 IV.D.2 and
measures and controls in part IV D 3 of
the plan must be revised as appropriate
within two weeks after each inspection
Changes in the measures and controls
must be implemented on the site in a
timely manner. and never more than 12
weeks after completion of the
inspection.
D. Special Requirements
1. EPCRA Section 313
Todays permits establish special
requirements for certain permittees
subject to reporting requirements under
section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community-Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) (also known as title UI of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization 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
site inspection must take place on the date iwo
years after such a site 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
372.65 pursuant to EPCRA section 313;
(2) are manufactured, processed. or
otherwise used at or above threshold
levels at a facility subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements: and
(3) meet at least one of the following
criteria: (I) Are listed in appendix D of
40 CFR part 122 on either Table 11
(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 RA Section 313
for a water priority chemical state that
storm water pollution prevention plane.
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 spill or other
excessive leakage of section 313 water
priority chemicals. Where containment
units are employed, such units may be
emptied by pumps or ejectors: however.
these must be manually activated.
Flapper.type drain valves must not be
used to drain containment areas. as
these will not effectively control spills.
Valves used for the drainage of
containment areas should, as far as is
practical. be of manual. open.and.closed
design. If facility drainage does not meet
these requirements. the final discharge
conveyance of all 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 other equivalent
measures. A strong spilt 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 materials, and
procedures to ensure access to and
availability of sorbents and other
equipment. The testing component of the
plan would provide for conducting

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41247
integrity testing of storage tanks at set
intervals such as once every five years.
and conducting tnte3rlty 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.
• Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas Truck and rail car
loading and unloading areas for liquid
section 313 water priority chemicals
must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 water priority
chemicals. Appropriate measures to
minimize discharges of section 313
chemicals may include the placement
and maintenance of drip pans (including
the proper disposal of materials
collected in the drip pans) whore
spillage may occur (such as hose
connections. hose reels. and filler
nozzles) when making and breaking
hose connect ions. a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan.
and/or other equi alent 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 4PDES 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 %ith industrial activity
through large or medium municipal
separate Storm water systems are
required to submit a signed copy of their
NOl to the operator of the municipal
separate storm sewer system
Facilities covered by these permits
must comply with applicable
‘‘ Large and medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems are s slems located in an
incorporated city with a population o( 100 000 or
more or in a counI identified as having a large or
medium sysiem isee 40 CFR i 2 :6 1b 1 14 1 and “i and
appendices F through ito part 1:21
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 mgIl 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 monilor 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
BILLiNG CODE 6560.5O-M

-------
41248 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
Table 3. GENERAL PERMiT MONITORING REQU1RE NTS
Type of
Fadhiy
Type of
Stems Water Discharge
Parameters
MOthLCT

Reps,dng
Freqamey
EPCRA.
Section 313
Facilities
Subject to
Reporting
Requirements
for Waler
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 Grease. COD, TSS,
pH. acute whole effluent
toxicity. Total Recoverable
Lead, Total Recoverable
Cadmium. Total Recoverable
Copper. Total Recoverable
Arsenic. Total Recoverable
Chronuum, and any pollutant
limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject
Semi-
annual
Annual
Land Disposal
Units!
Incinerators!
BIPs
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 BlFs
that burn hazardous waste

Ammonia. Total Recoverable
Magnesium. Magnesium
(dissolved). Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen. COD, IDS. TOC,
Oil and Grease, 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 areas that
are 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 t’hole 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 I Notices 41249
Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Type of
Facility
Type of
Storm Water Discharge
Parameters
Msadon.
Fr,qu Oty
Repornag
Frequeary
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 arms 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
year)
Storm water discharges from aircraft or
airport deicing areas
.
Oil and Grease, BOD5. COD,
TSS, pH, and the pnmary
ingredient used an the deicing
materials
Annual
Retain
onsite
Coal-fired
Steam Electric
Facilities
Storm water discharges from coal
handling sites (other than runoff from
coal piles 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 Kjcldahl Nitrogen
(11(N). Total Phosphorus. pH.
Fecal Coliform
Annual
Retain
onsite
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
Annual
_________
Retain
onsite
Automobile
Junkyards
Storm water discharges exposed to.
(a) over 2.50 auto/truck bodies with
dnvelines. 2.50 dnvelines. 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 an an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
onsile

-------
41250 Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Type of
Facility
Type of
Stoms Water Discharge
P r neters
MOni*OW
Frequ ey
Rapor a 1
Fruqu c
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
onsice
Oil-fired
Steam Electric
Power
Generating
Facilities
Storm water discharges from oil
handling sites
Oil and Grease. COD. TSS,
pH, any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
oasite
Cement
Manufacturing
Facilities and
Cement Kites
All storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity (except those
from matenal storage piles that are not
eligible for coverage under this permit)
Oil and Grease. 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 water 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
onsite
Ship Building
and Repairing
Facilities
All storm water 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
onsite
BIWNU cooe usao-so.c

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41251
Where a given storm water discharge
is addressed by more than one class of
monitoring requirements. then the
monitoring requirements for the
applicable classes of activities are
additive Monitoring requirements must
be evaluated on a outfall.by.outfall
basis If a particular discharge fits under
more than one set of monitoring
requirements, the facility must comply
with both sets of sampling requirements
Discharges composed entirely of
runoff from coal piles must be monitored
in a manner that ensures that the runoff
is not diluted or otherwise intermingled
with storm water from other sources or
other types of discharges. This is
necessary to 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
in Table 3 are not required to conduct
discharge monitoring unless the Director
provides wntten 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
e ent A minimum of one grab sample
-na be taken for discharges from
olding ponds or other impoundments
ith a retention period greater than 24
nours For all other discharges. data
must be reporied for both a grab sample
and a composite sample. The grab
sample must be taken during the first
‘hirtv 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 impracticable. Tha
composite sample must either be flow.
weighted or time-weighted Composite
samples may be taken with a continuous
sampler or as a combination of a
minimum of three sample aliquots taken
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
the discharge. with each aliquot being
;eparated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes Composite samples do
not 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 lustification in the facility storm
water pollution prevention plan Where
a facility that is subject to semi-annual
monitoring requirements (EPCRA
section 313. waste disposal sites wood
preserving facilities battery reclaimers.
coal pile runoff. and primary metal
facilities) does not monitor a
substantially identical outfall, the
permittee must submit the 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 justification unless it is requested by
the Director These facilities must keep
the justification in the storm water
pollution prevention plan
The permit allows for temporary
waivers from sampling based on
adverse climatic conditions This
temporary sampling waRer is only
intended to apply to insurmountable
weather conditions such as drou2ht or
dangerous conditions such as lightning.
flash flooding or hurricanes These
events tend to be isolated incidents and
should not be used as an excuse for not
conducting sampling under more
favorable conditions associated with
other storm events. The sampling waiver
is not intended to apply to difficult
logistical conditions such as remote
facilities with few employees or
discharge locations which are difficult to
access.
The location for submittal of all
reports is contained in the permit
Consistent with Office of Management
and Budget Circular A— 105 facilities
located on certain Indian Lands in
Arizona. Utah. New Mexico. Idaho
Nevada. and Colorado should note that
permitting authority has been
consolidated in one EPA Region where a
reservation crosses tne 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 Stales 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 annualI
In addition pollution prevention plans
must be kept for the life of the permit
F Regional Offices
Notices of Intent to be authorized to
discharge under these permits should be
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 Management Division. (WCP—
2109).
Storm Water Staff.
John F Kennedy Federal Building, room
2209.
Boston. MA 02203
Contact Veronica Harrington. (617) 365—
3525
NJ. NY. PR. VI
United States EPA. Region I I. Water
Management Division (2WM-WPC)
Storm Water Stdff 6 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 102 8 Contact Jose
Rivera (2121 262—2911
- 1L FL. G.4 K} . IS VC SC T.\
United States EPA Region IV Water
Management Division. (FPB—3). Storm
Water Staff. 345 Courtland Street E
Atlanta GA 30365 Contact Chris
Thomas. (404) 347—3012
4R. LA. .V . 7(e ccepI see Region IX for
,Vava o lands and see Region VIII for
Ute Mountain Reseri’at,on land). OK
TX
United States EPA Region VI Water
Management Division. (6W -EA).
Storm Water Staff. First Interstate
Bank Tower at Fountain Place N45
Ross Avenue 12th Floor Suite 1200
Dallas. TX 75202 Contact Region VI
Storm Water Hotline at (214) 655—
7185.
CO. MT. ND SD. WY UT (except see
Region IX for Gosh ute Reservation and
Nava,o Reservation lands)
United States EPA Region VIII. Water
Management Division NPDES Branch
(IWM.C). Storm Water Staff. 999 18th
Street. Denver. CO 80202—2466
Contact Vern Berry 1303) 293—1630

-------
41252
Federal Register I Vol . 57. No.175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
Note—For Montana Indian Lands.
p/ease use the following address:
United States EPA. Montana Operations
Office. Federal Office Buildmg.
Drawer 10096. 301 South Park. Helena.
MT 59620—0026 Contact: Paul
Montgomery. (406) 449—5486.
AZ CA. HI. NV. American Samoa.
Guam. the Goshute Reservation in UT
and NV. the Navajo Reservation in L’7
NM. and AZ. the Duck Valley
Reservation in iVV and ID. Johnston
.4tolI. Midway and Wake Is/and
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.
.4K. ID (eccept 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
Bubnick. (206) 553—8399
G Compliance Deadlines
For most permittees. today’s permits
establish deadlines of April 1, 1993 for
development of pollution prevention
plans and October 1. 1993 for
compliance with the terms of the plan.
Alternative deadlines are provided for
facilities where industrial activities
commence after October 1. 1992: certain
oil and gas operations: and municipal
operators of facilities that have
participated in a timely part I group
application where either the group
application is rejected or the facility is
denied participation iii 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 d NOl 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)(1)(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 11721 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 art 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 compliande 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. 199Z. on or before 60 calendar
days after the commencement of
industrial activity).
V. Cost Estimates
I 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. EPAs 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 3
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 Ill 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 POLLuTIOrI PREVENTION PLANS
WITH BASELINE REQUIREMENTS
Submittal of NOi
Notification 01 Mun.ciaaiity
Plan Pre ra n
Pla n Impiement i n
Low Costs
I.ligfl Costs
F,rtt Year
Costa
Annuai
Costs
rsi Year
Costs
Annual
Costs
514 S 14
14 14
isis 75153
90 5294 35 400
59371

-------
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 PLANS
WITH BASELINE REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Low Costs
High Costs
First Year
Annual
First Year
Anriudi
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation/Plan Revision
267
6 875
Reportable Quantities
‘
8 501
Total
. I 636
561
120082
18.246
I 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.
However, the costs of implementing
special requirements. such as those for
EPCRA Section 333 facilities are not
otherwise addressed in this table.
The high cost estimate for
requirements to address reportable
quantities of hazardous substances will
occur in the year the reportable quantity
release occurs and will not necessarily
occur in the first year of permit
compliance.
TABLE 5 —SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PL.ANS
FOR FACILITIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 313 OF EPCRA FOR WATER PRIORrTY CHEMICALS
Low Costs
High Costs
Costs
I
during I irsi
3 years
Annual
Costs
Costs
aunng lirsi
3 years
Ann 5l
Costs
I
Plan Preparation
•
s o
.
Liquid Storage Areas .
. .
S 11 200
Matenal Storage Areas
Loading Areas .
.
.
.
I . :
560
21 000
Process Areas
.
..
.
I •
11190
Drainage/Runoff
Housekeeping/Maintenance
.
.
75
S5 957
Facility Security
. .
3240
Em Ioyee Training
. 403
°E Certification
53
i 000
Monitoring Costs
2 424
847
Toxicity Reduction
.
3 046
TOTALS
630
2417
54940
16253
This table identifies estimated
additional low and high costs to develop
and implement storm water pollution
prevention plans for EPCRA section 313
facilities subject to special conditions.
Low costs of implementing program
components are zero where existing
programs. procedures or security is
assumed adequate.
The high costs for preparing pollution
prevention plans to include EPCRA
sethon 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 S2.000 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 5100.000 for
larger piles ($38 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
berrns. The use of tarpaulins and berms
to prevent exposure is expected to be
practical forcoal 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 exii as

-------
41254
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
polluted runoff is expected to be S7 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 S3.150 would be
needed. Therefore, the total cost of
tarpaulins and a berm to avert etposure
of storm water to a coal pile 30.000 cubic
meters in size would be S30.590.
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. pH adjustment.
and settling, including the costs for
impoundment (for equalization), a lime
feed system and mixing tanks for pH
adjustment. dnd a clarifier for settling
The costs for the impoundment area
include dikrng and containment around
each coal pile and associated sumps and
pumps and piping from runoff areas to
the impoundment area. The costs for
land are not included. The lime feed
system employed for pH adjustment
includes a storage silo, shaker, feeder.
and lime slurry storage tank.
instrumentation, electrical connections,
piping. and controls.
Additional costs may be incurred if a
polymer system is needed. In this case.
costs would include impoundment for
equalization, a lime feed system. mixing
tank, and polymer feed system for
chemical precipitation. a clarifier for
settling, and an acid feeder and mixing
tank to readjust the pH within the range
of 6 to 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 feea system includes
storage hoppers. chemical feeder.
IS The type and degree of treatment required to
meet the effluent limitations of these permuis vary
dependtnq . n factors such ,is the amount of sulfur in
the coal This section describes a model treatment
scheme For eatimatin coals for compliance wiih the
effluent limitations Ouscharqers may implement
other less expensive treatment .ipproaches to
enable them to discharge in .iccordance wiih these
limits 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 p 1-1
within the range of 6 to 9. The
components of this system include a
lined acid storage tank, two feed pumps,
an acid pH control loop, and associated
piping. electrical connections. and
Instrumentation.
Additional information regarding the
cost of these technologies can be found
in “Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category.”
(EPA-440/ 182/029). November 1982.
EPA.
TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED
CosTs FOR TREATMENT OF COAL PILE
RUNOFF
30000
‘20000
Cubic
Cubic
meter coal
meter coal
pile
pile
Impoundment
Installed Capital Cost
( 5)
8850
6850
Operation and
Maintenance (SI
year)
, I
I
Lime Feed System
Installed Capital Cost
IS)
138800
255700
Operation and
Maintenance (SI
year)
5,780
‘0.655
Energy Regutrements
(kwh/yr)
36 • 1O’’4
3 6i I0”4
Land Requirements
(ft”2)
5000
5000
Mixtng Equipment
Installed Capital Cost
IS)
65 750
91 320
Operation and
Maintenance (S/
year) .
2.280
2.430
Energy Requirements
Ikwh/yr )
13 l0 ”3
33” 10”3
Land Requirements
Iii ’ ‘2)
2000
2.000
Clarification
Installed Capital Cost
( 5)
182650
237450
Operation and
Matnienance ($1
yesrl
3 200
3.650
Energy Requirements
(lswn/yr )
13. I0”3
33 IO”3
Land Requirements
(acres)
0 1
0 I
‘Negligible
Source Develotiment Oocumertt for Effluent Limi-
tations Guidelines and Standards ano Pretreatment
Stanqaras tor me Steam Electric Point Source Cate.
gory . (EPA—440/ 182/029) NovamOer 982. EPA)
Costs estimates are in 1992 dOllars
VI. 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 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
VUI. 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 thai 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 Maine.
Louisiana. New Mexico. Oklahoma and
Texas.
Region I
Maine: See the following and part
XI.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 Cerzodaphnia
dubia and Sa/ve/inus fontinalis (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. Sal ve//nus
fonunalis 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 I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
Stat&s protocols for the EPA s protocols.
s part of the State Certification for
ach 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 SIate s brook trout protocol
based on the MOU. The Region does not
ob ect to the certification conditions
requiring the use of the Maine protocols
for the species Ceriodaphnia dubia and
Salvelinus fontinalis IBrook 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
11 conditions
egion VI
Louisiana. see the following and Part
XI B for 401 conditions Louisiana Indian
Lands see the following and Part XI.B
for 401 conditions
As a condition for certification under
Seciton 401 of the CWA. the State of
Louisiana required inclusion of the
following limitations necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards. These limitations are
required under Louisiana Annotated
Code 33 IX 708 (LAC 33 IX 708). In
accordance with a July 17. 1992. letter
from the State clarifying certification
requirements. the Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production facility
limitations will be effective on the
effective date of the permit Oil and gas
exploration facilities in Louisiana have
been subject to the LAC 33.IX.708
limitations since March 20. 1991. The
general permit establishes a three year
compliance date for facilities other than
oil and gas exploration and production
facilities: the General Limitations will
become effective October 1. 1995. This
compliance schedule is included to
allow the facilities not currently
ula ted under NPDES or State
.harge permits time to implement the
ilution prevention plan components
necessary to achieve the discharge
limitations.
Parameter
Daily
Maximum
Total Organic
Oil 8 Grease
Careon ITOC)
50 mg/I
15 mg/I
(2) Oil & Gas Exploration and
Production Facilities Effective 10/1/92.
Parameter
Daily
Maximum
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
100 mg/I
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
50 mg/I
Oil 8 Grease
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 Slate of New Mexico
designated by the latest edition of
?. ater Quality Standards for Interstate
and Intrastate Streams in New Mexico
for use as a domestic water supply. A
list of these waters as of June 29. 1991. is
included with the final permit For all
discharges to domestic water supply
waterbodies. the final permit establishes
an annual monitoring requirement for all
parameters for which the state has
established a domestic water 5upply
water quality standard. This testing
requirement is in addition to any other
41255
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 Stale within 24 hours of
receiving the test results from the
laboratory The parameters to be tested
and the associated action levels are
Reconable
Parameter
Ouantity
Action Level
Dissolved arsenic
0 05 mg/i
Dissolved barium
1 0 mg/I
Dissolved cadmium
0010 mgii
Dissolved criromium
005 mg/I
Dissolved lead
005 mg/I
Total mercury
0002 mg/I
Dissolved nitrate (as N)
100 mg/i
Dissolved selenium
005 mg/I
Dissolved Silver
005 mg/I
Dissolved cyanide
0 2 mg/i
Dissolved uranium
5 0 mg/I
Rgdium-226 — radium.228
30 0 Ci/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 ‘ations must be
sent directly to EPA Region 6 with a
copy pro ided to the go erning body of
the Indian Nation
Much of the State of New Mexico is
characterized as arid 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 waler uischarges in
the State For consistenc%. 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
(1) General Limitations Effective 10/
1/95

-------
41256
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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. Today’s
notice of the final permit also serves as
final notice of the Agency’s decision on
the April 28, 1992. Federal Register
Notice.
In order to comply with OAC 785:45—
5—25. the permit will not authorize any
new point source discharge of storm
water associated with industrial activity
to “new” point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity (those commencing after the
June 25. 1992. effective date of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards—
OAC 785:45) to the following waters:
(i) Waterbodies designated as
“Outstanding Resource Waters” and/or
“Scenic Rivers” in appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards:
(ii) Oklahoma waterbodies located
within the watersheds of waterbodies
designated as ‘Scenic Rivers” in
appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards; and
(iii) Waterbodies located within the
boundaries of Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards appendix B areas which are
specifically designated as “Outstanding
Resource Waters” in appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
In addition to this general permit
exclusion on coverage, the Agency
would like to emphasize that OAC
785.45—5—25 also prohibits the issuance
of any NPDES discharge permit (other
than for storm water runoff from
temporary construction activity) for new
point source discharges to ORWs or
Scenic Rivers, that commences after
June 25. 1992.
Outstanding Resource Waters and
Scenic Rivers are located in the
following river basins identified in
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
Basin I—Middle Arkansas River:
Barren Fork and certain listed
tributaries: and the Upper Illinois River
above Barren Fork confluence and
certain listed tributaries.
Basin 2—Lowe:’ 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.
permittees should refer to the Oklahoma
Water Quality Standards. appendices A
and B. or contact the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board.
To address possible statutory changes
regarding the “new discharge”
prohibition, the following reopener
clause has been added at the request of
the State, “This permit may be reopened
and modified if the State of Oklahoma
adopts new or revises existing water
quality requirements regarding the
discharge of storm water.”
Texas: See the following and part XI.E
for 401 conditions. Texas Indian lands:
See the following and part XI.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:
tctaj metal
Monthiy Daily Single
average comcoslie graD
.i
Aisenic
Barium
Cadmium
01 02
10 I 20
005 01
03
40
02
Chron im .
.
05
10
0
Copper
05
tO
20
Lead. .
05
tO
5
Manganese..
.
10
20
30
Mercury .
0005
0005
001
Nickel. .
Selenium
10 20
005 01 I
30
02
Silver
005 01
02
Zinc ...
10 20
60
All Discharges to Tidal Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/Il, for discharges to tidal
waters are as follows’
Total meial
Monthly
average
Daily I
composite
Single
graD
Arsenic
D l
02
03
Barium
Cadmium
10 .
01
20
02
40
03
Chromium
05
I D
50
Copper
05
10
20
Lead
Manganese
05
10
10
20 ‘
15
30
Mercury
0005
0005
00’
Nickel
tO
20
30
Selenium
01
02
03
Silver
005
0 I
02
Zinc
tO
20
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 turisdiction of the
State of Texas. bays and estuaries
thereto, and those portions of the river
systems which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tides, and to the
intrusion of marine waters.
Since the majority of discharges
covered by 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 / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41257
water quality standard and identify
discharges that will require more
stringent pollution prevention plans
and/or individual or alternative general
permit coverage
General Permits for EPA Region 6
With regard to reporting the results of
any toxicity testing required under the
permit. the permits for Louisiana. New
Mexico. Oklahoma. and Texas have
been modified to require the submittal
of a summary of the results, with the full
toxicity report retained by the permittee.
The results are to include pass/fail
information on 50% survival in the 100%
dilution after 24 hours in addition to the
pass/fail information 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 permiuee and the
Agency to prioritize action on
discharges exhibiting relatively greater
toxicity (i e. those showing greater than
50% lethality would be more toxic than
those exhibiting only a statistically
significant difference in survival). The
use of simple test report summaries will
reduce the report mailing cost and
simplify completion of Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for the
permitiee. 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
modificat;ons to the Louisiana. New
Mexico. Oklahoma. and Texas general
permits. First, the area covered by each
permit has been clarified to include all
administered by EPA Region 6 in the
appropriate State. This clarification was
included to insure coverage on Federal
lands and Indian Nations. EPA Region 6
‘ies not administer NPDES authority on
ivajo Nation lands in New Mexico
,administered by EPA Region 9J and Ute
Mountain Tribal lands in New Mexico
(administered by EPA Region 8).
Region VIII
South Dakota No 401 conditions
South Dakota Indian Lands No 401
conditions
Montana Indian Lands No 401
conditions.
North Dakota Indian lands No 401
conditions
Wyoming Indian lands. No 401
conditions.
Utah Indian lands (except the Goshute
Reservation and Navajo reservation
lands in Utah)’ No 401 conditions.
Colorado federal facilities. See Part
Xi.F for 401 conditions.
Colorado Indian lands and New
Mexico indian lands (including only the
Navajo Reservation lands and Ute
Mountain Reservation lands located in
Colorado and New Mexico) See part
Xl F for 401 conditions
Region IX
Arizona. See part Xl.G for 401
conditions. Arizona Indian lands
(including Navajo reservation lands in
Utah and New Mexico)’ No 401
conditions California Indian lands. No
401 conditions Nevada Indian lands
(including the Goshute Territory in Utah
and the Duck Valley reservation lands
in Idaho): No 401 conditions Johnston
Atoll No 401 conditions Midway and
Wake island. No 401 conditions
Region X
Alaska’ See part Xi H for 401
conditions Alaska Indian lands No 401
conditions Idaho See part Xli for 401
conditions Idaho Indian lands (except
the Duck Valley reservation lands in
Nevada and ldahol No 401 conditions.
Washington Indian lands: See part Xl
for 401 conditions. Washington federal
facilities: See part XI.J for 401
conditions
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
U.S.C 601 et seq. EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of rules on
small entities No Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is required. however, where
the head of the agenc% certifies that the
rule will not have a significant ernnom,’c
impact on a substantial number of small
entities
Today’s permits provide small entities
with an application optior. 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 hate 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 Cledn Wdier Act 33 USC 1251 et
seq
Dated August 28 1992
Patricia Meaney.
Acting Regional Administrator. Region I
Dated August 28. 1992
Patrick M Tobin,
Acting Regional Adminisimior Region IV
Dated August 27 1992
B J Wynne
Regional ‘tdm,n,strozor Region VI
Dated August 28. 1992
Kerrigan Clough
.4 cling Regional Administrator Region VIII
Dated August 28 1992
Daniel W McGovern
Regional 4dmsnistrazor Region IX
Dated August 27. 1992
Dana Rasmussen
Regional ‘tdm,nistrator Region X
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the August 16. 1991
Draft General Permits
Definition of Storm Waler Discharge
Associated W,th Industrial Activity
Some commenters on the August 16
1991 draft general permits expressed or
suggested confusion over the scope of
the regulatory definition of “storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity” which the Agency had
promulgated on November 16 1990 (55
FR 479901 In EPA’s view, however.
while the August 16. 1991 notice did not
request comments on modifying the
regulatory definition, the Agency
believes that it is appropriate to add a
preface to today’s general permit that
clarifies the NPDES regulatory
framework for storm waler discharges
associated with industrial activity In
addition. the Agency has correctea
several typographical errors and
inadvertent omissions to the text of the
definition of “storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity ‘ in
the “Definitions” section of today’s
general permits.
Coverage Issues
Consistent with Tier I of United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) long-term permitting strategy. the
August 16. 1991 draft general permits
were intended to allow the malority of
storm water discharges associated with

-------
41258
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
industrial activity (located in the Stale
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
authorizes: (3) that the Director
designates as causing or expected to
cause a water quality standard
violation: and (4) chat 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 discharQe 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 IS The
Agency wants to clarify that if a facility
has multiple storm water discharges.
with one or more storm water
discharges subject to an effluent
limitation guideline and one or more
discharges not subject to an effluent
limitation guideline, then the
discharge(s) that are not subject to an
effluent limitation guideline may obtain
coverage under today’s permits.
However, the discharges from the
facility that are subject to an effluent
limitation guideline may not be covered
by today’s permits because today s
‘For the puroits.., iii his permit h, Ioiiiiwi g
effluent limitations .iuidriunpg ,iddress siorm w.uIer
or .l r.umh.naiiijn iii .Iiirm w.,Ipr md prncesi waler
cement manuf.iriuring 141) CFR liii feedioig (4 (1
CFR liZ) frriiiizer m.inuI,u miring 141’) CiR 41141
petroleum refining ill) CFR 4)9 pnOupI ’iIte
rninu(&c lu,Ing 110 LFR 42Zi sie.mm ..iertr,c power
gener.iiiirn 40 CFR 4.:3i it.ii mining 140 CFR 4141
miner.mi mining med prii m’ising c4(i ( FR I ihi in’
mining and mJre ;ing liii (JR lUll nd m ph.mlt iuli
CFR 4411
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 ri
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 commenters expressed confusion
regarding the exclusion of inactive and
abandoned mining and oil and gas
operations on Federal lands from
coverage under the draft general permit.
These commenters thought that EPA
was exempting such sites from
regulation under the November 16. 1990
rule by excluding these sites from
coverage under the general permit
In response the Agency explained in
the August 16 1991 draft permits that it
is developing i distinct et of general
permits that more appropriately control
pollutants from inactive mining and
inactive oil and gas aperdlions on
Fpderal lands whpre an oper .I tar rannoi
be identified due to the unique ndiure 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 extens e land management
responsibilities, requested that storm
water discharges from inactive landfills
on Federal lands where an operator
cannot be identified be addressed in a
similar manner as inactive mining and
inactive oil and gas operations on
Federal lands The commenter indicated
that the significant number and
geographic distribution of such sites on
Federal lands favored an approach that
was similar to controlling storm %%aier
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 dddress inactive landfills.
and that the best way to accompiisn 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
coniunction with distinct permitting
efforts addressing storm water
discharges from inactive mining
operations and inactive oil and gas
operations on Federal lands
One commenter thought that EPA was
requiring facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to obtain coverage under the
general permit. and was precluding
dischargers from submitting individual
permit applications or participated in
appropriate group applications.
The Agency wants to clarify that by
encouraging the use of general permits
to address storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, and
August 16. 1991 proposal was not
limiting the application options to Notice
of Intents (NOlsi and coverage under a
general permit The submittal of an ‘JOl
to be co ered by a general permit is only
one of three application options for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity identified by the
No% ember 16. 1990. NPDES storm water
application regulations
A number of commenters expressed
confusion as to whether they musi apply
for coverage under today s general

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
41259
permit if a group application has already
been submitted. EPA wishes to clarify
that while facilities that had
participated in approved and completed
group applications are not required to
obtain coverage under today’s general
permit, they do have the option to do so
Requiring an Individual Permit
Application
The Augusi 16. 1991 draft general
permit provided that EPA may require
the submission of an individual permit
application at any time during the term
of the permit. The draft permit further
provided that where EPA requests an
individual permit application and an
owner or operator fails to submit a
timely application, the coverage of the
permit must be terminated on the date
the application is due.
Several commenters questioned EPA’s
authority to terminate permit coverage
They believed that EPA must specify
requirements for permit coverage
termination, such as an adiudicatory
process that would allow the permittee
a formal appeal Additionally, one
commenter was concerned with the
discretionary authority granted to EPA
in requiring individual permit
applications and felt that certain
guidelines should be set forth
In response. todays permits reflect 40
CFR 122.28(b)(3) (as amended ufi 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
mdi idual 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 noncoi pliance by the
oermittee with a permit condition and
would constitute grounds for permit
termination (see 40 CFR 122.64) EPA
would follow the applicable procedures
in 40 CFR 124 in terminating permit
coverage In addition. 40 CFR 124.52
provides guidelines for EPA to
determine that a facility required
covered by a general permit be required
to obtain an individual permit
This discretionary authority is critical
because it allows the Director to identify
facilities that may be significant
contributors to water pollution or
facilities that have other site-specific
nditions that would be better
4dressed 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 obiectives of the
Agency’s four-tiered, long-term
permitting strategy for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity (see April 2. 1992. (57 FR 11394))
One commenter disagreed with the
statement in the draft general permit
that storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are not
authorized by the general permit or
another NPDES permit are not in
compliance with the CWA. This
commenter stated that the simple
submission of an individual permit
application or participation in an
approved group application should
satisfy the discharger’s legal obligations
under the CWA While timely submittal
of an individual permit application or
participation in an approved group
application constitutes compliance with
EPAs 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. NOIs had to provide the name.
mailing address, and location of the
facility for which notification was
submitted: up to four 4-digit SIC codes
describing the facility, the operator s
name address and telephone number
the latitude and longitude of the facility
the name of the receiving water or if the
discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer:
and existing sampling data.
A number of commenters on the
August 16. 1991 draft general permits
indicated that NO! requirements were
generally less burdensome than
individual permit applications and thai
NOIs are a useful tool in the permitting
process. A number of commenters
indicated that a standardized NO! form
would be extremely useful and would
ease burdens on th’e regulated
community In response. the Agency has
developed a standardized NO! form.
which is included in Appendix C of
today’s notice Copies of the NO! form
are available from EPA Regional Offices
(see the ADDRESSES section of todays
notice) or from the Storm Water Hotline
at (703) 821—4823
Some commenters noted that the
information required in the NO! was
adequate. sufficient, and/or appropriate
However. commenters ra used several
concerns with specific requirements of
the NOl Several commenters 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
yean how these materials are handled.
any precautions taken to prevent
pollutants in storm water runoff: and the
size of the facility and a
characterization of the surrounding area
The commenters indicated that this
information would assist EPA in
identifying priority facilities Several of
these commenters indicated that the
limited information in an NOl is not
sufficient to support further conclusions
or determinations on when and whether
Tier II—IV permits should be required or
other evaluations of the risks posed by
storm water discharges from various
industrial categories
In response. the Agency notes that it
will use information from a number of
sources to evaluate appropriate Tier II.
III. and IV permits For example. the
Agency will use information from group
applications and from monitoring data
collected pursuant to today s permit to
assist in the development of Tier 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 thai contain
more detailed, facility-specific -
information, which the Agency can
request for review Given these other
sources of information and the initial
status of program development, the
Agency does not believe that such
additional information is necessary in
NOIs at this time The Agency us
requiring that dischargers provide the
permit number of any NPDES permit for
other discharges from the facility and
the group application number if the
facility has participated in a group
application Obtaining this information
will allow the Agency to coordinate
permitting and compliance monitoring

-------
41260
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
efforts associated with other discharges
with actions taken with respect to
todays permits Obtaining the permit
numbers of non-storm water NPDES
permits will allow EPA to have access
to information about a permittee’s
activities with a minimal burden placed
on the discharger and EPA. This
information will be particularly useful in
identifying priorities for storm water
permit issuance and in developing Tier
II. III. and IV permits.
One commenter suggested that EPA
provide expanded instructions to assist
facilities in accurately determining their
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC]
code(s), their locations by latitude and
longitude, and the names of the
receiving waters. In response. EPA notes
that the 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—5O5f8- 91--O02.
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
dischargers to indicate whether they
have sampling data available describing
their storm water discharges. As
discussed below, the Agency believes
that these data can serve useful
purposes. and is requiring facilities to
maintain records of e’cisting data in their
storm water pollution prevention plans.
The Agency believes that this approach
will provide dis hargers 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 NOIs
include the number of any NPDES
permit for any discharge (including non-
storm water discharges) from the site
that is currently authorized by an
NPDES permit In addition. dischargers
are required to indicate whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process. EPA
believes that this information will
greatly assist in its efforts to cross-check
other information regarding the facility.
Several commenters requested that
EPA clarify whether a pollution
prevention plan must be included in the
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 NOIs by today’s permits
will not impose excessive burdens on
dischargers. The Agency believes that
the information required in the NOIs is
appropriate given the goals and
functions of these permits. For example
EPA must know where the industrial
facility is located in order to conduct
site visits. The street address of the
facility, or. where it is not available the
facility’s latitude and longitude (or
section. township. and range). can be
used to identify the site location. The
SIC codes that best represent the
principal products made or activities
conducted by the facility will give EPA
an indication of the nature of the
industrial activity at the facility An
alternative indicator of the industrial
activity is required for classes of
facilities that do not have SIC codes that
accurately describe the principal
products or services provided (e.g.
hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facilities, land disposal
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 facilit , 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-ipecific 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 pertnittee 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 .’er.
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 Agency s
compliance monitoring efforts.
One commenter indicated that
facilities such as remote oil and gas
operations may not have mailing
addresses. In response. the Agency has
modified today’s permits so that where
a mailing address for a site is not

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41261
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 believe5 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 NOl 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 present a problem because there
may not be an appropriate code or
several activities may be taking place at
different portions of the installation. In
response. the Agency wants to clarify
that the NOls associated with today s
permits provide for up to four SIC codes
that best describe the facility. In
general. a Federal facility, such as a
DOD installation, that has an industrial
activity on the facility should use the
SIC code that would describe the same
specific industri 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! far each location conducting a
different industrial activity.
One commenter recommended that in
addition to the signature by a
responsible corporate officer (as defined
by 40 CFR 122.22) the person having
overall responsibility for environmental
matters should be required to sign the
NOl The cominenter 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 NOl.
VOI Deadlines
In the August 16. 1991 draft general
permits EPA proposed that NOls to
obtain coverage under the permits be
submitted within 180 days of the date of
issuance of the general permits or at
least 30 days prior to the
commencement of construction of a new
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity Subsequent to the
August 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 NO! at least 2 days prior to
the commencement of the industrial
activity at the facility The Agency
believes that this short time period is
appropriate for new discharges or new
sources which begin operation after
October 1. 1992 because development of
a storm water pollution prevention plan
and submittal of an NOI can be
anticipated and planned for prior to the
initiation of opeiatioris
Several commenters requested
clarification of whether a new NO! must
be submitted where the operator of the
discharge changes In response. 40 CFR
122.61 requires’that permittees notify
EPA when a permit is transferred to a
new owner or operator. In addition. 40
CFR 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
facility must submit an NOl 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 4o2(1)(2) of the
CWA provides that EPA shall not
require a permit for discharges of storm
water runoff from mining operations or
oil and gas exploration, production.
processing or treatment operations. or
transmission 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)(llliii)
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 1106 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 art NPDES permit.
must submit an NOl. an individual
permit application, or participate in an
approved group application by rio 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

-------
41262
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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 122.28(c)(1)(iii).
EPA believes the 14-day time frame is
appropriate because of the risk
associated with such facilities. The
Agency also notes that facilities with a
reportable quantity release of a
hazardous substance or oil are required
to notify 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 NOl readily on hand.
Some commeriters 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 NO!.
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 NOl 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
dead!ine r the 48-hour deadline for
facilities that commence construction
after October 1. 1992. is not precluded
from submitting an NOt and being
authorized to discharge under the
general permits at a later date EPA
wants to clarify that where a discharger
has submitted an NOl 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 indica ted
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. bv.products.
or industrial machinery are e pcsed to
storm water 20
In response to these concerns, todays
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 acti ity from
their facility have been eliminated.
Non-Storm Water Discharges
The August lb. 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
compliance with a different NPDES
permit issued for the non-storm water
discharge EPA indicated that it was
taking this approach because these
general permits were not intended to
authorize process wastewater
discharges.
A number of commenters strongly
supported the prohibition or noted that
it appeared reasonable. However, a
number of comments addressing this
provision raised technical concerns that
certain non-storm water discharges are
commonly allowed to discharge via a
separate storm sewer or are otherwise
mixed with storm water discharges.
These comrnenters 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 waler disch.arges. 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 environmental risk. Therefore the
Agency has clarified that today s
permits authorize storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are mixed with discharges
from firelighiing activities, fire hydrant
flushing, potable water sources
including waterline t’lushings. landscape
irrigation drainage, routine exterior
building washdown which does not use
°The exclusion contained in para roph uI was,
however vacated and rem4nded io EP3. for furiher
proceedinqs VROC.. EP I Jo ‘iO— l]6T1 i9ih Cir
tune 4 19921 EPA inierpreis he ,‘itect of the Court
remand as requirins the , iteni.v in conuuci further
proceedun s io address ihe (.oiirt deci%tun rhus
EPA wuli noi require ihal faciliiues identified by
paraçraph kit wiihoui e pusure to ubmui storm
water appiucatuons until the . gu’nc his n.id the
opportunity to compiu ’te ,idditiutnai prot ,‘edings in a
manner conSistent with h.’ ‘Jinih Ciri .,.. ,iecicuun
.ind the provisions of set tRio 4i), ipII.TiRt il the
CWA

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41263
detergents. pavement washwaters
where spills or leaks of toxic or
hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been
removed) and detergents are not used.
air conditioning condensate (but not
including cooling water from cooling
towers, heat exchangers or other
sources), springs, uncontaminated
ground water, and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents provided that the non-
storm water component of the discharge
is identified in the pollution prevention
plan. In addition. the plan must identify
and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention
measures for each of the non-storm
water component(s) of the discharge
As a general matter. EPA believes
that where these classes of non-storm
water discharges are identified in a
pollution prevention plan and where
appropriate pollution prevention
measures are evaluated, identified and
implemented. they can be effectively
controlled under today’s permit. The
Agency also notes that it can request
individual permit applications for such
discharges where appropriate and
necessary The Agency is not requiring
that flows from firefighting activities be
identified in plans because of the
emergency nature of such discharges
coupled with their low probability and
the unpredictability of their occurrence.
The Agency notes that the approach in
today s permits taken for non-storm
water discharges is parallel to the
approach taken for non-storm water
discharges to large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
in its November 16. 1990 rulemaking (55
FR 47990) The non-storm water
discharges addressed in today’s permits
are similar to those addressed in the
November 16. 1990 rulemaking. although
several modifications to the 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
o er the generation of non-storm water
discharges on a site Fcr e’ ample.
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
nonsiorm water discharges that are
commonly expected from industrial
sites. The reference to spills is to ensure
that washwaters used to clean spills are
not flushed to the storm sewer and
directly to waters of the United States
Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits provided that the permits would
not relieve the permittee of reporting
requirements for releases of hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities established under 40 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 commeriters 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 obpected 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 sffective way io 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 minimiied in
accordance with the applicable storm
water pollution prevention plan for the
facility Where a release containing a
hazardous substance in an amounts
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 pre eni the reoccurrence of
such releases and to respond to such
releases as needed
The Agency has clarified that today $
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(dllt)
The Agency believes that this
approach will result in the same
ob ectives 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 lZtdt(2tttl excludes discharges thai
are ConhinuOuS or anticipated iniermuitent
discharges From a point source identified in an
IPDES permui From reporting requirements if the
duschar e of the hazardous substance results from
the contamination Ut storm water prouded chat the
storm water is not contaminated by an on siie spill
of a hazardous substance

-------
41264
Federal Register I vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / 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 permittee was not
required to do anything unless such a
release occurred. In response. EPA does
not intend to imply that discharges of
hazardous substances up to an
applicable reportable quantity are
acceptable in the sense that a discharger
should do nothing until discharging a
hazardous substance or oil in excess of
a reportable quantity The Agency notes
that any point source discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States
without a permit is prohibited under
section 301 of the CWA In addition.
today s permits do not establish numeric
effluent limitations for such storm water
discharges from industrial activities
(except for coal pile runoff). Rather. the
permits requires dischargers to develop
and implement best management
practices and pollution prevention
measures to reduce and/or control
pollutants in the discharge even in cases
where the discharge does not contain
hazardous substances or contains
hazardous substances at levels
significantly lower than reportable
quantities.
Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
At the heart of the August 18. 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 (8Cr) requirements in lieu
of numeric limitations Many of these
commenters indicated that pollution
prevention measures (e g.. source
reduction measures and elimination of
pollutant sources) were for many
industrial facilities the most practicable
and cost-effective approaches to
reducing pollutants in storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters supported
the flexibility that the proposed
requirements provided for developing
tailored plans and pollution prevention
strategies. Some of these commenters
indicated that this approach allowed
facilities to use their own expertise and
knowledge of the facilities and that
industrial operators were in the best
position to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention
strategies. Other commenters noted that
it was essential for facilities to take the
lead role in determining requirements
that are reasonable and necessary for
their facility. Others urged the Agency
to maintain flexibility to address unique
industry-specific or facility-specific
conditions. Several commenters
indicated that they believed that broad
effluent limitations or national
performance standards for pollution
prevention requirements were not
appropriate at this time and that
industry should be given flexibility to
establish specific pollution prevention
measures for their facilities
One commenter indicated that based
on experience at industrial sites, the
most effective means of controlling
pollutants in storm water was the
requirement for each permittee to
develop and implement a pollution
prevention plan. This commenter
indicated that the plan requirements in
the August 16. 1991 proposal appeared
to be both effective and enforceable, as
well as easily understood by the people
responsible for complying with the
general permit.
Several commenters indicated that
requirements to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention
measures should be limited to a subset
of all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. One commenter. while noting
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 limitation or other performance
standard. This commenter alternatively
suggested that only facilities that have
been shown to contribute significantly
to sluim 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 commeriter further suggested
that facilities should not be required to
implement pollution prevention
measures for storm water discharges
that contain pollutants at levels lower
than the concentrations provided in the
numeric limitation. One commenter
indicated that permittees should only be
required to develop pollution prevention
plans if monitoring data shows that
these are appropriate or necessary. A
mining company indicated that runoff
from an industrial facility may actually
be of better quality than the receiving
water and that a blanket requirement
that all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity prepare plans is not appropriate
In response. EPA notes that the CWA
requires NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity (see section 402(p)(2)(B)) In
addition, the CWA requires NPDES
permits for storm water discharges that
are significant contributors of pollutants
to waters of the United States or that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard (see section
402(p)(2j(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 permittees
The Agency notes that the
requirement to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention plans
is not the only option the Agency had
for establishing BAT/BCT requirements.
and that many NPDES permits
incorporate numeric limitations to
reflect application of BAT/BCT
requirements. However, the Agency
‘ in addii.on Ioday s permils esuibiish ,i numeric
eIfiueni limitation for coal pile runoff

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41265
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 waler
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 matenals; outdoor storage
of raw materials or products: outdoor
process activities: 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
‘revention strategies. the Agency also
is concerns that a PE evaluation, by
A more complete discussion of these potential
poliuisni source. can be lound in he Section 3 of
ihe Augual 18. 1991 draft fact sheets 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 nonsiructural 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 cornmenters urged EPA to
ensure that requirements for developing
and implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans were feasible.
particularly for small businesses. Some
commenters suggested that a less
resource-intensive approach should be
developed for smaller facilities. Other
commenters indicated that they thought
the requirements for plans were too
complex or burdensome, particularly for
small businesses and small
municipalities with industrial
facilities 24 A few cornmenters
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 16 1991 proposal
EPA ha. reserved the reguisiory deadlines for storm
water discharges associated with industrial
activities from facilities that are owned or operated
by a municipality with a pcpuiaiicn of 100 000 or
iea. other than discharges from dirporta
powerplanis or uncontrolled sanitary tenditlis (see
April 2. 1992. (57 FR 1i409t 1
EPA has determined that all components
of the storm water pollution prevention
plan required under today s permits are
necessary to reflect BATIBCT 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 art 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 ‘ ariaus 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 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
t5 See ‘4PDES Beet Mana emeni Practices
Cuidance Document EPA 1979 and Staff
Analysis of impiementirig Permitting Activities for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Induatriel
Activity EPA 1991

-------
Federal Register / VoL. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41266
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, todays 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 identi!y structural. vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures to limit erosion
and in a narrati e 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 fle’cibility 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 acti.uties. 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 iow.4rds
“traditional” industry and may not be
the most cost.elfective requirements for
their faciliiies 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 art 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 thai all
components of a storm water pollution
prevention plan outlined in today’s
permits are needed to comply with the
BAT/BCT standards of the CWA.
Industry comments regarding the level
of specificity of requirements were
mixed. A number of commenters
commended the Agency on its efforts to
promote fletibility 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 ,iddiiional
technical guidance could 4reatty 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 commeniers 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 commeriters urged EPA to
specify the objectives of the plans
without prescribing the means by which
the objectRes must be achieved je 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 pro ide
sufficient flexibility in meeting such
requirements as good housekeeping.
preventive maintenance. spill
prevention and response procedures.
and employee training. so that specific
procedures or actions are not
prescribed) Today s permits require the
development of plans that identify
potential sources of pollution which may
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 commenters indicated that
several provisions of the August 16 1991
general permits (such as certain
recordkeeping pros isions) appedred to
be redundant In response, ioday 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. while
noting that the concepts identified in the
plan were sound and important and
supporting the idezi 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 watcr pollution
pre .ention plans The provisions for
pollution prevention plans require that
permitteec specifically address eiQht
dtfferent 1% pes of measures and controls.
dS vell as meet requirements for a
pollution prevention team, identify
potential pollutant sources. conduct
comprehensive site compliance
e aluations 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 vanability in
facilities covered by today s permits
precludes the identification of universal
standards or practices that are
appropriate or can be implemented by
all permittees For examples. small
facilities where the entire facility is
covered by impervious structures may
not have areas where significant erosion
occurs. and may have limited space for
traditional storm water measures Other
facilities may have extensive areas with
significant erosion potential and/or
ore opportunities for traditional storm
ater management measures.
However the permit has been
modified to pro ide 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 tilter 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 thai the
permits should clarify the specific
factors. including processes employed.
engineering aspects. functions. costs of
controls. location, and age of faciIit
thai permittees should take into account
when developing pollution prevention
measures.
In response. todays permits require
that permittees consider the reIe ant
BAT dnd BCT factors when developin2
and implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans The following factors
are to be considered when evaluating
BAT requirements the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the process
employed: the engineering aspects of the
application of various types of control
techniques. process changes. the cost of
achieving such effluent reduction, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements)
The following factors are to be
considered when evaluating BCT
requirements: the reasonableness of the
relationship between the costs of
attaining a reduction in effluent and the
effluent reduction benefits derived the
comparison of the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from the
discharge from publicly owned
treatment works to the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from a class
or category of industrial sources. the age
of equipment and facilities involved the
process employed: the engineering
aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques process
changes: and non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements)
Other commeniers suggested thai
similar plans such as Spill Pre eniion
Control and Countermeasure (SPCCl or
BMP plans could subsiitute 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 noi
effective to have three different plans
covering safety. storm water pollution
prevention, and/or SPCC The felt that
these plans should be consolidated
Other program plans and
requirements such as those listed b
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

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41268
existing plans will help reduce the
burdens associated with their
development and implementation.
Pollution Prevention Team
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits contained a provision requiring
that plans identify a pollution
prevention committee of individuals
within the plant organization who are
responsible for developing the pollution
prevention plan and assisting the plant
manager in its implementation.
maintenance, and revision.
In today’s permits. the Agency has
changed the name of the committee to
Pollution Prevention Team.” The
Agency believes that the term “Team”
will better convey the purposes of the
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
en ironmental and safety and health
regulatory compliance, or that facility
owners or operators address regulatory
compliance matters
In response. the Agency believes that
it is critical for plans to identify those
employees who will be responsible for
implementing the various provisions
identified in the plan. EPA agrees that
the storm water pollution prevention
committee size will vary based on the
facility size and complexity. The Agency
agrees that in some situations it will be
appropriate for the ‘Team’ to be
comprised of one employee. Todays
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 creabon
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 todays 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 identifled, since such individuals
should gene:ally play a mapor 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 committee is
unnecessary and noted that most
individual NPDES permits do not require
such committees. In response, the
Agency believes that a pollution
prevention team is necessary for the
successful implementation of a source
control-oriented pollution prevention-
based approach. The Agency agrees that
most individual permits for process
wastewaters do not require the
identification of pollution prevention
measures. However, most individual
permits for process wastewaters take a
different approach to regulating
pollutant discharges. that of numeric
effluent limitations, and do not focus on
comprehensive source controls.
Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources
The August 16. 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.
Several industry commenters agreed
that successful pollution prevention
strategies must be based on an accurate
understanding of the pollution potential
of the site being considered.
Some commenters felt that the
requirement for the plan to include a
topographic map was too burdensome.
They indicated that a topographic map
would not be useful and suggested that
a site map would be adequate In
response to these comments. the Agency
is concerned about the confusion with
respect to how facilities intend to use
the topographic map As a result, to
simplify these requirements. today’s
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. 46 will
generally serve the purposes that a
topographic map would be used for in
the context of pollution prevention plan.
The agency also notes thai under the
August 16. 1991 draft general permits
facilities could utilize a site map as an
alternative to a topographic map. thus
todays 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 clarified in
today s permits that only the portions of
in today s permits, drainage site maps must
indicate an outline of the portions of the drainage
area of each storm waier outfall each existing
structural control measure to reduce poilutants ri
si,rm waler runoff, surface waler bodies locations
where significant matertaia are exposed to
precipitation locations where major spills or teaks
have occurred, and locations of the fueling stations
vehicle nd equipment maintenance andlor
cleaning area, ioading/unloadinq area locations
used for treatment, storage or dispo,al of wastes
liquid storage tanks processing areas and storage
areas

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 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 entering a storm drain.
Another commenter suggested that spills
and leaks into secondary containment
structures should not be listed, as the
presence of a secondary containment
system gives adequate notice that care
is exercised, and that this requirement
was unnecessary and unduly
burdensome.
In response. EPA recognizes that some
spills, such as those that occur inside
buildings that drain to a sanitary sewer.
are not potential sources of pollution to
storm water discharges. and thus do not
need to be identified in the storm water
pollution prevention plan. However, the
agency believes that spills to sumps or
secondary containment areas that
receive storm water discharges should
generally be identified in the storm
water pollution prevention plan because
such devices can overflow during large
or repeated storm events, or storm water
may be drained and discharged from
such devices. The Agency also believes
that it is important to identify spills that
occur on impervious surfaces that are
exposed to precipitation or that
otherwise drain to a storm drain even
when the spill is cleaned up before any
of it enters a storm drain. Listing such
events provides an indication of
potential pollutant sources that may
occur in the future, and helps direct
priorities for developing and
implementing spill response measures.
In response to the concerns raised in
these comments, the Agency has limited
this provision to significant spills and
leaks at areas that are exposed to
precipitation or that otherwise drain to a
storm water conveyance at the facility.
One commenter recommended that
spill prevention and response
procedures be deleted because EPCRA
and the Resources Conservation
Recovery Act (RCRA) already address
accidental releases Another commenter
suggested that the list of spills be
deleted and that the need for such a list
is adequately addressed by reportable
quantities, as spills of such size must be
reported and are already on file with the
government.
In response. the Agency wants to
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
objectives, and in general. do not
specifically consider the potential of
pollutant discharges in storm water or
controls for such pollutant discharged in
a comprehensive manner. 27 28 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 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to.Know Ad (EPCRA) (also
known as titie Iii of the Superfund Amendment,
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986) requires
operators of certain facilities that manufacture
import, process or otherwise use Listed toxic
chemicals to report annually their releases of those
chemicals to 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 primary
SIC code of 20 through 39 and have iO or more fuli.
lime employees must report Seci,on 313 oF EPCRA
focuses on the annual reporting of releazas and not
on the control of such reieases
“Subtitle C of the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act IRCRA) authorizes EPA to estsblish
requiremsnts for faciiities that generate. irsnsport
or trest. store or dispose of materials that meet the
regulatory definition of hazardous wastes The
RCRA Subtuile C regulations include requirements
for certain generator. and treatment, storage. and
disposal fsciliiies to develop and impiement
contingency plans and emergency procedures to
minimiza hazards to human h slth or the
environment from fires explosions or any
unplanned release of hazardous waste or hazardous
waSte const,iuenta to sir. sotl or surface water in
general RCRA does not address materials thai are
not onaidered to be wastes, and does not address
wastes that are not reaulated as hazardous wastes
address releases of maierials that are
not classified as hazardous substances
or oil, or releases of hazardous
substances or oil that are less than
reporting quantities The Agency
believes that many spills leaks and
releases that are not considered to be
reportable quantities of a hazardous
substance can still contribute significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water
discharges.
One commenter indicated that
numerous local. State. and/or Federal
spiil reporting requirements already in
place require spill reporting and
recommended that any spill reports
prepared in accordance with these
existing spill reporting regulations be
referenced or attached to the storm
water plan.
In response. the Agency agrees that
these spill reports can, in some cases.
provide useful information for
identifying potential pollutant sources.
and encourages permittees to review
such information when developing and
modifying plans. However, the Agency
is not specifically requiring that such
information be included in the plan in
order to allow the permittee to best
determine the appropriate form of such
information.
One commenter requested
clarification of whether the term
“significant spills” included spills that
were not in excess of reporting
quantities established under section 311
of the CWA or section 102 of CERCLA
In response. EPA notes that the
definition section of the permit contains
a definition of ‘significant spills that
includes, but is not limited to reieases
of oil or hazardous subsiances 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 gency
believes that it is appropriate to include
certain releases that are not releases of
oil or hazardous substances in excess of
reportable quantities for several
reasons The materials that are
considered hazardous substances do not
identify all materials that can cause
water quality impacts In addition.
discharges of hazardous substances in
amounts less than reportable quantities
can cause water quality impacts Other
significant spills include spills that could
potentially add significant amounts of
pollutants. Such listing should address
other materials in addition to materials
that are listed as hazardous substance
or as oil. In addition, instances of
chronically repeated smaller spills can
constitute significant spills if such spills
taken together. add significant amounts
of pollutants to storm water discharges
Another commenter requested that
EPA clarify whether the list of so’lls

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No . 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41270
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 addre8s
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,
todays permits provide only that such
data be identified in the NOI and made
available only when the permitting
authority requests it.
One commenter requested
clarification of whether sampling data
collected during the term of the permit
must be summarized in the plan. In
response. EPA is clarifying that
sampling data collected during the term
of the permits must be summarized in
the storm water pollution prevention
plan.
One commenter urged the Agency to
examine requirements for the narrative
description of significant materials that
have been treated, stored, or disposed.
The commenter suggested that a
requirement for a materials storage and
handling report for all chemicals and
compounds listed for the facility’s
effluent guidelines under the NPDES
program and for other chemicals used
and byproducts formed at the site be
added to the narrative description of
significant materials and to the risk
identification and assessment/material
inventory portion of the permit.
In response. the Agency wants to
clarify that the inventory of exposed
materials is intended to ,iddress
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 commenter indicated
that a three year period for this
requirement was too short. and that
many sites have been used for purposes
other than those for which the sites are
currently operated. This commenter
suggested that any historical 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
period is reasonable and does not
impose excessive burdens for collecting
information on permittees. The Agency
notes that the three year period is
consistent with similar requirements for
individual applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(i) (B) and
(0) and general NPDES records
retention requirements under 40 CFR
122.21(p) and 40 CFR l12.7(d)(8)
The August 16, 1991 draft permits
proposed that the plan provide a
prediction of flow and an estimate ot 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 coinmenters requested
clarification of what constitutes a
“reasonable potential For containing
significant amounts of pollutants ‘ One
commeriter recommended that the
“reasonable potential” language be
removed.
In response. EPA believes that
permittees can evaluate whether areas
of the facility have a reasonable
potential for containing significant
amounts of pollutants based on a
consideration of qtructur c .ind
activities in that area 1)1 ‘he ’ t.irilit
Activities such as loading and unloading
of materials, outdoor storage of raw
materials or products. outdoor process
activities, outdoor equipment or vehicle
maintenance activities, dust or
particulate generating processes. illicit
connections or management practices.
and waste disposal will generally have a
reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants in
storm water discharges. Process or
storage equipment which is exposed to
precipitation or structures such as metal
roofs can have a reasonable potential
for containing significant amounts of
pollutants Significant amounts of
pollutants would include pollutant
concentrations or unit loadings abo e
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. Se eral 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
pullui nts from getting pollutants unto

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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 Todays permits
establish monitoring requirements for
targeted industrial activities to provide
more detailed information regarding the
nature and extent of pollutants in storm
water discharges from these facilities.
One commenter indicated that the
requirements to provide drainage maps.
a narrative description of material
management practices and control
measures. and a history of significant
spills were too extensive, and that some
dischargers would find it preferable to
submit individual permit applications 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 significant spills and leaks can
be obtained from facility maintenance
records, reporting records and
dtscussions with employees EPA
e cpecis that many facilities will hate
existing site maps indicating the major
features of the facility or will be able to
develop such maps based art 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 artivltv 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
equiremerits in todays permits are
ornparable 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
NOt application
.‘.ieosures 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: recordkeeping and internal
reporting procedures: and non-storm
water discharges. As discussed earlier
in today’s notice. these requirements
have been rearranged and reordered to
provide additional clarity and minimize
confusion.
One commenter suggested that 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 thai
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 1acilit
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
sourcrs to contribute pollutants to storm
water under various climatic conditions
including arid conditions Pollution
prevention act:vities such as risk
identification. and developing an
assessment/material inventory are
important in arid regions to identify

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41272
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. todays 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 pollLtants 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 waler (such as for a p;oce3 -or as
an irrigation sourceI, inlet controls (such
as oil/water separatorsl. 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 !J ited 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. Todays
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 waler reuse is the most cost
effective stcrm water management
measure.
The August 18, lY9l draft permits
provided that permittees are to certify
that the facility’s storm water discharge
(or conveyance) has been tested for the
presence of non-storm water discharges.
This provision is similar to a provision
in the requirements for individual permit
applications that requires a certification
that all outfalls have been tested or
evaluated for the presence of non-storm
water discharges (see 40 CFR
122.26(c)(1 )(i)(C)).
One commenter recommended that
the certification requirement for non-
storm waler discharges be consistent
with the language used for individual -
permit applications for storm water
discharges. Another cominenter
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 perrnittees 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 16. 1991 draft
permits. the Agency inadvertently
limited the certification to testing. and
did not specify evaluation as a method
for certification, although such
evaluations were discussed earlier in
the fact sheet. The Agency has modified
todays 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 permittees may either test or
evaluate their facility for the presence of
non-storm water discharges. This
approach provides flexibility for
complying with the certification
requirement and does not require
permittees to locate floor plans. or
drainage maps where they can inspect
storm water discharge points or conduct
evaluations on another basis The
Agency believes that most facilities can
evaluate or test for the presence of non-

-------
Federal Register / vol. 57, No 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41273
storm water discharges in a manner that
is not onerous or overly costly. For
example. at many facilities, the
discharger can observe for flow in
downstream portions of storm drains
during dry weather conditions when
sources that generate non-storm water
are operating or when water from a hose
or other source is added to potential
entry ways. such as floor drains, to the
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 commenter suggested that the
permits contain a limited waiver for
small businesses faced with the costs of
removing illicit connections. Another
commenter suggested that costs to
correct improper connections may be
prohibitive for small businesses. In
response. the CWA requires that point
source discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States are illegal
except as authorized by an NPDES
permit. EPA cannot waive this
requirement for small businesses. Non.
storm water discharges to waters of the
United States that are not authorized by
an NPDES permit that establishes
appropriate technology-based and water
quality-based requirements are in
violation of the CWA. Today’s permit
only establishes requirements for a
specific set of non-storm water
discharges Addressing requirements for
other classes of non-storm water
discharges in today’s permits is beyond
the scope of today’s permits. Although
today’s permits authorize several
specific classes of non-storm water
discharges that are in compliance with
pollution prevention measures, today’s
permits cannot authorize all non-storm
water discharges from small businesses.
Thus. facilities with non-storm water
discharges to their storm water
conveyance system that are not
authorized by today’s permit are
required to either obtain an NPDES
permit fcr such discharge or eliminate
the discharge.
One commenter noted that EPA does
not require discharge permits for “total
retention” systems and requested that
“A more complete diacuuion of method. to
identify illicit connection, can be found in the draft
‘Manual of Practice Identiticaiton of lilicti
Connection. US EPA September 1990
EPA define a design storm to determine
whether a retention system could
qualify. The commenier 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
units necessary in the treatment system
The requirements in today’s permits for
storm water pollution prevention plans
do not require the discharger to provide
storage for storm water. Rather. the
pollution prevention measures that are
identified in today’s permits can be
implemented regardless of storm size.
and therefore, an exemption for
discharges that exceed a specific design
storm is not necessary
One commenter requested
clarification of who certifies that storm
water discharges have been tested for
the presence of non-storm water
discharge and how the certification is
made. In response. part V.G of today’s
permits specify signatory requirements
for certifications. including the
certification regarding non-storm water
discharges.
One commenter suggested that EPA
should specify a frequency for testing
storm sewers for illicit connections and
recommended a frequency of more than
once per year. In response. the Agency
believes that conducting the testing or
evaluation required by today’s permits
once per permit term may be
appropriate for some facilities where
new sources of non-water are not added
at the facility Thus. today s permits do
not establish a frequency of testing of
once per year
One commenter suggested that smoke
tests should be listed as a method for
identifying non-storm water discharges
to separate storm sewers In response.
the Agency has specifically not listed
smoke tests because of the potential to
misapply such tests in evaluating the
presence of non-storm water discharges
to storm sewers. Smoke testing (blowing
smoke from a downstream point in a
pipe up through the pipe) can be a useful
technique for detecting storm drains to
sanitary sewers. However, smoke tests
are often ineffective at finding non-
storm water discharges to separate
storm sewers. This is because 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 thai
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
implementtng act:vities identified in the
storm water pollution prevention plan or
otherwise responsible for storm water
management at all le els 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 acti tties 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 runoffl measures
The Agency notes that the greater

-------
41274
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
overlap between measures used at
mining sites and those used at
construction sites generally involves
erosion and sediment measures and
storm water management measures. The
AgencY believes that the requirements
in today’s permits are appropriate for
storm water discharges from mining
operations that are covered by today’s
permits. and recommends that where
such operations are similar to
construction acti ities plans emphasize
sediment and erosion controls and storm
water management measures Again, the
Agency wants to clarify that dischargers
may seek alternative permit
requirements by submitting an
individual permit application or
participating in a group application.
A number of State and local agencies
indicated that they generally opposed
diverting storm water to sewage
treatment plants as an option for
preventing pollutants in storm water.
These commenters indicated that efforts
should be focussed on controlling
pollutants in storm water at the source.
and that the option should be limited to
discharges containing significant
amounts of pollutants Treatment plants
serving a separate sanitary sewer
system were 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
di ersion of storm water discharges to
sewage treatment plants was only
raised as an option for consideration in
the fact sheet to the August l6. 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 siorm water into the
sanitary sewer s stem
Cw7’prehensi% e Site Compliance
Et uluationi.’!oniwring
The August 16. 1991 draft permits
provided ihat storm water pollution
prevention plans are to include
provisions for qualified plant personnel
to inspect designated equipment and
plant areas. In addition. the August 16.
1991 draft permits required an annual
site inspection to verify that the
description of potential pollutant
sources in the plan is up to date and
accurate and that the pollution
prevention measures identified in the
plan are being implemented and are
adequate
On April 2. 1992. (57 FR 11394) EPA
published final regulatory modifications
at 40 CFR l22.44(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
t.oncern are detected I luwe er se i’ral
commenters requested that EPA clarify
the differences between the two
inspection provisions of the August 16.
1991 draft permits. Several of these
commenters indicated that the
requirements appeared to be duplicative
and suggested 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 40 CFR
122 44 )ifl4) for inspections in ‘WOES
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 pre ention 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 ihal periodic
routine inspections of certain equipment
or areas of ihe 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 of a
more intensive comprehensive site
compliance evaluation
Several commenters requested
clarification of what constituted
qualified personnel for the purpose of
conducting comprehensive site
compliance evaluations and inspections
In response. the Agency is hesitant to
define specific plant officials 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 e . aluations the personnel
conducting the e aluation must be
knowledgeable of the contents and
objectives of the facility s storm water
pollution prevention plan and the
permit. In addition. the personnel must
have sufficient knowledge of the
operations at the facility to evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures and to identify potential
sources of pollutants to storm water
discharges In addition, the personnel
should generally be key members of the
storm water pollution prevention team
identified in the plan
Some commenters expressed concerns
about monitoring or inspection
requirements for inactive mining sites
The April 2. 1992 rule provides that
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from inactive mining operations
may where annual inspections are
impracticable. require certification once
every three years by a Registered
Professional Engineer (PE) that the
facility is in compliance with the permit
or alternative requirements Today s
permits provide that where annual site
inspections are shown in the plan to be
impracticable for inactive mining sites
due to remote location and
inaccessibility of the site.
comprehensi’.e site compliance
evaluations are to be conducted at least
once e erv three years EPA hds
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 c.an 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 such PE certification
requirements can be useful tools in
ensuring that targeted facilities have
adequate and appropriate storm water
pollution prevention measures in place
One commenter recommended a
minimum frequency of inspection of
once per three years as this frequency is
consistent with SPCC requirements In
response. the .‘ encv 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 ii 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 rhirci hvre
is a wide variety of potential pollutant
sources to storm water dischar2es such
as material handling activitii s and
loading/unloading activities that i an
significantly change with time at dO
industrial facility
4dd,t,ono/ Requirements lot EPCR I
Section 373 Faciliues
EPA identified storm water dischdrges
associated with industrial acti’.itv from
facilities that are subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA section 313
for water priority chemicals as priority
discharges for targeted special
requirements in the August 16. 1991 draft
general permits The Agency requested
comments on two major approaches for
developing special requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial acti ity 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 frequenc
of greater than twice per year Under
Option B. the general permit would noi
contain special pollution pre ention
plan requirements
Targeting EPCR.4 Section 313 Fa ’ir.
A number of commenters addres d
the issue of whether storm %%ater
discharges from facilities subject to
reporting requirements under EPCRA
section 313 for water priority chemicals
should be subject to special conditions
A number of commenters generaU
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 b
the facilities and the significant amounts
of chemicals handled by these facilities
Seveial Lommenters suggested that the
special requirements should apply to dil
facilities which manage toxic chemicals
regardless of whether the are subject to
EPCRA section 313
However, some commenters
questioned the appropriateness of
targeting storm water discharges from
EPCRA section 313 facilities for speci.il
requirements A major concern of thest’
facilities was that facilities subject to
FPCRA section 313 requirements do not
necessarily have significant amounts of

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41276
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 pre ention plan
requirements in today s permits are
appripriate for facilities with large
amounts of EPCRA section 313 water
priority chemicals for several reasons.
First. the Agency has identified leaks
and spills oi 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)J 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’i.posed to precipitation
may release pollutants if basic accepted
engineering practices are not employed.
For example FPAs ‘Hazardous Waste
Tank Risk Analysis” EPA. 1986.
indicates that the principal causes of
reported tank failures are external
corrosion. installation problems.
structural failure. spills, and overfills
due to operator errors, and ancillary
equipment failure, and that inadequate
practices, including those obser%ed 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 inadt quate management practices
allow significant releases to continue
undetected until the release becomes
obvious. Information from the Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) data base and the Pollution
Incident Reporting System (PIRS) data
base indicates that operator error.
structural failures, and corrosion were
both significant causes of releases for
aboveground tanks and failures of
ancillary equipment is a significant
cause of releases from above ground
systems These data bases indicate that
85 percent to 90 percent of more than
2.000 reported incidents of the spills of
oil or hazardous substances from
dflCilldry equipment resulted from
failures of piping systems (including
failures of pumps flanges. couplings.
interconnecting hoses dnd valves)
Some of the most significant sources of
pollutants at these facilities can be
attributed to intermittent events, such as
significant spills or leaks. The Agency
believes that a preventive approach that
does not wait for large spills or leaks to
occur is the most sensible approach and
is consistent with the goals of the CWA
as well as the pollution prevention
emphasis of the storm water program.
Second. the Agency believes that the
management practices identified in the
additional requirements for EPCRA 313
facilities are typically employed at well
operated facilities that use large
amounts of toxic chemicals. The Agency
notes that industry practices have been
developed in response to concerns about
spills and other health and safety issues.
Based on the Agency’s evaluation of
material management practices. the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
identify specific types of management
practices that reflect the best available
technology for facilities which use large
amounts of toxic materials. Today’s
permits are intended to reflect the Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable. The Agency believes that
the additional requirements in today’s
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
are consistent with the purposes.
objectives, and content of a significant
number of industry standards. 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. 3 ’ Many industry
30 Examples of industry siandards evaluated in
this rulemaking include ASME/ANSI B3 1 3
(Chemical Plant and Peiroteum Refinery Piping)
ASME/ANSI 896 i Welded Aluminum.AlIoy
Storage Tanks). ASME/ANSI B96 I (Welded
Aluminum .AlIoy Siorage Tanks). NFPA 30
(Flammable and Combusiible Liquid Codes). NACE
Recommended Practice (Standard Recommended
Practice—Control of External Corrosion on Meiaiiic
Buned. Partially Boned or Submerged Liquid
Storage System.): API Standard 820 (Recommended
Rules for Design and Construciton of Large.
W.ided. Low.Pressurs Storage Tanks). API
Standard 630 (Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage I.
APi Recommended Practice 851 tCaihodic
Protection of Above-Ground Peiroleum Storage
Tanksl. API Recommended Practice 652 (Lining of
Above.Cround Petroleum Stora .e Tank Bottoms).
API Standard 653 ITank inspection. Repair.
‘ lierai,on. and Reconairuction) and API 2008 (Safe
Operation of Inland Bulk Plants)
3i Examples of requirements under other Federal
programs evaluated in this rulemaking include
underground storage tank requirements 40 CFR
280t Occupational Safety and Health
Administration general ,sfeiy and health
reguiattona for flammable and combustible
surrounding tank. (49 CFR 1910) Department of
Trisnsporiaiion requ.remenls for oil pipelines (49
CFR 195). the Oepartmeni of lnterinr requ.rementa
for the containment and collection ul nil discharges
from offshore drilling (30 CFR .!50t
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 thai
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 whtch
dentifies facilities subiect 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 nsk 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 factltties generally
maintain control programs that include
release prevention procedures. training
in pollution prevention, spill prevention
and cleanup, and other appropriate
management practices. Several of these
commenters assumed that EPA was
targeting EPCRA section 313 facilities
because the Agency believed that they
were not careful with the materials they
handle.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57 . No 175 I Wednesday . September 9. 1992 / Notices
t1 fl —
.*L ., I’
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 con’imenters 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 EPCRA section 313 is
based on the amount of toxic chemical
manufactured. processed or otherwise
used per year. and that it was possible
for some facilities to meet this
requirement with a relatively low
average inventory level of perhaps less
than 500 pounds.
In response. the Agency believes that
the threshold established by EPCRA
section 313 represents a group of
facilities that is better for targeting the
special requirements of todays 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 commenters 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
commenters. First, the Agency believes
that large spills or releases that are
generally associated with releases of a
hazardous substance or oil in excess of
reportable quantities under 40 CFR parts
110. 117 or 302 are only one potential
source of pollutants at EPCRA section
313 facilities. Other potential sources of
pollutants at these facilities include
chronic leaks, smaller spills.
management of containers and storage
and/or use of chemicals in solid form
These potential sources can contribute
significant amounts of pollutants that
are nonetheless below reportable
quantities under 40 CFR parts 110 117 or
302. Second. as discussed abote 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. Without 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
neces ery to minimize the discharge of
toxic chemicals in storm water
discharges. Rather, such low.frequencv
monitoring requirements are only a oart
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 io’cic
chemicals are not being released in
storm water discharges Third
conditions at EPCRA section 313
facilities can change with time. and
operator errors. structural failures and
corrosion can lead to failures of process
handling and storage equipment used for
EPCRA water priority chemicals which
result in the release of toxic chemicals
to storm water discharges Such releases
can continue undetected until the
release becomes obvious and are not
necessarily linked to past releases. The
Agency believes that a pre enti’.e
approach that does not wait for spills or
other releases to occur is the most
sensible approach and is consistent with
the goals of the CWA as well as the
pollution prevention emphasis of the
See Hazardous Waste Tank Risk Anaiviis
EPA i988

-------
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 cornmenter 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 waler quality impacts.
Facilities that have released low levels
of toxic chemicals one year can have
significantly larger releases in
subsequent years due to spills, leaks
which have developed from older
equipment. or changes in management
practices. Thus. over a longer time
period, such as five or ten years. more
than six percent of the facilities may
have releases of greater than 1.000
pounds per year of toxic chemicals
reporied in their storm water discharges.
The Agency does not believe that 6
percent of the facilities is a trivial
number when considering such large
reli ases of toxic chemicals. The Agency
also recognizes that many. if not most.
EPCRA section 313 facilities did not
have actual monitoring data to establish
their 1989 estimates of releases of toxic
chemicals to storm water. The Agency
believes that this could have caused
significant under reporting of toxic
chemical releases. The Agency does not
agree with the commenter’s argument
that only those facilities which
monitored their storm water discharges
prior to 1989 pursuant to an NPDES
permit 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 for 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 subject 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 tess 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 te g. a
chemical is deleted from the list of toxic
chemicals, the threshold .imount of
chemicals is raised. or facilities within
SIC 20—39 are exempted). the :\ encv
wants to clarify that it will not require
facilities which are not subject to
reporting requirements under the newly
restricted requirements tinder EPCRA
section 313 to comply with the pe Lii
requirements for storm w,itpr disr.h.ir ’s
in today’s permits. While the Agency
recognizes that discharges from these
facilities were considered in developing
today’s permits. it believes that this
approach will minimize confusion and
address concerns that special
requirements would no longer be
required at such facilities. The agency
also notes that it may consider the
factors that lead to the decision to
restrict reporting requirements under
EPCRA section 313 in the same manner
as it would with respect to the special
requirements of today s permits.
Other commenters requested that EPA
clarify the applicability of the special
requirements in the storm water general
permits for facilities that met the
threshold requirements of EPCRA
section 313 during some years. but did
not meet the requirements in other years
(even though the EPCRA section 313
thresholds did not change). One
commenter indicated that continuing
special NPDES requirements for
facilities that have reduced their use of
EPCRA section 313 chemicals removed
the incentive for the facilit to reduce
their toxic chemicals
In response. EPA wants to clarify that
permittees that had to report releases
under EPCRA section 313. but during the
term of the permit have modified their
industrial practices such that they no
longer manufacture. process or
otherwise use EPCRA section 313 water
priority chemicals onsite in amounts
that exceed the applicable thresholds
under EPCRA section 313. are not
subject to the special requirements of
today’s permit after reductions in use
have been made. The Agency also
wants to clarify that facilities that meet
the EPCRA section 313 thresholds for
the first time during the term of the
permit will be required to comply with
the additional requirements in today’s
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
three years after the date they are first
required to 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 water resources
The Agency wants to clarify that the
speci.il requirements in todays permits

-------
Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
412’9
for facilities that are subiect to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements only
apply to areas of the facilities where
EPCRA section 313 chemicals are
managed With respect to products
made of polystyrene, the Agency wants
to clarify that the feedstock for
polystyrene styrene. is a EPCRA section
313 chemical. However. polt stvrene.
which results from the polymerization of
the monomer styrene. is not a EPCRA
section 313 water priority chemical. The
Agency notes there are significant
chemical and physical differences
between polystyrene and its monomer.
styrene. The Agency agrees that
polystyrene has much less potential to
contribute pollutants to waters of the
United States (other than in the form of
floatables such as litter or improperly
disposed pellets) then styrene and
believes that styrene should be managed
in a way to eliminate contamination to
storm water
One commenter indicated that many
facilities are required to report under
section 313 because they have ammonia
refrigeration systems or chlorine used
for disinfection, and the nature of the
use of these chemicals poses a very
limited potential for discharge of
pollutants through storm water In
response. the Agency notes that
significant spills or releases of such
materials can result in significant water
quality impacts. As discussed in more
detail below, the Agency belie es the
Agency has added sufficient flexibility
to the requirements of toda s permits to
allow facilities to de elop ana
implement pollution prevention
strategies that are appropriate and are
not overly burdensome for such
situations
One commenter noted that some
facilities may use one or more section
313 water priority chemicals in excess of
the 10.000 pound threshold, but use other
section 313 water priority chemicals 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 Lhe facility must report
for (e.g. those toxic chemicals managed
in amounts in excess of 10.000 pounds)
are used. In response. the Agency want
to clarify that the special requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities in
today’s permits only apply to those
portions of a facility where toxic
chemicals that a facility must report
releases for under EPCRA section 313
are managed. The Agency notes
however, that 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 expressed concern
thdt the special requirements placed
unnecessary burdens on facilities that
manage their toxic materials indoors
Other commenters suggested that EPA
provide incentives for industries to
eliminate exposure of raw materials and
EPCRA section 313 toxic chemicals to
precipitation.
In response. the special requirements
for storm water pollution prevention
plans at facilities that are subject to
EPCRA section 313 for section 313 water
priority chemicals primarily focus on
areas of the facility where equipment
used for the management. storage and
processing of section 313 water priority
chemicals is exposed to precipitation or
can otherwise contribute pollutants to a
storm drainage system. The Agency
believes that the burdens associated
with the requirements of today’s permit
are significantly reduced for facilities
that manage (including loading and
unloading activities) their toxic
chemicals in buildings or under cover
such that there is no exposure to
precipitation and where the floor
drainage in the building is known to be
segregated from the storm water
collection system The Agency believes
that this approach provides incentives
For facilities to manage toxic chemicals
in a way that ensures there is no
exposure to precipitation
EPCR.4 Section 373 Fcc!/ztles Types of
Controls
With respect to the two approaches
for establishing permit conditions.
Options A and B. comrnenters expressed
a wide diversity of opinions. Some
commenters favored the design
standards approach of Option A These
commenters provided a number of
reasons for this support Some
commenters indicated that secondary
containment and other measures are art
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 indicated that this
approach would reward companies that
have already installed such controls by
reducing monitoring and reporting
requirements. Other commenters
indicated that this approach promoted
pollution prevention measures and
provided a check on runoff before it is
discharged. Another commenter
indicated that requirements for
containing storm water and monitoring
each discharge event were necessar to
ensure water quality standards were
met One commenier indicated that
design standards were necessar
because the acute WET limitation b
itself, underestimated the true
environmental risks of storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters favored the
performance standards approach of
Option B. These commenters indicated
that performance standards provide
flexibility to industry, and allowed
industry to pursue the most cost-
effective control approach. Some of
these commenters felt that this approach
would better allow for consideration 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 costs of secondar
containment. Several commenters
indicated that they viewed design
standards as inefficient, ineffective
methods for reducing pollutants.
In addition, some commenters urged
the Agency to adopt an alternative
approach. A number of cornmenters
expressed their belief that both
approaches were excessive or other ise
inappropriate Some commenters
indicated that they thought that
pollution prevention measures (without
a WET limitation) were adequate and
that an effluent limitation defeated the
purpose of a plan to eliminate or reduce
sources of pollutants Several
commenters suggested thai dtschargers
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. Todays permits
provide targeted pollution prevention
plan requirements that have been
designed to address storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activities that are subtect to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements for
water priority chemicals These
additional plan requirements have been
designed to provide a reasonable

-------
41280
!ederal Register I Vol . 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
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 todays notice.
todays permits establish targeted
monitoring requirements for EPCRA
section 313 facilities where storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity come into contact with any
equipment. tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a 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 ideritif 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 Agenc feels that this approach
has several advantages and can lead to
the achievement of the goals articulated
in the August 15 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 e aluation 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 thai triggers additional
evaluation of pollutant sources at the
facility and of pollution prevention
measures.
WET Lirnitot:on
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 ifl storm water suffer
greatLy at concentrations much lower
than acute ioxicity levels based on
continuous exposure One commenter
indicated that it %as meaningless to
require secondar containment without
requirements for testing water
dischar2ed from the structure or effluent
limitations This commenter implied that
even with a requirement to provide
containment, facilities could still
discharge contaminated storm water.
The commenter indicated that if a
facility properly implements an
appropriate storm water pollution
prevention plan. it will be virtually
impossible for pollutants From the
facility to contaminate storm water from
the facility.
Several commenters thought it was
premature and inappropriate that
technology-based effluent limits be
established for storm water discharges
These commenters raised a number of
concerns about the WET limitation.
Several of these commenters contended
that EPA did not have adequate data at
this time to demonstrate the proposed
WET limitation could 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 diachargers 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 cpmmenters 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.
todays 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.
Tox,c,y Reduction Evaluations
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits provided that facilities that are
subject to the Wet effluent limitation
that detected acute WET in their storm
water discharge and that where notified
by the Director were required to conduct
a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE).
Several commenters objected to the
requirement to condur.t an expensive
toxicity reduction evaluations (TRE)
without more research into the methods
to identify sources of toxicity to storm
water. methods to reduce toxicity in
storm water and applicability oF current
TRE procedures to storm water
discharges Consistent with these
concerns, another commenter indicated
that industry has little experience with
conducting TREs for storm water
discharges. One commenter indicated
that if a discharge is found to fail the
WET test. it should be allowed the
opportunity to implement a storm water
pollution plan and/or conduct additional
WET tests before undergoing a formal
toxicity reduction evaluation.
In response to concerns raised about
conducting formal TREs. the Agency has
modified todays permits to provide that
a formal IRE 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 facility will need to pursue
a treatment strategy In addition, the
approach taken in today s permits
provides facilities with an opportunity
to develop and implement pollution
prevention strategies prior to the
October 1. 1995. This provides
discharges with an opportunity to
implement site-specific and innovative
measures to reduce toxicity In addition.
this approach recognizes the difficulties

-------
Federal Register I Vol 57. No 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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,
todays permits do not require that such
offisie 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
v ater priority chemicals are managed.
The first type of areas was where liquid
section 313 water priority chemicals are
stored and storm water comes into
contact with equipment. tanks.
containers or other vessels used for such
storage The second type of areas was
truck and rail care loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals. The provisions
of the August 16. 1991 draft general
permits required secondary containment
structures to be sufficiently impervious
to contain spilled section 313 water
priority chemicals until they can be
removed or treated The August 16. 1991
draft general permits requested
comment on specifying that secondary
containment structures for such areas
provide sufficient excess holding
capacity for the contents of the largest
container in the drainage area plus an
allowance for drainage from a 25 year.
24 hour storm.
A number of commenters supported
the concepts of secondary containment
for targeted areas of facilities which
ianage toxic chemicals. One
ommenter urged EPA to require
secondary containment for water
priority chemicals at all sites, indicated
that earthen dikes are easily made.
relatively inexpensive, easily
maintained and can usually be created
altered or removed within a day
Another commenter indicated that
secondary containment for toxic
chemicals is 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 commenters
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
Commenters gave numerous examples of
alternative design i,olumes for containment units
One commenter indicated that industry often
develops Its own design standard for example the
petroleum industry has developed a number of
standards including a standard that bermed areas
must contain liquid contents but not be greater than
8 feet high A large chemical industry trade
association indicated that most company guidelines
require containment systems that are capable of
holding the contents of the largest tank within the
containment area A number of other industrial
commenters indicated that they had similar
guidelines Conimenter, indicaued thai containmeni
systems for flammable liquids were expressly
designed to conform to the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 30 code which states that dike
walls should contain the potential liquid Contents
and be less than 5 Feet tall Some commenters
anticipated that expanding existing conia lnment
structures would create conflicts with theS foot
maximum wall height specified by the NFPA 30
code Several commenters indicated that many
existing containment systems do not comply with
any specific volumetric requirements
containment systems but with
alternative control strategies These
commenters suggested altern,alives such
as requirements to develop and
implement spill response slraiegiec to
reduce the size of the spill provide
drainage systems 10 isoldte spills or
other BMP requirements Some
commenters raised specific concerns
regarding containment requirements for
truck and rail car loading and unloading
areas for liquid section 313 water
priority chemicals Some commenters
indicated that drip and/or spill sump
systems with high level alarms dre 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. todays 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 arc stored or loading and!
or unloaded Todays permit provides
that liquid storage areas and truck and
rail car loading and unloading areas for
liquid section 313 water priorit
chemicaLs must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals For
liquid storage areas appropriate
measures to minimize dischdrges of
section 313 chemicals rna 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 will 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
today s notice. today’s permits also
require chat 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 art approach to minimize the
discharge of section 313 water priority
chemicals
In pro iding 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-v ear. 24-hour storm. The
additional flexibility provided by
today s permits will ensure that this
pro ision 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 %htch currently meet the
standard At the same time, this
approach addresses concerns regarding
facilities where secondary containment
measures are not economically
achievable Under today’s permits, these
facilities may implement alternative
approaches to controlling pollutants in
their storm water discharges in lieu of
secoridar containment.
EPCR.4 Section 313 Facilities. Other
Concerns
One commenter indicated that the
requirement in the August 16. 1991 draft
permits that permittees either take
immediate corrective action or shut
down a unit 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
riot 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
Untied 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 commeriter 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
comrnenters indicated that integrity
testing was a viable alternative to
containment. One commenter indicated
that integrity testing should be required
at reasonable intervals, and indicated
that such testing is not an alternative to
containment as most spills are the result
of human error, not mechanical failure
One commenter indicated that many
local and State standards exist for
integrity testing for tanks and piping.
In response to comments, the Agency
recognizes 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 commenters supported
the requirement that plans for EPCRA
section 313 facilities be certified by a
registered PE. Some of these
commenters indicated thai this
approach would dllow the Agency to
incorporate additional flexibility into
some provisions of the permit, while still
ensurins that the obtectives 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 beir.g
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 thai 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
htstoricaily been unable to monitor
themselves. One commenter indicated
that only a few registered PEa work for
the chemical industry or many
manufacturing industries, and suggested
that the permits provide that emplo ees
other than registered PEs be allowed o
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 io certify compliance based on
information provided by his or her staff
in lieu of a registered PE certification
One commenter recognized that a PE
would be qualified to certify that
secondary containment is designed and
constructed in accordanc’ with gooc
engineering practices. However, most
PEs have no special qualifications to
certify certain other major elements of
the plan. such as training, and the
pollution prevention committee Another
commenter 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. Fitst.
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 / Vol 57 Jo. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41283
ensure ddequate implementation of the
plan requirements
Second the Agencvs experience with
the SPCC program indicates that PE
certifications can be a useful component
of a spill prevention program for
facilities that manage large amounts of
liquids dnd that PEs dre particularly
well qualified to e aluate controls at
such facilities Studies ha’.e indicated
that a principal leak prevention measure
for chemical handling systems and
ancillary equipment is proper desigr.
arid installation and that a quality audit
of storage and handling equipment will
prevent many leaks. particularly from
loose fittings. poor welding. and
maligned gaskets
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 PEon 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 in olve various aspects of
the industrial process For example the
trainino requirements of toda s permits
appI to all facilti employees and
contractor personnel that work in areas
where SARA title lii. 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 Wssie Tdnk Risk
Analysis EPA 1986
or copper present a greater potential
source thdn industrial laydown areas for
insoluble metdls In response the
Agenc wants to clarify that today s
permit (and the August 16 1991 draft
permits) provide dischargers with the
option of either pro iding drainage
controls to present 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 ior 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
commenters inëluded 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 commenters 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 toda s permit to provide
thai 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 ever ’ effort is made tc !mit
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 protide that salt piles
shall be enclosed or to pre . eni
exposure to precipitation P\cept br
exposure resulting from ddding or
removing materials from the pile
One commenter indicated that salt
piles should not be singled out and ‘hat
numerous other bulk commodities I c
potash. trona sodium sulfcitel are stored
outside and are readib. ciussolved b
precipitation In response at the lime
that the draft general permits were
published, the Agency had appropriate
information on the practtces of the salt
industry and information on the nature
of pollutants in salt pile runoff that %as
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 co ers for
ery large stockpiles (such as piles of
400.000 tons) were not feasible As
discussed below, the Agency has
expanded its cost model to e aluate
these discharges and believes that such
controls are in fact reasonable for such
piles The Agenc also wants to clarif
the dischargers who want to seek
alternative permit conditions may
submit an individual permit application
with a description of why alternati e
requirements would be appropriate
Several commenters indicated that
additional time would be needed to
comply with this requirement
particularly where a faciiii had
significant number of piles In resoinse
the Agency has extendea the
compliance date for this requirement
until three years after issuance of the
permit consistent with section 40(p)(4)
of the CWA
Effluent Limitation for C ’al Pile Ru’o”
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 ciH
within a range of6Oto 90 The draft
permit provided that any untreated
overflow from facilities designed
constructed and operated to treat the
‘.olume of coal pile runoff which is
associated with a 25-year 24-hour
rainfall evenL 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 EP.\
failed to consider the costs of
implementing a storm design system to

-------
41284
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9, 1992 I Notices
accommodate a 25-year. 24-hour storm
event. The commenter indicated that the
cost differential 10 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 4341. 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 analtsis
used to de elop the proposed limitations
in the August 16. 1991 notice relied
hea ily 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 commenter expressed concern
that the proposed limitations may apply
to coal pile runoff from steam electric
facilities which is already subject to an
effluent limitation guideline In
response. the Agency wants to clarify
that the effluent limitation in today s
permit for coal pile runoff is not
intended to apply to coal pile runoff
frum steam electric facilities. As noted
in the ‘ ugust 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. today s permits (and the
August 16. 1991 draft permits).
specifically exclude from coverage
storm water discharges that are subject
to an effluent limitation guideline.
One commenter expressed their belief
that coal piles at mining sites and
preparation plants should not be subject
to the effluent limitation because such
piles are already subject to SMCRA
monitoring and performance standards
at 30 CFR 730 21(j). 30 CFR 816.42 and
816.45). and the proposed limitations go
beyond these requirements The
commenter indicated that they thought
that all acti ities 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 todays 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. 35 and that
generally such requirements are
intended to work together. For example.
30 CFR 816.42 requires that discharges of
waters from areas disturbed by surface
mining activities must be in compliance
with all application Federal and Slate
water laws and regulations. 30 CFR
818.45 establishes sediment control
measures that do not specifically
address toxic discharges from coal pile
runoff
One commenter requested
clarification as to whether pre-SMCRA
disturbed coal mining sites were subject
to this requirement. The commenter
argued that Congress intended that pre-
SMCRA coal mining sites are to be
handled under Title IV of SMCRA which
established the Abandoned Mine Lands
Program. In response, the effluent
limitation for coal pile runoff in today’s
permits is intended to apply to all coal
pile runoff covered by the permit.
Todays 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. 3 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 ,4mer,con .%lsnsng C’onqrecs v £P.I 965
F d 759 jSIh Cir i992 1
“See ‘lmer,cc,, t1,n,,,,j C ,nqrpss v EP.4 Supro
that storm water is not contaminated by
contact with a coal pile.
Several commenters indicated that
they believed that storm waler 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
(imitations 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 60 and 90 was
unreasonable because the levels in
rainfall and receiving waters often
exceed the 6.0 to 9 0 range. Some of
these commenters suggested that the
Agency should consider allowing a
wider range of values when it can be
demonstrated that “natural” storm
water is outside this range. Another
commenter indicated that the pH limit
was impossible to reach without
treatment in areas of acid rain
In response. the Agency recognizes
that rainfall may have a pH of lower
than 6.0 (or higher than 9.0). In such
cases. dischargers will typically have to
provide treatment for coal pile runoff
prior to discharge. even where they are
using low sulfur coal. Such treatment is
anticipated and consistent with today’s
effluent limitation. The Agency also
notes that the pH and TSS parameters in
the coal pile limitation are indicator
parameters for other toxic constituents.
including a number of heavy metals. The
pH of the storm waler affects the
availability and solubility of these
parameters Storm water with a low pH
will leach metals from coal. Thus ills
appropriate to control pollutants in coal
pile runoff events where a low pH is
caused by low p 1-I rain instead of sulfur
in the coal. In addition. metals in a low
pH solution will tend to be in a form that
is more available to organisms Thus.
the pH typically needs to be controlled
to provide for appropriate control of
these constituents.
One commenler indicated that EPA
should only impose coal pile limitations
where site-specific impacts to receiving
streams are identified. The commenter
also noted that the pollutani

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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
requirements based on BAT
considerations, and 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 is not authorized by the
CWA. which requires that NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
estabhsh. 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 402(a)(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
todays 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 16. 1991 draft general
permits provided that plans should be
completed within 180 days of the
effective date of the permit (and
updated as appropriate) and provide for
compliance within 365 days of the
effective date of the permit. The August
6. 1991 draft general permits also
equired 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 NOl
was required. In response. as discussed
above, the Agency has modified the
deadline for submitting most NOIs to be
covered by todays permits to October 1.
1992 to provide consistency with the
deadlines for individual permit
applications and for part 2 of group
applications. In addition, to reflect this
date for submitting NOIs and to address
the concerns of the commenters.
pollution prevention plans for
dischargers with facilities in operation
on or before October 1. 1g92 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
Sonie commenters suggested different
times for complying with plans One
commenter 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
commenters suggested that permittees
be given one year from the effective
date of the permit to complete its plan
and one and one half years from the
effective date of the permit to comply
with the conditions of the permit One
commenter thought permittees should be
given one year from the effective date of
the permit to prepare plans and an
additional year to comply with the plan
to allow facilities to incorporate storm
water management planning into the
normal budgeting and operation of the
facility. Another commenter indicaied
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 thai
occurs during the term of the permit
Given this flexibility, and based on a
consideration of the requirements of the
permit. the Agency believes that the
time frames established in today s
permits are reasonable To ensure
adequate flexibility and in response to
comments. today s permits allow the
Director to establish a later date for
preparing and complying with plans
based on a showing of good cause
However it should be noted that section
402(p)(4)(A) of the CWA requires that
any permit for a storm water discharge
associated with industrial dCtiVit snail
provide for compliance as expeditioush
as practicable. but in no e eni later than
three years after the date of issuance of
such permit
One commenter suggested that
permittees be g.ven one year to comply
with the requirement to test for (or
evaluate) illicit connections In
response. today s permit has been
modified to provide that perrnittees ha e
one year to certify that they iave ‘ested
for or otherwise evaluated their storm
water conveyance system for the
presence of ‘ion-storm water discharges
This has been done to provide
consistency between the deadline for
certifying that storm water discharges
have been tested for the presence of
non-storm water and the deadline for
implementing the pollution prevention
plan
One commenter suggested that small
business be given 3 to 5 years to comply
with permit requirements In response.

-------
41286
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
the Agency believes that the complexity
of the flexible. site-specific storm water
pollution prevention plans required by
today’s permits will to some degree be
related to the size of the facility. Thus.
EPA believes that the time frames
established in today s permits are
appropriate for small businesses.
However, itt response to comments.
today s permits provide additional
flexibility for the Director to establish a
later date for preparing and complying
with plans based on a showing of good
cause.
One commenter indicated that Federal
facilities %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 beoinning of the 1993 fiscal
year for the Federal government. Again.
the Agency wants to clarify that today’s
permits pro ide 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 recuirements for EPCRA section
313 facilities For example. several
commenters indicated the proposed plan
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities can require substantial
planning and design efforts. One
commenter indicated that it would
generally not be possible for many
facilities to provide measures requiring
significant construction, such as
secondar containment, within erie year
because of the demand on
environmental engineenng firms, the
time needed to prepare plans. the lead
time required for planning and designing
activities to construct secondary
containment structures, and the delays
that industrial facilities through the
Nurth will experience due to winter
weather Se eral commenters. including
a large w.iter pollution trade
organization indicated that three years
from the effective date of the permit be
provided for any measure, such as
installing secondary containment, that
requires construction Other
commenters indicated that they thought
four years would be needed by most
facilities to complete installation of any
required containment structures.
In response. the Agency believes that
it is appropriate to provide permittees
with more complex requirements which
may require significant construction
activities, such as those for EPCRA
section 313 facilities, salt storage. and
coal pile runoff, additional time to
comply with today’s permit
requirements. and has established a
three year compliance date for
complying with these special
requirements. In addition, facilities
which trigger EPCRA section 313
thresholds for the first time during the
permit term 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 pro ide 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 commenter requested that EPA
clarify requirements for oil and gas
operations that prior to October 1. 19g2.
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 I
group application and where either the
group application is rejected or the
facility is denied participation in the
group application by EPA. As discussed
above, the deadline for such facilities to
submit NOIs to be covered by today s
permits is consistent with the
Transportation Act Today’s permits
provide that the plan for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from a facility that is owned or
operated by a municipality that has
participated in a timely group
application and where either the group
application is rejected or the facility is
denied participation in the group
application by EPA must be prepared on
or before the 365th day following the
date on which the group is rejected or
the denial is made. (and updated as
appropriate) In addition, such
permittees must provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan on or before
the 345th day following the date on
which the group is rejected or the denial
is made. These deadlines will give
facilities that are part of a rejected
group application sufficient time to
comply with the pollution prevention
plan requirements of today s permits
Procedures for Reviewing Plans
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits provided that permittees were
not required to submit a storm water
pollution prevention plan to EPA unless
EPA requested the plan on a case-by.
case basis. The permit also provided
that EPA may notify the permittee that
the plan does not meet one or more of
the requirements of the permit. Unless
otherwise provided by EPA. permittees
would have 30 days after such
notification to make necessary changes
and submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
had been made.
Several commenters indicated that
they thought. depending on the extent to
which the Director required changes. 30
days could be an insufficient period of
time to make the required changes
Some of these commenters suggested 90
days as a time period to make required
revisions.
In response. the Agency notes that the
permit provides flexibility for EPA to
establish a longer or shorter time period
for permittees to make arid implement
modifications to their plans In general.
EPA will consider factors such as
whether the change is procedural in
nature or will require structural

-------
Federal Register / 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
pldflS
One commenter indicated that they
believed that plans should be dtnamic
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 discouraging facilities
rom revising their plans as necessary in
iiQht of new information and to meet
changing circumstances They indicated
that this approach would also impose a
ea ’ . burden on EPA’s limited
re ’ . iewing resources
The Agency does not agree that
submitting plans to EPA upon request
for review and approval would decrease
plan effectiveness by discouraging
facilities from revising their plans as
necessary in light of new information
and to meet changing circumstances As
discussed above, today’s permit requires
permittees to evaluate the accuracy and
effectiveness of their plan. and to make
modifications as necessary The Agency
believes that most discharges will
realize that modifying their plan to make
it more effective and will decrease the
chances that EPA will require
modifications. Nonetheless, as
discussed below: plans must be
submitted to EPA only on request
Some commenters suggested
submitting the storm water poliution
prevention plans to EPA for their
approval, thus avoiding compliance
problems later. One commenter
indicated that they thought some
businesses will want their plans
approved by EPA prior to implementing
them to avoid wasting money on a plan
which is ldter deemed inadequate
The Agency wants to clarify that it
does not intend to conduct detailed
reviews of all storm water poLlution
pre’.ention plans prior to authorizing
storm water discharges under the
general permit because of limited
resources However EPA retains
authority to request and review storm
water pollution prevention plans and to
require changes to the ‘plans and/or
submittal of an individual permit
application where appropriate The
Agency wants to clarify that if plans are
voluntarily submitted to EPA for Agency
review. the Agency is not precluded
from requesting additional modifications
at a later date based on additional
information. changing conditions.
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
plan or other relevant factors Neither is
the Agency precluded from requiring
plan modifications where a plan had
been voluntarily submitted earlier and
the Agency did not respond.
One commenter recommended that
the permit should provide that no
enforcement action could be brought
against a permittee for violation of
several pro tsions 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 pro’. isions of the permit provide
flexibility for selecting controls to be
implemented and will consider good
faith attempts at compliance when
exercising its enforcement discretion
Howe’. er. the Agency is concerned that
specific language in the permit as
requested by the commenter would
create unnecessary confusion. and that
some permittees would inappropriately
argue that such language precluded EPA
from enforcing permit conditions in all
cases
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that when requesting
modifications to a storm water pollution
prevention plan the Agency identify
with reasonable specificity which
provisions of the plan require change
and which of the minimum requirements
the existing plan violates In response.
the Agency has made this clarification
One commenter raised concerns that
EPA has not provided administrative
procedures for reviewing plans and
requiring modifications. and it is unclear
whether the permittee has the right to
meet with the Agency submit comments
on the required changes or file any sort
of appeal The commenter indicated that
a discharger and EPA may legitimately
differ on whether a plan meets
appropriate requirements and thdt
facilities should have the upportunhl ’. to
request review of the agency s initial
determination that a plan does not me i
requirements. and explain exactl ’ . ‘ .h ’ .
particular element of a plan is
appropriate for a specific facility
In response. the ultimate resolution of
disagreements concerning the adequac’.
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 todays permits pro’. ide
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 Monitonng
Requirements
On August 16. 1991. EPA requested
comment on modifying the regulatory
provision at 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2).
addressing the establishment of
discharge monitoring reporting
requirements in NPDES permits for
storm water discharges associated ‘. ‘ .ith
industrial activity The regulation
existing at the time of the proposal
provided that NPDES permits inch d.rt
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges. require discharge monh!or:nQ
reports at a minimum of once a ear As
part of the August 16 1991 notice EPA
specifically identified six options for
modifying requirements to report
monitoring results for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity
In addition, the draft general permits
in the same August 16 1991 notice
requested comment on annual discharge
sampling of storm water discharges from
most classes of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity as
this approach was consistent with the
option EPA favored in the August 16
1991 notice for the regulatory change
However, in the August 16. 1991 notice.
the Agency also indicated that the
monitoring requirements in the final
permits could be less stringent ii 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 I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / 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
extensive semi-annual monitoring with
additional industry.specific parameters.
Oil and gas exploration or production
operations were given the option of
obtaining a PE certification that a
pollution prevention plan was being
implemented in accordance with the
permit in lieu of monitoring.
On April 2. 1992. (57 FR 11394). EPA
published final revisions to the Agencys
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 ihan discharge monitoring
II. Comments on Proposed General
Permit Monitoring Requirements
Several commenters thought that the
monitoring requirements in the August
16. 1991 draft permits should be retained
or expanded. These commenters
indicated that monitoring was necessary
to adequately identify pollutant sources.
determine the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures, and build a data
base to support future permit issuing
acti ities. Howe er, the majority of
commenters addressing this issue raised
concerns regarding proposed
requirements for all permittees to
sample their discharges. A number of
these commenters suggested that it was
important to sample storm water
discharges from priority classes of
activities or facilities, but that across-
the-board monitoring requirements for
all facilities covered by the permit may
not be an appropriate or cost-effective
use of resources. While most
commenters in the regulated community
supported the necessity for controlling
pollutants discharged via storm water
runoff. the expense and difficulties of
storm water monitoring were of major
cor.c rt’. 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 stgnificant
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 NPOES 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
todays 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 assi3t lng 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, Ill and IV activities described in
EPA’s long-term permitting strategy.”
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 todays permits
represents art approach which uses both
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations and monitoring
requirements for targeted industrial
activities and facilities to pursue the
goals of the program. In accordance with
40 CFR 122.44. todays permits require
pernuttees 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
Lnvolve identifying pollutant sources
“ EPA iong term permit issuance sirate y for
storm waler discharqes associaied with undusiria.
gcuvuty is described in the April 2 i992 Federal
Re iater S7 FR U 94I

-------
Federal Register I Vol . 57. No.175/ Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
.11289
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.
Todays permits provide an exemption
from monitoring requirements for
outfalls at targeted facilities that do not
have any materials. matenal 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 todays 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 ‘. individual applications.
• EPA ha. received over 1 200 Part 1 group
applications from a wide vanely of industrial
groups Part 2 of the group applications which
coniains representative mOfliiOrzflg daia from the
indu .trtai 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 objectives 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
monitoring data in order to characterize
other potential pollutant sources or to
identify background levels of pollutants
from facilities that have been able to
eliminate exposure of these activities to
storm water.
Other commenters raised issues
regarding the appropriateness of the
proposed monitoring parameters to
particular industries. In general. EPA
has modified some of the parameters
associated with the monitoring
requirements in today’s permits in
response to comments and to provide a
better relationship between the
monitoring requirements and potential
pollutant sources associated with
classes of industrial activities These
concerns and changes are addressed
below
Several cornmenters 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 both 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 Piana are to
contain a description of aciiviiles addressing
priority issuing permits for storm water discharges
from priority industrial Facilities lace April 2 i992
(57 FR 11394j)
that are collected for additional
pa ra meters.
On the other hand sampling
parameters often overlap between the
categories For example an outfall
subject to the semi.annual EPCRA nd
annual “Other Facility sdmpling
requirements could sample semi-
annually for EPCRA parameters drid
satisfy both sampling requirements by
analyzing for parameters in an
applicable effluent guideline io 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 todays permit
The monitoring requirements of
today’s permits can be broken into two
general classes, semi-annual monitorir.g
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 anci tlI
support future permitting efforts dS . eti
as gives these facilities more data ci
consider Not requiring facilities ci
submit data unless it is specificall
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 da
pollution prevention plan development
period, the permittee was required to
notify the Director One commenter felt
the certification date should be changed
to correspond to the deadline for
pollution prevention plan compliance
The Agency concurs with this
comment and has modified the ‘Failure
to Certify” reporting requirement Any

-------
41290
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
facility that is unable to provide the
certification regarding testing for non-
storm water discharges. must notify the
Director by October 1. 1993 or. for
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1. 1992. within 180 days
after submitting a NOt to be covered by
this permit The October 1. 1993 date is
appropriate for existing facilities
because it is consistent with the timing
pro ided for these facilities to prepare
(April 1. 1993) and implement (October
1. 1993) a plan. The 180 days provided to
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1. 1992 is consistent with
the requirement that these facilities
must have their plan developed before
beginning the industrial activity that will
generate the storm water discharge
IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements For Classes of Targeted
Industrial Activities
Semi. 4nnual ton;zorln,g 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
reclaimers These facilities have
a significant potential to contribute toxic
pollutants to storm water due to the
nature of activities occurring onsite and
the types of materials handled.
In response to comments. EPA has
clarified the requirements as they
pertain to each industrial category. For
the most 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 commenters suggested
that sampling parameters be limited to
those section 313 water priority
chemicals actually stored within the
drainage area. Several individual
companies and trade organizations
argued that typical pollution prevention
measures at their facilities are already
stringent enough to prevent uncontrolled
releases into the environment and that
monitoring should either be eliminated
or reduced. Comments regarding acute
whole effluent 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. 40 In such cases.
monitoring data can provide ‘.aluable
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. Iii 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 acti%ities that allow
storm water to come into contact with
any equipment. tank. container or other
vessel or area used for stor.ige of a
•0 See Hjzjrdnui W .i i. ’ rink Ri ’, . n,il eis
EPA Y86
section 313 water priority chemical or
storm water discharges from a truck or
rail car loading or unloading area where
a section 313 water priority chemical is
handled.
Primary Metal Facilities
Primary metal facilities (SIC 33) are
engaged in the mariufdcturing 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 eifaLit 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 Kjeldaht 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 / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / 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 subiect The
Agency believes t’iat 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
mar.ufactunng 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
chiorosilanes which are free of heavy
metals and that heavy metals cannot be
in the starting material or they would
contaminate the product Based on a
consideration of these factors. the
Agency has limited the monitoring
requirements for these facilities.
Two trade organizations questioned
EPA’s legal authonty 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
not generate dust One of these
commenters suggested that EPA wait
until it collects and reviews information
from other sources. such as group
applications, before requiring
monitoring.
The Agency has broad authority
under sections 308(a) and 402(a)12) of
the Clean Water Act to establish any
monitoring conditions deemed
necessary to develop or insure
compliance with effluent standards or
insure protection of water quality. The
onitoring conditions itt todays permits
ye a number of purposes, including
,roviding information to identify
pollutant sources, and evaluating the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures. In addition. as summarized
above, the Agency notes that industrial
activities which typically occur at SIC 33
facilities can contribute pollutants other
than by dust generation
Land Disposal Units/!ncinerazors/BIFs
Land disposal units and incinerators
and boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs) that burn hazardous waste may
receive a diverse range of industrial
wastes. Waste receiving, handling.
storage and processing. in addition to
actual waste disposal can be a
significant source of pollutants at waste
disposal facilities. The surface water
impacts associated with land disposal
units 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 (BIFs) that burn hazardous
waste and are at facilities with storm
water associated with industrial
activity BIFs are those boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste for fuel that are sub ect to
regulations promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and published February 21.
1991 (56 FR 7134). are similar to
hazardous waste incinerators in that
they burn hazardous materials such as
spent solvents, contaminated fuels. etc..
but the primary purpose of the facility is
not waste disposal and the hazardous
material is typically burned to provide
heat. steam or generate electricity for
use in manufacturing processes
Incinerators and BIFs that 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 simtlar 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 commenters objected to
the number of parameters associated
with the monitoring requirements
proposed for land disposal units. In
response. monitoring parameters for this
class were selected due to the wide
range of potential pollutants at land
disposal facilities The parameters listed
in the August 16. 1991 draft permits are
similar to the parameters addressed by
proposed ground water monitoring
requirements for municipal solid waste
landfills established under subtitle D of
RCRA (see August 30. 1988 (53 FR
33372)) In developing the list of
parameters icr the sampling
requirements for land disposal units and
incinerators in todays permits, the
Agency has deleted several parameters
which are monitored in a ground waler
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 D of
RCRA does not include sampling or
treatment requirements for storm water
discharged from landfills (see October 9
1991 (56 FR 510541) In the October 9.
1991, notice establishing criteria for
solid waste disposal facilities, the
Agency noted that the NPDES permit
under the CWA would be the
appropriate mechanism for ensuring that
point source discharges of runoff from
landfills are protective of human health
and the environment
Several commenters requested
clarification on whether inactive or
closed land disposal sites were also
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’

-------
11292
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
• The infiltration layer must be
comprised of a minimum of 18 inches of
earthen material that has a permeability
less than or equal to the permeability of
any bottom liner system or natural
subsoils present. or a permeability no
greater than 1 x l0 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 iii
1988 (December 30. 1988 (53 FR 53287)).
Several organic pollutants were found at
significant concentrations. including
peritachlorophenol. fluoranthene.
benzo(a)anthracene. chrysene.
pherianthrene. and pyrene.
One commenter suggested combining
the two categories of wood treating
facilities identified in the August 10.
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 todays 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 BOOS 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 00D5 analysis. Facilities
that use chlorophenolic formulations’
must measure pentachlorophenol and
acute whole effluent toxicity: facilities
which use creosote formulations must
measure acute whole effluent toxicity:
and facilities that use chromium-arsenic
formulations must measure total arsenic,
total chromium, and total copper. In
addition, the final permit clarifies that
areas that are used for wood treatment.
wood surface application or storage of
treated or surface protected wood at
any wood preserving or wood surface
application facilities are subject to these
monitoring requirements.
Another commenter suggested
reducing the monitoring frequency due
to material management regulations
established under other environmental
programs such as RCRA. In response.
the Agency notes that rio 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 0. 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.
Cool 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
Toddy’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 baitery 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 activities)
are subpect to this monitoring
requirement.
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity
Monitoring Requirements
The August 18. 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 tristream 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 obpect
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. today’s

-------
Federal Register I VoL. 57. No.175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
41293
,ermits have been modified to provide
or 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 today’s
permits are generally not intended to
directly evaluate toxic effects on
organisms in receiving waters, the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
allow for 24 hour testing of the WET
pa,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
‘f indigenous species. In response. the
ET monitoring requirements in many
today’s permits allow flexibility for
the selection of appropriate invertebrate
and fish speci . 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—90/027)
However, the permits for Louisiana.
New Mexico. Oklahoma. Texas.
Colorado. Wyoming, Montana. North
Dakota. South Dakota. and Utah specify
specific species to be tested. EPA
believes that specifying the species in
standardized test methods will allow
direct comparison to similar discharges
at different facilities, and is consistent
with WET procedures generally used in
other NPDES permits issued for
discharges in these States In addition.
the use of sensitive standardized test
species helps avoid problems that arise
when indigenous organisms may be
diseased or impaired Many laboratories
across the country maintain healthy
“Todays permits (or discharges in CO. WY MT
ND. and UT require 48 hour testing for invertebrate
species and 96 hour telling lot fiah species The.e
nrocedures are conaisieni with the procedures
‘rally used in NPDES perntiis for WET ieaiing
discharges within these States Use of the
procedures will aSsist EPA in evaluating this
‘ Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Water, io Freshwater and
Marine Organiims EPA i991 (EPA-800/4-9o/o27J
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 .essist 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 on 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 br the WET
parameter, including reducing the test
period to 24 hours arid only requiring
testing on 100 percent effluent Since the
monitoring requirement is riot 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
aources 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
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
spectficall% 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
po!lutants 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
monitoring for parameters specified for
the industrial class, can either analyze
samples for the WET parameter or for
the pollutants identified in Tables II and
III of appendix D of 40 CFR 122 that the
discharger knows or has reason to
believe are present at tne facility site
Permittees that monitor for selectea
pollutants identified in Tables 11 ana III
of appendix D of 40 CFR 122 should riase
their determination of whether a
particular chemical is known or believec
to be present at the facility site on a
consideration of the activities at the
facility
The determination of whether a
chemical is known or reasonably
expected to be present at a facility site
will involve ihe reasonable best effort of
the permittee io 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 present
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 s
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 relati ely low This
determination can be based on an
evaluation of information such as
material inventories, the industrial

-------
41294
Federal Register I 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
parame’er 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
costs.
Toxicity Reductions
A number of commenters requested
clarification as to whether facilities that
detected acute WET in their storm water
discharge wuuld 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 commenier indicated
that if a discharge is found to fail the
WET test it should be allowed the
opportunity to conduct additional WET
tests before undergoing a formal toxicity
reduction evaluation.
In response. 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 today’s permits
provide considerably more flexibility
than requirements to conduct formal
TREs.
The Agency believes that this
approach addresses the need to reduce
demonstrated toxicity while providing
flexibility for facilities to evaluate their
storm water discharges for toxicity and
to take appropriate steps to reduce
toxicity prior to October 1. 1995. This
provides dischargers with an
opportunity to implement site-specific
and innovative measures to reduce
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 todays 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 additiunal
information, such as an additional
pollutant source evaluation or a
pollution prevention evaluation.
Annual Monitoring Requirements
The August 16. 1991 draft general
permits required. ai 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 requirerri rits 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 II. III. and
IV permitting efforts.
Airports
Deicing activities at airports can be a
significant source of pollutants to storm
water discharges. The imount of deicing
fluids used depend on temperature and
the amount and type of precipitation
(freezing rain may require more deicirig
fluids than many sriowfalls) 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 62.986 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 deicirig operations as
the area of most concern at airports In

-------
Federal Register I Vol 57. No 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41295
response. the Agency agrees that deicing
operations can be a significant potential
source of pollutants in storm water
discharges Given these concerns, the
Agency is retaining monitoring
requirements for deicing activities at
large airports Facilities with storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas where
aircraft or airport deicing operations
occur (including runways. taxiways.
ramps. and dedicated aircraft deicing
stations) are required to monitor for
parameters indicative of the overall
quality of the discharge and to identify
deicing materials used at the site that
are entering the storm water discharge
Several commenters requested
reduced or eliminated sampling for
smaller airports. In response. today s
momloring requirements for airports are
limited to have been limited to airports
with over 50.000 flight operations per
year and apply only to those areas
where deicing activities occur A flight
operation consists of a single takeoff or
landing by an aircraft The Agency
believes that the number of operations is
one of the key factors for determining
the amount of deicrng activity and other
industrial activities occurring at an
airport. and that in general. airports
with a higher number of operations are
expected to discharge more pollutants in
their storm water. In addition, some
smaller airports may not conduct
deicing activities, and a requirement
targeting monitoring of deicing activities
at such smaller airports may cause
oii fusion
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
Coal-fired Steam Electric Facilities
Coal-fired steam electric facilities use
large amounts of coal. Coal handling
activities at these facilities can be a
significant source of pollutants in storm
water discharges. Runoff from coal
handling areas can have pollutant
characteristics that are similar to coal
pile runoff. and can have high levels of
total suspended solids, sulfate, iron.
aluminum, mercury, copper. arsenic.
selenium and manganese. as well as an
‘cidic pH. 43 The Agency believes that it
See Final Development Document for Efflueni
i.imiiacions Guidelines and Standaras and
Pretre.iment Standarda for the Steam Electric Point
Source caiegory 1982 fEPA—4401i-82/—29)
is appropriate to retain monitoring
requirements in these coal handling
dreas to adequately quantify the effect
of these pollutant sources on storm
water discharges Monitoring
parameters will be the same as those
required semi-annually under this
permit for coal piles, with the same
justification on their selection Because
this monitoring requirement does not
support a numeric effluent limitation.
and due to the more diffuse nature of
coal in the coal handling areas. the
monitoring frequency of once per year
was deemed adequate. Compared to the
basic monitoring required under the
August 16. 1991. draft permits. this
monitoring requirement focuses more on
the pollutants of particular concern and
should be less costly for the facility
.4n,ma! 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
Monitoring data can be used to detect if
these materials are entering the storm
water The monitoring requirements for
animal handling facilities in today s
permit are more tailored than the August
16. 1991 draft permits Tailoring these
requirements is expected to reduce the
costs of these requirements relative to
the August 16. 1991 draft permits
Additional Facilities
Today s permits retain monitoring
requirements for storm water discharges
from seven additional classes of
industrial activities These storm water
discharges will have to be monitored
annually for a basic set of parameters
(oil and grease. COD, TSS. pH. and any
pollutant limited in an effluent limitation
guideline for which the facility is
subject) The Agency has identified
these industrial Llasses based on a
consideration of specific activities at
these facilities that have a signific.ant
potential for contributing pollutants to
q See Proposed Guidance Specifying
Management Measures tar Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters 1d) 1991 EPA and
‘Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance
Siandards—feedlois Poini Source caiegorv EPA
1974 EPA—44OI1I74.-OO4—
storm water If the listed acti’. it ’ . does
not occur at a particular site or the
runoff from that area is treated as a
process wastewater is discharged to a
municipal sanitary sewer (with the
municipality s permission . or is retained
onsite no sampling will be required The
sampling required for these facilities is
generally less restrictive than would
have been required under the draft
permit.
Chemical storage piles can ha’.e a
significant potential for contributing
pollutants to storm water discharges
Today’s permits include monitoring
requirements for storm water that comes
into contact with solid chemicals used
as raw materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classifted 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 significantl 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
unkyards. Drivelines include the engine
transmission. differential/transa le
fuel. brake, and coolant (radiator)
systems Automotive fluids/greases
from these areas wouid typically include
engine oil, fuel transmission fluid or oil
rear end oil. suspension toint and
bearing greases. antifreeze brake fluid
power steering fluid, and the oil and
grease leaking from and covering
‘.arious components (for example oil
and grease on exterior of an engine)
The procedures used for fluids capture
during the dismantling process ‘.‘.ill
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 of pollutants to storm ‘ .‘.ater
discharges than other yards Two
factors, the number of units stored. and
exposure of automotive fluid drainage
and storage areas, are used to determine
the applicability of monitoring
requirement Facilities were (A) over 250
auto/truck bodies with drivelines. 250
drivelines. or any combination thereof
(in whole or in parts) are exposed to
Summary of site inspections by CA State
Department of Health Services March 19 1993

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41296
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 automolive fluids occurs in
areas exposed to storm water: will be
required to monitor storm water
discharges from ihese 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 °
Monitoring data from these sites can be
used to identify pollutant sources and
allow the Agency to assess the
effectiveness of the facilitys 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”
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.”
Given the large amounts of oil managed at
these facilities many of the pollutent sources
associated with au handling and storage are
expected to be aimilar to those at petroleum
refuneripa A more complete description ci he
pollution potential of these type, of operation. ii
provided in the Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum Refineries
Point Source Category EPA 1379 440111—79!014b
See ‘Development Document for Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Cement Manulacturing Point
Source Category EPA 1974 EPAI44OII—?9—OO5—s
The effluent limitation guidelines far the cement
manufacturing category address runoff derived from
ne storage of materials used iii or derived from the
manufacture of cement (see 40 CFR 411 301
Discharges that are covered by the guideline cannot
oe authorized under today s permits
See Development Document br Proposed
Effluent Limitations (..uidelines and Siandarda for
the Shipbuilding and Repair Point Source Category
EPA De(.ember i9’g EPA 14011/—79!07 11—b and
III. 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.”
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 primary flow
measurement devices, for all discharges
required to sample at this time.
Several ornmenters 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 and
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
Proposed Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nanpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters %tay i99i EPA
‘ See NPOES Storm Water Sampling Cuidance
Document ‘ EPA 833—8-92-001. 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 objective of the
requirement. Devices with a 24 hour
residence time for a given storm should
provide adequate mixing to allow a
single grab sample to provide a
reasonably accurate characterization of
the average concentration of the
discharge and will mitigate first flush
effects. The Agency believes that by not
establishing a design storm to calculate
holding times. more flexibility will be
provided for applying this provision on a
storm-by-storm basis.
One commenter suggested that
composite sampling be eliminated and
only grab sampling of the first flush be
required in the baseline general permit.
with the results used to target industries
for more extensive monitoring at a later
date In response. the Agency believes
that composite sampling will provide
more information for estimating
pollutant loads, evaluating certain
concentration-based water quality
impacts, and generally characterizing
storm water discharges. The permit
authorizes either time-weighted or flow-
weighted composite samples which may
be manually or automatically collected.
The use of p 1-f paper rather than a pH
meter was recommended by many
commenters based on the cost
differential. In response. EPA approved
test methods at 40 CFR 138.3 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 judged subjectively by
comparison to a color chart, is affected
by humidity. age and method of storage.
and may be affected by turbidity or
suspended solids. The Agency notes that
some pH measuring devices which use
the electrometric method, such as pH.
can provide the required accuracy at a
reasonable price ($50.00 to S200.00).
Commeriters from arid regions and
those with unattended remoie 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 1 inch is acceptable
IV. Sampling Waiver
All comments on the proposed waiver
for sampling based on adverse climatic
conditions supported this provision.
Several commenters did request
clarification on the applicability. In
response. EPA would like to 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 hurricanes These events
tend to be isolated incidents, and should
not be used as an excuse for not
conducting sampling under more
favorable conditions associated with
other storm events The sampling waiver
is not intended to apply to difficult
logistical conditions.
V. Use of Representative Outfalls for
Sampling
The permit allows the use of
substantially identical outfalls to reduce
the monitoring burden on a facility. All
omments received on this issue
upported 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
ucing the overall burden on the
gulated community and EPA.
Several commeriters 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.
VII. Retention of Records
The draft permit required retention of
all records for a minimum of three years.
Several commenters suggested that
records be kept [ or 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 mast 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 today’s
permit and believes that small facilities
will generally not have to hire a full-time
engineer to implement storm water
pollution prevention plans. In addition.
the Agency has developed guidance
entitled “Storm Water Management for
Construction Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices’. U.S. EPA, 1992
to assist facilities with limited storm
water technical expertise in preparing
and implementing their storm water
pollution prevention plan.

-------
Wednesday
September 9. 1992
Construction
Permit Language
Part H
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits For Storm
Water Discharges From Construction
Sites; Permit Language

-------
Federal Register / 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. NHRI0000IFJ
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 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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 1 ,v,s,on
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
(Permit No. MER10000IFJ
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 “associated with industrial
activity”, for Indian Tribes located in
the Slate 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 Maniredonia.
Acting Director. Waler Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any .iddlt londl
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
with stormwater discharges. for Indian Tribes
Iocaied in the State of Maine.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No. MAR10000 IFI
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Waler 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 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 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 applt to facilities
with stormwater discharges. for Indian Tribes
located in the State of Massachusetts.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
lPermit No MER100000 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 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 Di i isimi
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions inPart X wnich apply to facilities
located in the State of Maine
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No NHRI0000I
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 ‘associdted with industrial
activity” locdted 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 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 PRR100000I
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
activity.” located in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico are authorized to

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I 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 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
Kevin Bncke.
Acting Director. Water Management Division.
US Environmental Protection Agency.
Region!!
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 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Region IV
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
IGeneral Permit Number MSRI0000FI
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 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
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 McChec
Acting D,rt’ctor 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 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 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
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
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 lo
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997
Signed and issued August 2C 1992
Robert F McGhee,
Acting Director. Water Alonogentent Dii ision
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for an additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area
Region IV
lCeneral Permit Number FLRI0000FI
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.
Opnrators 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 August 28 1992
Robert F McGhee
Acting Director, 14’oier Management Division
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for an additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area
IGeneral Permit Number NCRI0000F(
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Waler Act, as amended (33
U SC 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 dS associated with industrial
actitit ’ located on Indian land in
North Cdrolina belonging to the Eastern
Bdnd of Cherokee Indians in the State of
North Cdrolind 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
thic general permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9. 1992
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight
September 9. 199’
Signed and issued August 28 1992
Robert F McGhev
Actiny Director Wot r 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

-------
41212
Federal_Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 Notices
(Permit No. I X R100000j
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 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 permii conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the State of Texas
(Permit No. 0 K Rl00000J
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 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 constructibn 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
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 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 additioiial
conditions in Part X which apply to facilities
located in the Stale of Oklahoma.
(Permit 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 as
provided in Part 1.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 VL
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. LARI00000J
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge clbnlnatlon
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
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. WYRI0000FI
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
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 Pert
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.
Kerrigsn 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 States of Wyoming

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41213
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No IJTRI0000FJ
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
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
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
(Permit No. SDRI00000J
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 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 lntent 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 Reg.onol Administrator
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Pan X which apply to facilities
located 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
(Permit No. NDRI0000Fj
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 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—Include.
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 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 Regsonol Adm nist rotor
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 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. MTRI0000FI
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 Reservation:
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 II of this permit. Operators of storm

-------
41214
Federal Register I 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.
lCerrigan Clough.
Acting Regiono!Adminiatmtor.
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 Montana.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No. CORI0000FJ
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 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.
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 Colorado and the
portion of the lita Mountain Reservation
located in the Stale of New Mexico.
Storm Water General Permit for
Construction Activities
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
(Permit No. AZR1000IFI
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.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 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
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,
RegionolAdm,niszrazor, 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. AZR 100000J
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provsded 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.
Dar.iel W McGovern,
RegionolAdminist rotor. Region 9
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts! 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 NVRI000IFJ
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
w 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 / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
41215
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W McGovern.
RegionolAdministrotor. 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 limination
System
(Permit No. CAR1000IFJ
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 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
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.
RegionolAdmirnstrator. 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 lands in the State of
California.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
IPermit No MWRI00000I
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
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
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.
RegionaL4drninzstrotor. 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. JARI00000J
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
Johnston Atoll
are authorized to discharge itt
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.
RegaonolAdm,nisgrc:or. Region 9.
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 on )ohnston 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, 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 on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9. 1997.
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 permii 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.. AK—R—lO -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.

-------
41216
Federal Resister / 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 1992.
Harold 2. Ceren,
Acting Director, Water Division. Region JO.
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 on Indian lands in the State of
Alaska.
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-OOIF)
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
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 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 2. Geren,
Acting Director. Water Division. Region 10.
US. En vizonmental Protection Agency
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Paris I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Pert 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
iGeneral Permit No.’ WA -R -1O-000FI
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 2 Ceren.
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 .idditional
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—1O-0000l
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 sites identified in Part I
hereof and except those sites 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 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 2. Geren.
Acting Director, Waler 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 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
Iceneral Permit No. AK—R—1O—0000l
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 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.
US 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
lPermii No. — Ri00000 or _,_R10000F (for
only Indian lands and/or Fed. Fad
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 Slate(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 I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / 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 Waler 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 lnteni
C Where to Submit
O 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
O Contents of Plan.
E Contractors
PART V. RETENTION OF RECORDS
PART VI. STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS
A Duty to Comply
B Continuation of the Expired General
Permit
C Need to halt or reduce activity not a
defense
O Duty to Mitigaie
E Duty to Provide Information
F Other Information
G Signatory Requirements
II Penalties for Falsification of Reports
1. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liabiliiy
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 Enlry.
P. Permit Actions
PART VII. REOPENER CLAUSE
PART VIII. NOTICE OF TERMINATION
A. Notice of Termination.
B. Addresses.
PART IX. DEFINITIONS
PART X. STATE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A. Puerto Rico.
B. Colorado (FeOeral facililies 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 sociated with industrial activity”.
“point source” and “waters of the
United States” are critical to
determining whether a facility is sublect
to this requirement. Complete
definitions of these terms are found in
the definition section (Part IX) of this
permit.
The Uniled 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
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 (V—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 mr 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 (including the Ute 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 the
Mountain Reservation 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 in 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. Eligibility
I 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 live
or more acres total land area ‘).
(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 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
(including storm water discharges from
dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated
concrete plants) are covered by a
different NPDES general permit or
‘On uiie 4 1992 the United States Couri of
Appeali for ihe Nrnih Curcwi remanded the
exemption for consi,uction site, of e u than live
acre, to the EPA for further rulemaking (Nos 90’.
70071 and 91—70200)

-------
41218
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
individual permit authorizing such
discharges.
3. Limitolions 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
lI!.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
Vl.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 I! 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 II. using a NO! 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 he upproved NOt form ii provided in
Appendix C of ihis nolice
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 V!.L of this permit).
Part !I. Notice of !ntent Requirements
A Deadlines for Notification
I Except as provided in paragraphs
I! A 2. l!.A 3. and !I.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. shal!
submit a Notice of Intent (NOt) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part at least 2 days prior to the
commencement of consti uction
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 NOt has
been submitted under Parts IJ.A 1 or
!l.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 NOI in
accordance with the requirements of
this part after the dates provided in
Parts II.A.i. 2 or 3 of this permit !n 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 V!.G of this
permit by all of the entities identified in
Part !I.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
availabte. 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. NO!s 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 NO! for the additiona!
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 an discharge(s) (including
any storm water discharges or any non.
storm water discharges) from the site.
5 An indication of whether the
operator has e\istin2 quantiIati e ddt.i
which describes thr ranu-niration of
pollutants in storm att’r discharges
(existing data should nut he inLluded .ic
part of the O! ( and
6 An estimate of prot’ct 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
and such plan provides compliance with
appro ed State and/or local sediment
and erosion plans or permits and/or
storm water management plans or
permits in accordance with Part !V 0 2 d
of this permit (A copy of the plans or
permits should not be included with the
NOt submissioni
C Where to Submit
I Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial acti itv
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 NOts
must be signed in accordance with Part
VI.G 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. Newinglon, 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 protect 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
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 li.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 iI.C
E. Renotification
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 III. Special Conditions.
Management Practices, and Other Non.
Numeric Limitations
A. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
1. Except as provided in paragraph
1.8.2 and lIi.A.2. all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
1II.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 disc.harge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.5.
discharges from fire fighting activities:
fire hydrant fiushings. 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
I 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)
(800-424—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 accordance
with Part 11l.B.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
expected to affect the quality of storm
water discharges from the cons’truction
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 Dead/ineb for P/an Preparation and
Compliance
The plan shdll
1 Be completed (including
certifications required under Part IV E)
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.
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 P/on Review
I The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VI C. 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
pldns 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 permiltee shall make
the required changes to the plan arid
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 I 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 descnption of the intended
sequence of malor 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 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 lV.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 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 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.
(c). 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). 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 3.800 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 I 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 alter 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 th 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 coat ro/s—( I I waste d,sposol
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)
i ermittees which discharge storm water
associated with industrial 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 b
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
Bite 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
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 Vii 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 the 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 i 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 Vl.G of this
permit.
5. Non-Storm Water Discharges
Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed in Part lil.A.2 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
! ederal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
of this permit in accordance with Part
Vl.G of this permit. Mi 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
lV.Ei 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:
I certify under penally or law that I
understand the terms and conditions of the
general National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System INPDES) 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
VIG 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 compFete
the Notice of Intent to be covered by
this permit. br 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 NOIs (see Part U.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. 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
Untted States EPA. Region IV. Water
Management Division (FPB—3J. Storm
Water Slaff. 345 Courtlarid 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 VIII
for (ite 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./A. KS. MO. NE
United States EPA. Region VII. Water
Management Division, Compliance
Branch. Storm Water Staff. 726
Minnesota Avenue. Kansas City. KS
66101.
& 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—CJ. Storm Water Staff. 999 18th
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 CA, HI, NV. Guam. American
Samoa. the Goshute 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.
70. 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 Dutt to Compli
1 The permittee must comply with all
conditions of this permtt 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 S2.500 nor more
than S25.000 per day of violation or by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year.
or both
(2) Knowing Violations The CWA
provides that an’. person ‘. ‘ .ho
knowingly ‘.iolates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301 302 306 307
308. 318. or 405 of the Act is subjeci to d
fine of not less than S5.000 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 $250000. 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 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. Civil Penalties—The CWA
provides that any person who violates a

-------
Federal Register I 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 Ipenolty 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
thereof) 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 S25.000.000 (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 I
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
responsibilit% for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of manager. operator.
superintendent or position of equivalent
responsibiliti. or an individual or
position hd%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 authorizo lion If an
authorization under paragraph 11 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 penalty of law thai this
document and alt attachments were prepared
under m% direction or super islon in
accordance with a system designed to assure
thai qualified personnel property gathered
and evaluaied 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 slgnificdni penalties for submitting false
information including the possibiIit 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 perniittee 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).
/. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort.

-------
41224
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 I Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I 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 Requiring on 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
appiciatlon 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 122.26(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 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.
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 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.
0. Inspection and Entry
The perinittee 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 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).
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 siorm waler
discharge associated with industrial
activity covered by this permitS the
discharger may be required to obtain
individual permit or an alternative
general permit in accordance with Part
I.C 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. Nouce 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.C 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 I 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
industnal activity have been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges has
changed: and
5. The following certification signed in
accordance with Part V l.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit:
I certify under penalty of law ihal 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 Ior.any violations of this permit
or the Clean Water Act
For the purposes of this certification.
elimination of storm water discharges
associated with industrial 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 thereofl. 3 to
the following address: Storm Water
Notice of Termination, P0 Box 1185,
Newington, VA 22122.
Part IX. Definitions
Best Management Practices (‘BMPs”)
means schedules of activities.
prohibitions of practices, maintenance
procedures, and other n enagement
practices to prevent or reduce the
pollution of waters of the United States.
BMPs also include treatment
requirements. operating procedures, and
practices to control plant site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal. or drainage from raw material
storage -
Commencement of Construction—The
initial disturbance of soils associated
A copy of the approved NOT form is provided in
Appendix D of this 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 CFR 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 riot 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 eithen (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 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 matenals. 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.
tranaportation, or conveyance of any
raw material, intermediate product.
finished product. by.product or waste

-------
41226
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 I Notices
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 on the site of such operations,
inactive mining operations are mining
sites that are not being actively mined,
but which have an identifiable owner!
operaton
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment.
storage, or disposal facilities, 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 (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
Industnal Classifications 20. 21. 22. 23.
2434, 25. 265. 267. 27. 283. 285, 30, 31
(except 311). 323. 34 (except 34411. 35. 36.
37 (except 373). 38. 39, 4221—25. (and
which are not otherwise included within
categories (i)—(x)).’
Waters of the United States means:
(a) Al! 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 tune 4 i992 the United Slate! Court of
Appeais for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
exclusion for manufactur.n facilities in category
jxij which do not have materials or acliviI,rs
exposed to itorm water to ihe EPA For Further
rulemal.irg INos 90—70671 and 91-70200j
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide.
(b) All interstate waters, including
interstate “wetIands .
(c) All other waters such as interstate
lakes. rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams). rnudflats.
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 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 tinder this definiiion
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
deft nit ion.
(f’) The territorial sea, and
(g) 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 requtrements 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
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’
I Part I A 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 2 in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
2. Part III of the permit are revised to
read as follows

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 99 I Notices
41227
Part Ill. Special Conditions.
Management Practices. Commonwealth
Special Conditions, and Narrative
Effluent Limitations.
C. Common wealth 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 permittee 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 NOl.
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 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.
The certification should be signed by the
person who fulfills the signatory
requirements in accordance with Part
VI C 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 NOt. the
permittee shall submit to EQB with copy
to the Regional Office, a certification
stating that the Plan has been developed
and :mplemented 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
V1.C 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 IV 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 C 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 P/wi
2 Controls
d. Approved State or Local Plans
. . . I
(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 (Plan CEST. as
referred to in Spanishi required by EQB
4 Part VI i\ 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
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
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 opera’ion 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 ti/I
B Colorado (Federal facilities and
lndioii Iands/ 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.
I 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
discharges.

-------
41228
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices
2.
. . . . .
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit providec’ 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 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.
B. Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities
1.
. I • • •
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 paragraph lll.B.3 of this permit to
the appropnate 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
80222—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.
• I • I I
4. Part Vll.A of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part VII. Reopener Clause
• • I I S
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
I.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.
. . I I I
Region IX
C. Arizona. Arizona 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 administered by EPA Region 9 in
the State of Arizona. excluding all
Indian lands.
S I I I I
2. Part II of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
F. Special NOI Requirements for the
State of Arizona. NOIs shall also be
submitted to the Stateof 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.
3. Part Ill of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part III. Special Conditions
I
I • • •
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 (AG.
Rule No. R92-006).
4. Part VIII of the permit is revised to
read as follows:
Part VIII. Termination of Coverage
. S • • S
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.
• I S I
5. The following definition has been
added to Part IX of the permit:
Part IX. Definitions
. S • I I
Significant 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).
Region X
D. Alaska. Alaska 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 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 I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9 1992 ‘ \otices
41229
C. Where to Submit.
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—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)
Z78-’8594, Fax’ 272—0660.
4. With the NOl to the State. a brief
‘ascription of the activities to be
overed 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 111 B 1 b is revised to read as
follows
Part Ill. Special Conditions.
Management Practices, and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantitios
I
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 !lI,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 II C for addresses.
4. Part 1V.D 4 of the permit is revised
to read as follows
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
D. Contents of Plan.
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.
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 l.A of the permit is revised to
read as follows
Part 1. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit 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 III, Special Conditions
. . . . .
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
Wasiewater Treatment Requirements”
F. Washington (Federal focilnies and
Indian lands). Washington 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows.
1 Par: I of ifli- permii is revised to
read as foIlo%%
Part I Coverage Lnder This Permit
A Pernii 4’e Tne permit covers .ill
Federal Fdcilitii-s ddm lnistered b EP.\
Region 10 in the State of Washington
2 Part ill of the permit is revised io
read as follows
Part III. Special Conditions
C Washington Slate Standards
1 This permit does not authorize the
violation of ground sater standards
(Chapter 173—200 WAC) surface waler
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 t ith ground water
standards shafl be determined b
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 h this permit if this causes a
violation or the potential for iolation of
ground ater standards (Chapter 173—
200 V .AC) Such discharges belot 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
discharges and to require additional
monitoring
BiWNG COOE esIO-5O-M

-------
Ill Site vfly Infomlasal
P. A Operater Nine I i I I I i I I • i
ReceMngWat8rB y I •
If You aa Rung co a Co.psmuuee.
Enter Sterm Water General Permit Number I
SIC or DesI iated
— Coos Prynar, 11111 2nd I i I I I
If The F hty us a tMmber of a Group
Ap 5llosecfl. Enter Group Applucabon Number
If You Hs Omer E uusong NPOES
puis.EnterPefmutNumbele: I . . . a a I L i.
41230
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
Appendix C — NOl Form Instructions
Farm Approves c I... rer
Si. Rsvsres for Instiuctions
wlimgter. DC 20460
PPOEB EPA United Stetes EswWorriontel Proteceon Agecoy
I Notice of Intent (P101) for Storm Water Discharges Aesociated with Industrial
Activity Under the NPDES General Permit
SubmUlon of stat Notes of Intent corethites noece Stat tie patty idenoted In Seceon lot tie loom intends te be aitter ed by a NPDES permit hued for sterm
d iirQeS ‘ ted Wth Indi.melal ity In lie Slate Identited In Seciton Ii of l i ii tomi Becomlnaaoerfllttee odIg s suet dhetlrger at comply wrIt
me temis aid condrnorta of me permit ALL N CESSARY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON I FORM
I. Fealty Operater Infarinabel
Nine. • ii I I
Stabat of
Addrees 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 ne, Cperater E
City i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I St I • I ZIPCc0e I I
II. FaalltyiSite Locaton Intoimaxn I
Is tie Faab?y Located a
Nine I • i t . • I a a a I 1 lndian% _ ands’(YorN )
Addr I i I u a
City I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sue I i I ZIPCcOe’ I I I II I I I
L 5ide. I I i I i I Lorigiside I . i I i I i ICuarter I • I Seceon I I Township I • • • I Range I t i I
I I I I _ I I I I I I I I I I
Mo There EjaisUng Is tie Fealty Requied at Submit
Oua ietaweOa&(VerN) MomtonngOate’(1.2.or3)
3rd I i i—i I 401 1 1
II I
IV Additonal IntcrTTlabon Requred for Consevcson Mivises Only
Protect Caingleler i
Start O Date. ta tie Storm Water POIIUbOn Preventon Plan
Wreted Mute be In Ccrn$anes wet Slate aidfor Lc
I I . I I t I I i I 5 5ft (tnA i9 5) I ‘ • I Sedunenta idEiosaonPla i&(YorN)
V. CeMiiSun I corify wider perety of law Stat tie doamwnt aid all a imsnte nero prepared wider my dit Cfl or supervataon in asxrdaraes W It a
system designed to asawe Stat qualded personnel property gaIter aid ev iea Vie untomiaacn suboteed. Based at my ir uuy of tie person or persorie emo
manage lie system or moss persona dire y responsible for lering tie urdormaton, tie intonnaton submitted is. to tie best of my leowledge aid beSot, tue.
uaat. and npleto I an mews met mere ate significant perialtes for submutsng fates irdormaton. inOIuding me posalbdity of fine and imprisonment tar
n g
Porn fawns
. . . . . • • I • I I
EPA Form 35106(642)

-------
Wirn Nuu PS , A Isdiol Of baull (NOt) Porn
at 40 CFR Put 1 oratidsu xml soubas Cisdus sa of se” use’
- - maaVu s ly 1. a usts ’ bodp (.s) of Vu U S utVuit a I sorsI
Poa um Otodutg. O.....aowi Syoum (NPOES) oormt Ths oosrau , of ut urtusmat
orsoily Ouf 11.1 oud S mann use’ dscbWgS must .ids ’uta NOl 1. obs.n
u lu €S Sumi Vuw Osnutsi Psmiit P you Puos q.mauot. sdout ufeeur
you usda psnmt unds’ Vi. 10€S So ” Waw .. . . . or 4 you r rfornuOor
U. Wulut a MrtC 14w o .an Is sorutmalso by EPA or a sus. s cy. asasci
Vu Sunii Woe’ Hod ,. at (7 ) I.4$
W I . ,. t. P2 SO S Porn
SOS, nnsat b. sort ts Pu S,L.. , , a41
Son Waut Nob. 01 b 1
P0 Boa 1215
N..... u’l . VA
Cso , to ibis Porn
You trust Iy sof prnt using uxorsoso tote’., in Vu sXfobnats us.. o nly Plus..
— ss.yi cndrs. 1 .r b.Iussn 0 , ua A 5 SmStS if luCsuaIy u Its ,’ ..bn Oil
rumssr of Crar e’s sllousd for sod ‘to Us. on soros for S,IUkS 1.0 101
toil 1ut toy ucOialor ’ nu,bs unto.. Vu,’ or. nssosd to c l int,’ yoi r ooms. If you
lew any sf5500 .1. or 000 so S Vu Stomn Wits, NoOns .1(703) 02I•4503
Sssdun I PsdIIy Oçsrisor I.tonulton
Gus Vu tog.l ra in, of Vu DI ’SOn. Pint. CubIc ovganzoaon. or any 0 0w snoty 01st
oguous Vu toolity or Sits dswibsd in Vu ax.,an flu rune of Vu ooustor may
0’ may 11.1 bo Vu sure asOl. tune of Vu Is Iity Ttu rss iu gun,’ a Ow togs)
rlty Out canada Vu to.olitp S ogurloor. 100w Pun Vu punier sit. ‘slug.’ Do rut
us. a °t, - tune Ems’ Vu uonofst. add’s.. SM luisplule l1.IPu of Ow
0 g . lsW
Enur Vu soclooruts tool, 1. aidiasts Vu tog.) mali. of 01. ops,ae’ of Vu Iscibly
F • Fodust U • Pubic (oVut 01an f.dsr.l or sufs)
S.Smc. P.Pbeat.
Solon U P . .IlIyISIts Lolallon liltontistlon
En ., Pe foal!,’ sot at. I offIcial or I.g.l nine stat 00 , 11. 1*. 51.5s 1 adOt. . . including
a t , ’ . ts. .sat ZIP sods If 01. 0. sitS toes a SPust 0 0Cr. . . macau 0* 11.10
Vu Utlids and IorçiliCs of Oe facility to Vu root 15 rdI or 0* quIlls’
socoor 0051 110 sf 10 rings (1. SW I*WISt sf 1 115 ’ S I0.i) 01 Ye sO0.ou ltT1.ta cr 1 1 . ,
of Vu 5its
l u ateOut Vu facility 1 l005tId Or Irdan tons
SMon at SOS £dMty Irtomn Utlon
P Vu sum use’ dadlorgu. Os nunicigul saosrta mann ss- ’ .y.ta10 ( 1454) sri.,
0* _._ at Vu 00*00’ 0 ! Vu 1454 ag. nonapalil , ’ ruin, sourly rums) sf10 Vu
usut Of 51. d* *r9 tram 015 1454 (A 1454 is 0.0 1*0 55 S crlv. , ’s lIOs
or sysm of omwsparcs. (u iat’ng ‘ass uui dr.uugs ,ystsma. mumogul ao.ma.
50 05551. aimS. guns,.. 1050’sa . nuil-neOs durwels, or awn 0,uru) Yet a
055*00r 005 10*0 bpS mats. city. s-i. borough, count,. 05 , 15 1 1 tosOct aisoasoon,
O ’ 00w Cubic body elicIt a OMIQIIUd ussd for cat bng or ‘vsoytng lOin eats’)
If Vu to.0I )P wgss sum, usul drscOy 1. foCusing ose’(s). 51W Vu luIiu Of Vu
user
If its fIi’ig as a so ’gsmvltue SM a sum’ use’ gorstal punit tw I ,ts , Pus boon
Issuad, 5111., Out ltrmn1.st in Vu 5 .os orO ,stId
u 55 150w Of Itot Vu 00uiOr Og.bOto ’ Of Vu loaMy Pea 5051.19 Sf5110005
mat io osul1 Vu cfuro1.nubca and sosuesbon ot polIu1.I’bU in lOIni *51.!
Vu NoPe,’. t05uSM to sids ut nL Lzvi Se by sio.rng ole of Vu
I • Nss sd to si it . . e’L 5
2- Rsqus .d 1. sibrnt inu..uot S e.
3- Nat r. iwsd to ouguOt . .. ..i1.... 51.. subnmsrç aulNolon Vi nunumig
osdusan
TPss. toalmss mat ttsiit outsiat rvuotonrç 051. (.9 cl*i00 2) a’s Sscbon 313
EPCRA todlulsa. pinuiy huRl P15isOus. 11110 0 .50055) i ieñ ruruiw&BlFs. s-c
Osoonorl bulls.. ballus so01 SM g il. iiii1.ft. silO. bute’,’ ‘soltiuta
List. m d.iuO. , d of slguflcaro. up 1. ir 4.d t Iu1Wd ulSiSbls)
du.siPma0out (SC) sods. Out boat dasath. Vu givugul orodice or ..s-.
at Ou Nods,’ or us at.MI.d I I S.csori list Vu apis-on
Pu Idsiapul sinMOs. dsto 1 .d In 40 CFR IU.20(bfl14Xf).(II) Out do rut tuvi SIC
sods. Outsolifiul,’ 0550105 Vu givsopig.o0.ice PoSed 0! 55 , -nsa P 0 * 0 5 0 . Vu
bAn.... , 2 . 0 1 1 . 1 50 W CuSs s-u 05 usK
HZ • Hap u . assu 000nutt. sutogs. a’ daposs) fuolds.. ircbudny fuss 01.1
515005150,19 ISSM Sf05 1 11 11 s-ia or u pulilt Said., suibls C of RA (40
CFR Ifl.33 (b)(l4XNfl.
LF - Lanodlis. litat s oobofl ill. SM ogun CurIOS 01st ‘Idly. or Puvo . ..0
slip s ia0ui eastss. Ildidloig 00055 0 1st are Sitb 5C1 to roguRoon undr
Odds. D of RA 140 CFR lfl.26 (b)(14)(vfl
• Stsam 515051. pusur g.nsuRlg balms.. unduulng saJ I ,srathrç Silas (40 CFR
1ft2S (b)(lOflvii)j.
TW • T .o.pnsnt upua osabng SmooPc as-ag. or a ”,’ ore’ smug. sluogs or
usstorsts , Posvnsni Vucs or .yutsm. ussd f l 055 sung. Os aDlent
tscycbrrg vat Isdanubon of iruriap.l or sa c g. (43 CFR 12225
(b)( 14X’a)I. or,
CO • Cona ucbonac viDss(4OCFR ¶ 26 (b)(14)(u)
If Vu faa . ?,’ P 5*0 in Sscbon II 1.5 ps ,lcipat.d ‘n P un ¶ of in SOorouso storm asts’
graug sObs-orb and a poug fluIDs’ Ma bssfl asoplOd Idts’ D I I gIDuP 500iIcatOI ?
rums.r in Oil s os- paylOad
tf 015,. irs oVu ’ NPCES gsnl .s prsIsnSy ussuso t r iris fscshty or sits 15150 in Sscoor
IL bat Vu gamut tInSeL lIar aObs-on for Vu facility las bssr IubrIflsd Cut ‘1.
gumi ,ujmW 1.5 05.. ssugfisd until Vu . glis-on huMus’
Oscaton I V AddOlonal l..f.......tI . . . Rsquivsd for Constructton MOvhuiss Only
C 1spuclon sctvulss “151 wrist. S.cbon IV in sdCiDOn to S.citons I ou aup ’ III
Only soroucoon .clvm.s ns.d to somisis Ssctor’ IV
Entsn 01 pn 50t 51. 11 data and 05. saomstad somostior da 1 . ID, .0* snot.
dssalopnsrt pRl i
Pr d. ml obr ,uts of Vu toOl numbs, Of icr . , oP iris an. or a?iiCPI soil eli 05
disbjrtsd (hOund 1.0* *5, 1st scrs)
In4i to uP*0e ’ Vu 0Wm usto’ olluton ysuen!on Di .’ Po ’Vrs bid ) , ‘con’D,snc.
wsf a ousd stsIs sPew local ssd,Tent .ra s IQaun pun. P5tTflit l or storm watu
IlurugalieflI Dull
S.clior V Csrlficaion
Fsdsrii Stslits povata for suss,. gsnalbss Is’ siib’TIrOng IsIs. intonn.oon on 014
a,on torn F.mssl rogutalons usf s ,. 015 aoo Ic55on to bu sigind as
F.’ • wrg,ae’i by a rosgorabto sorooni. off c.r uncli ne.re ( 1 pr.s.nl.
510.11.?,’. p 5 5 511 , ’. or sus-o’.sinsm, of Do soroonoon in crarg. of 5 grrcigal
businsls tur010nt or or, oDe, p 5 ,50.1 wre psdovms similar polcy or Osc ,sion maMlg
func ors or (.) 0 ’s nu, . , of ore or nun. nw iuf50s lr .ng , piaOucoor or oos ’urg
foods.. snulopr 1 9 ruts D u n 250 patios or h51irg 9mS• irnu I sa s s or siDsndiDjrs .
sos-ding 525 Itallait (us s.wlO-qusnar 190 dolIsri), if auDlorily to 5gfl 000urenta
Pus b.an sasugnsd or dslugulad to Oil “ufug in Isoorouni. ehOl corgonit.
pdC sd t lrss.
F.’. , Ii ..Ji , , or sat. p sap muSMuc by a gsru L panaut or Vu pooreur or
Fors nasvcmality, .a F.4.M or oVurpvblc toCiPly by snOws P1i1. iOSI sz50itv.
ofbcsr or missing sisced olTi J
PUpas-k S,duatIat , Nods.
Pubic . . .i1. p tojlSn Vi 000 . pSMOon us olnutId to uvorsg. 0 5 Pens 0*
apgNooon . sRlt ig Vi . Vi I t ‘eavcboiu . sua’dwlg osaung 51. souls-.
oral numWv VuSe nusdad, stat sowaiorç SM nusmung Vu soils-n
of . ,behuIan. Suid.......,...,rs. rsgauds Vu burtsr 510151.. any 0015’ ilouct 01 Vu
of tobinubon. or u. -’--si far biu..... -. , Ova bit ,. 111.1 14119 sf1,’
uivr-r . 55500 may us-isa or rsdio, los butdun w CPu.), fribriubon Policy
Orvtdt PIf- U.S Er....... ....I Ps-coon Agrlcy. 401 14 Suss SW.
DC 2OSS0.or Dow. 00w of lilotituDon 5110 RsguUtofy AVulo. 00w
of Usiuqoruf I I and Bodyst. Wulu n. DC 503
Federal Register I Vol 57. No 175 I Wednesday. September J 19 \J’!c ‘
liutmicllons . EPA Form 35154
SObs Of Intsnl (NO!) P. Slosay 155 15, DNohuio A . .oClaad Will IfidustIlSI A0.I Ity
To S. Comusd Undsr TOn NPOES GsnstsI Pss,ndt
41231

-------
41232 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices
Appendix 0 — NOT Form instructions
Ferns A ue. C i r*an
Plus .. S.. Instiuctions Batore Computing This Fonn
10E8
Wrebesgtn. DC 20460
F°’ I EPA Plotice of Termination ( NOfl of Coverage Under the NPDES General Permit
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity
5ubn Ion d Sd NoSes of T,... .&..& 1 n condtires noSes 1st Ire prety k.. aJ is Sedan II of Sd (aim is no biger ai1s 1 d t
wth s asId m w er lie NPDES wn . AU. NECESSARY INFORMM1ON fAIST BE PROVIDED ON THIS T bm
I. PsnsWt dwmaSon
NPOES S i mm Wter Clisdi Hue I Yti a. No Longer Ctisdi Here It Is o Simm Watr r—i
I . . i i I Is .L.direFedty: Oisch . BeisgT J..I.d: L_J
II. Fsdty IJ . .
Plans: I • . . i • . a a • a a a a a a a a a . . IPtisre:’ a I I I a
I I i I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I • I I I I
cjty I’:,’ I III! t ! I I I S I I Sib: I PCode:I I .
III. F Sim esIan Sdanalon
5 5
Nuns: a a . i • • a a I a a i i a a a I a
1_ • • • • I I a a a i a I I I a I I a a I I I a I I I a i I
City: I i . t i a i • i a • i i a • • i a • i • I s : 2IPCods: a I I I i I
L tJds:lIIIIIiLc I I 5 ts:IIiIt IllQ. tur. [ j .jS s t ii e i s: IiITo s o is l s : I . a a
IV. C.i’ ’.—”---, : I esrS wder peisdy of (aw Iitd r .a .i d m i t is aStd S lty from Ire U.rdII.d f lit a. wUuliad bye
NPO€S gonad eisSt mare bess thnise.d er lit I an ire beer ire p1e. . dire ‘Jty er es imfrudon die I wsda’siend list by ui m1st q this NoSes of
T.m*sreen. I an ire biger a lz .d ie d4dia o etim —‘ - - mi ii is atiui ad Ity iamior this gunuel
simm — - d m lii rOaoml udity b m dim titled Sibs is wib*i wstur lie Clewi Wswr Ast
NPCES p.mlt I etoialeiiimd lit lie sidW d Id NoSes of T......L.&.. . Sees it mIdi a , o , from beitlity for sty
cless Waler Ad.
Pi stIbe ,m: I I a a a a
Wits Hey RIsu NoSes .1 TundittIen (ff01) Pans While Is Ills NOT Penis
its se Isu.unS esuild wd ire EPA isamd N.&..J Pitesti Oust ifs bern rem. 115 b q tIde:
o ia _ . p.j. . g , bysuns (ff106 5) 0usd Pens N be ibm Wus
--t bit ele ASW n sift S bmesdT....A1.L.. ibm Waur Noses dTW,IdOA
(ff01) been we. i bilNus i s beegur Pa’s sty C D I I I ei Sd li i i
itS NNast Ity us dslvmd N ire snsrn m 5ftse a 40 N.. .t & . .. . VA DID
CFR ID.a (b)(14). er we. Irey a. is isng m,,... _ . . dim
Fei a,mai i ov ireui dii Cents — - 0uiuØibre 11 liii.
ets ty eon ,. we. sabsd us a ii, mnreuits ire (a’s
bun Idly -d sW m., .g. i S W 1.4 5. 14 ewsod seseus Tips er pim. mVi t pur.esus Ness. N Tm sew alp. R
ID. Idi mn J W bs . ........d a as . . ... .I. Sire. ib ii eDIts .c. suds leaner bee.... . Tm sets. Abe...le so
— — — - as NNaTii ty sew ima’a.ule ire Sd Tm master of 4ie toned be suds burn. Us, alp are be
a. b a e.vei guest pane Ise eu-..... _ . suits uhi....J. ewes. N a ret be Nanslets limbs talus imp us imSWd t
pitt — —-i 1 sewu ens a sss.auuans _. .. tire ire iew be., pea U pei lun .ty ejuedue alas W I. bin. ad ire imim im
SW lets I lta’ .... _ guiJ SWu s of ti%d lb. a(7SiJ i2I.4e..
Iso be ll svud as. SW ma d by DIre... I..
beu , sss.Nimd. or s SWsuti ,........I sews... (S al — I s o
s.d re. or ) lus Sea’ .. .jNkJ . piga 5 asvens.cirespos. m a smiiss .w nuoroNp
EPA Fuss 3Sl5 .7(e

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 I Wednesday. September 9. 1992 \otices
• CPA Penn 2510.7
NdIes of Tu,rnh ’ st WIn (NUT) of Cov1r9 . Undo, ms NPDES Oslutsi Pennhi
W dii’s W.tsr DWIclisrg.s £1.t.d With bidi I Aduvity
41233
S Ios I Penudi ItdiuMIori
d ’ s • uv NPOES Senii Wv . , G.nsrnl Psrnd’ minbsr assignud ‘sd’s
or if’s dvid U.d In S.v.n II I. Pys do nut d’s p.mvi nti .r.
en d’s SDiII w HoSe. si (7N) 1.4i23.
bu port be abrd d l . Node. of Ts , irlidon by diusodlig its
Pd’s.e bu born .dnni. oi ip .. end pora vs no bior d ’s epumnni
ci die ty or ube Idurdled I , Sedan In. dusdo d’s v.rsupciithng itCi.
Pu w , . ..l’sbuIlpw Uledenillud Vi Ssduon U I five been
1.0 . dIed d ’ s W iU , . I I1%d. .$ d i.
buU Pedbynp _of
G b P’s Vigil ivi’scid’s puulorl. Urn ,. ptducorgvfatusn. ysinsi unity dlii
op.i die dilly or ills dswtbsd rn d i . e.aian. Th. nw’s of d’s apsrs’sr
rnuy or ‘sip not Usd 15 urns inn’s — d’s Indity. The .e. ’ s . cit’s Vichy I.
Pie Vigil unIty slid, vrDdo d’s bUhlys , . iwt . mdiv den due IM1 or a’s
rnv se. Do nut nas a ‘ .‘-tyc nw’s. Enw die npVi ’ s sddsu end
cii’s peon..
Sidlan UI Fidotyli. ‘ i bntoi Iw
Ernum d’s Sellys or dii cl or Vigil lien’s vsi onuile’s odious. Indiifuig
dip. svs di ZIP die. lid’s dilly I de a sweet uddmss. bib’s ins I ’ s ’ s.
die beSide di Icr sinde old’s ditty ‘sine nuorsst 15 s.enids . or d’s ig—w.
u ’. idop. end iv (‘si’s uvsust lsr ss fl) of d’s pepu zXi ,s ’ s
un’s, at l’s site.
Sedan IV DoiiMdOt
F.doruf sons provIde be error. psnulses be subnnnng false rnb,nsion sin
disi - Ir - bin. F.du.I rugiistero ,sO rs hi upphuxn ‘sUe signud us
Fern v.poradan bps ‘stoonslbl. ..iale oiliest. whiofn n’sunl: ) prouIdsill.
u.oiiv . vuuww. or vIos ruuidunl of d’s W i dirge c li pibipsi
dinses blelon. or vip cdisr psruon di psdornis slirAr policy or dsoacn
‘siding hanoi’s. or (ll die nnogor of on. or inure maredsening . pudidan.
or opeusitig Vidhius urnp big inure Sen 250 psusoms or hiving gloss wviual
des or .xpsidues . ,dog $25 million (WI ssund-qusn.r I NO dc i . ’ . ). If
dusilly ‘s Upu doonnun’s liv bun uuignud or dulugsord ‘sd’s nse’sgsr WI
di procedures;
For a , .. .jm.,id, . or bps gsrnu ,U psrv’sr on’s pconser or
Fern imaif sIp . Fidorsl . or cd i v ptidlc iadI - by elSie ’ a pbdpif
ouuorulve oldir or r.lwIg .Isv.d ofA sI
Psp it Ad Ndloe
Piduic . .,...i1I . , budun be disi upØuoan is ssimated’s rasupe. 0.5 fires per
pegidian. diuitrç dii’s to’ unveng InsUu ons. seumitrng udso ,tg Ca’s
settee.. gsdluilsig di manisetrig Vie dais nusdud. rid enlipleun; end
n.. d’s • . ci Inbinucon Send w vnen’s uvgu,dmg V’s fairdsn
dove. rip suer sps of l’s cilIsceon of inbvnsooi. or augsexns WI,
dli bin. Vididnp rip suggeseorts stildi may naive. or redue. ha
budun m:Cll.f. lnbmsscn Policy Biench. Pt.I fl3. U.S Euwtisiirnsniai
Pua ’ s i.. . , Aguu’sy. 401 N Swuei. SW. Waitvng’sn. DC nones, ,.v.,. CItes
ci WIL ... . . end Psi’ y Liv .. Office of IMnagurnuni end Budget.
Widwigi., DC 25503.
IFR Doc. 92—21385 Filed 9—8—92: 845 aml
DiI.UNO CODE 6560-SO-C

-------
37162
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 I Notices
Use/Production. (C) Paint vehicle.
Prod, range: Confidential.
V 52—179
Manufacturer. ConfidentiaL
Chemical. (C) Slyrene-acrylic
polymer, sodium salts.
Use/Production. (C) Printing ink and
coatings vehicle. Prod. range:
ConfidentiaL
V 92—1w
lmportei. Confidential.
ChemicaL (G) Fatty acid polyester.
Use/linporL (C) Printing ink. Import
range: Confidential.
V 02—191
Manufacturer. Eastman Chemical
Program.
Chemical. (C) Aliphatic polyester.
Use/Production. (C) Coating
intermediate. Prod. range: Confidential.
V —1
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) AJipha tic polyurethane.
Use/Production. (C) Coatings. Prod.
range Confidential.
v es-is3
Manufacturer. Henkel Corporation.
ChemicaL (C) Polyester.
Use/Production. (S) Plasticizer for
polyvinyl chloride resin. Prod. range:
100.000—150.000 kg/yr.
Dated: August 12. 1992.
Steven Newbw -Rinn,
Acbng Oirector. Infom’ ion Management
D:v,s,on, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
(FR D 92-39650 Filed 8-17-W. 45 amj
9ILL 0 OC (510-404
(AMS-FRL-4 196-11
Trartspor tJon and Air Qimltty
Planning G ildelines Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability .
SUMMARY: This ar.tion is announcing the
availability ot a idance document
regarding the transportation and air
q’,ality planning rrocess. This guidance
is in’ended to provide State and local
governments with an overview of the
transportation! air ua1ity provisions of
the CAAA of i99r . This action is
published in resp irise to the
equirements of S’:ction 108(e) of the
;AAA of 1990.
DA’TtS The guidn..ce document will be
available August ‘S. 1992.
ADDRESSES The (ocuments are
available to federiil. State. and local
governmental Ag odes and may be
requested from Ms. Norma Gray.
Emission Control Strategies Branch. U.S.
EPA National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory. 2565 Plymouth
Road. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105,
Telephone: (313)—741—7884. Facsimile:
313—688-4388.. It is suggested that
request be made by facsimile. Copies of
the document will be available for
public viewing in the National Vehicle
and Fuel Emissions Laboratory Library.
at the same address. The document will
be available to non-governmental
requestors through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS),
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield.
Virginia 2Z161. Telephone: (703)—487—
4850. Request Document PB 92-201458.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACr.
Mr. Richard I.. Williams II, Emission
Control Strategies Branch. U.S. EPA
National Vehicles and Fuels Emission
Laboratory. 2585 Plymouth Road. Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48105. Telephone (313)
668—4419. Facsimile: 313-668-4368.
SUPPL ITARY INFORMATION: 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 Btandards.
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 lot
developing transportation control
measures: considerations for addressing
PM—lth Conformity: funding: and public
participation. Examples of State actions
concerning planning procedures are also
included.
Dated: August 10. 1 2.
Midiasi Sb.plso
Assistant Administrator. Office oJA,, and
Radiation.
(FR Doc. 92-19634 Filed 8-17-92. 8.45 .ani(
(FRL-4195-8 1
RevIsion of the Iowa National Pollutant
Diechaige Elimination System (NPDES)
Pvo am To Authorize the issuance of
General Permits
AGENCr. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Notice of approval of the
national pollutant discharge elimination
system general permits program of the
State of Iowa.
SURMARY: 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 (NPDES) General
Permits. This action authorizes the State
of Iowa to issue general permits in lieu
of individual NPDES permits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC ’I
Donald C. Toensing. Chief, Permits!
Compliance Section. Water Compliance
Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 7. 726 Minnesot
Avenue. Kansas City. KS 66101. 913-
551-7034.
SUPPLEMENTARY ORMATTOW
1. Rk — - . 1 #
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.8
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate discharges of
wastewater which result from
substantially similar operations. co-ita:n
the same types of wastes, require tl e
same effluent limitations or operati::g
conditions, require similar monitori:tg.
and are appropriately controlled under a
general permit rather than individuai
permits.
Iowa was authorized to administer t iI’
NPDES Permit program in 1978. As
previously approved, the State’s
program did not include provisions to;
the issuance of general permits. Thc
are several categories of dlscharFes
which could appropriately be r ’Sul..l d
by general permits in lown. ir.cliii ir’
storm water. Therefore, the lowH
Department of Natural Rcsourcc ’s
requested a revision of its NPDr.S
program to pro ide for issuanc’ or
general permits.
Each general permit will be iibj ”tt in
EPA review as provided by 40 CFR
123.44. Public notice and oppnrttiritv :c

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 191J2 / Notices
. ,. ,•;
d l S
request a hearing is also provided for
each general pa!Tfljt.
11. DiscussIon
The State of Iowa 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 has adequate
legal authority to administer a general
permit program consistent with the
applicable federal regulations. Based
upon Iowa’s submission and Its
experience In administering an
approved NPDES program. EPA has
concluded that the State wiU !iave 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
lows 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
dischaz er 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 percon mfly
request the State to issue art individu.iI
permit to a discharger otherwise eligible
for general permit coverage. While nut
required under 40 CFR 123.82. EPA is
publishing notice of this approval action
to keep the public informed of the s utus
of its general permits program
approvals.
m. 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.
Today’s Federal Register notice is to
announce the approval of Iowa’s
authority to issue general permits.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
Approved
Slate NPDES
permit
v m
Approved to
reg*iata
Federal
to tes
Ap irc’ved
pea ont
am
general pe’inil

10116/79
11101188
05105/78
10/19179
11/01/88
09123189
01/09/89
oe’ovei
03112/81
08/12/83
New Y
.,_ a___J.__
No Dakera
10/19/79
11/01/88
05114/73
03/27/75
09126173
04/01/74
00/28/74
11128174
10/23/fl
01/01/75
08/10 (78
06/2 8 174
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17173
06/30174
05/01/74
10130174
00/10174
06/12/74
09/19115
04/13I82
10/20/75
10/19 /75
06113/75
03/11/74
09/26173
06/30118
09/17/84
06110/75
12/23177
07/07/87
03111/74
,.a .s..a
12/00/80
06/01/19
09/20/79
12109178
08/10/78
08129/85
09/30/83
11/10/87
12/09/78
12I09/7 0
01/28183
36/26(79
06/23/81
I1/02/79
08131/78
04/13/82
00/13/80
09/28/84
01/23/90
01/28/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/26/90
09/30/08
07l07F97
a u
06/25 /91
11/01/CS
09122199
03/04/33
03110192
01/28/91
09/30/91
01/04/54
04/02/91
-- ...‘
Q9/33.33
0 9 130/91
1211 5/87
09/ 27191
12/12/85
04/29/93
07/20/99
07/27192
04/13,32
09’06F91
O1!22. ’30
02/23/82
c3/32. 1
09/1T. ’94
04/16/91
07 / 07;8?
0SI, ’O’91
09 / ’6 / 9
Q5/IO tl2
12119146
C I2411t
09/30/83
09/30/85
06/07/83
07/16/79
05/13/02
06/03/81
09/07/84
04/13/92
06/14/82
07/27/83
03/12/81
09117104
04/09/82
08/10/83
07/07/87
03 l16/82
—I-
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
02104174
01/30175
39
02109/82
05/10/82
11126/79
OS/IBIO l
34
04/14169
09/30/06
05/10/82
12/24/80
27

-------
37164
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 1 Tuesday. August 18. 1992 I 4o zci:s
Number of Fully Authorized (Federal
Facilities. Pretreatment. General permit)
IV. Review Under Executive Order
l 1 and the Regulatory flexibility Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12 1
pursuant to section 8 b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatcry Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq). I certify that this State General
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 Program merely
provides a simplified administrative
process.
Dated August 7. 1992.
4erth Kay.
egioriolAdministza:or. Region 7.
1 FR Doe. 92-19642 Filed 8-17- 845 asil
coos r--
A •flsfl •. —
F!DER...L • i
COMM ISSION
PubHc Information Cofleetfon
Rcqulrement Submitted to Of sCS of
Mana emerrt and Budget for Review
August 10. 1992.
The Federal Communications..
Commission has subrnit:ed the following
information collection requirement to
0MB for review and clearance under
the Paperwurk Reduction Act of 2980(44
U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be
purchased from the Commission s copy
contractor. Do ntown Copy Center.
1990 M Streel. NW.. suite 640.
Washingon. DC 20036. (202) 452—1422.
For further information on this
submission contact Judy Boley. Federal
Communications Commisalon. (202) 032—
7513. Persons wishing to comment on
this information collection should
ontact Jonas Netharut. Office of
triagement and Budget. room 3235
.OB. Washington. DC 20503. (202) 395—
414
0MB Numbe, 3090-0072
Tide: Application fo: Individual
Airborne Mobile Radio Telephone
License in the Public Mobile Radio
Service.
Form Nurnbeft FCC Form 409.
Action: Extension of a currtntly
approved collection.
RaspondenLc: Businesqes or oth,’- for-
profit (Including small businesses).
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting.
Estimated .4nnuol Burden: 3.000
responses: .084 hours average burden
per response: 252 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Uses: FCC Form 409
reporting requirement is necessary for
the Commission to fulfill Its regulatory
responsibilities under the
Communications Act of 1934. 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 400 is required by 47 CFR
part 22. The applicant may be subpect to
requirements in addition to those
specified on the form. Section 22.15(i)(3)
requires applicants to include an
affirmative representation that he/she
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
applicant.
Federal Communications Commission.
WlEf m P. Catgm.
Acting Secrecary.
(FR Doc. 92-19566 Filed 8-17-62. &45 aini
uNa coot .,i,
(Gsnoral Docket No. 91-Z DA 92-1084 1
Information on Application Filing
Procedures for the lnteracttve Video
and Data Service
Released: August 14. 1992.
On January 16. 1992, the Commission
adopted a Report and Order (R&O) in
GEN Docket No. 91—2 establishing an
Interactive Video and Data Service
(IVDS) under part 95 of its Rules (47 R
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 IVDS
application fi!ing window and explain
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). n.id i0 (Houston.
TX). For a description of th. ’ qprvice
areas see the Commi ,one J.inii.iry 4.
1992. Public Notice. Ri’ .port No. 92—U)
Applications for an IVDS licer.se for
these five qervice areas must be
ri’r.eived at the official filing locaticn
listed herein during the three-day fi!.r.
period beginning September 25. 2992.
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.’
Note: Applicants may have an Interest In
only one application in ench service area.
All applications must be filed on FCC
Form 155 (a separate application Is
required for each service area) and each
apphca Lion must be accompanied by a
separate check made out to the Federal
Communications Commission or FCC in
the amount of S1.400.00. Failed payment
or postdated checks will result in the
application being dismissed with
prejudice. In section 1 of Form 155. the
“Applicant Name” block must Include
the applicant a name (either typed or
printed) followed by the signature
loriginal) of an individual authorized to
sigi the application. T:ie mailing
address should be addressed to which
the applicant wishes official
correspondence sent. The number of the
service area being applied for (either
“OCu • “oar. “008”. “009. or “010”) must
be specified in the box labeled “Call
Signs. The fee type code entered in
Column (A) must be p j the fee
multiple in Column (B) must be 40”.
anti the fee due in column (C) must be
Si.coo.oe Each individual application
(Form 155) and accoaipanying che t
(S1.400.00) must be in en indw dual’
sealed envelope and properly addros!ed
(see mail Iii address). Multiple
applications, properly packaged. may be
delivered in one larger. properly
addressed container.
The Commissions official fling
locatian for these applications is Mellon
Bank In Pittsburgh. Pa. Applicitions may
be delivered to Mellon Bank in . r.e of
two ways. either mailed n or wai c
The beck-up flb proced rt en.ibl.-e cvrt.’ua
appL canti to me late if .bey F IIow eerie i n
pro dwes aod if their applica .on, are met er
deiai -idi aIu2t to Pittsbwph, r .u . .nta T’.
8zbe d cv policy allows cenu ,n .—& • t fl:.-
qn dii, after the fltrn c cedIhc T’ —ir
ci e plv to fl—c c i? i iL
ei i,licationa pte ,ousIy flied in 1) (
a d IVOS ap,licatlona. which cry new. lii.v. - -
bee-’ fIled in W i, ’i , ,gtnn . ‘
appi Cation is received in i tt,b ,ir-h i ’ . . —
IS. I .g th. day slice the filing w,iwI w -.-- .
:hr -e”er fr cnrdlt..b 01 th g ri i.i.rI • • •.-)-, •
. ip ’iiristIi .n will be dii -n,as.iI ... .,r— .I , - -,

-------
35774
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 155 I Tuesday. August 11. 1992 I 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 CTC document
for the graphic arts industry.
Section 129.68—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 CTC 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.
Proposed Action
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
revision 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
redesignations), 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 inquiry 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 hubbie regulation.
recordkeeping. gasoline marketing.
pharmaceutical 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)(A)—(K). 110(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 CYR Part 52
Air pollution control Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations. Ozone.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authorlty U.S C. ‘401—7671q.
Dated: June 28, 1992.
Edwin 8. Erickson,
Regional,Idmw,stm:or. Region III.
(FR Doc. 92-19061 Filed a-1O-9 8:45 aml
Sli,uNC COOS 5510.-50-M
40 CFR Part 122
(FRI. 4190—il
RIM 2040-U79
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity on Indian
Lands In Oregon and Water Quality
Cortifiatlon
AGENCY: Enironinental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: 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).
OATE& 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.
AODRESSE The public should send an
original and two copies of their
comments on the general permit to
Kevin Weiss. Permits Division [ EN.-335).
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460. This
public record is located at EPA —
Headquarters. EPA Public Information
Reference Unit. Rin. 2402. 401 M Street
SW., Washington. DC 20460. 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 (1! JO.134). 1200
Sixth Avenue. Seattle, WA 98101.
FOR FURThER INFORMATiON CONTAC’ri
Jeanette Carriveau, EPA-Region 10. (206)
553—1214.
SUPPLWENTARY INFORMATION: 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 18. 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. hi 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
industrial 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 16. 1991
(58 FR 40048). 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.
Regional Adnun,slrewr.
[ FR Doc. 92-10948 Filed 8-10-92. 8.45 am)
mw core uaeo om
ACTION
45 CFR Part 1224
Implementation of the Privacy Act of
1974
AGENCV. ACTION.
AC’TlOIC 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
ACTION.
OATS: Written comments must be
received on or before September 10.
1992.
ADDRESS: 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 FURTHER 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 20525 . (202)
606-5242.
SUPPlEMENTARY INFORMATIOSC
L Background
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-15.” 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. ACI’ION
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.)
IL Discussion of Proposed Exemption
Section (j)(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 any
part of section 552a except subsections
(b) (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F).
(e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i), 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 Individual: 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)(1), (e)(4)(C)
through (1), and (1), 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 thia 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 flies and to protect
individuals 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 sublects 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 I Monday . August 10._1992 I Notices
IFRL-4192—7l
Agency Information CoIlectlo
ActivitIes Under 0MB RevIew
AOENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOIC Notice.
AGENC ’ Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC1’TOc Notice.
$UMNART The EPA has authorized that
two subcontractors receive access to....
information that has been, or will be.
submitted to EPA under section 114 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended,
The Radian Corporation. 3200 E. Chapel
Hill Road. Research Thangle Park.-
North Carolina Is th pnmary.
contractor. The following are’
subcontractors that will provide
technical assistance to Radian (1).
Energy Environmental Research
Corporation. 3710 UnIversity Dzive.
Suite 160, Durham. North Carolina,-
contract number 68010117; (2) Alpha--
Ginnnui Technologies. Inc. 900 -
Ridgefield Drive, Suite 350. Durham. -
North Carolina. contract number
68010117
DATES Access to confidential data
submitted to EPA will occur no sooner
than August 15. 1992.
FOR FURThER INFORMATiON 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.
SUP LEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 subcontractore
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 Planning and Standards
(OAQPSJ in source assessment or with a
source category survey and proceed
through development of standards for a
Federal Air Pollution Control Regulation
or Control Techniques Guidelines
( )
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.305(h).
EPA has determined that each
subcontractor requires access to Dl
submitted to EPA under sections 112
and 114 of the CAA in ordei 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 daimed
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 CB I. All
access to CAA CBI under these
contracts will take place at the
subcontractors facility. Clearance for
access to CAA CBI under each contract
is scheduled to expire on August 1. 1996.
flatedAugust3.1 -
Michael Shapirs. .. - -.
ActrngAu:stnntAdminisb’owrforAir and
Rathatwn. .
IFR Doc.9Z-18934 Filed 8-7-02; 945 am)
mae _________ .
0MB Appra va/s
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION • pentoxide (p205) stored; 0MB No. 2060-
AGENCY - 0037; expires 06/30/95.
ConditionoL4pprova!
EPA ICR No. 1158.04; Standards of
Performance for new Stationary
Sources. Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Industry was approved 07/10/92 0MB
2060-0158: expires 07/31/95. This
collection of information received a
______________________________ conditional approval from 0MB. For a
SUMMA In compliance with the copy of the notice containing the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 u.s.c.. conditions, please call Sandy Farmer on
3501 et seq.). this notice annormnces oMB (202) 2664740., -
responses to Agency PRA clearance - . OfB Extensions of Expiration Dates ..
requests. . ‘ - EPA ICR No.1278: Reporting and ’
SUPPUMEPITASY INFORMATION: -- Recordkeeping for Asbestos Ban and.-
0MB Responses to Agency pp - Phase-Out Rule; 0MB No.2070-0082;
0ii Reciest. . : - : -. expiration date extended to 12/n/921
- -.-. ... EPA ICR No. 0138 Modification of
- .. . - Secondary Treatment Requiremems for
EPA ICR No.1062.04; NSPS - ‘ ‘‘ Discharges into Marine Waters; 0MB
Monitoring for Coal Preparation’ - - No. 2040-0088: expiration date-extended
Plants—Subpart Y: was approved 061 to 08/31/92. . . 1 -
01 /92; 0MB No.2060-0122; expires 06/ n’Ithdrcwal . -
30/95. . -
EPA 101 No. 1607.Oli Survey of Wood . EPA ICR No. 1567.01: Duplication of
Furniture Manufacturers; was approved Work; was withdrawn at the request of
08/03/92; 0MB No.2060-0238: expires -. the Agency. . -
06/30/95h - . Datedi July 24.1992. ’ - - - -
EPA 101 No. 1569 01 Development ’.-y PSI L.PUI.,... .. . -
id Approval Guidance for Coastal.: . Regvla jManogement Division.
mpoint Pollution Programs (CZARA
. ectian 6217); was approved 08/1o/9Z-’, IFR Dcc. 92—18933 Flied 8-7-82:945 aznj. .
0MB No. 2040-0153; expires 06/30/95.. ‘ 00(
EPA ICR No. 1572.01; Hazardous-. s
Waste Specific Unit Requirements and”
IFRL-4192-4 I - . - -
Special Waste Processes and Typeer- - . - — - .
was approved 06/22/92; 0MB No. 2050-.. Clean Air Act; Contractor Access To -
0050; expires 06/30/93. - —. Confidential Business Information - -
EPA ICR No. 1612.01; Low-Cost. Small:
System Technology Data Collection:
was approved 06/24/92; 0MB No. 2040-i
•0154; expires 06/30/95.. . -..-- -
EPA 101 No.0827.03: Construction
Grants Program Information Collection.
Request was approved 08/30/92:0MB
No.2040-0027; expires 06/30/95k - .- -
EPA ICR No. 0596.04: Applicatl n anC
Summary Report for an Emergency . -
Exemption for Pesticides; was approved
07/07/9 2 :0MB No.2070-0032; expires.
07/31/95. - , - .: - ‘
EPA ICR No. 1063/05 NSPS for ‘ “.
Sewage Treatment Plant lncineratibn.. - ________________________
(Subpart 0) Reporting and . - . . .: . . . - - - . -
Recordkeepng Requirements; was i.. (FRL-41932 1
approved 07/09/92; 0MB No.2060-0038:
expires 07/31/95.. . .. - ... •. - RevIsion ol the Nevada National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
0MB PartiaIAppmv J - - . .. : ‘ ____ System (NPDES) to Authortse he -
EPA ICR No. 1061.05; Standard of.. IUUIflCS of General Psrndts ...
ormance for the Phosphate Fertlllzer . - ‘ -.
.stry (NSPS subparts T. U. V. W. Xh AOEMCT: Environmental Protection”
A collection of information was . Some of the information may be , , , Ase icY (1 A). . ., . . .....
approved except for the requiremeni 10,.. - e1 im d.to be confidential buslnese --- -.: ACTION: Notice of approval of the
- retard daily the amount of phosphorus - -information (DI) by the submitter. --‘ - National Pollutant Discharge.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 154 / Monday. August 10, 1992 I Notices
35587
Elimination System General Permits
Program of the State of Nevada. . -

SUPPtEMENTARY INFORUAT1ON
I. Background -
- EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate the discharge of
wastewater which results form
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. .
Nevada was authorized to administer
the NPDES program in September. 1975.
As previously approved, the State’s
program did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
are a number of categories of discharges
which could be appropriately regulated
by general permits. For these reasons,
the Nevada DCNR requested a revision
of the State’s NPDES program to provide
for the issuance of general permits. -
Storm water discharges are the
discharge. which are currently under -
consideration for the general permit
However, additional categories
could be considered in the future . -
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review and approval as provided,
by 40 CFR 123.44. Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing is also
provided for each general permit. ‘
u. -- - - ‘. -
April 24. 1992. by the Attorney General
certifying, with appropriate citations to
the statutes and regulations that the
State will have adequate legal authonty
to administer the general permits
program as required by 40 CFR 123.23(c).
In addition, the State submitted a
program description supplementing the
original application for the NPDES
program authority to administer the
general permits program. including the
authority to perform each of the
activities set forth in 40 CFR 123.44. The
State has also submitted an Amendment
to the Memorandum of Agreement
between the State of Nevada DCNR and
EPA. Region 9 specifying the procedures
through which general permits will be
issued and administered by the State.
Based upon Nevada’s program
description and upon its experience in
administering an approved NPDES.
program. EPA has concluded that the
State will have the necessary
procedures and resam’ces to administer.
the general permits program.
.
IlL Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Programs or
Modifications,: ‘. -
EPA provide Federal Register’
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifyi4 a State NPDES
program. The following table provides -
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
Pollutant 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 ;,,
Pru am to authorize the issuance of
general NPDES 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 non-’
substantial 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. “ ‘
commenters were supportive of thi’ .
program modification. The finallzatio t,
of this program approval should also,bé
expedited in order to facilitate ‘ ‘
implementation of the NPDES storm’
water program in the State of Nevada ‘
- . -. . ..: .- ‘.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT.,, - The State of Nevada submitted in’
Eugene Bromley. U.S. Environmental. support of its request copies of the
status of NPDES permitting authority
throughout the country. Today’s Federal
Protection Agency. Region 9 (W-5-.1), 75
Hawthorne Street. San Francisco. CA
941 . 415—744-190&-- -—, - - -- -- . .
relevant statutes and regulations for
implementing the program. The State -
has also submitted a statement dated
..
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
Register notice is to announce the
approval of Nevada’s authority to issue
general permits.. - .‘
—
.
— .-. . - . . ‘ .
A9 IIO sate
NPDES oem
pr
Approved ‘ -
egtMta tedeed
ten
Approved s
pnVeab?uerd
propem.
‘

“
10119179
11/01/06
05/05/70
bw
‘
.
.
.
-,
c_ s ..J- -
c ’--i 0
—
—
: -
mn
In * - - --.. -
‘-
n___
I(.* v
.rp4. , ,4 .. . .. . .._____________________
.
- -.
-.;-
- -.
- .
-= - . . -.
-
— .
p Y e e
- 10/19/79
11101/88
09122189
01/09/89
08/03/81
06/26/9t
11101188
09/22/89
03/04/83
• 03/10/92
• 01/28191
- 09130191
01/04/84
04/02/91
08/04/92
- 03/12/81
• , 08/12103
-. 08103101
10/19/79
11/01/88
- 05/14/73
03127/75
09/26/73
04/01/74
06/26/74
11/28(74
10123 /fl
01/01/75
08/10/78
06F28 (74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17/73
06/30/74
05/01/74
10/30(74
06/10174
06112/74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10/28/79
,, ,._,.‘10 119 175
• 06(13 /15
03111174
12/00/80
06/01/79
09/20/19
12/09/78
— 08/10178
06/28/85
• 09/30/83
11/10/67
12/09/18
12109/79
01/28/83
- - 06/26/78
08/23/SI
11/02/79
08 / 31 178
04/13182
06/13/80
09/28/Re
01/22/09
01/28/83
—
P thOs 8o ’
. -
•,
-.
. 5
-:‘: -
.....
r
09/30/83
• - 09 130/85
-. 06/01/83
-- - ‘ 07(16/ 1 9
‘ 05/13/82
06/03/81
‘, 09107164
— 04113/82
09/30/83
09/30/91
12/15/87
- - - 09/27/91
12/12/81
- 04/29/83
07/20/09
07/27/92
04/13/82
• “: 06114/82
07127/13
• - . 09/06/RI
- 01/22 /90

-------
35588
Federal Register I VoL 57. No. 154 / Monday, August 10 1992/ Notices
STATE NPDES P GRAU STATUS—CO, 1Wed
I
..
A ro sd .*als
—
—
Appiovsd
—
I ir.
A ci sd st s
w.
pomm p im
P nc syIvigu a
89128173
06/30/71
09/17184
09/1017 5
12128177
07 /07/P
03 / 11/74
06/30178
06/3 1 / 75
1 1 1W 173
06/16/82
06/04/34
01/30175
83F 02F7 1
oe mns
Q9 17I84
09126189
09F30I 55
07/P/P
03/12111
17IS4
04/09182
05t10/82
• 0 7 / 171 57
0 6 1 1 5 / 8 2
02/23/82
ow isi
17øI4
- 04118/11
P 1 0 7/ I?
-
R e Is*and__________________________________________
Scsei u 5e
1 . ..—..—
UW
V
‘
wri Iu w.f.
Wpw.
0 2108/82
0 1 /14 / 8 9
C S ’ S ‘ 8 5
06/16/82
12 /W6O
05/20 / 81
09/26/89
05/10/82
W 19 1 56
09/24 1 8*
06/16/82
11/26 / 79
05/18151
-
WA
W e I I 9
Toti
3 9
- 34
V
31
Pkj ts- Ra AIS2hi.iw Fh, ..,.. nJer F...J’-.. Pr ium. Gse PeiWti -
IV. L..m . Under F.vecutive Order.
1 91 d Lbs Regulatory FLexibibty
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
regu u ents of Executive Order i i
pursuant to section 8tbJ of that Cr . -
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatosy
Flexibility Analysis for aD rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial ber of emali . nHt1
Purs to s on 895(d) of Lb.
Regulatciy Flexz5ility Act (5 USC. S
et seq.), I certify that this State General
Pets P .cua . will act have a
sigsiIL _ .J LIqJuIc;t on a substantial
nember of email entities. Approval of -
the Nevada NPOES State General. -.
Permits Program establishes ac new
substantive requirements. oor does It
alter the regulatory control over any
industrial category. Approval of the
Nevada WDES State General Pe,mgs
Program merely provides a simplified
a isfrative procese. -
DaledTuIyZLl l O2. -
Duofof W. McGavwn ,
Region a
(FR Dec. 92-18935 FLied 8-7-92 s.06 aa4
CODS UCSUS
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Mary land Port A InIsfratIon and
Premier Automotive Services . Inc.
Agreement(s) FEed
The Federal Maritime COmmission.
hereby give. notice of the filing of the..
following ag eevi’ *(s) pursuant to-. .. -
sedlos6ofthsShipplagAc$o1168t - .
Interested parties way Inspect sad . - -
tDtain a copy of each agreement at-the
Washington, DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commamme. 1100 I. Street.
..NW., room 1O 5 Interested parties may
submit on each agreement to
the Seeretasy. Federal Maritime
r mion, W*aMn 5 t . D 30573,
withinlOdaysafterthe dateof Lb.
Federal Ragis is which this nob -
appears. The requirements for
_______ . mA 57Z of rI’ie
of Code of Federal Regulation..
lnteres I p a thouM amsirli this
sect bale,. - -fr ’ *g with the
C---- a n ,.uJL s ga pending
_______ - -
ANo
Title: Maryland t iv matiation
end Premier Automotive hc-.,
Marine gr p fl .
Paztieer The Maryland Port
Arb tratbon (“MPA) . Premier
Automotive Services, Inc. ( Preuiier ).
Spwpsis The Agreement provides for
Premier to rent from MPA 6.53 aces in
Ares 90 appiurd.wately i&m aces
In Areas 22ad94bw ørI at the
D Malk M ’ Terminal. The term of
- the Agreement Is for five years.
232—012184—OOSb
• flier Evergreen Marine Corporation
(Taiwan) Ltd. Italia di Navig i iiT a,
S .p.A. and Compagnie Maritime Spec,
Charter and Sailing Agreement
• Fliit(es Compagnie Generale
Maritime (“CGM’l. Evergreen Marine
Corporation (Taiwan) Ltd.. Italia di
Naviganlone S.p.A.
Sy”np’i - The proposed amendment
will revis, the Membership and
Withdiew..1 provision of the Agreement
to provide that CGM may withdrew
from the Agreemer t upon tee days’
written notice to the other parties, as
long as such notice is not tendered
before S trmbeT 1. 1 . -
Agzeemwd No.. -Ofl -
TJ Agreement hr Settlement and
Released Columbus Line C1 Im .
Relatlag to the ArgentinalU.& Atlantic
PooIAgreacent..; . :.-’- -, . ... .•
Port ke: Amencan Transport Lines,
Inc.. Hamburg Suda icanlache -
Dampfsehff! iwt Geesellechalt
(Columbee Line). -
Syncp.à The proposed Agreement
would settle disputes between the
parties over revenne pool I -rtuMlng
payments for the years 2J90—1961 under
pooling Agree t No. 2i2-oii a8 (the
AigentinolU.S. AtLi . e q
Agreenrentj. - -
DM.&As st4.1906.•
By Order .1 the F sI Mmit ia
Commiuioe. -
C. n&iegp -
(FR Dcc. 02-18824 F’ed 8-7-6k 8:45 sinI
se ac CODE S13 OI-U
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
GrantIng of Request for Early -
TerTnInatIan of the Waiting Period
Under the Premerger ‘ os
Rules - -
Section ?A of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18a. as added by Title II of the
Hart-Scoti-Rodino Antitrust
lmprQvPw .0I t. A t of requires
person. contemplating certain mergers
or a . wsIt1ons to give the Federal Trade
Commission and the Assistant Attorney
General advance notice and to wait
dneignntad periods before
consn ,, ve tion of such plans. Section
7A(bfl2) of the Act permits the agencies.
In Individual casee, to terminate this
waiting period prior to Its expiration and
requires that notic, of thi, action be
published to the Fuil...) RuaLtia .
The foflowing transactions we ,-. ,
granted early termination of the welting
period provided by law and the . - -.
wtifi,..tlon rules. The grunts
were wade by the Federal Tisde

-------
Friday -
July 24, 1992
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CER Parts 122, 123, and 130
Surface Water Toxic. Control Program,
Water Quality Planning and Management
Program, and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Rule and
Proposed Rule
a

-------
Federafr Register’ /1 VoL 57, No 443 Fi’lday July24 19va osed’Rü1e ’ -
33051?”
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECflOW
AGENCY
40 CFR Part t23
I
National Pollutant Dlsdlargs
Elimination System Surface Water
Tonics Control Program. -
AGENCY: Environmental Protection.
Agency.
*C ’flO* Proposed rule. -
iu*R’rToday’s action proposes .
response to a recent decision of the U.&
Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit lit NIWC.
v. EPA. 915 F.2d 1314(9th dr. 1990)’.
interpreting section 304(fl of the Clean’
Water Act (CWA). The Courts decision
requires states to identify all facilities.
discharging toxic pollutants believed to
be preventing or Impairing water quality
of waters on any of the State lists of
impaired waters previously identified
under sectIon 304(1) and to identify the
pollutants discharged. The Ninth Circuit
decision also requires EPA to reconsider
whether all facilities newly identlfleE
under 3 04 (l) are required to have
ndMdua1 control strategies (ICS ). The
first action Is completed elsewhere In
the Federal Register today as pail of.
final amendments’ to EPA regulat1on ...
The second action Is initiated today -
through this proposal. -
Toda?s acti n proposes. two options.
The first option is to continue to require
l( only for point sources originally
subject to such a requirement under
VA’s earlier interpretation of section
304 (1). The second option Is to provide
the State the discretion to determine
whether, on a case-by-case basis, newly
listed facilitie. will be required to have
I( s. In proposing these options, EPA
ilso considered a third option —a
reqwrem t for ICSs for all newly Hated
point sources. Today’s proposal
discusses and solicits public comment
mall three options. Section II I below
dI ig 55 the three optlonm no-
eddltlanal LCSersome new ICSS at the
listretj 0 of the Director: and. ICSs for”
ill newly listed point sources. After
fltimt lng public comments and the
mired State C lists, EPA may fln I
‘ sl Option requiringno new lCSs Or the
OPtion authoyiz ng some additional ICS.
_ g er public comment.
th. lack of information to support
ted option described under-section
‘ mw 4CSs for all newly listed
ace not expect to
that Option without seeking.
PUuiIc Comment..
nenm EPA will arxep* commeetofiew pro sm The purpose of sectIon 304(1) 1’
the public on this proposal untii . .. to Identify and to control “toxic hot
September 8, i9O . spots.” 133 Cong. Rec..1287 Use. 14,
i - Submit comments to Robert- .1987) (stint, of Sen. Moynihan).
K. WoOd. Water Quality and industrial - In order to Identify these “toxic hot
Permits Branch. Office of Wes*swater - spots,” section 304 (l) requfred.each
Enforcement and CompHance (EN-a38J. -‘Stats. within two years after February 4,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, to submit to EPA threelists of
401 M Street. SW., Washington, waters, The first list required an
20480. The public record for this inventory of those waters which are not
proposal Is available at the EPA library, reasonably expected to attain or
M2904, U.S. Environmental Protectión maintain the new water quality
Agency. 401 M Street SW., Washington, standards developed under section
- 30440 . - . 4.... . . . 303(c)(2) (B) for toxic pollutants. (See
— FUSTNUR .ectlofl 304(lfll)(A)(i).) The second tist
Robert IC. Wood. Water Quality and. encompasses all waters that are not
Industrial Permits Branch. Office of-. reaaonablyanticipatedto attain the
Wastewater Enforcement and,’ . - - goals of the Act. i.e.. to “assure
Compliance, ( —338). u.s ’ -. - - ‘ - protection of public health. public water
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 ?.4 5 Pp11es. agricultural and industrial
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20480, - uses, and the protection and
(282) 260-1955. ., propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife, end allow
SUP WU5ITARY eIFOaMA’flOlC - recreational activities in and on the
Preamble Qutlln . water.” Waters on the second list, while
L Authority meeting State water quality standards.
II. Badiground might not be fully achieving the goals of
A. Clean Water Act Section 3 0 4 ( I) the Mt. (See section 304(l)(1)(A)(ii).)
E Definition of Individual Control Strategy’. These first two lists are known as the
(lC ) - ‘A llats.’
C. The Ninth Circuit Decl non and Today’t. The third list Includes those waters
Final Aman enti - that the State does not expect” to
-. 0. Implementation of Water allly-baal&’’ achieve applicable water quality
Permit. and ICS.
1. Water Qua y.baaed . standards, after application of
• Requirement.—.Background - - - tecflnology-based controls,, due to
2. The listing Process Coini ed -: discEarges -from point source of sectiorr
lees- Ieee - •. 3W(a) toxic pollutants. (See section
- 3. Informadoirabow Supplemented State C. 304(l)(1)(B).) For a water to be listed on
List. . -. the B lIst the ’failure to attain water
- Ut. Opftons - - . . qualIty standards had to be entirely or
A.. Statutory Background . , . substantially due to the point source
B. No Additional ICSi , discharge of toxic pollutants. This list is
C. Some New ICE. at the Discrettonof tbe
Director . . . commonly referred to as the “B list.”
0. ICE. forM Newly Listed The statute also required the States to
IV. Today’. - - submit a list of point sources
V. Regulatory Analysis .- discharging toxic pollutants “believed to
A. Executive Order i i . ., — be preventing or Impairing” the
3. Paperwork Reduction Act . - attainment of applicable water quality.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act’ - j3 irqr 13140U1)(C). This list a
LAuthority commonly referred teas the”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. -. only point equrees discharging toxic
U.S.C. 1251 at aeq . . pollutants into waters on the B’llst. 40
II. Background . . - CVR 130.10(54 FR 238). Under-this rule.
once the Stat. identified such point
A. Clean Water Ad Section 3o4(1J>•. - sources, they were to prepare ICS . for
hi enacting the Water Quality Act o ..them . On Jane 2.1989. EPA promulgate
1987 (WQA) which amended the CWA. - final regulations implementing section
Public Law No.100-4,101 Stat.?, 304(1) of the CWA (54 FR 23868). Under
Congress placed greater emphasis on - EPA’s June 2. 1989 regulations. the -
attaining Stale water quality standards. linkage between the C list sources and
In particular. sectIon 308 of the WQA the B list waters which was to result in
amendments added several provision. ICSs for point source, discharging to B
to focus attention on attaining water, list waters, was unique to the B list.
quality standards for toxic pollutanin, EPA’s rules did not require Identification
The first component was the of point sources discharging to waters
establishment of the section 304(l). listed on the A lists, nor did these rules

-------
33052
Fediral Rbgfate! b YM. 57. ’ NI. 143 .f Priday July 24. ia9Z / Prepoeed Rule,
reqinse development oflCSs for point
sources disthargtngtu A list waters
Upon the States submittal of the lists’
and ICSs. EPA was to approve or
disapprove the States submissions of
the lists and lOSs by rune 4. 1989. In the’
event of a States failure to submit the
lists or ICSs. or if EPA disapproved a list
or ICS. EPA was to work in cooperation
with the State in order to’ develop the
lists and ICS. by June1990.
8. Definition of IpdividuoLCantml
Strategy (1 )
EPAS Jima 2. 1919. final iegulat a&
implementing section 304(1) of the CWA-
(54 FR 23888) established Lb. criteria.
and procedures far State listing of
watere and facilities wider .ectioa-.
304(1) as well as the requirements for..
ICSs. In thesereguiations-EPAdeflned.
the term individual controL strategy” as
a final NPOES permit with’
supporting documentation showing. that
the effluent limits are consistent with an..
approved wasteload allocation, a other
documentation which shows that -
applicable water quality st u1 i ’d,wilL -
be met noL later than three years after
the individual control strategy is
established. Where a State is unable to-
issue a final permit on or before
February 4.1989. an individual control
strategy may be a draft permit with an
attached schedule’ indie ting that
the permit will be issued on or before
February 4. 1990.’ • .“ 40 CFR
123.46(c ) .
C. The Ninth Circuit Decision and’
Today ’s Final Amendments
A portion of EPA ’s regulations
implementing section 304 (l) of the CWA
was remanded in NRDC V. EPA. 915
F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1990). The Nlntfr
Circuit invalidated EPA’s int -etation
of section 304(l)(1)(C) and required A
to amend its regulations at 40 CFR
130.10(d)(3) to reflect the Court’e.
interpretation that facilities discharging
toxic pollutants into watery 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 Register. EPA is
amending 130.10(dM3) to require States
to supplement their C lists to include -
point sources discharging to oc
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 123.4 4 (a) of
EPA regulations. EPAe ongrnal
interpretation of section 304(1)(1)(D)
requires 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
304(1X’I)(C) and thereby required States’
to expand their C lists to Include point;
sources discharging toxic pollutants to
waters on tin A bate, the Court a l so
required EPA to reconsider whether aM
point sources on the expanded C lists
shall be iequized to have ICSa.
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit
explicidy left for EPA to-consider
whether to increase the number ef •
facilities reqiired to have ICS.. The
Ninth Circuit’. requirement that EPA
reconsider its Intcqnetation of which.-
facilities must have ICS. Is not a
directive to Interpret the stabile Inn..
certain way. On the contMry. the Court
asked EPA to determine the best coons
of action, i.e., to D7! whether all,
some. or none oL the facilities which wilL
be added to States’ C lisle should be
required to have ICS& Therefore.-.
today’s preamble discusses In some
detail three options that EPA has
considered for reinterpreting the
requirements at 123.46 (a ).
principal proposal is to leave the
regulations at I 123.46(a) unrhiangød and
thereby not require ICSs for any newly ’
listed facilities. EPA ii also propoing
and soliciting public comment on, two’
other options
D..Impiementoiion of Waler Quality -
based Permits and/CS,.
1. Water Quality-based P rmIt
Requirements—Background.
This section provides background -
regarding some of the water quality -
requirements that apply to NPDES
permits. and explains what distinguishes
permits that contain ICSs for other
permits. AU NPDES permits must
include water quality-based effluent
limitations where necessary to protect.
State water quality standards. CWA
section 301(b)(1)(C). EPA regulations at
40 CFR 122.44(d) define this requirement
and clarify how the pennitting -authority
shaU determine when water qualIty-’
based effluent limitations are necessary.
All NPDES permits being Issued should
now reflect the requirements of
§ 122.44(d). In general, I 122.44(d)
requires effluent limitations for
pollutants and pollutant parumetero that
“are or may be discharged at a level
which will cause, have the reasonable
potential to onuse, or conthbute to an
excursion above any State water qualit
standard, including State narrative
criteria for water quality.” 40 R -
122.44(dWl)(i). The fundamental purpola
of an 1CS is to “achieve the applicable.
water quality standard” for toxic
pollutants “as soon as possible” thiongh
limitations imposed in permits. 40 CPR
123.46(a). The end point of attainment of
water quality standards is the same for
ICSs as otharNPUES permits’.
Therefore, all NPDES permits that. uisst
the water quality-based permitting
requirements at 122.44(d) will ale.’ - -
ultimately meet the-requirements of an
ICS. Thus. EPA may approve the’
existing permit as the ICS If the effluent
limitatians for the pollutant(s) of
concero-la the existing permit already
-meet the requirement. of sectins 304(1 ). -
There are some distinct differences
between NPD permits tint contala..
ICSs and NPDES permits that do not.
First, the requirements Loran
appiovable ICS are narrowly focused on
achieviag wstu quality standards for
to,acpoflutmits. To be approved by
EPA. an ICSss required only to contain
1imitatiss Lor. CWA socfinvti07(a)
pollutants where ascassary to protect
State water qualitp standards. In
contrast. ali .NPDES permits are also
required to.contain. necessary
limitations for individual section 307(a)
toxic pollutants, as well as on all other
pollutants o pollutant parameters. -
including whole effluent toxicity, where
necesser’y to protect State water quality
standards. Limitations for non-307(a)
pollutants, such as chlorine and
ammonia. and limitations for whole
effluent toxicity ate additional controls
designed to protect State numeric and
narrative water quality criteria; these
are not ieqtdredbefore EPA may
approve an ICS Thus, the requirements
for water quallty-ba.ed NPDES permits
are broader than the requimments that
apply to the ICSportion of an NPDES
permat. All permits that are issued in
compliance with the CWA will
ultimately be at least as protective of
water quality ataadar4 as. and in some
cases more protective of water quality
standards than. ICS. issued pursuant to
sectloa.304(l ) .
Another difference pertains to the
timing of issuA!w e 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. ICSs are Intended to be
implemented on an accelerated basis,
i.e.. within the five-year permitting
cycle. Furthermore, in some
circumstances NPDES permits may
Jlow a reasonable time, which can
ndvei’ exceed the five year permit term
for compliance with water quality-based
limitations, while ICSs must require
compliance wlthi three years from
establishment of the ICS’
we, established be aining In
appfo iumately Pebaaiy him and should have been

-------
Federal A.g stue VoLt 57 No 143 1 Friday.. July- 24. 1992 f Proposed Rules-. 33053 -
Whether and towhal extent there - regulations become finaL lC s Issuedin point source. discharging to the we’
would be an actual difference in the. 1992 or 1993 would require compliance.. wasnot required for such waters ii
ultimate compliance dates between the a. soon as possibla. but no later than 1989. Similarly. EPA reviewed each
normal NPDES permitting proces. and a 1995 or 1999. EPA does not hve . . StoWs lists to ensure that, where a State
new round of ICS . 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 permit. need under the various options described Id standards entirely or substantially due
water quality-based permit limits or this proposal—thus EPA cannot make a to point source discharges of toxic
when such permits expire. EPA ha. dependable estimate of how long- pollutants, the water was listed 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 ICS . would take. Given the identified, and ICSs were prepared for
appropriate water quality.based above analysis. there may not be a them.
limitations. On March 9. 1984 EPA. signifIcant tune difference between EPA and the States evaluated all
published a national “Policy for the . requiring new ICS. on the one handand7 available data. lnduding both water
Development of Watef Quality-based’ -• relying on the normal permfttfngproceu quality related data and discharge data.
Permit Limitations fbr Toxic Pollutanta ’ on the other. ‘ in detannining whether an ICS would be
(49 FR 9o ’le) Thi . notice confirmed - . A third diffe enca between PDES . - required. The public had an opportunity
EPA ’s policy of requiring that NPDES’ permits and LCS relater to EPA’s ability to participate in the ileting decisions in
permit limitation, assure compliance to take over a State’s authority to issue’ each State. EPA’ and Stales made every
with all State water qualitycriteriafor-. a permit. Under current regulatlousiEPA effort to list all point sources preventing
toxics. In 1985. EPA Published the cannot assume a State’s authority to- orimpairing the attainment of
“Technical Support Document for Water issue the permit on the basis of th applicable water quality standards for
Quality.based Toxica Control.” EPA— State’s failure to issue the permit.’ toxic pollutants. if a particular point
44014-85-(J32. September 1985. This However, where an 1CS is required. EPA source was not Included on a States
guidance document provided specific may take over a State’s authority to - final C list, EPA has implicitly found
technical procedures. to translate State issue the permit based on the State’a . through approval of the lists that an ICS
numeric and narrative water quality, failure to implement the ICS. . was not needed. The bases for this
criteria for toxica into NPI)ES permit requirements consistent with the., finding were that the data do not show
numerical effluent limitations: Following requirements of section 304(l). 4O R- - that the water quality standard is not
this policy and guidance. EPA and 123.46(f). . expected to be attained for toxic
States began to issue more permits . Th Li U Proces Conditcted ’Fräer pollutants, or that the data do not show
which included effluent limitations for 1988 1 1$ S . . - that attainment (or substantial progres•
tonics designed to meet State water - ‘. . . toward attainment) can be achieved
quality criteria. EPA hès contthned to’ - EPA considers the listing proceae.that”. from firther controlling-point sources.
expand and emphasize the water States and EPA have already cómpl ted toxic pollutentsi Requiring lCSs for such
quality-based parent -program to assure-- under section 304(lJ to be aedibló “,. point sources will require permitting
that permits inc1ud all necessary Under section 304(1). the States-were. ,- authorities to divert fixed resources to
limitations. In February 1987. EPA began required.to submit to EPA. -three hits of- immediately evaluate the need for such -
-implementing the far-reaching programs: waters and a list of facihti s for EPA..,. -.. - point source controls. If the extensive
of theWater Quality Act of 1987. In- ‘ review and approval. EPA was required listing process’ already conducted is
response to one of the new programs 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 end unnecessary in
promulgated final regulations on June 2. was based on all available information, meeting the statutory goals and
1989 which strengthened EPA’s Surface EPA and the States spent considerable requirements..
WaterToxics Control Program under time and effort to cast a broad net in the Al. I
NPD (54 FR 23868). in March of 199% , listing process to ensure that all waters r u ..upp emente
after over five years of experience In- for which there was sufficient a a s -
Implementing the surface water tonics 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 “Tecimical Support Dooumen - the public to comment on every Statr States have already Identified pursuant
for Waler Quality-based Toxice.. - list (the comment process wa . held to section 304(11(11(C), a point source
ControL” EPA/505/2-.00-0O1, PB9I— either by the State or by EPA. or in some must be listed if. as stated in 40 CFR
1V415 , March ig . - - case. by both). Because of the extensive 130i0(d)(3), it is discharging a toxic
All NPDES permits should have been process the States and EPA went - , - pollutant “believed to be preventing or
renewed since EPA isaned the wa.s through to develop the lists of waters. ... impairing” water quality for.each
National Policy, and, by 1994. all permita- - and facilities. EPA has confidence in the- segment of water on all lists (not just the
itsued before the 1989 regulations. - - - quality of the lists. - - - B list).. Under EPAs original
should have been renewed. Becau ,e -. In preparation for developing the -. . interpretation of section 304( I). State
OOst Permits contain compliance 30 - 1(l) lists required by February 4. 1989,. facilitIes lists were tied directly to
schedules of three years or fewer, - EPA advised the St tes that where a waters not meeting applicable water
Ompliazice would likely be required 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
- U 1994. If EPA requires new iCSs. the were not being met in a water, but discharge of toxic pollutants (the B list).
ICS will be developed as soon as 1992. - lacked information showing that such The Ninth Circuit has broadened this
PendIng on when today’s proposed impairment was entirely or substantially link between listed waters and facilities.
due to the point source discharge of States must now llst,facillties
bItlhSd by Iwie, ie IM,e we toxic pollutants. the State should hat discharging sectIon 307(a) toxIc
‘flnhss*abIIiiled by Iheni. that water on the A list. The identity, of pollutants to waters where some uses

-------
33051
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 143 I Friday. July 24. 1992 1 Proposed Rules.
ipaired due to y type of source
- .iding nonpoint sources) of such
toxic pollutants whether the water
quality standard will or will not be
achieved.
EPA does not at this time have
information from the States about the
number of point sources that will be
added to State C lists as a result of the
Ninth Circuit decision and EPA ’.
amendment to 130.1O(d)(3)
implementing that decision. Nor does-
EPA have i formation regarding.
whether those discharge. will be (a.
waters where the watee quality
standards are being athieved.or iu re
the point source contribution Is -
minimaL’ EPA does not anticipate--
obtaining such information until thern
States submit it to EPA in 1992. Thus. -
EPA does not know what the quantity or
importance of the newly added point
sources will be.
This uncertainty raises the question of
whether there will be sefhrient
environmental benefit fron requiring
ICSs for newly listed pcint sources given
that the next permits issued.to sech -
point sources ate-required to be a.
protective an lC s. and that JCS
development can be s gnifrantly more-
-esourm intensive than, and thereby. -
elay, other permit issuance under the.—.
normal five-year cycle. FPA’s
experience from the first round of ICS
issuance was that a Large permit
workload was created. There were two -
principaL reasons. First, the normal five-
year cycle was interrupted and
unexpired permits were reopened that
would have otherwise not been
reopened until the permit expired.
Second. a Larger number of permits had
to be isaued in a short period of tint..
This caused available resources to be
directed toward addressing the peak
workload and disrupted other State and
regional permitting activities.. Further.
ICSe and their compliance requirement.
have been challenged in evidentiary
hearings much more frequently than
other NPDES permits. EPA believes that
dischargera have challenged their
permits containing ICS conditions mom
frequently than the norm in part
because, as a result of ICS requirements.
they are seeing water quality-based
limits in their permit. for the first time..
EPA believes that many of the same
‘The relati,, cesitnbufto. of th,pouit s.,rc.ts
only relevaei to t nui of w sth tho
developmeoiol b.m áoeld be ald
pnonty. not whether thme should be hniuettoai .1
all EPA r, ulaIuonu at 40 CFR l.44 1d) requne
NPOBS limitation. f .11 dIsch .y .rs who?,
necessary to proteot .ppüc .b . wet., quality
,tandard,. These to eel
“minimal” conl,tbuuon. from contcbu n.s of.
great ma 5Iutudk
discharger. are likely to again challenge
their permits when they come up for
reissuance to include additional water
quality-based limits (e.g.. liciit for
whole effluent toxicity or WET). Thu.. a
likely result of requiring additionaL ICSs
is an increase in evidentiary hearing
requests. This too is a significant drain
on limited State-and EPA resources.
This diversion of resourcea has
resulted in. an increased number of
expired permits that have not bean
reissued (“permit backlog”). EPA..
anaually tracks the number of expired
permits which EPA Region. and.
autharhed State. hava been unable to.
reissue. The number of backlogged
permite in the States has increased from
12% to 1988 to 22% in 1990. This period.
of Unt. corresponds to.the period during
which the State. were developing ICSe.
The result of this increased backlogis
that some permits needing new efflnomt .
limitations-to protect water quality are
not being Issued. EPA. Information.
based on a sample of two regions..
shows that approximately 35% of
facilities that discharge wastewater
exhibit WET at levels which have the -
res’ si iio potential to cause an
excursion above a water quality
criterion. EPA does not believe that
3O7( ) toxic pollutant. are the sole cause
of WET. In addition. section 304(1) of the
CWA does not require LCSe to -
specifically limit WET. Therefoie
diversion of resources away from
normal permit reisauance. during whidr
a limit for other than a 307(a) pollutant
could be imposed, will allow some
facilities to continue to impair watee
quality.
By adhering to the five-year permitting
cycle instead of requiring new ICSa.
EPA believes that point source controls -
protective of water quality standards -
will be established where necessary in
the sear-term, and that EPA will at the.
same U e avoid unnecessarily diverting:
fixed EPA and State resources away - . -
from activities that afay provide needed .
enviroitmental protection. Based on
these factors. EPA believes that it may
be more environmentally beneficial to.
adhere to the normal five-year
permitting cycle when establishing
water quality-based effluent limitations
to protect applicable water quality
m .o p t i .
The Ninth Circuit required EPA to
reconsider ite interpretation of CWA
section 304(l)(1)(D). EPA has considered
three-principal options in deciding
whether to require additional ICS.
A. Statutory Roc ivwt.-,.
EPA’s starting point for today’s
proposaL is the language and purpose of
the statute. If the statute provides an
unambiguous requirement regarding
which waters need ICSs, EPA is bound
to implement that requirement. If. on the
other hand, the statute is ambiguous.
EPA may choose a rational
interpretation of the statute in view of
Its purpose. Section 304(l)(1)(D) provides
for “each such segment.” an individual
control strategy which the Slate
detern.m ’ will produse a reduction in
the diatharge of toxic pollutants from
point sources identified by the State
under this para aph throuRli the
establishment of effli ni limitnti s-
under sectien4OZ of this-Act and water
quality standards wider section
303(c)f2)(B) of this Act, which reduction
is sufficient in combination with-
existing controls on point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, to achieve the
applicable water quality standard as
soon es posaible. but.nct later than 3
years after tim date of the establishment
of such strategy. When this provision is
read as a whole ii is ambiguous.. The
refereiwa-to “each such segment” could -
mean ene saveral thing.. First. “each
such s it’ reu1d- refer broadly to all
segments identified in section 304(1).
meaning-that each and every segment
identified omany of the-lists mustha e
an ICS. Second. ‘each such segment”
could refer specifically to the segments
affected by paragraph C. iznplyuig that
each segment identified as zeceivuig
discharges of section 3W(a) pollutants
from point sources must have an ICS.
Third.ihe provision could require ICS .-
for water segments for which an ICS -
will produce a reduction in the
discharge of toxic pollutants sufficient
to achieve the applicable water quality
standard. Last ft could mean that the
States and/or EPA are to mine the
listed segments of water to determine
whether an 1t3 is seeded to improve
water quality. This last approach could
be accomplished on a case-by-case
basis, or if data are available, groups of
water segments could be included in or
excluded from. the ICS requuemenL
The legislative history does not
illuminate the precise meaning of this
provision. Clearly. Congress intended
the section 304(I) program to be
nanowly focused on the “toxic hot
spot&’ rather than to be broadly applied
to all waters. See, fee example, 133
Cong. Rec.S17-7e . Zuldaity ed. Jan. 8,
1987). statement of Senator Moynihan.
The only discussion in the Conference
Report indicate, that the C list would
consist of dinchargers to the B list

-------
Fe ii R. I 1 i / VoL No. 14Y Prida Iidy”3& 199Z / Fi” ãod bMr
watuss id l( wemid be repared f
each d&ecbar on the C flit. &caues
the eese of that di ulon (La .. that
the C list w a a1d irhd th8
discharger, in theB list) has ahendy
been rejected by the ? nth Circuit. A
does not behese that the Conference
Report alone is determinative. Similarly.
section 304(1) did not codify either the
House of Representatives or the Senate
version of the provision. The House
provision would have requited a for
the B list waters. while the Senate
provision would beveroqiñred an ICS-
type wut.ul eiecharasin (UT at leant
some of the . , . .L.. . on-the R(1) bat
NeithertheH seiwrtheSenate -
w ,vi io would base’ requited ]J
timitotions for waters on a
equivalent to the A{1I) list.
As shown above, the language of the
- statute and the legislative hiotot do not
provide clear geidenon for oem distinct
inteepreteOne . Throfare . A ‘sill take
into aa int the porposes of section
304(1) and the ( ieee Water Act
genaUytodat ia athe sonpe of
lcs r eq — -
& No AdditkawJ IC!
EPA is pzepenmg under this optieer
that new ICS. iwi be developed for
facilities I intheChst. A’s
reaw g in .d.oa the cclaniosa-
that (1) the ala a does not.roquir.aew
IcSiand(2lthepurp.eesdtha stslate.
pailindar the nirement that
quelity it mds be met. will he smved
without new K a.- -. -
By propcá thiaoillioa Aia-
adhesi to its original view that ICS.
should be required for those WntC
where the solution meshes with the-
problem, hi particular the !CS solution
of pMnt U . .lIal1 (Dr tuutr
pollutants ifta the problem of the wat
on the B lIst Those we4 r, biclado-aB.
weteis that ate entirely-ar sebstonfiafly-
emtnndtiated by pohit .owce--
discharge, of te c paffetante. ’Thefl
I des a wide epec emef wuterw -
J 4seme ere e1gu can
po at1oa -and setem
Wateis with . tgi cant deçedetlon front
other pollutants. Whet I. ,a
the B iwi waters i that point of -
toxic pollutants are a significant
Problem.j A tepseposoig that
I I he . .qiaiied elI point os
dsrl Ba to wa oe
EVe, thuu i o lCSswon ldhe
sired for the _m som added in

Qt *t decinie,. th.ian per t tuned
—i A and State
,.., iegal , and up 1cally ?
444dL
“ te$ ancb of the t c
p lL .t. ..ta f w the facility was-- oppoi tyto take aver permit is
id 1*fi ñ p.... ”..zttosmtfem . from the State for new C list facilittew .
30 ( 1. Cl , whert . — - ‘ .y*•tuOir whet-n the Slain bile to act an those--
appl .h wa qeahty - pe it . iA ’s emlinrity (a object to e
1h pSnI 4t heundt th’s State permit nad assume wathority to
fscihty it. by r el.t1Ofl. be at issuèauth a peim would be unchanged
as protective m ICS would. under this option.
As desasbed-abeva. th cci1ai.
charac atles-of an ICS that are I There isa eignEftcaet advantage to
this optIon. It would take advantage-of-
iss of a .uit cerdaihiug an signifIcant work akeedy completed
may bedif t bra p iu a ( L*’- the waters the urgently
COflt ”g ii e need point-souree controls Yor toxic-
that this then thifereese in .nb.*n pOlkit 11 t.i. Instead of requiring the-
As discemed m of - . State, and EPA to start over in th’at
y! oposai. Swwvi’Id y evaluation. Because EPA believes that-
not be irunrpora 1ivI , flied NPDES.. most of The impaired waters for which
yer 5 ,ntjLiSgt fulluwiag. . facIlltWswlfl be identified on the
promnlgntinnd a flied vale m 1 2. expanded C lists are dominated by
Stain nab taln d’nzis drufi ICSsm nonpoiut aemces of toxica. or are
I . end compI of the A or State already meeting water quality standards
revime and public . .....ont pe1 O& . For tuaica. this option La likely to provide
COntrast, most 1 SpeZ ‘ ‘ a level of environmental pt-otecilon
on or before _ - - siwoid almedy IflelodS simila, to what would be achieved
effluent limitmioas’ eety eanhiewo under other options. Thus, this option
water qualup standards is mdsrto would allow poonnting authorities to
comply with the jene 7, 198L r ilatiena - conti p1ai d imesuance of expired
at 40 Cfl 1 .44(dRt1. MOM entiwi d p r aibat achieve State water quahty
States e&uedd base bean amuzi perosts - standanis—in many Cases for higher
to comply with the requiremeatsaf 40
CP a 122.44 d)(11bY j a au pootiiywate’s where. for example.
imder4o CFR iz3az tJ a beriaed nonconventional pollutants are the
haereuptooneyeertoadapt-reguiatlona Pr0hi -‘
to ______ f — - Ths pIh, . would reM no change
regulations. Stales may haiie up to two’. to lOC t23.4lI a)-as amended today
years if State law must be amanded .. . - - bythe’ftnalacttan described above. The
howeve& EPA believes that moatS s re uIations at 1Zl.46Ta) would
did not need changes to State law i - maintain their original meaning: 1CSs
implement the requ m ntg of 4O R are required for each point source
12244(d)(1). R aeAWDESpenss4s - - iden ed pursuant to section
cannot axteed for mom than five jesse.. 3p4jl)fa)fC which disckeiges to a water
moat of the NPD permits iwedi Identified p”r . ’to gcti n
water gn”l”y-basad emueat limi foa..i 304(l)(13(Bl. ----
tiwiea will haste been . ‘ ind bp 1 - EPA s.M, ent on this
Furthermore, in moat Stal water
quality standards or implement1ng -. propeiid.opOat i. inch g under which-
regulations that expressly authorize. ciwmelsao -this-optios would be
compliance schedules aflow up to these - •“ ‘ oPtica l
years as a reasonable compiler’s.’. : d i Lb.in-ua whotber thi, option
schedids: three pease iralso the Shtediheadep$StheSd cut the -
maximum time allowed by section,: . assu . ik.ni wiudi thi. option is
O4(lX1) D for rnmpHitiic . with the - ba ,ethThes ouuup(leuu, indudei that
requirements of an ICS. Therefore, the - - the ae 3O ) tinting proCaSe was
timefrarne for compliance with the - ceJ Ierthar. . . tL.. 9O4 l)
reg L enta of any new- ICSs wonldflof implementation basidentified the great
be significantly different from the- mejeuitydwslers and facilities m need
compliance timeframe f naIpiwIn of tCS to address point scarce-related
that would normally be issued-nader tt i -“t c hot-spots:” that waler quality-
flve-yenr cyde of expiration - based permits Issued u the normal
IeI 5OU . ___ permitting cycle will be at least- as
A second charecteristic of ‘ .. . protective-of water quality as ICSs; that
is lost &snder this option telateelo EPA , some permits most in need of new water
authority to take over end issue State- ‘ for non-307(a)
permits. Currently, EPA ’s aethority to vail not be timely
takeover K Issuance from the State reissued aaa cesidt of an expanded
(4a ’R l .4o(m does not apply to el I- 304(I) ocesn. and that ICS development
NPDES p.rmaie—only ICS . Thetelote.
under this-option where no new (CS. - 15 hi iyresowceietenHve.
would be required. EPA would forgo the’ -

-------
33058” - Federil RegisLer.IiToL57,N’o. 143 f Prfday, uly 2t199* f ’Proposed’Rules ’
‘ Some New ICSà of the Discretion of.
iie Stote. - - -
EPAIs proposingan’altemative to the
option described In flI.B... above Under
this second option, each State would
have the discretion to determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether ICSs should
be established for newly listed facilities..
The resulting State determination&
would be reviewable by EPA and would
be made available for public comment..
- AnlCSwo u ldnotberequiredlora.
listed facility wbare In -the Jud 8 uieut qf
the State, aft a cEPArev lewand. . Ys..
opportunity for public notice wuL , . .
comment, an JCS is not wamote i
EPA realizes that the litlng, oceas
under section 304(1)(1 ) (B) pn (C may.,.
not have identified all waters ünd.
facilities where additional ICS. wouli
be warranted. EPA will rely, In part, on-
the Information submitted by the Slates.
in their-new C lists to wake the final
determination of whether to require
more ICSs. U the new State C liets -
identify a significant numbe,tof sources
on waters exceeding water quality.. -.
standards for toxic pollutants; EPA will.
be more likely to selectibla second -
option and thereby reqwre at least some.
new ICSa. -
At present, EPA ’s preferred way of
tructuring such a, requirement would be.
to require the State to evaluate all fleWly
listed poiit sources ancitbei receiyiug..
waters to determine if developing s
ICS would be warranted. EJ’A is.:
proposing at i23.46(a)(I). under this
option, a set of criteria that the Stated
would use to decide whether to submit
an ICS for a particular facilityaod on
which the Regional Administrators
would base their reviews of those
decisions. The proposed criteria are-
fundamentally based on the section
304(l) requirement to establish ICSs that
will reduce the point source discharge of
toxic pollutants, and EPA’s regulations.
at 40 CFR 12244(d) which require that-
permits contain water quality-based.
effluent limitations wherever necessary
to protect water quality standards. The
basis for these determinations would ..,
include the followingi whether
applicable water quality standards for-
toxic pollutants for the listed receiving
• water are currently being met whether
the newly listed point source causes,
has the reasonable potential to cuse. or
contributes to an exceedance of
applicable water quality standardd for
toxic pollutants: and, whether a
decrease in discharge from all listed
point sources of the toxic pollñtants of
concern to the listed water would
significantly improve water quality.
Under this option, EPA hr proposing a
process and deadlines for the following-
actions: State determinations of which’:’ option, the S d wt1I abeady have the
facilities need ICS; Statesubmittal of . waters ldentiuled.bus will need to decide
new ICS. to EPA-EPA review of State -‘whlth ’sddftlonal facilities need ICS.
ICSs; public review of draft permits ‘: - and then to develop ICSs. EPA believe.
containing new ICS.: and EPA public that one year provides a reasonable
notice of its final approvalJdlsappruvet. time to complete these activities given.
decisions. In proposing -. that the number of new ICSe It presently
administrative process, EPA Is - undeterminablea -
attempting to consolidate hone —Within four months of the State -
wherever possible and make the process submittal of each ICS, the Regional
of implementing this option clear and’
straightforward. Thus; where possible,: - Administrator shall: (a) Apprová any
EPA proposes relying on the al... ICS EPA believes is adequate If-Ilie
imuance process f z public . . State h s provided pub]ic .-
ieview ICSa. brproposlngthl. - -. - PaitIClpatIoti amid If the.Reglon -.
admioisfrativs;proce-a. - AIIT!Yni,t?a1 etermin s that
oh jectivei are to establish ICSs.qulckllr ‘ . pablk wwujent Is-not
where they are necèsaa*an4 to ensure’ — dee blprdpoeeo approve any. -
that ICS determinations , . ICS A b.llemiba is adequate and - -
accuratel3i. ‘A solicits public commeat - either the.Stateltatnolprovlded
an-whether the prpposed administrative- ediattptiblicp cipetion orthe
process will be efficient and accurate. RegionaI Adm1niatrator determine.
particular. EPA solicits comment that additipnal public comment is
whether public review ofJC5.’ desirable. (c) propose to disapprove -
determinations l v necessary. any ICS EPA believes Is Inadequate,’
The proposed process tans follows;. and (d) propose to disapprove any.
—Each Stateshall dete mIne.-based’oa. -- Implicit determination not to submit .‘
the following crtter1a, whinE fadilitlee-. an ICS far a facility if EPA believes,
on the section 4(Igl)çc) 1sf that i;.-’ based-on the criteria In paragraph (I),
discharge to waters not th. lia# : • an ICS is needed. An lCS Is adequate
r drcd by section so4(l)(iJ(8J shthild If It conforms to the definition of ICS
be required to have ICSn ’. - - -. at 40 CFR 123.46(eh contains
(a) Whether appllc ble water limitations for the relevant toxic
‘standardsfôr toxic poffuta iWfarth.- : -, - pollura a)-aarequiredth § 12L44(d )
a and It contains a date for compllanee’ 1
listed recelvinó wa!er - thèf econ-ns ponibk but not -
being met -
(b) Whether the ñ wiy Ifst d poinif “ t.- lE tè?ibad three years from the date oH
source causes, line the rea onable - - . establishment’of the ICS EPA shall - l
potential to cause, or contrlbutes’to 0 j’ ‘ wake Its proposed decisions reganhIn
exceedance of applicable water quality- approval/disapproval of State lCSs -
stancfarls for toxic pollutants; and available for public comment fore
(c) Whether a decrease in discharge - period of 99 days.
from all listed point sources of the toxic - EPA believes that four months is a -
pollut of concern to the listed water reasonable time for EPA to rev1ew the.-
would significantly Improve water submitted ICSa and decide whetherto-.
quality. - - approve or disapprove them. The four-i “
—Each State shall submit to EPA, by months is the same amount of time thal
September 22,1993. the ICSs for each Congress allowed for review of the I
facility the State has determined which were submitted on or before— - j
• shouldbe required to have anlC ’ ‘ February 4, 1989. EPA believes that th..
Where a State is authorized to l ’ same amount of lime is needed becauss
admininter the NPOES Program, that- EPA may be reviewing a large number If
State should wake draft permits that ICSS during any four months period.
are ICSi available for public comment - ‘making it impractical to expect that.
prior to submitting the ICSs to EPA - review.oould-be completadina abe
September 22.1993. is one year from - thfle. - - • .
the date EPA I recommending that— • EPA also bckcves that a 60.day.’; ’
States submit their revised, lists ot. - comment pert dis sufficient top
facilities under section 304(I)(1)(C). EPA for full public participation in there -
believes that one year is necessary to of ICSs and EPA’s proposed decisiCil&
allow the States sufficient time to regarding ICSa. In the first round of- -
develop well-documented ICSs. Forth. ICSs, the statute allowed for alZFdSYt
first set of ICSa submitted on or before- public comment period for review of
February 4.1989, the States had two -: l;sting decisioóa-onwatere as well IS
years to identify which waters needed review of ICSs In the action propoMli
listing, to identify which facilities under this option, the public will 8
needed lCSà and then to develop the know which waters were listed based’
lCSs. In the action proposed under this-.- on the February 4,1989. submittals &D&

-------
Fed R r 1 / VoL 57. No 143 f PIiday Tuly -24.,1 02 I Psoposed Rialse
will onlyneedti, resiewihe lCSranà
any proposed iiecisi na
approval or diec . , wal of ICSS. ICS ,
are in content equaL tokWfl pemiia,
EPA normally allows for a 30-day
comment period foe public rwinw of
NPDES permits. Therefore. EPA believes
that 60 days is sufficient for full public
- review of the new lCSs and ptopoaed
decisions regardingiCSs.
The proposed regulations wider this
option would not lequhe EPA to takeS
public comment on those ICSa that The
Regional Admissistrater anà
deterTnhws that the State provided
adequate public participation. EPA
Regional O ma may chooseto publiuly
notice such final d dsiens at the earns
time they request public w t oe
proposed ap/Jwp wvel
decisions.
Within fear month s after the .. of
the 60-day public nt pe rled en
EPA ’s proposed ap ovelfdleeppruveI
of Slate ICSs. EPA shall consider all
public comments received. make final
approval/dIsapproval deciMerre
including decisimmonwhether
additional ICSe shouldbe reqohed: EPA
shall publicly notice these final
decisions. At any point where EPA
p ib*idy ni • — uUIláf Stats
I S. the A. iniat’—’- - in . . .. ‘y—.J(on
th Sta wal01teroatisu
oppOrbse y liar p.h& . ---- ak ;-.
the re
30 4(l) in meh St.wI me
follow date alike thsep ovM..
EPA believes that tour momke ina’
reasonable time for EPA to review any
mmnients submitted by the public end
make final a pioseI/diosp reiiM -
decisiona. The fourisoa ’r, the .aae -
time EPA allowedàr activity Ion -
the first a toE lCSswhicb were
aubivualL.dmaa, b.foseFebsuaay 1960.. -
EPA believes that the aoms.amoiaatoi.
time is needed becous. many of thee . ..
decisions could be s n pl t .c end oE -
sigeificant ia esa to the public. EPA
believes that bar months sthe shortest
f”ubk time ts adequately evaluate
on each deciaAen*
The chief benafitol this option is that
it would support the development of
1 e whom they amaø . ry. Le.., -
Whale the SLats aodEPA tanks the
Pidgment that water quaflt i
taProvement will result. At the èame
flute lbis’optjoii would enable th€ Siafes
red EPA to forgo developing an ICS
Witet, the 1C would not require new
eiatyolio, where the envirorariental
efit woulil, on balance, be
hegniflcar ,
would set I urn that
be developed for all facilities
Idderi to State C list,: Instead. ICSs
teild be limited to where water
queli - d lintitetlon. for taxis
pollutant, or ’s required under 40 l’
l22.44(d ’and the ICS ii expucted
to result to improved watsrquality - -
Limiting the-ICS requtrenie,t-to only” -
some tfischergees is appropriate became
ICS . are limited to controlling point
sources of toxic pollutants and acme of
the weters-coacerned may not be
impaired by either. Thin option
contemplates that there may be name-
newly listed facilities whose chargna
have the renecimbie potential to
or contribute thexcixuioa, 01 tIer
applicable w. qnahty dardeoves
though the watem are ant enoeethzg the
we me quality stuadmeda dnauatEsly os -
substantially to the p soume-
diurhn, . altvxicpollatsnts. - -
Under tins option, the Stat. would
have to ml whether the nthbutias
• of toxic pollutants Irose such..
disthai ineitheraigniflcsnlme’.
minirnal The question of wbether the-’
receiving water is impaired entirely or
substantially den to the point sa
discharge of tank pollutaot.. however..
has aliesdy been answered. Lf ’the State
and EPA did not lint the water os the B
list, thee they have found that the-
pnncip.I enuse 01 impairment of the.
waler, based on avadable information.. -
is net the point eserns dischar ’of toxic
pollutants. -
A significant draw sck 01 this option
is that Stains would hei to undertake
large aumbera of evaluations that could
be essentially redundant. In deciding
whether ICSs are warranted, the State..
and EPA (in reviewing State deaiatonsj.
might be essentially revisiting
determinations that were-already made
when the B lists were developed. liii.
could be true even though the
terminology COntrOlling the decisions
would be somewhat dilIerent—4n reality
available water quality information ii
not usually precise enough to make flue.
distinctions, and the State and EPA -
must rely In part en their accumulated
expertis. to make reasonable dad alone.
Thus. this option cauld impose a
repetitive decision making borden
without a corresponding envtronmeiitat
benefit
EPA is also propustng an addftl ...A * -
regulatory amendment under’ this optine-
to amend the definition of individual
Control Strategy at 40 CFR 1!L40(c
The existing regulatory definition of ICS
is not dear on the conditions under-
which a -draft permit can be an ICS. EPA
intends to continue to approve theft
permits as ICS. under this option end Is.
therefore, proposing to aui end the
definition of ICS to clarify that lCSs can
be draft permits where the final permit
will be issued within one year after the
State submits the draft permit to EPA.
This pro ed omen enW is neat
ensure that KS will he’ establi.sben s -‘
soon as pu,Mw 1e- og a- .-=—— c i i
the length ’of time omeded twdevef
complos perm ..-
EPA solicits comments on this optio
including whether it should be finalized.
what different crft might be
appropriate for determining when ICSi
ate required. ‘what procedures-sue
appropriate foriinplerwmting this
option, and what deadlin should-”
apply. ‘
9 ICSs farAll Newly Lict.d Point
- Sources
This option would require ICSs for all
newly listed facilities. The obvious
result of this option would be that -
accelerated review of the need for new
water quality-based controls, in the form
of lCSa. would be required for all point
sources on the C list. In the discussions
above. EPA ha, already identified at
least two categories of waters for which
IcSs would not accomplish the statutory
goal of attaining water quzaldy
staudarda waters that are already
expeded to achieve applicable
standards and walejs with minimal
point seiron osniributlone. Yet, under
this option. fixed EPA and State
i-ue. .adO$ would be expended on
estsbl lnng ICS. ea in cases where
the information phows that there will be
little or no environmental benefit from
an ICS. e result of this expenditure of
re . EPA has learned, may be that
the pennmbsthleg (permits that have
expired and — ‘ àt been reissoed)
would irromom. Fw-thecmoee. as noted
abme. EPA lies very little mformation at
this Liars about the number of facilities
that States will add to their C list, as a
result of the Ninth Circuit decision. If a
small aua of facilities us added, the
resoume in other parts of
the w ’qanhty program-el tins option
would ha m mel. however, if a large
numbeguffari 1 .-in added and if
those faculiUon e a- large
pro tien ii facilities ‘ ate
dii±m mg amend inta of toxic
po&Iu iwa .gni imuit expendrture
could 6. reqarred tadevelop ICS.
without. concomitant environmental
benefit. The eaaantlal point is that the
listing proows it listing of point
sources discharging toxic -pollutants to
the A list wateral may not in many cases
provide the mfommMion necessary to
show that (CS. would result in improved
water’ quabty far a given facthtT yet.
under this ti ,,,. . an ICS would always
be required for a listed facility.
regardless of whether available
information shows that an ICS would be
environmentally beneficial. It is

-------
33O5B ‘ • Federal Re S k:VoL 57,;Nop1434 Friday 1 July. 24, 1992. / -Ptoposed- Rules
questionable whatheriC * shoaW .,”. determinations .woukl be subject to EPA . therefore, not today proposing any.
automatically be requited for newly and public review. An ICS would not be. regulatory lenguage that would
listed fécilities. particularly In light of required fo a listed facility where in the Implement thin third option.
the virtual absence of Information judgment of the State. end after EPA
concerning the likely contents of the and public review, an ICS is V• Regulatory AliaIysir
new C Jiats. warranted. EPA I . today. propos ng A. Executive Order l i -
This option would re u1re an under the second option, a set of criteris
amendment to 40 R 123.46(a). as on whiclitbe States would base their Under section 3(b) of Executive Order
amended elsewhere in this Federal ICS determinations and on which EPA 12291 the Agency must judge whether a
Register, to establish the requirement for. would base Its reviews of State ICS regulation Is major and thus subject to
new ICSs and the atlmhuslretive determinations. The proposed regulation the requirements of a Regulatory Impact
process and schedule for develvpth&-. would be an addition to 40 CFR MalysI Today’s proposal will not
reviewing, and implementing the new 122.46(a). as set out In the proposed resultin any additional regulatory
ICSs. The administrative procesiunder regulations below. Today’s proposed requirements. To fay’s proposal.
this optionwould be 5 tmihir totbe -,-- regulatory Lingu* . f 0 j therefore, is not major, It will not result
procss propàsed under the sec i s second opftononIy N In an eflicI on tha economy of S10
option above except that lC s would be language Is either newyor praposed. miuIon or pose It will not zesult In
submitted to EPA and aPProved OV - under the first o tioe,- - ,. -: tncteased costror prices; it will not
• disapprovedb EPA for each newly” - EPA belie’i,es at tins time, have signiflqent adverse effects on
listed point aource gaht the Agenj proposed ti i competktlosr employment, investment,
solicits comment on all aspects of thli: of action. In proposing this option EPA productivity, and innovation: and It will
option and, specifically, on - in pos ulatlng that the original B lists -. not signifitantly disrupt domestic or
advisability of finalizing thiS OPdÔD Identified the vast majority of waters for exportmixkats..Therefore, the Agency
on whet changes to existing procedural which ICSa would provide significant- has not prepared a’Regulatory impact
regulations would be necessary tO • environmental benefit. The firt option - Analysis under the Executive Order.
implement, this Option.. - would avoid the resource-intensive and - ‘ ‘ submitted this proposal to the
IV. Today’s Proposal. - .- Inherently redundant proces. of - Office of Management and Budget
Today. EPA in developing limits on toxic pollutanti (0MB) for review as required by
First. EPA Is prvpomngto not ameiui .. separate from other permit limits. EPA - - Executive Order 12291.
§123.46(a). This proposal Is described-in - believes that the benefits of the first B. Poperwoth Reduction Act
detail as the first option In ULB., above;— optlon outweigh the possibility that.
Under thir option, the regulations at some newly listed point sources that ar The Office of Management and Budget
I 123.46(a)would maintain tl in need of high-priority attention will not (0MB) has approved lbs information
meaning as established on June 2.19 receive flew water quality-based - ‘ ‘ COU CtiOfl reqairementscontalned In this
lCSa are re iredforeaohpotnteource control immediately, but rathèr v1fl-7 pmposed rnle under the provisions of
on the C list that discharges to-a water- - - receive water quality-based efffuin( - - the Pa erwcsk Reduction Act. 44-U-S.C. - -
- on the B list. Even though-no ICSs.would’. limitations at the time of the next ermit :3501 et seq. and has assIgned 0MB
be required for the point sources edded— a an e. . Control numbers 2040-00572040-0068.
to State C lists as a result of-the Ninth If after reviewing the revised State C - and 2049008ft - - -
Circuit decision, the next permit Issued- lists and the public comments on today’s c & uios,, FiexJbiJity Act -
to the facility pursuant to EPA and State proposal, EPA determines that the
NPDES regulations-and, specifically 40.- original B lists did not Identify a - - Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
R 122.44(d), must contain effluenb substantial portion of waters for which of 1980 (5US.C. 601 et seq). Federal
limitations protective of applicable - lC s would provide significant agencies must, when developIng
standards for all pollutants where. - - environmental benefit. EPA will be more regulations, analyze their Impact on-
necessary. including each of ti . toxic . likely to consider finalizing the second, small entities (email businesses, small
pollutants for which the facility was ,.. or alternative option, described in m,c.,- government jurisdictions. and small
listed. Such permits would also need ta: above, organizations), This analysis is
meet all other requirement, of 40 - . EPA is today soliciting comments - unnecessary, however, where the
122.44(d). Therefore, the next permit- - - - from the public on all aspects of this - agency’s aibiaintatretor certifies that the
issued to the facility would, by -- proposaL EPA will carefully consider all rule wilinot haves significant economic
regulation, be at least as protective as public comments on this proposal before effect on a substantial number of small
an ICS would. Under thi, first option,, no - making a final decision. EPA also - - - entities. The Agency has concluded that
regulatory change to §12346(a}.beycnd . intends to evaluate the revised C listi in today’s proposal will not have a
that made by final-nile. elaewh rein. - - making its final determination of the • significant economic effect on a -
today’s Federal Register, would be - - - beal course of action. After evaluating substantial number of small entities
necessary. EPA Is. therefore, not • public comments and the revised Stato- - becauae today’s action proposes no new
proposing any additional regulatory’ - C lists, EPA may finalize either of its, - - requirements for the regulated -
language under this option. - - - • proposed options without seeking community. 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 is information to support the third option also made today and described above -
described in detail under section IILC., described under IILD. above, and EPA’s and solicits public comment on this
above Under this option the regulations., belief that there will be some newly proposal as well as possible alternative
at § 123.48(a) would be amended to - listed facilities for which an ICS will not courses of action.
provide the State the discretion. to Improve water quality and therefore
determine, on a case-by-case basis, - should not be required, EPA does not LiSt of Subjects In 40 CFR. Part 122
whether lCSs are required for newly - anticipate finalizing that option without State Program Requirements. water
listed facilities. The State - seeking further public input. EPA is, pollution control.

-------
330591
Datedi July10. 1992.
William IC. Reiily
Administ ,ator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble 40 CFR part 123 is proposed to
be amended as follows.
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 123
continues to read as follows:
Autherity Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
2. Section 123.48(a) is amended by
adding paragraphs (a)(l), (a)(2), (a)(3)
and (a)(4) (and by revising paragraph (c)
to read as followsi
0123.48 tndMduai control .fratngteL -
(a) ‘
(1) Each State shall.determine. 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 ate currently
being met
(ii) Whether the newly listed point
source causes, has the reasonable
potential to cause or contributes to an-
exceedanca of applicable water quality
standards for toxic pollutants and
(iii) Whether a decrease in discharge..
from all listed point sources of the toxin
pollutants of concern to the listed water
would aignificantly improve water
quality.
(2) Each State shall submit to EPA. by
September 22. 1993, the ICS for each-
facility the State has determined should
be required to have an ICS. Where a
State is authorized to administer the
NPDEs Program, that State should make
draft permits that are ICSs available for
public commaa! prior to submitting the
ICSs to EPA.
(3) Within four months of the State
submittal of each ICS, the Regional
Administrator sheIk (1) 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 (iv) propose
to disapprove any implicit determination
not to submit anICS for a facility if EPA
believes, based on the criteria in
paragraph (a)(l) of this section an ICS is
needed. An ICS is adequate if it
conforms to the definition of ICSat 40
CFR 123.48(c): contains limitations for
the relevant toxic pollutant(s) as
required in *122 .44(d) and it contains a
date for compliance that Is as soon as
possible; but not later than three year..
from the date of establishment of the:
ICS 1 EPA shall make Us proposed--
decisions regarding approvalf - -;
disapproval of State ICSa available for
public comment for a period of 60 days.
(4) Within four months after the close.
of the 60-day public comment period on
EPA’s proposed approval/disapproval, -
of State ICSs, EPA shall consider all
public comments received, make I
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(1) In such State within one year
following the date of the disapprovaL
• . a a
(c) For the purposes of this section the
term individual control strategy as set
forth in section 304(l) of the CWA.
means a final NPDES permit with
supporting documentation showing that
effluent limits are consistent with an
approved wasteload allocation, or other
documentation which shows that the
applicable water quality standards will
be met not later than three years after
• the Individual control strategy is
established. Where a State is unable to
issdè a final permit within one year after
submitting to EPA its revised list of
facilities pursuant to section
304(a)(1J(1)(C ), an individual control
strategy may be a draft permit with an
attached schedule indicating that the
permit willbe issued within one yeaa
afterthe Slate submitted to EPA the
draft permit as the-ICS..
f 5-
IFR Dos. 92-17920 Filed 7-23-92: &45 aml
m is ’s coos

-------
Fsd.l R / V . S I, Ned id4W ubdI, W 1 / Pt ., ád RdtiI
boating shall not be aUowxd WI*h the.
-‘stricted area.. COmmer .l x-k at
..har will be permitted to aw is
..ae restricted area while at
during tide change..
(c) EnfoivemenL The regule in
this section shall be enforced by the
Commanding Officer, Naval Sta i
Ingleside and such agencies so he/she
shall desigeate.
Dated: July 9. 19 2.
Approved:
Heibeil H. “
Deputy Director of Civil War*a -
(FR Dcc. 92-1722 5 Filed 7-Z1- &45 seif
siusss coca si-
Att.A... .,.t pea to
the interested public but l 1ted to the
spans availabis. Person. pleiming to
attend hould contact Wblttaker Jones,
at the number provided above, to
register. The discussion will be limited
to insues and concerns pertaining to
second.clasa pallet preparation only.
Items to be discussed may include, but
are not limited tei
1.L.ve liofp ._.it
2. Mtetmum pallet weights.
So t
4. ThysI l pellet pru aredeiui.
5. Pte$et. .sUvolum.. on Qsflets based
on thff prepaiulion optima
Pollowingth. meetingJl the Postal
SiMon detmlaes that . geifl nt
ekan . to sidsdag secood.ciau pallet
regulations us wsnsntsd, the Postal
Service will develop a proposed rule for
publication In the Ys uL RegIster and
public ii” en-
st q ? 1
A UCeiuIc!mirf i Zag,aI. v.
(YR cuI.V190 Ptied1-z1- &45 am
areas IncFE &ceu panarated by
piedpitstlon. This ptac. . feedlots In the.
category aS Natk 1 Mn.ffl Guldeliom
for storm water. All discharger. covered
by the November1990 publication must
apply for a permit or gain coverage
under a promulgated permit for storm
water.
Thi. notice requests comments on the
separate general penluta for
concentrated i in,itl feeding operations
in fouz States (Louisiana. New Me,uco.
Oklahoma, and Texas) without
authorized NN1RS State program. and
on Indian land, in New Me,dco and
Oklahoma. Separate general permits are
being noticed for each Stats.
O* Ct’ ”ts on the proposed
permits omst-be received on or before
the date 10 days foflowuig tim date of
lut public hearing to that State. The
c -uirv ” psztod fu, the permit in State
of Tsxsj end 5ep*exther 11.1 . The
— -•- peeled for the permit in the
State of Louisiana onde September 4,
1omim period for the
Septwa ii The
for the p 1tisth a.t. of New
Meidon de S , 4 .u1 i 1 9 .1992 . See
g _ ua,,. Ia1%ns for
_ _ an
otfal and twa copies dJhsfr
_____ - — k p i of this
notica.to alan CaldwsLPerazits &nnch
of Water Divisiso (eW-PS ) U.S.
Environmectal Protection A cy
Pagli 51445 Em. Ave Sitite 1 0.
Doi s.1ezas i
ma
- - . - ..--
u,
POSTAL. SERVICE
39 CFRPert 111
P .9.1 DIscount for Sscond ’Clsss
aQzpicy Postal Service.
acnosc Notification of public meeting .
SUMMARY The Postal Service is holding.
a public meeting to discuss changes to
the Domestic Mail Maazak(IP 4M)
regulations concerning preparation of. -
--cond-clau mad on pallet. that may be.
rranted if diec6unts for such
rP t1Ofl are approved.
DATt The meeting will be held on
Tuesday. July 29. from 10a.m. to 2 p.er. - NJI , .aJ *it ã Otechugssyjsns
ADOP----- The adèe.a of the meeting GensrelPsnn* and R.porthig
is U.S. Postit Service Hhedquarters. 475 R. drglDhtite for Otecl%si’gss From
LEnfant Plaza. SW.. Washington. DC in Cøtiou..b. d Aninmi Fos*ig
the Ben Franklin Room. M..UhI
coe FuxnsER mcoamanON coInac1 — uu— -- t - - ..... mi Pv tion-.
Mr. Whittaker J. Jones. Office of Prodect
Management. 475 L’Enfant Plaza. SW., & ft gen l Nrur . S-
Washington. DC 2626G.6913 . jr harges frOiD #IflSDId .‘.
(202) 268-2254. - - operations. -
SUPPLEMEPITARY ia osu*iiom ( i -
September 25, 1991, pursuanUQ.* ’z, P sant to
U.S.C. 3822 and 3823, the Pu fBoti (b) f4 ind 99S (bJ and (c)of the
filed a request for a recoma Ci- i, W AcL EPA regulation. defitie
decision by the Postal aithvi l feeding operation.—
(PRC) on the estabLit______ as pö subject to the Nr .iaS
for second-class mai_____ permit prr gr list the oriterla fop
pallets. The PRC sub Animal
designated this filing a P 1 - Cji ..Joa (CAFO’s). and
91-3, (hereafter referred to sunply as MC estebufsbth.smaent limitation
91-3). The Postal Service is issuing this gukielinus for Feedlots pisnuant -
notice to advise the public that a .ecdun (b and (c) of the Clean
meeting has been scheduled to discuss Water Aet
issues relating to the implementation of I .P InU.a6h. published -
these discounts assuming the PRC’I 1999 contains applicatiow
recommended decision in MC 91-1 1 , all storm water
consistent with the Postal Service’s t9.thae ss. ated with
-‘uest and the Governors of the Postal activIties. which Includes facilities with
acting pursuant to 39 U.S.C. National Effluent Guidelines for storm
.,o25. approve that recommended - water. lbs effluent limitations apply to
decision. all waslewaters from feedlol operation
5 L $u9 I wl ,p.9 ,
the permit
auth.” Ing i i trated eitin. i feeding
‘àperatima1nT s4 uktdearly
fl *$liU$hlfl OfthS
tOs ertlnsLu5$sI The

.p d
I .
a rr .4thiss ab eAi,.uu bfe fee
maiD. - ‘ d - f orco,y1 t ic
See
onhSU iN .addre..L..
— . —.
ç0s ustom TACT
Fm further tufu. t1on the proposed
drthgSOsrSl p— tz onstact Jen
CaidwelL P..,mite &‘srich of Weter
(SW..PS). U.S. ReVtrujirnerutal
Protection Agency Region 51445 Roes
Ave., swte 1.260, Dallas. Texas 75
(214)655—7190.

-------
32478
Federal Register / VoL. 57. No . 141 I Wednesday. July 22. 1992 I Pcoposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY IKFORMAT1O$
Hearuig,
Meetings and Public Hearings will be
held in each of the states to provide
information on the permit conditions
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 79186.
(2)August 21. 1992. Friday. question
and answer session from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
and hearing from 7 p.m. to 10p.m..
Regency Ballroom. Hyatt Regency San
Antonio on the Riverwalk. 123 Losoya
Street. San Antonio. Texas 78205.
(3) August 24. 1992. Monday. question
ar.d answer session from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
and hearing from 7 p.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.Martin 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 7 p.m. to 10
p in.. Hyatt Regency. 330 Tijeras NW.
Albuquerque. NM 87102.
Contents of this Preamble
L Background
II. Framework of N?DES System
A State Programs
B. Requirements in NPDES Permits
Ill. Permitting
A. Pnor Permitting
B. Permit Application Regulation.
C. Buderis on Permitttng Agencies
D Storm Water Permitting Strategy
E. Wastewaler Treatment trategles
IV Draft General Permit for Concentrated
Animal Feemng Operations
A. Tcday s Notice
B. Fact Sheet for Draft Ceneral Permit
1. Authority
2. Coverage Under the Proposed General
Permit
3. Limitations on coverage
4 Permit conditions
5 Reopener Clause
0. Definitions
V Economic Impact
VI. Compliance with other Federal
Regulations
A tional Environmental Policy Act
B. Endangered Species Act
C. Executive Order 122 1
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
L Badcgrouad
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water pollution Control Act (FWPCA.
also referred to as the Clean Water Act
or CWA). i 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 306(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 dischargers 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 evenL
IL Framework of NPDES System
Congresa established the NPDES
program with the 1972 Amendments to
the FWPCA. Section 402 of the Act
requires EPA to admin;ster a national
permit program to regulate point source
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States and sets out the basic
elements of Ike program.
A Slate Progroms
The Act allows States to request EPA
authorization to administer the NPDES
program instead of EPA. Under section
402(b). EPA must approve a Slate s
‘ Federal ‘ ‘.ater Pollution Control Act dS
amended. 33 USC. 1251.1311 1314(b) and ( Cl. 1310
(b) and (c). and i3ll Ic) 88 Slat 815 el seq. Public
Law qz-5Oo . 91 Slat. 15507 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 adniirtiqter the
program. At this point in time. one State
in Region 6 Ii authorized to. at a
minimum, issue NP1) permits for
municipal and industrial sources and is
currently authorized by EPA to issue
NPDES general permits. EPA Region 6
issues all NPDES permits in the four
States (LA. TX. OK. and NM) without
NPDES authorized programs.
B. Requirements in NPDES Permits
The CWA establishes two types of
standards for conditions in NPDES
permits, technology-based standards
and water quality-based standards.
These standards are used to develop
effluent limitations, special conditions.
and monitoring requirements in NPDES
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 managemer.t
practices (BMPs).
a. 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 (BCT); and (2) best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT). The BCT standard applies to the
control of conventional poLlutants. while
the BAT standard applies to the control
of all toxic pollutants and for all
pollutants which are neither toxic nor
conventional pollutants. Section 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/BCT effluent limitations guidelines
promulgated by EPA under section 304
of the CWA and new source
performance standards promulgated
under section 300 of the CWA
applicable to dischargers by category or
subcategory and (2) on a case-by-case
basis under section 40Z(a)( l) of the Act.
using the best professional judgement
(BPfl. 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 J06 of

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
32477
the CWA when developing national effluent
limitations guidelines, and not when
estsblishlng permit conditions on a case-by.
‘“•bauis.
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.
m. Permitting
A. Prior Permitting
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.
• Coal Mining.
• Ore Mining and Dressing.
• Mineral Mining and Processing.
• Asphalt Emulsion.
Site specific permitting 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
a d 40 CFR Part 122 all dischargers to
waters of the United States are required
to apply for a NPDES permit. 40 CFR
part 122.23 establishes concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as
point source dischargers subject to
?JFDES permitting.
On November 18. 1990. (55 FR 47990).
EPA published NPDES permit
application requirements for facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. Among these
designated facilities are those which
have national effluent guidelines for
storm water. Under these regulations all
eediots must apply for an NPDES
7 rmit. Feedlot facilities must at a
r. muxn obtain coverage under a
promulgated general permit for storm
water.
2. Scope of NPDES Concentrated Animal
“ eding Operation (CAFO) Permitting
animal feeding operations listed in
40 .FR part 122 appendix B are
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:
di 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
h. 30.000 laying hens or broilers when
facility has liquid manure handling
system:
i. 5,000 ducks; or
j. 1.000 animal units from a
combination of slaughter steers and
heifers, mature dairy cattle, swine over
55 pounds and sheep;
New and existing operations which
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;
di 150 horses;
e. 3000 sheep or lambs:
f 18.000 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:
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 arwnal 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” indudes the number of
animals confinedi the length of time the
animals are confined at the facility and
the type of the confinement. If the
facility confines 1000 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 persons 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
dearly the intent of the regulation to
include 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 includa obviously non-point source
operations where the animals 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.
baros 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 CWA defines the
term “point source” broadly to include
“any discernible, confined and discrett
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
Fedaral Register / Vol. 57. No. 141 / Wednesday. July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
“point source” has been Interpreted
broadly. For example. the holding in
Sierra Club v. Abston Construction Co..
Inc.. 820 F.2d 41 (5th Cit.. 1980) indicates
that changing the surface of 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 indude any
identifiable conveyance from which
pollutants might enter the waters of the
United States.
3. CAFOs 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 can
request to be excluded from coverage by
this permit by applying for an individual
permit in accordance with 40 CPR
122. 8(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 permit. Submission of an
application does not authorize the
perrnittee 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 per:nit (as discussed in
part V of this fact sheet). However.
Region 6 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. Feedlot Discharge Through Other
Sewer Systems
The November 16. 1990 notice clarifies
that industrial discharges to waters of
the United Slates. including those
through storm sewers to waters of the
United Statrs. 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
Feedlota are subject to the application
deadlines required of storm water
dischargers with storm water associated
with industrial activity as defined in the
November 10. 1990 Federal Register. 40
CFR 122.21 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. 8
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 incepflon in 1979.
Most general permits utilize a Notice of
Intern (NO!) as a mechanism to register
covered facilities. The administrative
burdens on the permit issuing agency
and the costs to dischargers can be
reduced by replacing more complicated
permit application reqiiirement with
simplified requirements. The public
notice for a general specifies whether a
Notice of Intent (NO!) is required prior
to coverage.
There are ‘wo situations where an
NO! would not have to be submitted to
authorize discharges under a general
permit are authorized by 40 CFR
122.28(b )(2) (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 nwnber 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 (NOl) in general permits
is a mechanism which can be used to
establish an accounting of the number of
pernuttees 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 6 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 6 believes
that violations of the permit will be self
reported by the perniittee or the
concerned public. In addition, the States
in Region 6 have an compliance track’
and inspection system which is alma
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
violators, and will afford Region 6 the
same enforcement potential to insure
compli3nce with the permit as it would
enjoy with a Notice Of ln:ent. 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 ‘10
CFR 122.28(b)(2)(v) a notice of intent
shall not be filed by the operator to gai-
coverage under this permit. This perm.
will apply to all CAFOs covered by
permitting requirements under 40 CFR
12223.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 I Wednesday, July 22, 1992 I Proposed Rules
32479
b. lndividuoipexznit application
requirements. Facilities which the
Director determines am 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 1 and
Form 28. These forms require the
development and submission of detailed
site-specific information. The
information is 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(bJ(Z)(iii) for EPA-
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
(see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(Li) for EPA-
issued general permits).
Advantages of a General Permit:
• General requirements and
recommended management practices
will be established for discharges
covered by the permit:
• Facilities whose discharges are
covered by the permit will have an
opportunity to comply with the CWA.
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 animal feeding
operations:
• Many Facilities without an existing
permit will automatically have
reçu rernents to comply with
Technology and Management
requirements.
C. Buirdens on Permitting Agencies
The focal issue in developing a
general permit for CAFOs 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 permitting
program is a complex process. The steps
in developing individual permits are
very resource intensive. The issuance of
a general permit 10 reduce the
administrative burden benefits the
Agency, the tax payer. and the
environment. Major steps to issue a
)ern’ut include:
• Training of Permit Writers. Permit
writers must acquire the appropriate
expertise necessary for writing permits.
• Permit Application Review. Permit
applications (or notices of intent to be
covered under a general permit) that are
received initially must be screened and
reviewed for completeness. When this
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 permit writer and filed.
• Preparing a Draft Perrnit Preparing
a draft permit and fact sheet involves a
technical evaluation of the discharge
based on a review of the permit
application or other appropriate
information, The appropriate factors
associated with technology-based or
water quality-based standards must be
evaluated. Appropriate effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements.
and any special conditions need to be
developed.
• Public Notice of the Draft PermiL
Draft permits must undergo appropriate
public notice. In some cases public
hearings must be held.
• Permit Issuance. Public comments
must be received, evaluated, and
responded to in developing a final
permit. Any request for an evidentiary
hearing must be addressed.
• Compliance Monitoring!
Eziforcernent. 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.
Ii’. addition to these steps. a number of
aifry’trngtrative functions, such as
responding to public inquiries, can
create burdens for permit issuing
agencies. The number of such inquiries
can be particularly high when a general
pernut covering a large regulated
community 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 POTWs. EPA and
authorizedI’JPDES 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 animal
feeding operation facilities in Region 5.
Most feedlot facilities have not been
addressed under the NPDES program in
the past. Today’s notice incorporates
several elements of EPA’s initial
attempts to establish a workable NPDES
program that reflects the realities of
these administrative 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 November 1990 FR with the
following pnority based strategy
• Tier I—Baseline Permitting: One or
more general permits will be developed
to initially cover the majority of storm
water discharge. associated with
industrial adtivity
• Tier If—Watershed Permitting:
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely unpacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual or
watershed-specific general permits.
• Tier IJl—lnduszry -Speciflc
Pemnrnng: Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific general permits; and
• Tier IV—Facility-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 exduded 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 LI
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 III
Specific industry categories will be
targeted for individual or industry-
specific general permits. These permits
will allow permitting authorities to focus
attention and resources on industry
ca’egories of particular concern.
industries with effluent guidelines. and/
or industry categories where tailored
requirements are appropriate. The
Agency will work with the States to
develop model permits for selected
classes of industrial storm water
discharges. EPA is also working to
identify priority industrial categories in
the two Reports to Congress required
under section 402(pl(5) of the CWA. This

-------
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 141 I Wednesday. July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
permit is one of the first Tier III industry
specific general permits developed by
Region 8 under this strategy.
4. Tier N
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.
This 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 best management practice.
(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 waters
of the United States. BMP5 also include
operating procedures. treatment
requizenients and practices to control
feedlot runoff, drainage from raw
materials, spills or leaks. EMP. can be
established in two ways: BMP plans and
site or pollutant-specific BMPe. EPA
often establishes NPDES permit
conditions that require generic BMPs to
be identified and implemented through
BMP plans. General permits often
require UMP plans to insure compliance
with the effluent limitations of the
permit Many of the BMPs in a typical
BMP 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 framing, and poor
engineering are among the major causes
of non compliance. Experience has
shown that BMPs can be used
appropriately and BMP plans can
effectively reduce pollutant discharges
in a cost-effective manner. BMP plans
should reflect requirements for spill
prevention. BMP plans should also
ensure that solid and hazardous waste
is managed in accordance with
requirements established under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) 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 BMP
requirements can be developed. The
following four categories describe these
site or pollutant-specific BMPs:
• Prevention,
• Containment.
• Mitigation.
• Ultimate Disposition.
This general permit requires that each
pernuttee 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 Practices
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. Elimination 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 feedlots include:
Building belier containment 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
Concentrated Animnl Feeding
Operations
A. Today’s Notice
Today’s notice proposes a general
permits for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in four
States (LA.. TX. OK, NM). The following
portion of this notice provides notice for
draft NPOES general permits and
accompanying fact sheets for CAFOs in
LA. N).L OK, and TX. 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
complies with the effluent requirement
of “no discharge” to waters of the U.S..
and the technology standard set for
storm water (Le. 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)#L OK. TX
United States EPA. Region VI. Water
Management DIvision. (6W—PM), F’ii,i
Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain
Place. 1445 Ross 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 I Wednesday. July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
32481
Conunent 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 Ceneroi 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
Jean Water Act (CWA)) was amended
to provide that the discharge of any
pollutants to waters of the United States
from any point source is unlawful,
except if the discharge is in compliance
with 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 1970
(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
VU. 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
‘eatment 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
1.00 kg as a daily maximum and 0.91 kg
as a 30 day average. Pathogen
requirements in the permit limit recal
coliform discharged to 400 colonies/i00
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 after 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 R 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 administrative work load ant -
priorities. All of these applicants will
gain coverage under the NPDES proçam
through the issuance of this permit
Region 6 believes this benefits those
applicants without an NPDES permit.
Any permittee which desires an
Individual permit may petition the
Director in accordance with Part I. D. 2.
of the permit.
Additional Coverage Requirements
for CAFOs E,ctablished 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 jind 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 perznittee
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
diversiong 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 will be considerate of discharges
from the CAFO facilities due to the
volume of storm runoff which would
accompany such a discharge. Where
CSO discharges, Iooding or plant
operation problems can result, ozisite
storage followed by a controlled release
during dry weather conditions may be
considered. U 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
contht,ons. The conditions of these drart
permits have been developed to be
consistent with the technology-based
standards of the CWA EBAT/BCT) and
the technology standard for storm water
pollutant source controls. Based on a
consideration of the appropriate factors
for BAT and BCI’ requirements
discussed in this fact sheet for
controlling pollutants from feedlots, the
draft general permit proposes effluent
linutations, 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
best 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 CFR
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.

-------
32482
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 141 I Wednesday, July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
EPA may also impose BNWs which are
“reasonably necessary’ ‘ ‘to carry
out the purposes of the Act” under 40
CFR 122.44(k)(3). Both of these
standards for imposing BMPe are
recognized in NRDC versus Costle. 568
F.2d 1369. 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The
conditions in the draft general permits
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 B1 Ws identified require the
use of control technologies which. in the
context of these general permits. are the
best available of the technologies
economically achievable (or the
equivalent BCT finding). See. e.g. NRDC
versus EPA. 822 f.2d 104.1.22-23 (DC.
Cit. 1987) (EPA has substantial
discretion to impose noa uantitative
permit requirements pursuant to section
402(a)(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 will 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
riicnoge.’nent practices. and other
condit,ons—(l) Prohibitions. The
permittee will 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 paternal to be
discharged to a Water of the U.S.
i henever a rainfall event exceeds the
25 sear. 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 will also provide the
permittee 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
cleane (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 wastewater level: (f) 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 hauler 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 8 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’s required in the
permit include requirements for (a)
Retention structure design. capacity,
operation and maintenance. These
required BMJ’s 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 requirements. Retention
facilities and waste storage areas must
not be located in areas of 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 througn
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 BMP ’s required itt the
permit. Information is solicited
regarding the potential effectiveness of
the required EMP’s 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 achievabality
of the required BMFs.
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 SIS 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 permit requirement. This
simple reference will allow the
permiitee 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 arid the public on the
appropriateness of using SCS plans to
:omply. in part. with the BMFs required
in the permit.
(CJ 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
requirement. of the National program to
regulate the pollutant. 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 (B? .fPs)
which was based on a review of
practices used by industry to control the
ion-routine discharge of pollutants from
non-continuous sources including runoff.
drainage from raw material storage
areas, spills, leaks, and sludge or waste
disposal. This review includes analysis
and assessment of published arudes
and reports. technical bulletins, and
discussions with industry
representatives through telephone
contacts. written questionnaires and site
visits.
The review identifies two dasses 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 curumum
requirements in any effective BMP
program. The second class of controls
includes management practice controls
which provide a second line of defense
gainsi the release of pollutants and
.icludes prevention measures,
containment measures. mitigation and
cleanup measures. and treatment
methods.’ Since that time. EPA has, on a
case-by-case basis, Imposed BMP
requirement. 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 plan. because
the term emphasizes that requirement.
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 BMP 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 pestic des
would not have to incorporate measures
to address these pesticides in their plan.
The perinittee 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 BMP 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
‘For a compicli deccnption of he B .IP sur ey.
ice NPDES Beat ManagerneM Practice. C. .dance
Document”, U.S. ci A. Decembe, 1979, EPA—6OO/ -
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 Requirements for Feedlot
Focthties —(iJ 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 acthritles 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 runoff , 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 pollutant . in overflow or
bypass discharges.
Other information to consider, if
applicable, include the mariner and
frequency m 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 remediation 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 mator
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

-------
3Z4&t
Federal Reg ater I VoL 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22. 1992 1 Proposed Rules
lung develop a desaiption of
m nag m nt controls appropriate for
tha facil1ty. and implement such
control& The appropriateness and
prioritie, of controls in a plan shall
reflhct identified potential sources of
poilutanta at the facility. The following
m gpment controls must be
addhessed
Wastewater retention facilities. The
perlTuttPe will have documentation at
the faólity site supporting the
rr n gPfnPnt controls used to contain
wastewaterg 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
struc es. as well as. all factors and
calculations used in determining land
application rates. acreage. and crops.
This: documentation may be developed
by the Slate Soil Conservation Service.
This documentation will allow the
Agency to determine if the containment
struc e is adequately designed to
contain the required 25 year. 24-hour
event
• Liner Requirement. Over most of
EPA Region 6 surface water flow is
sustai.ned throughout much of the year
by ground water inflow. As a result.
corrt minants which leak from
co..t. ’. .. .ent structures to the ground
walur will typically move underground
toward local streams and rivers where
they will be discharged and affect wager
qualIty. The permittee must have on site
documentation that no hydrologic
connection exists between the contained
wastewater and surface waters of the
Uniind States. The permittee is given
nwacptions to demonstrate the lack of
hydinfagic connecnon (1) Document
than there can be rio significant leakage
from the retention structure: or (2)
Docent that leakage from the
retention structure would not migrate to
sur waters. These two options allow
the’ permittee 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
si rface waters via wells and irrigation
niusrbe taken into account when
determining hydraulic connEctions.
Where the permittee cannot document
that ne hydrologic connection e,usts. the
conrarnment structure must have a liner
which will prevent the potential
coni mrnntIon of surface waters. Liners
for ratention structures should be
consteucted in accordance with good
engineering practices and must be
certiEed by a Professional Engineer.
Liner maintenance shall include
inspection at least once/2 years. Liner
design may be in accordance with a SCS
plan. Although the requirement for liner
installation is to protect surface waters.
the perimttee 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 procedures 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
procedures 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. Perriuttees are encouraged to
apply the manure as fertilizer. However.
where local water quality is threatened
by phosphorus, the perinittee is
cautioned to limit the application rate to
the crop uptake rate of phosphorus.
Preventive Maintenance. A
preventive maintenance program
involves inspection and maintenance of
all management devices (cleaning oil/
water separators. catch basinsj as well
as inspecting and testing equipment and
systems to uncover condition that could
cause breakdowns or failures resulting
in discharges of pollutants to surface
wasters. A good preventive
maintenance program includes
identifying equipment or retention
systems used: periodically inspecting or
testing equipment and retention system;
adjusting. repainng. 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 repain
• Provide waste receptacles at
convenient locations and provide
regular collection of wastes;
• Locate equipment washdown areas
on site, provide appropriate control of
washwaters:
• Provide protected stcrage 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 and storage
requirements in the plan should be
considered. Procedures for cleaning up
spills should be identified in the plan
and made available to the appropriate
personnel. The necessary equipment to
implement a clean up should be
available to personnel. Spill response
procedures should avoid discharging to
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 uifomi
personnel at all levels of responsibility
of the requirements of the permit and 31
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 RecordAeeping. 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 responsib lities of the
designated person should address all
aspects of the facility’s 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
‘nllution 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 and 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 permit, 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 perm.ittee 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 and are adequate.
Records documenting significant
observation made during the site
nspection must be retained as part of
the pollution prevention plan fer a
minimum of three years. This allows the
Agency access to records of permit
compliance much the same as all self
reported information required in 1 (PDES
permits.
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 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 Best 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,” U.S. EPA. June
1981. Site or Pollutant.Specific Best
Management Practices. Information
more specific to CAFO is available
through FarmA ’Syst (national contact
ph.# 608—282-0024) developed for EPA
by the University of Wisconsin.
Additional BMPa 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 BMPs in appendix A
is voluntary and should take into
account site specific factors.
The perinittee 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 Soil 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.
(0) 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 Gocrations Rules Effective
4/1/87 part 321.38. 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 quality
impacts and water quality standards
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 provida 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
following information 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

-------
32486
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 I Wednesday. July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
from the nearest National Weather
Service 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 must be analyzed for
all conventional pollutants associated
with feedlot operation. Numbers of
Fecal 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 80D5) will help the permitting
authority evaluate the oxygen depletion
potential of the discharge. Five day
biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5) is
the most commonly used indicator of
oxygen 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 Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(11(N). nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen are
measures of nutrients that can impact
water quality. In addition, the
monitoring requirements contain a
requirement to rnorutor 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
monitoring reports shall be submitted to
the State if requested. The permittee
must notify the Director in writing
within 14 days of any planned changes
in the permitted facility or activity
which may resuit in noncompliance with
permit requirements. The perimttee must
also report all instances of
noncompliance in wiiting within 14 days
to the Director in accordance with this
permit.
The draft general permits have an
“adverse climate conditions” provision
allowing a discharger to submit a
description of why samples could not be
collected in lieu of sampling data when
the discharger is unable to collect
samples due to climatic conditions
wrnch 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.),
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
taken from the over-flow structure for
discharges from holding ponds or other
impoundments. Feedlots are not
required to submit monitoring reports
unless specifically requested by the
Director. These dischargers 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 permittee 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.
6. Definitions
Region 6 requests comments on any
terms referred to in this permit which
are not defined in Part VUI 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 arid money.
An economic analysis was done when
the BAT requirements for the national
effluent guidelines (40 CFR 412) were
published. Region 6 believes that the
same economic and technology
rationale would apply to the smaller
facilities covered by this print. Also.
Region 6 believes that this permit is the
most economical permitting option
available to the smaller facilities with
NPDES application requirements.
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 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 waler
quality standards set for a particular
receiving water could prove excessively
expensive.
VL Compliance with Other Federal
Regulations
A. National Env:ronrnentai Policy Act
Finding of No Significant Impact
To all interested government agepc:es
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
Implementing 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 action:
(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 generai. ’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
may be contaminated with pesticides
sed 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 contatned in the ponds
include the nutrient nitrogen and
bacteria from fecal materials, and
pesticides used an 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
generated waste waters plus the runoff
c.om a 25-year. 24-hour rainfall event for
location of the point source. The
.. ,lding pond will be lined with either a
synthetic or a clay 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.
(Di 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 an any sigiuficant adverse
env!ronmental 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 issi arice 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 E.IS will be accepted
during the thirty (30) day period
oIlowing the public notice of this
‘liuunary FNSI. The finwog will
ome final with the issuance of the
h al permit decision. Address all
comments to: Ellen Caldwçll (6W—PS).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202—
2733. Telephone: (2141 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 8 determines that issuance
of these permits is unlikely to adversely
affect any listed threatened or
endangered species or designated
critical habitat. EPA Region 0 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.
E. Regulatory Flexibii ty .4c1
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 Flexibility
Analysis is required, however, where
the head of the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Today’s proposed general permit
would generally make the NPDES
regulations more fiexible’and less
burdensome for perrruttees. Accordingly.
I hereby certify. pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b), that these amendments, if
promulgated. and that these general
permits, when issued. will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122
Administrative practice and
procedure. Reporting and record keeping
requirements. Waler pollution control.
Authority: Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251 et
seq.
Dated. July 1. 1992.
W.B. Hathaway.
Acting Reg ona! Adm,n,stmtor.
NPDES General Permit for Discharge.
From Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations—Table of Contents
Part I. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area
B. Coverage and EhgzbLlity.
C. Limitations on Coverage
D. Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
8. Notification Requirements
F. Permit Expiration
Part IL Effluent Limitations
A. Discharge Limitations For All Categories
Of CAFOs Other Than Ducks Facilities
Established Prior to 1974
B. Releases Li Excess of the 25 year Z4-hour
Storm Event.
Part Ill. Special Conditions. Management
Practices, and Other Non.Nun ieric
Limitations
A Prohibition of Unauthorized Substances.
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 Records.
F. Availability of Reports
i Bypass of Treatment Fac±ties
H Upset Conditions.
I. Planned Changes.
J. Duly to Provide Information
K. Other lnformat,on.
L Signatory Requirements.
Part VI. Standard Permit Requirement,
A. Duty to Comply.
B Inspection and EnUy.
C. Toxic Pollutants.
0 Penalties for Violations of Permit
Canditions.
E. Contusuation of the Expired General
Permit.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
F. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a
Defense.
C. Duty to Mitigate.
H. Proper Operation and Maintenance.
L Penalties (or Falsification of Monitoring
Systems.
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability.
IC. Property Rights.
L Severability.
P4. State Laws.
N. Permit Actions.
Part V11. Definitions
Part I. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area.
The permit covers all areas
administered by Region 6 in the State of
2
a 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 (CAFOe) are riot
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 this
permit.
2. Other Animal Feeding Operations.
All other animal feeding operations are
encouraged to comply with this permit.
3. CAFO’s With Expired Permits or
Pending Applications. All facilities
which have expired permits and have
reapplied in accordance with 40 CFR
ifl.Zi(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
pezmittee may request to be excluded
from coverage by this permit by
applying far an individual permit in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(ui).
4 Additional Coverage Requirements
for Concentrated Animal 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 U of this
permit. The form must be seat to: Mr.
Hector Pena (6E-FFJ, IJ.a EPA Region 6,
1445 Roes Ave., Suite iWO, Dallas,
Texas 75202.
The permittee shall have
documentation of “No Significant
‘Note Thai the Agency a Notfong distinct draft
general permfts In Loinmana. New Mexico.
Oklahoma. Texus.
Impact” or a completed Environmental
Impact Statement, in accordance with
an environmental 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.
C Limitations on Coverage.
The following discharges from
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) are not covered by
this permit
1. CAFO’a 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 1, D. (below) of this permit.
2. CAFO’s that discharge all their
runoff and wastewater 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. Req iiring an Individual Permit or an
Alternative 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)(2J(l). 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 manner an individual NPDES
permit application required by the
Director under this paragraph, then the
applicability of this general permit to the
individual NPDES perlmttee 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
exduded from the coverage of this
permit by applying for an individual
permit as provided in 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(iii). The owner or operator
shall submit an individual application
(Form I 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 altemativ.
NPDES general permit, the permittee 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 notification
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 II. Effluent limitation.
A. Discharge Limitations For All
Categories Other Than Duck Faciii: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 applicalion 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
standardi 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 / VoL 57, No. 141 / 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
2fficient to contain all wastewaters
even in case of high winds.
Part III. Special Conditions.
Management Practice., and Other Non.
Numeric Linutations
A. Prohibition on Unauthorized
Substances
All discharges to containment
structures shall be composed entirely 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 discharges
associated with proper operation and
maintenance of the CAFO) into the
containment structures are prohibited
by this permit.
B. Proper Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
The facilities covered by this permit
are required to document the attainment
of Best Available Technology (SAT) and
Best Conventional Technology (BCT).
and all Best Management Practices
(B s) used to comply with the effluent
limitations an this permit. Such
documentation shall be included in the
‘ ollution Prevention Plan (PPP) outlined
Part [ I. C. of this permit and shall be
aiade 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 (SCSI. 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 BMPs 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
-“iplication rates and retention facility
paclty
b. Documentation of existing retention
facility capacity
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 hauler and amount.
In dry tons. nf waste removed from the
feedlot. Incidental amounts, given away
by the passenger pick-up truck load.
need not be recorded.
2. Best Management Practices. The
following Best Management Practices
(BMPs) shall be utilized by concentrated
animal feeding owners/operators. as
appropriate, 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’s required
bythispermit. -
a. Control facilities must be designed.
constructed, and operated to contain all
process generated wastewaters 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 as8ociated
areas, process generated wastewater,
and waste.
Open lots and associated wastes shall
be isolated from outside surface
drainage by ditches, dikes, berms.
terraces 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 401 Permit form the U.S. Corp of
Engineers.
(1) Retention Capacity Calculations.
Retention facilities shall be sized based
upon the following procedure. Calculate
the reieu ion capacity based upon the
25-year 24-hour rainfall event by
summing’.
(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
(D) The volume of rainfall from any
roofed area that Is directed into the
retention facilities plus
(B) 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 Embankments.
The following minimum design
standards are required for construction
and/or modification of a retention
facility: Soils used in the embanlunent
shall be free of foreign material such as
trash. brush, and fallen frees. The
embankment shall be constructed in lifts
or layers no more than six 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 its equivalent).
(3) Retention facilities shall be
eqwpped 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
sufficient 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 days of any rainfall event or
accumulation of wastes or process
generated wastewater which reduces
such freeboard, weather permitting.
Eqwpment capable of dewatering the
wastewater retention structures of
waste and/or wastewater with 21 days
following any rainfall event which
encroaches 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

-------
32490
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 141 / Wednesday. July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
panda. The marker shaLl be visible from
the top of the levee.
(6) Where site specific variations are
warranted, the permittee must document
these variations and their
appropriatanau. Concentrated animal
feeding operations constructing a new or
modifying an existing wutewater
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 animals confined
on the CAFO. Fences may be used to
restrict such access.
c. Weatewater 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 animals 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 from 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
waters 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 be
completed within 180 days of the
effective date of this permit (and
updated as appropriate), or. in the case
of new facilities, prior to operation.
Plans shall provide for compliance with
the terms of the plan within 365 days of
the effective daie 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 is 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 perinittee
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 permuttee
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 animal feeding
ares: each existing structural control
measure to reduce pollutants in
wastewater and precipitation runof1
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 existing sampling
data describing pollutants in overflow or
bypass discharges.
(2) Wastewater MonaSernent
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
prionties of controls in a plan shall
reflect identified potential sources of

-------
Federal Register / 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
if existing structural and non-structural
cor.trol measures to contain
waslewaters: arid a description of any
treatment the wastewater receives. The
description of management controls
shall address the following minimum
components, including a schedule for
implementing such controls:
(a) Wastewater 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 1U.B. should be used. if
land application is utilized for disposal
of wastewater, the following
requirements shall apply: (1) Discharge
(irrigated wastewater off the
application site is prohibited: (ii) When
irrigation disposal of wastewater is
used, facilities shall not exceed the
nutrient uptake of the crop coverage
wth any land application of wastewater
ar.d/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
puddl :ng of wastewater on the site.
contamination of ground or surface
water, and the occurrence of nuisance
conc:tions such as odors and flies: (vi
Facil:ties including ponds. pipes.
ditches, pumps, diversion and irrigation
equ:pmcnt shall be maintained to insure
ability to fully comply with the terms of
ths permit and the pollution prevention
plan: ( ) Adequate equipment or land
a plicatior. area shall be available for
remo al of such waste and wastewater
as required to maintain the retention
capacity of the facility for compliance
with this permit.
(bi L;ner Requirement. The permittee
shall have, at the CAFO facility, site
specific documentation that rio
hydrologic connection exists between
the contained wastewaler and surface
iaters of the United States. Where the
,ermittee 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.
(1) Documentation of No Hydrologic
Connection. A lack of hydrologic
connection can be demonstrated by: (Ii
Documenting that there will be no
significant leakage from the retention
structure: or (2) documenting that any
leakage from the retention structure
would not migrate to surface waters. At
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 perimeten
—Depth to ground water:
—Hydraulic conductivity, thickness and
lithology of the uppermost aquifer:
—A piezometric (ground water contour)
map of the uppermost aquifer covering
the area in and around the., iructure
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 D.B.3.d(2)(b)(iii) (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 with good
engineering practices and shall have
hydraulic conductivities no greater than
I x iO cut/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
inspection 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 arid
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.
(ci Manure and Pond Solids Handling
and Land Application. Storage and land
application of manure shall riot 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. (iii) 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. Tinting 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
permittee 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
spec es of plant. fish, or wildlife; nor
shall such disposal interfere with or
cause harm to migratory water fowl (vi)
All necessary practices to minimize
waste manure 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
watercoursea. (viii) 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

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 141 / Wednesday . July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
all runoff management devices (cleaning
separators, catch basins) as well as
inspecting and testing facility equipment
and containment structures to uncover
conditions that could cause breakdowns
or failures resulting In discharges of
pollutants to surface waters. Operators
will provide routine maintenance to
their control facilities in accordance
with a schedule and plan of operation to
ensure compliance with permit
limitations 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
accumulated 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.
(4) 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
pollution prevention plan.
(5) Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures. Areas where potential spiii
can occur, and their accompanying
drainage ponds shall be identified
dearly in the pollution prevention plan.
Where appropriate, the pollution
prevention plan should specify material
handling procedures and storage
requirements. 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.
(6) 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.
(7) Employee Training. Employee
training programs shall inform personnel
at all levels of responsibility of the
components and goals of the pollution
prevention plan. Training should
address topics such as spill response
and clean up, good housekeeping and
material management practices. A
pollution prevention plan shall identify
periodic dates for such training.
(8) InspccLtona and Rec’ordkeeping.
The operator or the person named in the
pollution prevention plan as the
individual responsible for drafting and
implementing the plan shall be
respc’nsible for inspections and
recordkeeping.
Record keeping and Internal Reporting
procedures. 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 docwnented and recorded.
These records must be kept on site for a
minimum of three years.
Visual Inspections. 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 permit. Where
applicable and economically feasible
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 IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Discharge Notification
If, for any reason, there is a discharge,
the permittee is required to notify the
Director and the Slate 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 plan:
1. The permittee shall monitor the
discharge and indude 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 estunate 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. 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 must be in accordance with
EPA approved methods for water
analysis listed in 40 Q’R 138.
d. Analysis of discharge samples must
include the following: Fecal Cohform
bacteria: 5-day Biological Oxygen
Demand (BOD5); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS); pit temperature: total
phosphorus: Kjeldahl nitrogen: nitrate
nitrogen: and any pesticide or waste
which the operator has reason to believe
could be in the discharge.
e. Measurements taken for the
purpose of monitoring shall be
representative of the monitored
dischargn.
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 permuitee
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, electrical 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 perinittee shall give advance
‘Lice to the Director of any planned
anges in the permitted facility or
activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
C Other Noncomphonce 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 document submitted or
required to be maintained under this
pernut. including reports of compliance
or noncompliance shall, upon conviction
be punished by a fine of not more than
Sw.000 per violation, or by
I mprisonment 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 ye rs from the
date reported. This period may be
iended by request of the Director at
/ time.
r .4 va;lobility of Reports
In addition to data determined to be
ccnfidential 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
infnrmation available to the public
without further 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. If the perinittee
knows in advance of the need for a
bypass, he shall submit to EPA and the
Siate written notice, if possible at least
:en days before the date of the bypass
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
pe mittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass to the Director as
required under Part IV.A.
2. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass is prohibited and the
Director may take enforcement action
inst a permittee for a bypass. unless:
The bypass was unavaoidable to
?revent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage;
Ii. 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 the perrnittee could have installed
adequate backup equipment to prevent a
bypass which occurred during normal
periods of equipment downtime or
preventive maintenance; and
iii. 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, if the Director
determines that it will meet the three
conditions listed in Part IV C.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
permittee can identify the specific
cause(s) of the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the
Lime being properly operated:
c. The pertmttee 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
permittee seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof
1. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the
Director, as soon as possible, of any
planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility
Notice is required only when the
alteration or addition could significantly
change the nature or increase the
quantity of pollutants discharged
/. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Director, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Director may
request to determine comp’iance with
this permit. The perrniuee shall also
furnish to the Director, upon request.
copies of records required to be kept by
this permit.
K. Other In formation
When the perinittee 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 opera tori
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. State. Federal. or other
public agency: by either a principal
executive officer or ranking elected
official.
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director shall be signed by a person
described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person
is a duly authorized representative only
if the authorization is made in writing b
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 certification:
‘l 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.”

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
V. Standard Requirements
AL. Duty to Comply
The perrnittee must comply with all
condition. of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of
the Act and is grounds for enforcement
antiorc for loss of authorization to
discharge under this general permit; or
ffnrd nial of a permit renewal
a ficat ion.
if Lbspection and Enny
The permittee shall allow the Director.
co’an authorized representative of EPA
including the State. upon the
presentation of credentials and other
dinranients as may be required by law.
t Enter upon the pernuttees premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
lbcated or conducted, or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this
permit:
2, Have access to and copy, at
rearenable times, any records that must
be’ kept under the conditions of this
permit
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
fac ilities, equipment (including
lT! tormg and control equipment).
- tii.es, or operations regulated or
reqiared under this permit, and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times. for the purpose of assuring permit
rnmpliazice or as otherwise authorized
by the Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
C Toxic Pollutants
The perrntttee shall comply with
e .ent standards of prohibitions
. kd, hed under section 307(a) of the
A fOr toxic pollutants within the time
pruvided in the regulations that
establish these standards or
peoltibitions. even if the permit has not
yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
D. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Cn rditions
The Act provides that any person who
violates a permit condition
imp!ementing sections 301.302. 308, 307.
308,319, or 405 of the Act is subiect to a
civil penalty not to exceed $25000 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 $2,500,
nor more than 525.000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than one year. or both.
H. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit
An expired general permit continues
in force and effect until a new general
permit is issued.
P. 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 necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
C. 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.
H. Proper Operation and A ffaIntenance
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 tndudes the
operation of backup or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems only when
necessary to achieve compliance with
the conditions of the permit.
L 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.
/. 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 permlttee is or
may be sub )e t under section 311 of the
Act.
K. Property Rights
The issuance of th:s permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort,
or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private properly
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. 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 wider
authority preserved by section 510 of the
Act.
N. Permit Actions
This 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 indude those
more stringent limits or requirements.
VU. Definitions
1. “Animal feeding operation” mear.a
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
En 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 animal 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 14, plus the number of swine
weighing over 55 pounds multiplied by
0.4, plus the number of sheep multiplied

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 141 I Wednesday . July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
32495
by 0.1. plus the number of horses
‘iultiplied by 2.0.
3. “Best Management Practices”
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 ha. unlimited continuous
flow watering systems:
h. 30.000 inying hens or broilers when
facility has liquid manure handling
system
i. 5.000 ducks: or
1.000 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 Ur.ited 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 ghing over 55 pounds:
u 150 horses:
e. 3030 sheep or lambs;
1 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).
6. “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 exceptonal
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 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
Slates”, May 1981. and subsequent
amendments, or equivalent regional or
state rainfall probability information
developed therefrom.
Appeiidlx A—Recomaieaded “Best”
Managemeiit Practice,
The best management practices (BMPa)
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.
I. Location Slandords
This section establishes the minimum
standards which should be considered when
selecting the site for a new concen a ted
animal feeding operation.
A. The purpose of this section is to
minimize possible contamination of ground
and surface waters by defining the
charactensucs that make an area unsuitable
or inappropriate for concentraied animal
feeding operations. Perinittees should take
every precaution to minimize the pouibility
of exposing the public to nuisance conditions.
and to prevent locating of a concentrated
animal feeding operaiion in an area
determined to be unauitable or inapprop;i te.
unless the design. construction, and

-------
32496
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 141 / Wednesday, July 22. 1992 / Proposed Rules
operational features of the facility will
mitigate the unsuitable site characteristics.
B. When constructing a new facility or a
substantial change of an existing facility or
developing a waste manageineni plan for a
proposed site, the pernuhtee 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 faulan
2. Groundwater conditions such as
groundwater flow rate, groundwater quality.
length of flow path to pouttsof 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 waten and
4. Climatological conditions.
C. Wastewater retention facilities or
holding pens should not be located In
wetlands. (This prohibition is not applicable
to constructed wetlands.)
D. 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
greater than 10’ cm/sec or a thicker interval
of more permeable material which provides
eqwvalent or greater retardation of pollutant
migration. A synthetic membrane liner may
be substituted with a minimum of 30 mils
thickness and an underground leak detection
system with approorieta 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. Retention St,’jcture Design
The permit requires that the facility be
constructed and maintained to contain the 25
year. 24-hour storm event, It is 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 structures:
A_The embankment wail should have a top
width of at least 0 feet
B. Interior azid exterior slop, of the
embankment walls should be no steeper than
one foot vertical to three feet honzontali
C. There should be an emergency freeboard
not less than two feet basm
0. The retention facility should be
constructed with an emergency spillway 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 waler nm-on by berms
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 Water 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, terraces and
waterways above an open lot
2. [ nstall gutters. dowupouts and buried
conduits to divert roof drainage: and
3. Provide more roofed area.
4. Decrease open lot surface area:
5. Repair or adjust waterer, and water
systems to minimize water wastage.
6. Use practical amounts of waiter for
cooling.
7. Use practical amounts of water for
deanmg equipment.
8. Recyde water to flush manure from
paved surfaces if practical and applicable.
B. 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 sgronomic rates.
C. It is a violation of this permit to
discharge any solId waste or manure to a
water of the U.S. The following practices can
help to minimize waste manure transport to
walercourees:
1. Do not stockpile manure near
watercourses:
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 nutrient losses.
expected precipitation and soil conditionei
5. Avoid land subject to excessive erosioru
6. Use edge-of-field. grassed strips to
separate eroded soil and manure particles
from the field runoffi
7. Utilize off-site areas for manure
application in a manner consistent with best
managements practices and the requirements
of this permit: and
a. Where local water quality is threatened
by phosphorus. the permitted should limit the
application rate to the crop uptake rate of
phosphorus.
0. Feedlol Waste Management for Fly and
Odor Control. The following practices for fly
and odor control should be utilized by
owners/operatora concentrated animal
feeding operations to minimize associated
ordors and insects:
1. Manure-covered surfaces should be kept
d
2. DIrty, manure covered animals should be
prevented;
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 lagoc
or solids separa tori
5. Dry manure should be stored in steep
pileei
6. Dairies should clean, scrape and wash
the drip shed after each milkingi and
7. Manure should be removed from the
holding pens within five days after animals
are removed from a particular lot.
B. All facilities should install a mechanical
solids separator and/or a solids settling basin
at a point following any wash and/or 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 times per week and
stored in a covered area.
F. Owner/operators should collect waste
that accumulates along holding pen/open lot
fence tines, in feeding lanes and feed storage
area on a weekly basis.
l v. Ground Water Pro Lecuon.
Where the potential exists for the
contained wastewaters to contaminate
groundwater. the permuttee should take every
precaution to prevent migration of pollutantr
to those waters. The permittee should take au
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 nugratlo’
All new or modified wastewater retention
facilities should be constructed of compacted
or in situ earthen materials which meet the
following minimum requirements:
(1)30% or more passes through a number
21)0 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 lx 10 1 cm/sea
(5) Soil compaction will be 95% standard
proctor at optimum oisture content: and
(6) A minimum thickness of 1.5 feet.
8. 11 the wastewater retention facilities are
not constructed of suitable materials, then an
alternate lining material should be used.
Liner matenals include flexible membrane
linings, asphalt-sealed fabric liners, arid
bentomte sealants. 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 pernuttee should certify in the
pollution prevention plan that the lining
meets the specified criteria.
0. Concentrated animal feeding operations
located over drinking water aquifers should
Install ground water monitoring wells and/or
lysimelers to monitor liquid movement
through the saturated and unsaturated zones
All wells and/or lysimeters must be installed
by licensed water well drillers or qualified
professionals according to state
requirements.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 141 1 Wednesday. July 22. 1992 f Proposed Rules
32497
V. Feedlo: Waste Utilization or Disposal By
Land Application
The permit prohibits the discharge of
zigated wastewaler off the application site
Neither is irrigation permitted when the
ground is frozen or saturated or during
rainfall events.
A. If land application is utilized for
disposal of wastewater. the following good
management practices should be followed:
1. When irrigation disposal of wasiewater
Is used. tailweter facilities shall be provided
as necessary to prevent the release of applied
wastewatec
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
wastewater on the site, contamination of
ground or surface water, and the occurrence
of nuisance conditions such as odors and
flies:
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 conservativn,calculation
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 ares
should be harvested at least once a year.
B. Representative soil samples should be
taken at least annually from the waste and!
or wasteweter application site.
a. When soil samples are taken the
sampling procedures shall employ accepted
techniques 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 Oto 10 inches: and c. 10 to 30
inches.
3. The samples should be analyzed for
nitrate.mtrogen. ammonia nitrogen, total
Kjeldabl nitrogen. cation exchange capacity.
extractable phosphorus. sodium, magnesium.
calcium, sulfur. and electrical conductivity.
C. All solid wastes stockpiles or retained
on site should:
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 run-on storm waters
by dikes. terraces. beiins. ditches, or other
similar structures.
D. If land application is utilized for
disposal of solid waste in either dried of
liquid Form, the following requirements shell
apply ’
1. Land to receive waste should have a
slope less than 6%:
2. Waste shall not be spread when the
ground is frozen or saturated or during
rainfall eventn
3. Waste should be incorporated into the
soil within 48 hours of application or the
owner/operator should maintain a 200 foot
buffer zone of grass or other thick vegetation
between the disposal areas and the down
gradient property line and/or watercoursee
4. Disposal of waste and wastewaler
should be done In such a manner as to
prevent nuisance conditions such as odors
and flies. 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 in morning
when air is warming and rising rather than in
the late afternoon.
L Where manure is applied to
nonvegetated land, incorporate manure into
the soil during or WithIn 24 hours of
application.
5. Feedlots may sell or give wastes
(manure) to other persons for beneficial use
The owner/bperator 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 recipient of wastes (manure)
written copies of the annual analysis.
Appendix 8.—Reference Land
Application Rates of Wastewater
TABLE 1. NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS OP CROPS, LBS/ACRE.
Crop
Expected Yeld
Nivoge 1 (IbsI
P?losphorus
Corn..._. — -
75-99 buIa - -- . - . ... . ...
75—100
60
lO0-l49buIa..._ ... - -
110-165
80
15 0-2 00buia ......
180-240
80
Cotton . .. -.
1 0 baiesia......,,.... — -. ... -
40
40
l5baiesia - — ..
60
60
Grain Sorgnum - - . .. ..
2.0b es/a . .... ---.. --. . - -....... - - . - -.

1500-2000 ms/a - ......_ ...... . . _.
2000 —4000 lbs/a .......................... .,.. ...__. , —
400 0- S 0 0 0Ibaia..,,.,... —
6000-8000 lbs/a . ,.__. _. ,...._.. .. . -.. —-.....——._..- -.._._,.
80
100
30-40
40-60
60-120
12 0 - I SO
80
80
20
40
60
80
Wheat.. ._.,,.,,,_..
20-30 bu/l .. ..,... ,.,..,,,,.,. — . ,.......... .....
40-60
20
30—4Obuia.,.,,......., ,,,,...,,. -
60-80
40
4 0 -OObu/a.. ., — - . ... .. .. . ... ...
80-120
40
80-80 buis - .. ..._ ._.... .—.. —
120-tOO
60
80-100 bu/a .,,.,,.,,._,.. - .,...._. - ,,,,...,.,._ ._.,. - .._ ___
160-200
60
Coastal Be,muda_ , .....,........ .
Attaita...,..,..
Giazei o .. ,. , , ,..._..,,..,.,. ..,,,._ .,,. ..__._
I nnang + grsnng only. .. - -. -. .. - ...
3 ciitte s............. ... .... .._.... _ ____ . -..—-._.—_
4-6 ctaongs_..., ._..... ...._ ............
Non.erigated. annually ............. . ... ... . .. ....
ir*j a te it OTIs - .. - ._ .._. _..._ __ . .
imgsted 6-I 2TIa.._. ...._._ . .. ._...._.
Light 9F l9 ‘..... .. ... ............... -
Moderate granng ._..__..._.. .. — ..... ..._..
I4e.vygr lg...._ — -_
I Jtbflg Ight gcsnng.............. -.....- . “. - ..- .... . —.
100-160
160-220
300-350
400-600
20
20
20
160
200
240
80
160
200
50
50
100
130
60
tOO
140
60
75
80
40
60
80
........ __ . ,... . ... ......................,.
Wheat.. ._... . . -
Sotuin/Sudan - ........................
2 niten medean ga ig .._ . _ ____.___._
3 aiten or tl vy alg......_...._....._ .
‘Ferodzw pepucadon .aL4 te nngis4iea1 peseaes ii. tar eastern Teen and Loumuta. Rates to, as grming k1tn.A. shotid be ts iCsd by 10
‘isrcsnt for stall 50 ..ht. 1 niaiu east of

-------
32.498
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 141 I Wednesday. July 22. 1992 1 Proposed Rules
Note Actual fertilizer application rate
recommendations are based on the above
op requirements. minus soil nutrient levels
identified by a soil test. resulting in
recommendations which may be signiltcantly
lower than nutrient levels listed in the table.
TABLE 2.—MAXIMUM WASTEWATER
APPLICATiON RATES IN INCHES
Expected crop uptake.
pfsiit aveitable nieogen
065. /mu’) (from table 1)
100 200 300 400
Wastesoter appbcabon
rates (In/acre /yr)
Wasweeter ravogen
mq/1
50....... 10.67 2133 32.00 42.67
l00__..._................... 5.33 10.67 1600 2133
150.. _._.................. 355 7.11 1067 I4
200 .. 2.87 3.33 3.00 10.67
250 .... 2.13 427 6.40 3.33
300 1.78 3.56 5.33 711
350 - ._ 1.52 3.05 457 3.09
400 _ . 133 2.67 400 533
450...._._..._......_...... 119 2.37 3.56 474
500 . - —. 107 2.13 320 421
550____.._....._ 097 1 94 2.91 3.88
600. 0.89 1.78 2.67 356
• Neogan contem of ms ouste ester rent be
determined by a laboratory test of the wastewater to
be land epØed. Westeweter toed for imgaeon
siloUd be tested on S rogue adiestie estabtislied
at vie macuses Polkmon Prewereer Plait
Appendix C—Reference Land
Application Rates for Manure and Pond
Solids
Fertilizer Values of Different Animal
Manures 1
TABLE 1.—POUNDS OF AvAu.. ai.E
NITROGEN (N) PER TON OF MANURE
kwnal Type
Un.
tm
Desy Cattle
Feeder! SIaugIi Came
Swin . ...
SheepIUmbVGo.ta -. _—
68
71
106
63
34
85
5?
55
90
Ho rses
QUcXaitS1TU,5eiI5IDU65*......__ ___
Rabbits ..__. .. . ._. —
OeniChI Ewu...___________
Ezotc Manrmals and Bsds. . ................ .......
Sludge and Anim I Waste Recommended
Fertilizer Application Rata. end Scheduling
for Salected c .
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 land
‘These velure . me for reference only The
pemilnee should have manure tested for nitrogen
and phosphoi’us an a regular basis if it ito be land
applied Ia crops Ia avoid over .pphcaiion.
application should reflect the nitrogen or
phosphorus already applied to the a’op by
wastewater irrigation. if the application doe.
not supply su ciant rates of other nutrients.
commercial fertilizer may be utilized to
provide total need. in accordance with these
guidelines.
Note, en Nitrogen Rate.
Nitrogen rates Indicated are for plant
available tutrogen (PAN). Maximum nitrogen
application rates shall be reduced by the
amount of residual nitrate-nitrogen 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.
Notes on Soil Testing
Soil samples should be taken and analyzed
In the spring prior to planting. If a double
crop of wheat Is in the rotation, a fall soil
sample should be taken and analyzed pnor to
the fall wheat planting. Sample. should
represent a maximum of sixty (60) aae. and
should be composite of a minimum of six (6)
core samples. Each core should be a
composite of soil over a depth of 0 to a
Inches.
Soybean.
Rate: Nitrogeii—250 lb . ac maximum for
animal wastes tested prior to application.
350 lbs/ac maximum for animal wastes
without testing.
Phoaphorus—20 lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 45
lbs/ac phosphate (P 5 0 1 ).
Potassium—iS lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. Equivalent to SO lbs/ac
potash (l( O).
Scheduling. Application is recommended
prior to spring planting of soybeans or In split
applications during the growing season.
Notes: If soybeans follow winter wheat.
soil tests should be performed prior to
application.
Winter Wheat
Rate: Nitrogen—lao lbs/ac maximum.
Phosphorus—ZZ lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 50
lbs/ac phosphate (PsOs).
Potasaium—.50 lbs/ac .,m,dmum actual
elemental IC. Equivalent to 60 lbs/ac
potash (JCaO).
Scheduling. Application of phosphorus and
potassium is recommended prior to planting.
Application of nitrogen is recommended In a
split early spring application In February or
March. Appl.camion of the maximum nitrogen
rate in the fall prior to planting is allowed.
Notes: On soils with 70% or greater sand
content. nitrogen 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
booster N is allowed unless the field
participates in the Cooperative Extension
Service Wheat Monitoring Program and
follow. N application In accordance with
recommendations.
_
Rate Nitrogen—120 lbs/ac maximum for
irrigated fields. 100 lbs/ac maximum
non.lrrigated fields.
Phosphoru.—2B lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent 1060
lbs/ac phosphate (PsOs).
Potaesium—1O lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental IC. Equivalent to 60 lbs/ac
potash (KtO).
Scheduling. Application should be made in
spring prior to planting.
Notes: For double a’opping with winter
wheat. see notes for soybeans and wheaL
Rate Non-ImgacetL Nltrugen—125 lbs/ac
mecumum.
Phoaphoru.—22 lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 50
lbs/ac phosphate (PsO.).
Potaasium—84 lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental IC. Equivalent to 100 lbs/ac
potash (KsO).
Imgoted. Niti’ogen—300 lbs/ac maximum for
animal wastes tested prior to application.
150 lbs/ac maximum for animal wastes
without testing.
Phosphoriis—44 lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 100
Iba/ac phosphate (P 1 0 .).
Potauium—167 lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. Equivalent to 200 lbs/ac
potash (lCsO).
Scheduling. The recommendation Is to
apply approximately ‘ .4 of the N at planting
and the remainder as a eldedresa. All P ar
should be applied at planting.
Notes: For double oropping with wheat, see
notes for soybeans and wheat. Note that
fertilizer rates shown are maximums and
actual rates should be based on realistic
yield potentials. The Cooperative Extension
Service should be contacted to advise on
yields and appropriate rates.
Bermuda Grass
Rate: Nltrogen-’-300 lbs/ac maximum for
animal wastea tested prior to application.
150 lbs/ac maximum for animal wastes
without testing.
Phosphorua—35 lbs/ac maximum actual
available elemental P. Equivalent to 80
lbs/ac phosphate (P 5 0 1 ).
Potassium—l67 lbs/ac maximum actual
elemental K. Equivalent to 200 lbs/ac
potash (K 1 0).
Scheduling. Application should begin ;uat
prior (within one month) to breaking
dormancy in the spring and continue through
the growing season.
Notes: For pastures with both bermuda
grass and fescue where the bermuda grass is
dominant during the summer months and
fescue ia dominant during cool months, the
total fertilizauon rate shall not exceed the
mn ,mum available far bermuda grass.
Fescue
Rate: Nitrogen—ISO lbs/ac maximum for
animal wastes tested prior to applicati.
135 lbs/ac maximum for animal wastes
without testing.

-------
Tuesday
June 16, 1992
Part H .
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

-------
28894
Federal Re lsterI VoL 57, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 10, 1992 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Corps of Engineer., Dipitaiar of
the Anny
33 CFR Parts 323 and 320
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFR Parts 110,112,110,117,122,
230, 232 and 401
Proposed Rule toe the Ctan W ti, Act
Regulatory Programs of ths Army
Corps of Engineer. and the
Environmental Protection Agency
AGvsclem U.S. Army Corp. of
Pngin ers, Department of the Army,
DOTh and Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACT)O* Proposed rule.
su a y The Corps of Engineer. 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 material;” (2)
clarify when the placement of pthngs ls
considered to result In a discharge of fill
material; and (3) clarify that prior
converted croplands are not waters of
the United State.. EPA Is also proposing
conforming changes to the Clean Water
Act “waters of the United States” and
“navigable water.” definitions In other
Clean Water Act program regulation..
Thin proposed rulemaking Is consistent
with the President’s August a, 1991,
Wetlands Protection Plan. In addition,
the first two proposed changes
Implement the settlement agreement In
North Carolina Wildlife Federation v.
Thiloc
DAT! Written comments must be
submitted by August 17. 1992.
ADDRSUES Written comments should
be submitted to.’ The Chief of Engineers,
United States Army Corps of P”g’neers,
ATl7 I: Mr. Sam Collinson. CZCW-OL
Washington, DC 14-1O00.
FOR PURTNIR INFORMATION COIITACT
Mr. Michael Davis, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works at (703) 695-1378 or Mr.
John Studt (Corps) at (202) rn-Olga or
Mr. Gregory Peck (EPA) at (202) 280-
8794 or Ma. Hazel Grvman (EPA) at (282)
SUP U(TARY INFORMAT1CIe
Background
On February 28,1992. the Federal
government agreed to settle a pending
lawsuit brought by the North Carolina
Wildlife Federation and the National
Wildlife Federation (Noath Carolina
Wildlife Fed. radon, et a!. v. TullocA
Civil No. C90-7 13-CIV-5.-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 darify that mechanized
landclearing, ditching, channelizatlon,
and other excavation activities involve
discharges of dredged material and
when performed In waters 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 water. of the
United States, indudlng 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 m ner
the existing statutory exemptions for
normal farming, ranching, and
silviculture activities in section 404(1),
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 ofactivitles regulated under the
section 404 program. The President’s
Plan, announced August 9, 1991. is a
balanced approach of administrative
actions that will enhance protection of
wetland . on Federal lands, Improve
Federal wetlands research, and Increase
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
croplanda are not waters 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 CFR pails
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,
.nh nce the protection of waters of the
United States, and clarify which areas In
agricultural cop production will not be
regulated as waters of the United States.
Proposed Changes
-33 Part 32.3—.Permilr for Discharges of
Dze*ed or Fill Material into Waters of
the United States
40 CF7I Part 232—404 Program
Definitions,’ Exempt Activities Not
Requiring 404 Permits
33 R Secton 323.2(d) and 40 CFR
232.2(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 Corps 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
rejule1ed ditching activities where the
ofaterial was excavated and sldecast
into adjacent wetland. 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 on
iS years of experience, the Corps and
EPA do not believe that It Is possible to
conduct mechanized landdearing,
d1fr hIng. channelizatlon, or other
excavation activities in water. 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 ii
greatly affect the section 404 prograi.
until recently. The Corps has receIved
numerous questions regarding which
ditching activities would require a
section 404 permit. This has increased

-------
Fed al Reglitor I Vol. 5. No. 116 1 Toesday. June 1 5 1 I Proposed knies
workload, and the reselling delays wa
taxing Federal eso and delaying
project proponents who ollen wait for a
written determination frain the Corps do
whether their activities are regulated.
Furthermore, in certain dr tsnces,
applicants with substantial resoorom
appeared to attempt to avoid u ’ 1 vv
regulation for drainage activities by
removing, as much as possible, the
excavated material to uzplAIIda . As a
result. protect proponents were
sometimes not regulated u v the
current Corps and EPA policy
framework although the imp ” . of inch
projects were to those of projects
currently being regulated. The changes
that the Corps and EPA are proposing in
this rule wm make the regulatory
program more equitable là, .0 project
proponents. and the gpn’ ” . will be
able to focus limited resources on
reasonably regulating “
landclearlng. diteMre or
other excavation activities. States with
authorized section 404 pregrane will
need to review their statute and
regulations for i nn iin .n y amid If
necessary. change their regulations in
accordD e with 40 QR 11e(b ) .
The Carps’ current e nlthm of
diacharg. Of dredtud material,” at 33
R 323.2(d). provIdes that de
ucidental soil movement occurring
.Iuring normal dredging rationa in not
considered Lobe within this regulatory
definition. This exclusion derives, In
part. from a desire to avoid dupI . .dve
regulation of dredging Itself In waters
within the fftdictiona1 sa ue of the
Rivers and Harbors Act. EPA’s
regulations contain a timfl . dDEL .dt4cm ,
with the sama exclusion, at 40 Q ft
232 . 2 (e ).
Over the ysen, eppliontion of this -
mipimi” lsng ’ age has become
pro ” tic. eapeasily when applied to
activities which did not Involve cheilgieg
for the purposes of m.alnt hi4 g
navigation in traditionally navigable
waters. Re use of the lath Of
in the regulatlc . In lassances this
language has been interpreted to
exclude from regulation laadclesrteg
and drainage activities In wetlands
where the ‘4 ’ J quantity of enonvatad
material discharged wan relatively
amAll , but where the discharge was part
of an activity which uiI t have
sigz ifl mnt environmental hnpr on the
waters of the United Slates. cootsazy to
the intent of the aesa Water Ad. While
the Corps and EPA have attempted to
address this problem throogh gnl”
emoranda. e.g.. RGL 90-6. . ddr.— ...g
which 1 rickIearing activities ore subject
to section 404 jurizdint oa . the
believe that a regulatory change woold
lead tot h i iruitI. thai ..g f the
scope of the term “discharge of dres
material” and would promote greater
national consistency and more
protection of the aquatic environment.
Under the proposal. language baa
been added to the definition of
‘discharge of dredged materiar’ to
clarify both what Is ind’ . 1ad in the
definition of regulated activitieö and
what Is ezduded from the de iitloo. For
example, (be propossi clarifies that the
phrasa”nommal dredging operaticos”
refers to “thcigIrig to maInfAIn deepen,
or extend navigation h ni ,.Ia In the
navigabla waters of the United States.
as defined In 33 O’R part 329 ( setline 10
waters), with proper an nation from
the Corps.”
In addition, the new language would
clarify that, apart from the ex’ ” fee
“normal dred operat . ’ the m
“discharge of dredged ma 4ar
Includes any discharge, j , rLlhI. or
redepmt of exonveted ma ia) into
waters of the United States which in
Incidental to any activity, iIkl’kL,in 13
meani1 landuleering. dit’ie”g
chan i don. or other exorvalise,
which has orwmdd have the sff ” of
destroying or degra say em. of the
waters Of the United StaLes. The t
“discharge of dredged material” dese
not Include do “ .oil mav’ -
lncudentul to activities which do not or
would not have such an effact .
Thi Corps baa regulated die rges
associated with morl ani d
IaoddP4ru operations for many yw..
However, it has not always been c
which landaleerimig activities would
result In discharges. in part to
uncertainty s whether the activity
involved a discharge sufficiently large to
trigger S ’ ”o 404 regulation. Over the
years the Corps has tea-’ sa al RCL
to clarify this Moss recently, the
Corps tea ” R( .90-6. dated July IL
iggo, to address wh lamiddeseing
activities shonki be subject to Section
404 jim 4 ” This issue was also
addressed i sAw oiler SpoNsmse ’a
League. hm. v. Maith, 715 P.24 (Sib
CIr. 1983). In this mae the cornt stated
that the t “discharge” may
reasonably be understood to Include
“redepos ’ and ca1I1rI%ttI that the m
“discharge” the redeperittog Of
soil taken from wetlands. such as ow.s
during morl . i d leeddeaning
activities. Oar cp ieem over the
years and the Fifth Clz t ruling is
Ave ysiles. have convinced in hat
mechanized iseddeering. diteithig .
chanoelizalion, amid other excovatlem
do consistently involve discharge. and
that the activities which produce the
discharges should be regulated where
the s.sL.i would J..u.. , ce degrade
waters Of tim United Sta .
We believe that Itls .. ,,...,..ata Is
lock at the euvijw.ent.l dff t Of
activities ixir i.’. .I soil
movement for u,, .,l r” ’ - First, the
Federal has breed .uth..r;ty
under s’ ’n (a) to r mlste any
discharge of dredged or fill material isio
any water of the United Slates. This
authority baa been uphe ld by insay
decisions of the Federal cuts Second,
the Act cmt 4 I no explisit exemption
for do nthumth disthazges any isfer
of one would need to be ‘ ““ I with
the envi nmansal purposes of the Act.
Third, the proposed language also
parallels the approach and 1 mp1 t i in
the poitcy of section 4 04 ( 1 ], whedi -
generally exempts midnor dIacbar
from farming, raw 4 thig . and
siMlcaltural activities, but “recaptures”
them when the activity alters waters of
the United States. Specifically. CWA
section 404(f)(2) states that”aay
discharge of dredged or fill material Into
navigable waters incidental tociiy
acdrfty’ (emphasi, added) that could
bring any axes of the waters of the
United States f rito a new em and where
the ieath of the waters could be reduced
or where thth low or circulation could
be Impaired shall be required to have a
permit under section 404 (See 40 R
232.3 and 33 ‘R 333A for a more
d ta&d de lvt1on of the scope of the
sectIon 404(f) exemptions). Furthermore.
we believe that normal drea ing
operations, as we propose to define
them, should not be regulated under
section 404. since they orelly do not
alter the reech orflow ordrculatlon of
the waters, nor do they convert waters
of the UsttedState . iniod ry land or
degrade wetlarida. Normal dredging In
navigable waters will continue.
Is be regulated under’ section
10 of the River, and Harbors Act of
1899.
The Corps and EPA are proposing to
change d ltbos of term
“c arge of dredged walei4sl ” at33
O R 333.2(d) and 40 ( R 232.2 (e). The
practical effect Of this ange In
rb aitioa Is that the Corps, EPA as
appropriate. and authcr d states as
appropriate, would regulate under
Section 404.11 tmuIJ aiiag ,
thtehi g rhan ,i.k..atgan, and other
excevetmon atiui . d performed is
waters d the United Staten that have or
would hove the ed Of de.trvy or
degrading wa s of the United States,
lp Indfrtg wetlands. Thin will mH ..th.ate
the current I si cies amom.ted
with the regulation .1 these stIlettos .

-------
28896
Federal RegieteT I VoL 57. No. 118 I Tuesday. June 16.1992 I Propo!ed Rules
The proposed rule does not change In
any way the manner in which the Carps
and EPA detersune whether an activity
Is exempt under section 404(fl(1) of the
CWA. Therefore, the proposal will not.
in any way. affect the exemptions for
agriculture. silviculture or ranching
activities now provided by CWA section
404(0.
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
ltselL 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 rule. 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 be a water of the
United States. Also under the proposal,
degradation of a wetland or other water
of the United State. would occur when
the activity that involves the discharge
results in an identifiable decrease 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 purposes 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 basis, that mechanized
landclearing. ditching. channelization.
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, channelization.
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 3 .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 be constructed on pilings in
an attempt to avoid section 404
juristhctio 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 RCL 88-14, a new
RGL go—8 was issued on December 14
1990.
In summary, RGL 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
(incl jng pilings that support structures
th fare normally placed on fill such as
multi-family housing, office buildings,
etc.). Under RGL 90-8, however, pilinga
are not to be regulated in circumstances
involving lInear ptojects traditionally
used to cross waters of the United
States such as bridges, elevated
walkways. and powerline structures.
Similarly, placement of piling. 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 used 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 Federation. et a!. v. Tulloch,
Civil Nc. C90-713-CIV-5-BO
(E,D.N.C.). the Corps and EPA agreed
propose that the relevant portions of
RCL 90-8 concerning the regulation of

-------
Fmhe aL R.gjalar/ VoL , No. 128 I Thesday. Jon. ie 1992/ PVeposed Rules
piling, under section Ui be F’Ja. ”d
In the Code of Fedemi
thzongh notice and . — ---an’ iu g
under the Administrative Procedure Act
process. Therefore, the Corps and EPA
are seeking commPntA on this propo.al
to defiree clearly when pilings should be
regulated wider section 401. in
particular. the Corps is ccm fdering
adding some restaurants that are
constr”—’ .-d on pihiigs to the 11.1 of
activities that are o subject to -
regulation pursuant to RCL 90-8.
33 CFR Part 328-Definition of Wets,. of
the U,zited S I ate.
W CFR Part 22D-Thbchaige of Gi l
40 CPR Part 172-Oil Pollution
Prevention
40 C ’R Part 11.s ” ’ of
Hozarv’ous Substances
40 CF7I Part 117-Determination of
Reportable QrzitiUe.JbrFJ izerdoas
Substances
40 CPR Part 132-EPA Admbth ed
Permit Prugmm 7 Motimd
PoJh,toitDixhwg Elimi
System
40 CFR Part ZW-&ction 40 (b 1)
Guide/me. for ó fiondcn of
Disposal Sites for D,e 4 5 eJ rPIJ1
Material
40 CFR Part -4OI Ptc groat
Definitions: Exempt Activities M it
Requiring 401 Pennits
40 CF7I Part 401-EjJ7uent Gu aleiiem and
Standards
CPR Section 328.3(aflflJ , 40 OR Section
110.1, 40 OR Section 1122,40 OR
Section iie io CFR Section 127(i)(7).
40 CFR Section 1222.40 OR Section
230.3(s)(8}. 40 OR Section 232.2fg)(8),
and 40 OR 401.11(1)
We propose to add now lartgn ge to
33 CFR 40 OR 110.1.40 OR
112.2.40 CFR 118.3.40 OR 117(11(7). 40
CFR 122.2.40 OR 230.3(a ), 40 CFR
232.2(g ). and 40 OR 4 01.11 (1) which
currently defin waters of the United
States. The Corps new laagn g ’ would
note two examples of areas thai are not
waters of the United Stales. The &st Is
simply waste treatment systems, as
presently described at the refurenoed
section. The second. In accordance with
the President’s Wetlands Plan, would
codify the Corps and EPA ’ . present
policy regarding prior converted
cropland. EPA’s new language would
not modify any current referen to
wasle treatment systems. bat would
codify the Corps and EPA’s policy
regarding prior converted cropland at
the referenced sections.
On September 28. 1990, the Corps
issued RCL9O-7 “Clarification of the
Phrase ‘Normal Cfrcumslances’ as It
Pertains to Cropped WeiI nth . ’ ffl order
to establish greater consistency between
the rrø 1 ou 40$ regulatory pr .. . . and
the Swampbuster provisions ad the Food
Securfty Act, as amended by the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation and fled.
Act of 1990. which Is iinpemeatedby
the Soil Cosseevaticre S (S 7.
Under RCLOO-7. “prior , . . ,.....ted
cropland.” as defined by the S(
National Food Security Act ManuaL me
not wetlands within the meaning of the
Corps and EPA regulation.. Prior
cu ttad croplamdu are we’law that.
priorte December32. 1905. werebath
manipulated (drained or otherwise
physically ah l to remove ceu
water from the land) and cropped to the
antont that theyare fnundatadforno
more than 14 consecutive days daring
the 11 vwwg season. Prior converted
croplandi do nut Include pothole or
plays wetlands.
The Corps and EPA are proposing to
amend their of waters ad the
United State. with regard to prior
converted croplands In os to provide
for co& t n y in the eil, thii.t,atianof
the various Federal program. .ff ”g
these type. closes.. Thisproposed
policy objective, of achieving gr.a
predictabibty for affected pertian as
they deal with the Federal govermoest
SCS determinations ofpror ... i ed
cropland do not constitute s otiou 404
jwisdlctlonal determinations because
only the Corp. and EPA have the
statutory authority to determine the
geographic scope of section 404
Jurisdiction. The fine! det . .,ation of
whether an area ft a water of the’ United
States forporpoaes of section 401
regulation is made by the Corps or EPA
as ap .nu 1 ,rfate. pinvuant to the January
19.1989, nrryf EPA Memorandum of
Agreement on geographic jurisdiction.
The Corps (and EPA. as appropriate)
will accept and cancurbi SCS prior
aop)and designatkms to the
extent possible. Nevertheless, any
person considering a proposal that
would involve the discharge of dredged
or fill material into areas designated as
prior converted cz ’opland by the SC Is
encouraged to obtain Corps (or EPA)
concurrence in the prior converted
cropland designation.
The Corps and EPA note tham
today’s proposal a prior converted
cropland I. considered to be 1 h nlnasd
unless: For once In every five years the
area has b used for the production of
an agricultural commodity , or. the area
baa been used and wili continue to be
used for the production of an
agricultural r modity in a . ‘nn n ni iy
used rotption with aquacultiwe. gasses,
Legumes or pasture production.
The Corp. d EPA me p. ,, .tisIng to
define prlor rted erepiand” hr
atxordnnc, with the SC Nadmml Food
S Mm.L Second Edilios, 100-
V-VFSAU. A .—1’t’neat 5. May1901.
The National Food vi t Act Manual
sets forth SCS policy sad procedures for
emenffag, in al . the
Suuunqibuator provision, of the Fond
Security Act of 1985. as amended by the
Food, Agriculture. C .ervation , and
Trade Act of 1900. By victim at this
Incorporation by reference. the Corps
and EPA em only Incorporating the cited
of the NaI4 l Food 5&i..Illr
Act “ ——L La., Second Edition,
Amewh. 1 9. May 1991-With ie 1 .d
to say &. qua5t varmar of the
NaP l Food Semolty Ad Mammi
Issued by the Corps and EPA will
review any such unbuespresit wasron
regarding 4 .ng.s made to the dsfmf&rr
of “ prior . .,.. ...s1 d aepland” and
deIe . . . at that limo whetberto
incorporate by such
subsequent version Into the . edio
n W RPlU 6 torJJthfy theprior
convened cropland RGL. the Corps and
EPA do not Intend to alter ther
longstanding position that a party
cannot eliminate the Jurisdiction of the
CWA aver’ an ores thx an
unauthorized discharge activity. This, an
area which becomes prior converted
cropland by virtue of such unauthorized
discharge is still covered by secti ” ’ 40$
and subject to an enf,...---—-.nt action for
any activity which violated the CWA.
By proposing to codify the pnw
converted cropland RGL Into regulation,
the agencies would be revising the
drflnftlmm of “waters of the United
States” and “navigable waters” far all
EPA programs under the CWA La clarify
that prior converted croplands o re not
within the scope of CWA
EPA I. interested in receiving public
comment on what effect. if any, such
codification would have on compliance.
response. and fu mesrt efforts under
other EPA programs, in particular, the
CWA Section 311 j ,gram which
prohibits the discharge of oil and
bazardous subeiiuw ,. requne.
notification of any such discharge. and
sets requirements for prevention and
clean-up (see 40 OR 110.1,112.2, 1182,
and 117.1).
Ei . . . .. ..orital
We have made a prehi.i . y
determination that this action does not
constitute a maJor Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. However, an
environmental assessment wiU be

-------
26a98 Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 116 / Tuesday. June 16, 1991 I Proposed Rules
prepared prior to i,ialcing a final decision
on this proposed regulation. If we
determine that there would be a
significant Impact on the quality of the
human environment an Environmental
Impact Statement will be prepared
before a final decision Is made.
Furthermore, appropriate environmental
documentation Is prepared for all permit
decisions.
Executive Order 13291 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Army end 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
significant impact on a substantial
number of entitles.
Not. 1.—The term he and its derivative,
used in these regulations are generic and
should be considered as applying to both
male and female.
List of Subject,
32 CIA PQ r t 323
Navigation. Water pollution controt
Waterways. -.
33 C IA Part 328
Incorporation by reference.
Navigation. Water pollution control.
Waterways.
40 CPA Parts 11L% 112 hA 117.122.230.
232 and 401
Incorporation by reference. Wetlands,
Water pollution control.
Dateth June 4. 1992.
Nancy P. Dora,
Aasistant Sec,vf cry of the Army (CM!
Works Department of theAimy.
P. Henry H.bItht. U.
Deputy Adnun,sir efor€nvironmentol
Protection Agency.
Accordingly, 33 R parts 323 and 328
and 40 CFR parts 110. 112.116, 117. 122.
230.232 and 401 are proposed to be
amended as follows:
33 CFR CHAPTER ll.—4AMENOEDI
PART 323—PERMITS FOR
DISCHARGES OF DREDGED OR Flu.
MATERIALS INTO WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 323
continues to read as follows:
Authoiily 33 U.S.C 1344.
2. Section 323.2(d) Is revised to read
as follows:
m2 Dofl Uoa&
. S • I
S
(d)(1) The term disdiarge of dretiged
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 weter 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
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 Incidental to any activity
(except normal dredging operations as
defined below). Including mechanized
- landclearlng. ditching. channelization, or
other excavation which has or would
have the effect of destroying or
degrading any area of waters of the
United States. The term doe. not Include
do minimis 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 de minimis. Incidental soil
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 32U. with proper
authorization from the Congress and/or
the Corps. The term does not include
plowing, cultivating, seeding and
barvestlng for the production of food.
fiber, and forest products (See I 323.4
for the definition of these terms).
(2) For purpose. of paragraph (d)(1),
mechanized landclaaring. dlt hIng.
rhermefizatlon, 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 unless the project proponent
demonstrate. to the satisfaction of the
Corps, or EPA as appropriate, that the
activity would not have such an effect in
a particular case.
§ m2 (A Jsdl
3. Section 323.2(e) Is amended b)
adding a sentence at the end that ri.
as follows: -
• I S S
(e) • SeeI323.3(c)ccncerTungt1 e
regulation of the placement of pilings in
waters of the United States. -
• S • I S
4. Section 323.2(f) is amended by
adding a sentence at the end that reads
as follows:
S
I • I I
(I )’ ‘ See*323.3(c)concerrungthe
regulation of the placement of pilings in
waters of the United States.
• I I S I
5. Section 323.3(4 Is added to read as
follows:
§ 323.3 DIscharges requiring permits.
• S I • 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
watethody as a result of the placement
of pilings that are so closely spaced that
sedimentation rates are Increased 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
States for dams , dikes, or other
structures utilizing densely spaced
pilings, or as a foundation for large
structures.
(ii) Functional use and effect 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). i .egulated
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 F Vol . 57, No. 118/ Tuesday, June 16, 1992 I Proposed Rules
26899
circumstances involving linear protects
such as bridges, elevated walkways, or
powerithe structures. SImilarly,
placement of pilings in waters of the
United Stales will not require a section
404 permit in circumstances 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
piling, placed in the navigable waters of
the United States (sea 33 CFR part 329)
require a ithorinatlon under section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (see
33 CFR part 322).
PART 328—OEFINmON OF WATERS
OF THE UNITED STATES
6. The authority citation for part 328
continues to read as follows:
Authailty 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:
1333.3 D.fkd8ons .
. f. • .
a
(a) ‘ ‘
(8) Waters of the United States do not
include:
(i) Waste treatment systems. Including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirements of CWA (other
than cooling ponds as defined in 40 R
123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of
this definition); or
(ii) Prior converted aopland. as
defined by the National Food Security
Act Manual. Second Edition. 180-V-
NFSAM. Amendment 6. May1991, Soil
Conservation Service. This
incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Regiater 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 Ave. SW..
Washington. DC or at the Omce of the
Federal Register. 11001.. Street. NW..
room 6401. Washington, DC.
. S S S S
40 CFR CHAPTER I-(AMENDEDI
PART 110—DISCHARGE OF OIL
1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:
Authoiity 33 U.S.C. 1321 (b)(3) and (bJ(4)
and 1301(a); 33 U.S.C 1517(mX3).
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:
1lO.1 Definitions.
. S S S
S
Navigable ‘waters do not include prior
converted cropland, as defined by the
National Food Security Act Manual.
Second Edition, 180-V-N} AM.
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 US. 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 112—OIL POLUJT1ON
PREVENTiON
1. The authority citation for part 112
continues to read as follows:
I
Authailty 33 U.S.C 1231 e seq.
2. Section 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
follows:
I 112.2 DefinItions.
S S S S
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.
352(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 S S • S•
PART 116—DESIGNATION OF
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
1. The authority citation for part 116
continues to read ai follows:
Authadty 33 U.S.C 1521 e seq.
2. In { 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.
*110.3 DefinItions.
• •• S -
S
Navigable waters do not include prior
converted cropland. as defined by the
National Food Security Act Manual,
Second Edition. 180-V-NFSAI 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 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. 1100 L Street. NW..
room 8401. Washington. DC.
S I S S S
PART 117—DETERMINATION OF
REPORTABLE QUANTTT1ES FOR
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
Authoiity 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:
* 117.1 Dsfl,dtions .
• S S S S
Navigable ;atere 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 Feder l
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 Avenu SW..
Washington. DC or at the Office of the
Federal Register. 1100 L Street. NW..
room 8401. Washington. DC.
S S S I S

-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 110 / Tuesday. June 18. 1902 1 Proposed Rules
PART 122—EPA ADMIMSTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATiONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
EUMINAT1ON SYSTEM -
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follow.:
AthonLyJ3 U.S.C 1231 c i seq.
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 DslIaWu..& .
• • • S
Waters of the United States do not
include prior converted aopland. as
defined by the National Food Security
Act Manual. Second Edition, 13O-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 1CFR part 51. Copiesof the
National Food Security Act Manual may
be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service,
South Agriculture flui1d1 g room 0054.
14th and lndepeniLn . Avenue, SW.
Washington. DC or at the Office of the
Federal Register. 1100 L Street. NW.. -
room 8401. W ahingthn. DC
• S S S S -
PART 230—SECTiON 404(bXl)
QUIDEUNES FOR SPECiFICATION OF
DISPOSAL. SITES FOR DREDGED OR
FlU. MATERIAL -
1. The authority citation for part 230
continues to read as follow.:
Authmliy 33 U.S.C. 1344(b) and l3alfaj.
2. Section 230.3(s), 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 fdllown - -
*230.3 tiso&
• S S S S
Waters of the United States do not
Include prior converted mopland. as
defined by the National Food Security
Act Manual, Second Edition, 180-V-
NFSAM. Arne drnant 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 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 RegIster. 11001. Street. NW.
room 8401. Weshington. DC
PART 232—404 PROGRAM
DEnNmoNs; EXEMPT ACTIVITIES
NOT REQUIRING 404 PERMITS
1. The authority citation for Part 232
continues to read as follow.:
Authmity 33 U.S.C. 1344.
2. SectIon 232.3(e). definition of
discharge of dredged material. Is revised
to read as follow.:
I 232.2
• -. S S • S
(e)(1) The term discharge o/dred.ged
material means any addition of
dredged material Into waters of the
United States. The term Include..
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
TM dlscharge 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 a.
defined below), including mechanized
landclearing. ditithing. channelizatloir. 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 Indude
do minimis 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 minimis. Incidental soil
movement occurring during the normal
dredging operations, defined as dredging
to maiatoin . deepen. or extend
navigation channels In the navigable
waters of the United States, as defined
In 33 (YR Part 329, with proper
authorization from the Congress and/or
the Corps. The term does not include
plowing. cultivating, seeding and.
harvesting for the protection of food,
fiber, and forest product.. (See 323.4 for
the definition of these terms).
(2) For purposes of paragraph (e)(1),
mechanized Iandclearlng. dltd 1ng.
channellzatlmi. or other excavation
activities In waters of the United SI,
result in a discharge of dredged
material. Further, where each acttvttles
occer in waters of the United States, the
activity Is presumed to result In the
destruction or degradation of such
waters unless the project proponent -
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Corpe. or EPA as appropriate, that the
activity would not have such an effect in
a particular case.
3. Section 232.2(f). definition of
discharge of 1111 material, is revised to
read as follow.:
*232.2 DMW
• S S S
(f)(lYThe term “discharge of fill
material” means the addition of till
material Into watera of the United
States, The term generally includes.
without limitation. the following -
activitie.: placement of fill that is
necessary for the construction of any
structure in a water of the United States:
the building of any structure or
impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt,
or other material for its consfruc1Ion
site-development fills for recreational.
industrial, commercial. residential. aw’
other use.: causeways or road fill.:
dams and dike . : artificial lslands
property protection end/or reclamation
devices such as riprap. groins. seawalla,
breakwater., and revetnrent.: beach
nourishment levee, fill for structures
such as sewage treatment facilities.
intake and outfall pipes associated with
power plant, and subaqueous utility
line, and artificial reefs, The term does
u 9 t .indude plowing. cultivating, seeding.
and harvesting for the production of
food, fiber, and forest products (See
Section 232.3 for the definition of these
terms.)
(2) In addition. the placement of
plUnge in waters of the United States
shall require a section 404 permit when
such placement Is used In a n nner
essentially equivalent to a discharge of
fill material In physical effect or
functional me and effect In such cases,
the placement of pilIng, in waters of the
United States constitutes a discharge of
fill material for purposes of Section 404.
Examples Includes, but are not limited
to, the following activities In waters of
the United State.:
(I) Physioni effect of filk Projects that
In effect replace an aquatic area or
change the bottom elevation of a
waterbody as a result of the placeme
of pilings that are so closely spaced i.
sedimentation rates are increased or the
piling, themselves essentially replace
the bottom will require a Section 404

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 1992 I Proposed Rules
26901
permit. This circumstance, would
include pilings placed in waters of the
United States for dams, dikes, or other
structures utilizing densely spaced
pilings, or as a foundation for large
structures.
(ii) Functional use and effect 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 elI” 4 te aquatic
functions and values). Regulated
acthrities include the placement of
pilings to facilitate the construction of
office and industrial developments.
parking structures, restaurants, store,.
hotels, multi-family housing projects.
and similar structures In waters of the
United States.
The term discharge of fill material
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 R part 329)
require authorization under Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (see
33 CFR part 322).
4. Section 232.2(q), definItion of
waters of the United States, ii amended
by adding three new sentences of
concluding text at the end of the
definition to read as follows:
232i ns.
a a a S
Waters of the United States 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. Thl
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..
Washihgton. DC or at the Office of the
Federal Register. 1100 L Street. NW..
room 8401. WashIngton. DC.
PART 401—EFFLUENT GUIDEUNES
AND STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 401
continues to read as follows:
Autbcifty 33 US.C. 1251 el seq
2. Section 4 01.11(1), definition of
navigable waters. Is amended by adding
three new sentences at the endsof the
definition to read as follows:
1401.11 GeasiW daI dUuns .
S S S S
• 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 I GR 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.
a a • S S
LPR Dcc. 02-18720 Filed 6-15-02; 9:43 aiiil

-------
Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 27. 1992 1 Proposed Rides
22197
S. Auto and Truck Refinishing—.
marketable emission redaction rule.
(3.4-4.2 tpd)
T )egreasing—marketable 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 tpdj
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 tpd)
C. SolicitoLton of Cornmeal
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 40 CFR Part
Air pollution control. Hydrocarbons.
C’ e.
hoilty 40 USC. 740l- 6flq.
Dated: May 15. 1992.
Henry F. Habitht
Acting Admunsimfor.
IFR Doc. 92—12176 Filed 5—28—92. 8:45 am)
DILUNO CODE 5 5IO-iO-
40 CFR Parts 122123. and 501
[ 4138—Il
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Sewage Sludge
Permit Regulations: State Sludge
Management Program Requirements
A0ENCV Environmental Protection
Agency.
AC11OSC 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 System (NPDES) permit
requirements and procedures (40 CFR
parts 122. 123. and 124) to establish
sewage sludge permitting and State
s- ge sludge program requirements (54
718) pursuant to sectt6n 405 of the
C . n Water Act (CWA). Under these
rules, publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) and other treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TW DS) are
required to submit permit applications
within 1.20 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 standard. 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 120
days to 180 days after promulgation of
Part 503.
DATES Comments must be submitted on
or before June 28. 1992.
ADDRE3SE Comments should be
addressed to Pamela Mazakas. Permits
Division (EN-336), Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460.
FOR FURThER tIFORMATION CONtAC1
Pamela Mazakas. Permits Division (EN—
338). EnvIronmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street SW.. Washington. DC
20460. (202) 260-6599.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOIC
1.
A. Water Quality Act of 1987
B. EPA. Sewage Sludge Management
Program
11. Discuision of Todays Proposed Rule
A. Permit Apphcahon Requirements
B. Deadline.
III. Regulatory Development Process
A. Executive Order 12291
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory FlexibiUty Act
L Background
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).
Implementation of secondary treatment
requirements under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. under section 402 of
the CWA. has Improved effluent quality
while Increasing the amount of sewage
sludge being generated.
A. Water Quality Act of 1987
Section 408 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
revision, 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 its
use or disposaL Furthermore. the 1987
amendments required that all NPDES
permits issued to POTWs and other
treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS) contain conditions
Implementing sewage sludge standards.
unles. those standards are included In a
permit Issued under Subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. Part C of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Marina
Protection. Research and Sanctuaries
Act. the Clean Air Act, or under a State
program approved for administering a
section 405(f) sewage sludge permitting
program. The amendments also
provided that the Administrator may
issue separate permits that implement
the sewage sludge requirements 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
TW’I’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. EPA s Sewage SIud,ge Management
Program
EPA proposed State sewage sludge
management program regulations on
February 4.1988(51 FR 4458). Thig
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 reproposed on
March 9. 1988 (53 FR 7842) and
promulgated on May 2. 1989 (54 FR
18716). These regulations establish
permit reqwiementa and procedures as
well as requirements for States wishing
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 environment from reasonably
anticipated adverse effects of pollutants
In sewage sludge that is used or
disposed. On February 6. 1989 (54 FR

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 102 I Wednesday , May 27. 1992 / Proposed Rules
5746). EPA proposed standards for the
use or disposal of sewage sludge if the
sewage sludge is applied to the land.
distributed and marketed, placed in
sludge-only landfills (inonofihla) 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 472101,
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
proposed part 503 standards. At that
time. Ei’ . ;oposed a number of
changes to the part 503 regulation as a
result of he sirvey and as a
cor.sequen .e of information 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 uly 31. 1992.
U. Discussion of Today’s Proposed Rule
A. Permit Application Requirements
Under the current sewage sludge
permit program regulations
( 122.21(c)(2J(i) and
501.15(d)(1)(ii)(Afl, any POTW with an
existing NPDES permit must submit
permit applicatiommformation when its
next application for NPDES permit
renewal is due or within 120 days of
promulgation of an applicable sewage
sludge standard, whichever comes first,
The preamble discussion (54 FR 18737)
made it clear that all POTWs covered
by the part 503 regulation, had to submit
permit applications within this 120 day
period. Under H 122.21(c)(2)(ii) and
501.15(d)(1)(ii)(B), any other existing
TWTDS. not subject to the NPDES
program (i.e.. “sludge-only facilities”),
must also submit the permit application
information within 120 days of
promulgation of an applicable sewage
sludge standard or upon request of the
Director. For TWTDS commencing
operation after an applicable part 503
siandard is promulgated. the regulations
(H 122.21(cfl2)(iii) and
501.15(d)(lJ(ii)(C)) require that permit
applications be submitted at least 180
days prior to the date proposed for
commencing operations.
Under the current requirements,
approximately 16.000 POTWs and three
to live thousand other TW’l’DS would
r aed to submit application information
within 120 days after promulgation of
j art 503. EPA’s original intent was to
use the information from permit
applications to identify priorities for
permit modification or issuance. Several
changes 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 ‘I’WTDS 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
TWTDS, 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
permittees and add certainty to the
permittee’s obligations. Furthelmore,
permits are an effective means of
bringing TW’l’DS 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’s promulgation may be
outdated by the time work can actually
begin in evaluating the information and
developing permits. Consequently.
TWTDS may need to submit new/
upda ted 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 fo us on
all TW’!’DS required to have (or
requesting) site-specific pollutant limits
to be provided in part 503. This first
phase includes several types of TWI’DS
but targets, in particular, sewage sludge
incinerators. Focusing on sewage sludge
Incinerators first is appropnate 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 under 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
T’vVl’DS to submit full permit
applications at any time if it determines
a permit is necessary to protect public
health and the environment,
Instead of requiring an immediate
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 en 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 Directon
(1) Name, mailing address and
location of the ‘l’WTDS;
(2) The operator’s name, address,
telephone number, ownership status.
and status as Federal. State. private.
public or other entity:

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 102 / Wednesday. May . 1992 I Proposed Rules
22199
(3) A description of the sewage sludge
use or disposal practices (including.
‘here applicable, the location of any
tes where sewage sludge is transf rr d
tot treatment, use, or disposal. as weU
as the name of the applicator or other
contractor who applies the sewage
sludge to land if different from the
TWI’DS. 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 inlorma (ion is sufficient to establish
a priority scheme for permitting these
TWTDS.
To clarify when sludge-only facilities
must submit permit application
information, 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 carried out by
someone else. Therefore, sludge-only
T NTDS will have to submit permit
application information within one year
‘ r promulgation of part 503 (according
ie proposed revisions to the
4 iplementation regulations) ii 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 TW’IDS gener3tes sewage sludge
and sends that sludge to someone else’s
sewage sludge tncinerstQr. the
generating TWTDS will still hove 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 perirut
application information as well.)
The third phase consists of TWTDS
with NPDES permits not addressed
under the first phase. These TWTDS
would be expected to submit the
application information in accordance
with NPDES permit renewal procedures.
Such procedures require permit
applications at least 180 days before the
NPI permit Is due to expire. Public
health and the environment axe still
protected In the short term by the self-
Implementing provisions of part 503.
Furthermore. if EPA determines that Itis
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
human health or the environment.
It is important to note that the focus of
this proposal Is on the submittal of
permit applications only. Compliance
with part 503 Is 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 (or
two years if construction is required)
regardless of a TWTDS’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.
8. Deadlines
Because EPA is proposing to focus the
application requirement on those
TWTDS 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
this reason. EPA Is proposing to extend
the time 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 120 days
may be too iestnctive and that 180 days
would be more appropriate. For
example, sewage sludge inc nerators
may need to submit air dispersion data
and conduct control efficiency tests
(trial burns) 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 (il 122.21(c)(2)(iii) and
501.15(d)(1)(ii)(C)) and those TW’I’DS
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 (2)).
(EPA Is not proposing to change either
of these time frames.)
After today’s amendments, all
TWTDS will generally be required to
submit permit applications within 180
days of a triggering event. For
consistency. EPA is also proposing to
modify * 122.1(b)(4). This provision
states that a user or disposer of sewage
sludge designated as a TW’I’DS 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
paragraph 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 today’s proposal. see Table II—
1.
TABLE 11-1,—SUMMARY OF GEtiERAi. C14ANGES MADE BY TOOAY’S PROPOSAL
LAislirig ro emsnts
Facdaes re jfed to nave (
,squesulgI site.specific

NOfl. DES
I ’ ifge ’Gl y ’1.
S W uflidgs 5bon .Wamiaxn wieln 120 days if w Part
503 oiiUga
Subnit Sludge apø’CaDO VøoemaSan wtea 120 days attei Part
503 pmm lgdac
Ss tvli s .dge aopNcation . . Om OIi wew. 150 days attor Pa l l
503 pro ilgauon .
Subnwt sludge a50IcaoOn ‘dom’iabon wfl 180 days sftor Part
Sm

-------
=00
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 102 / Wednesday , May 27. 1992 I Proposed Rules
TABLE 11-1. —SUMMARY OF GENERAL CHANGES MADE BY TODAY’S PROPOSAL—Continued
E,usting reguielnents
Poposed requirements
F bties not required to hays
(en requesting) sdespeofic
IInti
NPD pernifltees........._..........
Submit sludge a plicauon information within 120 days alter Pitt
503 promulgation.
Submit sludge aaplication information with next NPOES permit
renewal apptacation.
ISoiWiPOES permttees
Submit sludge application inlonnation within 120 days after Pafl
Submit limited sludge information within I yeer after Pitt 503
( sluitge cnlyi
503 promulgation.
promulgation
IWTD$ may request site-speofic pollutant limits later upon a showing 01 good cause.
HE. H egulatory Development Process
4..Executive Order 12291
tinder Executive Order 12291. EPA
iuustj adge whether a regulation is major
and., therefore. subject to the
renjnrement of a Regulatory Impact
i natysis. A major rule is defined as a
r!gufation that is likely to result in: (1)
xs annual effect on the economy of $100
niiiflxin or more: (2) a major increase in
thoi mists or prices for consumers.
indiistdual industries. Federal, State and
LhcaU government agencies, or
geographic regions: or (3) a significant
adirerse effect on competition.
etnpfoyment. investment, productivity.
izmcvation. or on the ability of United
!tatns.based enterprises to compete
wztfr foreign-based enterprises in
d.imestic or export markets.
Tod y’s proposal imposes no new
mitteria but rather lessens the burden for
arrhmiitting permit applications. Instead
of requiring the submission of all permit
appBcations within 120 days after the
rcmu1gation of Part 503. the submission
of pplications is to be done in phases.
Thai avoids the potential for a TWTDS
ttiul ive to submit two applications
information became outdated
Fithze a permit could be written.
llherefore. the proposals do not
.r .m ..Ltute a major rulemaking. These
r sfations were submitted to the Office
d5 anagemer.t and Budget (0MB) for
Paperwork Reduction Act
‘the information collection
requfrements (ICR) for the existing
re si!ations are covered by ICR *1237,
was approved In 1989. The
iiaf.uimation collection requirements in
tMai proposed rule have been submitted
6sr approval to the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Pbi 5 iciiwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C.
amer seq. An Information Collection
Request document (ICR *1237.05) has
b prepared by EPA and a copy may
he obtained from Sandy Farmer.
inf ozmation Policy Branch (PM—223Y1,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
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 2046&, 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. Regulotorj 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. 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
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 Port 122
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sewage
disposal. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control.
40 CF’R Part 123
Confidential business information,
Hazardous materials, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Sewage
disposal. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control. Penalties.
40 CFR 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
CFR Ch. I 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:
Authority The Clean Waler Act. 33 U.S.C.
1251 at seq.
2. Section 122.1 is proposed to be
amended by revising the second
sentence of paragraph (b) (4) to read ’us
follows:
4122.1 Purpose and scope.
. . . . .
(b) ‘ ‘
(4) Any person designated as a
“treatment works treating domestic
sewage” shall submit an application for
a permit under 4 122.21 within 180 days
of being notified by the Regional

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 102 I Wednesday, May 27, 1992 I Proposed Rules
22201
Administrator that a permit is required.
I • I S
Section 122.21 is proposed to be
ended by redesignatrng paragraph
LI_)(2)(iii) as (c)(2)(v); redesignating
current paragraphs (c)(2) (i) and (ii) as
(c)() (ii) and (iii) respectively and
rerising them: and adding new
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(iv) to read
as follows:
§ 122.21 ApplicatIon ore permIt
(applicable to Slate programs. see
§ 123.25),
. I I I I
(c) ‘
(2) Permits under section 405(f) of
CIVA. (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)(ii) 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.
(ii) Any “treatment works treating
esttc 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 )(ii) of this
section with the application submitted
‘n accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(ii.) Any other existing “treatment
orks treating domestic sewage” not
addressed under paragraphs (c)(2) (i) or
(i) of this section must submit the
ir.formation listed in paragraphs
(c )(2)(iii) A}—{E) of this section. to the
D rector within 1 year after
promulgation of a standard applicable to
‘is sewage sludge use or disposal
ract1ce(s). The Director shail determine
hen such “treatment works treating
domestic sewage” must apply for a
permit.
(A) Name, mailing address and
!ocauon of the “treatment works
: e ’ing domestic sewage.”
(B) The operator’s name, address,
ieiep’r . ’ine nvxnber, ownership status,
und status as Federal. State. private.
public or other entity;
(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”);
(0) 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 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.
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
4. The authority citation for part 123
continues to read as follows:
Authority; Clean Water Act, 33 U SC. 1251
et seq.
5. Section 125.25 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 123.25 Requu’ements for permitting.
(a)
(4) § 122.21(aHb). (c)(2). (e)—(j). and
(l)—(o)---(Application for a perTr.it).
PART 501—STATE SLUDGE
MAIIAGEMENT PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
6. The authority c tation for part 501
continues to read as follows:
Authority’ Clean Water Act. 33 U SC. 1 5i
et seq
7. Section 501.15 is proposed to be
amended by redesignating paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(C) as Id)(1)(ii)(E): redesignaiing
current paragraphs (d)(IHii) (A) and (B)
as paragraphs (t )(1)(ii) (B) and (C)
respectively and revising them: and
adding new paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) and
(d)(1)(ii)(D) to read as follows:
§ 501.15 Requirements for permitting.
. . S S I
(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 “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 due.
(C) Any other existing “treatment
works treating domestic sewage” not
addressed under paragraphs (d)(l)(ii)
(A) or (B) of this section must submit the
information listed In paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii)(C)(1)—(.5) 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 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 so!d
or given away in a bag or similar
enciosure 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.
(D) Notwithstanding paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii) (A). (B), or (C) of this section.
the Director may reqwre permit
applications from any “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” at any time if

-------
22202
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 102 I Wednesday. May 27. 1992 / Proposed Rules
the Director determines that a permit is
necessary to prctect public health and
the environment from any potential
adverse effects that may occur from
toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
IFR Doc. 9Z—1217 Filed 5-Z6—92 8-45 aml
BIWNO CODE U Sa-SO-i d
40 CFR Part 180
(PP 0E3898 and 0E39081P533; FRL-4005—1 I
PIN 2070-AC1I
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
metabolites 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 in or on the commodities was
requested in petitions submitted by the
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IL
4).
DATEL Comments, identified by the
document control number (PP 0E3898
and 0E3908/P5331. must be received on
or before June 28. 1992.
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 20480. In person. bring
comments to: Rm. 1128. Qvl =2. 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway. Arlington. VA
22202.
Information submitted as a comment
concerning this document may be
da med confidential by marking any
part or all of that information as
CorJidentiaI Business Information”
(CBfl. Information so marked will not be
aiscloscd 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
wichout prior notice. All written
ccrnments will be available for public
Inspect ion in Em. 1128 at the address
given above, from B a.m. to4 p.m..
Monday through Friday. excluding legal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT By
mail: Hoyt Jamerson. Emergency
Response and Minor Use Section (H.
7505C), Registration Division. Office of
Pesticide Programs. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M St.. SW..
Washington, DC 20480. Office location
and telephone number Rm. 716C. M
*2. 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway.
Arlington, VA 22202. 703-557-2310.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIO?d: The
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-
4). New Jersey Agricultural Experiment
Station. P.O. Box 2 1. 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
Admmisu-ator, 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.nitrophenoxy)-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. PP0E389& Petition submitted on
behalf of the Hawaii Agricultural
Experiment Station proposing a
tolerance for cocoa beans.
2. PP0E3908. 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 toxic :ty 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 1.000 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 sterriebree. 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.
TA100. 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/inL. 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.
8. A 2-year chronic feeding!
carcinogenicity study in rats fed diets
containing 2. 40. and 800 ppm (the 800-
ppm dosage level was raised to 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 feeding/
carcu ogenicity study in CD-i mice fed
diets containir.g 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 tends
for liver adenoma. 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 ,
was observed in female mice.

-------
, .o18
Fedural Register I Vol. 57, No. 101 I Tuesday._MayZ&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 seduce any
regulatory burdens found in these
proposed regulations. -
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 200
Adn inJstrative practice and
procedure. Education of disadvantaged.
Elementary and secondary education.
Grant program—education. Juvenile
delinquency. Neglected. Private schools.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. State ’adniinlstered
programs.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Aaaitan
Numbers. 34.010. Chapter 1 Program in Lacal
Educational Agencies: 84.012. Chapter 1
Program—State Administration)
Dateth May 7. 1992.
Lamar Alexander.
Secretory of Edurnilni .
The Secretary proposes to amend part
200 of title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows.
PART 200—CHAPTER 1 PROGRAM IN
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
I. The authority citation for part zoo
continues to read as follows:
AuthorIty: 20 U.S.C. 2701-2731.2821-28*
2851—2854. i—29Ot, unless otherwise noted.
2. SectIon 200.8 is amended by
revising the definition of Education ally
deprived children in paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
§ 200.8 What definitions apply to the
Chapter 1 LEA Program?
• • . • .
(c)
Educationally deprived children
means children—
(1) Whose educational attaimnent is
below the level that Is appropriate for
children of their age or
(2) Who reside in local institutions for
neglected or dehnquent children.
including adult correctional Institutions.
3. Section 20020 Is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1O)(i) B).
removing the word ‘and at the end of
paragraph (a)(1O)(i)(DJ. and adding a
new paragraph (a)(10)(i)(F) to read as
Follows.
* 200.20 How doosan LEA apply lw.
subgrant?
(10) ’
(i) • •
(B) Are designed and implementod in
consultation with teachers (including
early childhood professionals. pupil
services personnel, arid 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
parents)
• . • • •
(F) Provide chapter 1 services to
homeless children, if appropriate: and
4. Section 200.31 is amended by
revising paragraphs (bJ (1) and (2) and
by adding new paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)
to read as follow,:
* 200.31 Now doss an LEA Identity and
select chIldren to participate?
• • • • •
(1) Identify educationally deprived
children. as defined in §2 00.6(c).
including educationally deprived
children in private schools, in all eli ble
school attendance areas, and
edecationally deprived homeless
children. regardless of then’ residence.
(2) On the basis of information
obtained under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. including information
concenuing educationally deprived
children in private schools and
educationally deprived homeless
children, identify the general
Instructional ereas and grade levels on
which the program will focus.
nstructi, nnl areas and grade levels may
vary among and within school
attendance areas if the needs
assessment data support those
variations.
• • • S •
(c) ‘
(0) An LEA may use funds available
under this part to serve educationally
deprived homeless children who do not
attend chapter 1 project schools.
(d) incidental inclusion of nun-
Chapturl children. An LEA may
provide. on an incidental basis. chapter
1 services to children who have not been
selected to participate in the LEA.
chapter 1 project if—
(1) The chapter 1 project is designed
to meet the special educational needs of
chapter 1 children and is focused on
those children and
(2) The LEA is able to demonstrate
that the inclusion of non-Chapter 1
children on an incidental basis does
not—
(i) D ease the amount, duration, or
quality of chapter 1 services received by
the children who have been selected:
(ii) lfl c the t of providing the
ar’
(iii) Result in the exclusion of children
who would otherwise receive chapter 1
services.
5. Section 200.34 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 200.34 How does an LEA icvolve
parents?
(a)
(4) 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 requirements in this
section.
S • S •
6. Section 200.35 is amended by
redesignatmg paragraph (a)(3) as (a)(4)
and by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to
read as follows.
§ 200,35 What we ths r.qubeinsnb for
.vsiuating and reporting projsct results?
(a )
{3)(iJ 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 Doc. 92-12148 filed 5-22-02. &46 am
BIWNG COOS linO .O1- 5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFRP I’t 122
(FRi. 4137-2)
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, Announcement of
National Meetings to Consider Options
for Controlling Sources of Storrnwater
Pollution
AGENCY: Environmntnl Protection
Agency (EPA).
su.u*av EPA is holding national
meetings to get public input on section
402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act, which
addresses Phase II of the storrawuter
program and requires EPA to issue a
regulation by Octoberi. 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 aoerces. Congress ba, left
the precise scope and nature of the
applicable controls under Phase U for
EPA tode zze, Public inp ut will help
p

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 101 I Tuesday, May 28. 1992 I Proposed Rules
21919
EPA evaluate opt ions for designating
and controlling Phase U sources.
oaii Public meetings will be held on
the following dates:
(1) June 12, 1992 from 9 a.m. to 4p.m..
(2) June 15, 1992 from 9 a.m. to 4p.m..
and
(3) June 19, 1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 430
p m.
ADDRESSES: 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.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTAC1
Barbara Brosan of the Rens.elaerville
Institute in Rensselaerville, New York.
at (518) 797—3783.
SUPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATIOIC 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 Elimination.system
(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 18. 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
stormwater 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 U for
EPA to define. Public input will help
EPA evaluate options for designating
and controlling Phase 11 sources.
Datedi May 21. 1992.
Michael B. Cook.
Director. Office of Wastewater. Enforcement
and Compliance.
(FR Doc. 92-12295 Filed -22-ga 8.45 am)
— i coos u
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
1MM Docket No. 82-112, RM-79$2)
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Hawklnsvllle, GA
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACflO N Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document requests
comments on a petition by Tn-County
Broadcasting Co. proposing the
substitution of Channel 280C3 for
Channel 280A at Hawkinaville, 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 20.9 kilometers (13
miles) southwest to accommodate
petitioner’s desired site. The coordinates
are North Latitude 32—10-32 and West
Longitude 83—39—11.
o* is: Comments must be filed on or
before July 13. 1992. and reply comments
on or before July 28. 1992.
ADDRESSES 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 & Brass. Chartered. 1250
Connecticut Avenue NW.. suite 800,
Washington. DC 20038 (Counsel for Tn-
County Broadcasting Co.).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACY:
Nancy J. Walls. Mass Media Bureau.
(202) 634-6530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOSC This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s notice of
proposed rule making. MM Docket No.
92-112. adopmed 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 Commissions
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
thi, 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 sub;ect to Commission
consideration or court revew, 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 Subject. in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communication. Commission.
Michael C. Ruger.
Acting Chief. Allocations Branch Policy and
Rules Division. Mass Media Bureau.
(FR Doc. 92-12100 Filed 5-22-92. 8:45am)
5IUJNG COOS 1712-41-N
47 CFR Part 73
(MM Docket No. 92-108 RM-7970 1
RadIo Broadcasting Services; St.
Joseph, MN
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTIOrC 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.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before July 13. 1992, and reply comments
on or before July 28. 1992.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission. Washington. DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC. interested parties should serve the
petitioners counsel, as follows: Gregg
Skall. Louise Cybuiski. Pepper &
Corazzrni. 200 Montgomery Building.
1770 K Street NW.. Washington. DC
20008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACV
Kathleen Scheuerle. Mass Media
Bureau. (202) 634—8530.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 82 / Tuesday. April 28. 1992 I Notices
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 ’-
L3HInaphth(L1-bIIl.4JoxizaneJ,o .(2 .3 -
dihydro.1H-irtdol-l.yl)-1.3-dihydro..1,3,3
trunethyl.:
Use: Photochroma tic silk screen
printing ink.
Production Volume: 30 kgs.
Number of Customers: 1.
Worker Exposure: During processlng/
use 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 import.
1-92—5
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 .
I3Hlnaphthl2.1- bjll.4joxlzanel.1.3-
dihydro.1.3.3.trimethyl-8’.( l-piperidinyl)-
Use: Photochroma tic silk screen
printing ink.
Production Volume: 30 kgs.
Number of Customers: 1.
Worker Exposure: During processingf
use 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.
commer.cing on first day of import.
T-92-6
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. : ‘
Chemiccis: 3H.Naphtho(2,1.b pyran
3.3..diphenyl.
Use: Photochromatic silk screen
printing ink.
Production Volume: 50 kgs.
Number of Customers: 1.
Worker Exposure: During processing/
use apprcxtmately 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 rmport.
Risk Assessment EPA identified
possible releases of up to 0.002
k:lograms per day per substance to
water but did not identify any
significant human health effects or
environmental risks for use during the
test markets. 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.
Dateé April 20. 1992.
John W. Meloa.,
Director. Chemical Control Division. Office of
Polluuon Prevention and Toxics.
IFR Doc. 92-9739 Filed 4—V-92; 8.45 arnl
SILUNG cons isio—so-c
(FRL .-4127-41
National Pollutant Discharge
EliminatIon System General Permit for
Discharge of Storm Water Auoclated
With tndustrlal Activity In the State of
Oklahoma
a0ENcY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC11ON Supplemental notice of draft
NPDES general permit for discharge of
storm water associated with industrial
activity in the State of Oklahoma .
SUMMARY In the August 16, 1991,
Federal Register (56 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 private water supplies, and
high quality waters of the State. In
compliance with sect ons 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
Ioad:ngs in existing storm water
discharges to waterbodies listed under
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards
Rule 300.15.
DATU. Comments 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.
ADDRESSE& 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 8. 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 CONTACT:
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 or Brent
Larsen. Permits Branch (6W-PM). EPA
Region 6.1445 Ross Ave.. suite 1200.
Dallas, TX 75202—2733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
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 18. 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
vould be available to a wide range of
industrial facilities in Oklahoma
required to obtain a NPDES storm sater
discharge permit by section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). thr 9 ugh
implementing regulations at 40 CFR
122.28. These implementing regulations
were promulgated in the Federal
Register on November 16. 1990 (55 FR
47990).
All NPDES permits are reçuired 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 At gusI
‘18. 1991. draft general permit for
Oklahoma.

-------
i’waeral Register / VoL 57, No. 82 / 1 uesday. April 28. 1992 / Notices
11. Todays Notice
Todays notice requests public
comment on an amendment to the fact
sheet and draft general permit for
Oklahoma published in the August 16.
1991. Federal Register (58 FR 40978).
Only the amended general permit
conditions in todays notice are open for
public comment at this time.
Amendments to Foci Sheet for Draft
Oklahoma General Permit
The following information is a
supplement to Fact Sheet for Draft
General Permit on page 40963 of the
August 11 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
Stale 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(14) of the CWA (as
amended by Pub. L 100-4) defines point
source as “any discernable. 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, 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 flows
from irrigated agriculture.” Section 507
of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L.
100-4) states “for the purposes of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the
term “point source” includes a landfiil
leachate collection system.” This
definition is codified at 40 CTP. 122.2.
The definition of “storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity” -
(codified at 40 CFR 122.26(bJ(14)) Is
found In the November 18. 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 discharges to certain
waterbodies of the State. Some
example. 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.
Ports IA. and 1.8. of the draft general
permit for Oklahoma have been
modified to further limit eligibility. In
accordance with rule 300.l5 the
Oklahoma general permit cannot
authorize a new or increased discharge
to waterbodies listed under that section.
As of the date of this notice, the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board is
considering a change to rule 300.15 that
would exempt storm water discharges.
However, until and unless modified.
Rule 300.15 remains in effect. Should
rule 300.15 be modified before Issuance
of the final Oklahoma general permit.
today’s proposed modifications may be
omitted from that final permit
ilL Modified Draft General Permit
Conditions
Part 1. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area
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 Stale designated as (1)
“Outstanding Resource Waters”,
“Scenic River” (including waterbodies
within the Oklahoma portions of
watersheds of such rivers), and
weterbodies located within the
boundaries 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.
a
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 oil 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 (56 FR 40988). Today’s
notice is a modification to the eligibility
conditions of the draft general permit
and doe. not change the cost estimates
previously published.
Vii. 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.
VIIL Paperwork Reduction Act
Today’s notice is a modification of the
draft general permit for Oklahoma
published on August 16. 1991. Today’s
notice does not substantially change the
analysis for the Paperwork Reduction
Act made for the original draft general
permit (58 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 Slate
requirements. After review of the facts
presented in the notice printed above. I
hereby certify, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 6o5 b). that this
general NPDES permit, when issued, will
not have a sigmficant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Jo. 0. Winkle.
Acting Regional Administrator. EPA Region&
IFR Doc. 92-0862 Filed 4-V-02. 845 aml
eouao coca uso-.o-
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Applications for Consolidated
Proceeding
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 I Vol. 57, No. 64 I Thursday. April 2,1992 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
4OCFR Part 122
IFRL-4100-41
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Application
Deadlines, General Permit
Requirements and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTtOi Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Water Quality Act
(WQA) of 1987 added section 402(p) to
the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section
402(p) of the CWA requires the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to establish phased and tiered
requirements for storm water discharges
under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program.
On August 16. 1991 (58 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 (58 FR
58549). 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, todays action
describes a National Strategy for issuing
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Today’s action also contains a
final rule that revises minimum NPDES
monitoring requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. In addition. today’s rule
establishes minimum requiresnents for
filing notices of intent to be authotized
to discharge under NPDY general
permits.
Today’s rule also establishes a
deadline of October 1. 1992 for part 2 of
group applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. As noted above, this revised
deadline was proposed on November 5.
1991. In connection with group
applications. today’s rule contains an
amendment to clarify the minimum
number of facilities that must submit
sampling information in part 2 of a group
application.
Finally. today’s action codifies several
provisions of Section 1068 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1091 or Transportation
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. ‘.
EFPECT1VE DA1’E The final rule b mes-
effective May 4. 1992. ‘: -
ADDRESSEE The public 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
For further information on the rule
contact the NPDES Storm Water Hotline
at (703) 821-4823 or Kevin Weiss. Office
of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (EN—338). United States
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20480. (202)
280-051&
$UPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATIOSC
L Background
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Water Quality Act of 1987
C. November 16. 1990, Permit Application
Regulations
0. August 16. 1901 Notice
E. November 5. 1991 Proposal
F. lntai ’modal Surface Transportation
Elfldency Ad of 1991
IL Today’s Rule
A. Long-Term Permit Issiance Strategy
B. Minimum Monitoring end Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges
C. Application Reqelrements for Cencral
Permits
0. Deadline for pail 2 of Group
Applications
F aanfication for Part 2 of Group
Applications
F. Transportation Act Deadlines
IlL Economic impact
IV. Executive Order 12 1
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VL Regulatory Flexibility Act
VI I. APA Requirements
L Background
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA.
also referred to as the Clean Water Act
or CWA). prohibited the discharge of
any pollutant to navigable waters from a
point source unless the discharge Is
authorized by a NPDES permit. Efforts
to improve water quality under the
NPDES program have focused
traditionally on reducing pollutants In
discharges of industrial process
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
rep.i ented pressing environmental
problems In addition, sewage outfalls
and industrial process discharges were
easily identified as responsible for poor.
often drastically degraded water quality
conditions. However, as pollution
control measures were developed
Initially for these discharges. it became
evident that more diffuse sources
(occumng over a wide area) of water
poUutlon. 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. E.nvimnmentol ImpacLc
Several national assessments have
been conducted to evaluate impacts on
receiving water quality. Fur 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
:ms(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 support ing. 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 arid
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 iii
estimates of the relative percentuge of
State waters affected by each source In
this manner, the relative importance of
the various sources of pollution causing
use impairments was assessed and
weighted national averages were
calculated.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 84 I Thursday. April 2, 1992 I Rules and Regulations
11395
Based on 51 States and Territories
that provided information on sources of
pollution, the Assessment also
concluded that pollution from diffuse
sources such as runoff from agricultural.
urban areas, construction sites, land
disposal activities, and resource
extraction activities is cited by the
States as the leading cause of water
quality impairment.’ Diffuse sources
appear to be increasingly important
contributors of use impairment as
discharges of industrial process
wastewaters and municipal sewage
plants come under control and
Intensified data collection efforts
provide additional information. Some
examples where use impairments are
cited as being caused by diffuse sources
Include: Rivers and streams, where 11
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers. 6 percent are caused by
construction and 14 percent are caused
by resource extraction: lakes, where 28
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers and 24 percent are caused by
land disposal: the Great Lakes shoreline,
where 6 percent are caused by separate
storm sewers, and 41 percent are caused
by land disposal; for estuaries where. 30
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers: and for coastal areas, where 36
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers and 37 percent are caused by
land disposal.
The States conducted a more
comprehensive study of diffuse pollution
sources under the sponsorship of the
Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
(AS!WPCA) and EPA. The study
resulted In the report “America’s Clean
Water—The States’ Nonpoint Source
Assessment. 1985” which Indicated that
38 SLates reported urban runoff as a
major cause of beneficial use
impairment. In addition, Zi States
reported construction site runoff as a
major cause of use Impairment
Studies conducted by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) ‘Indicate that
urban runoff Is a malor pollutant source
which adversely affects shellfish
growing waters. The NOAA studies
Identified urban runoff as affecting over
578,000 a es of shellhiah growing waters
on the East Coast (39 percent of harvest.
‘Ma ov classe, of diffuse source, that Include, La
part. storm water point source discharge. are:
Urban riuioff conveyances. construclion site..
aglicuitur, Ieediots). resource eztr.ction site.. and
land disposal facilities.
‘See “The Quality of Shellfish I.kewtng Water.
an the Lust Coast of the United State,’. NOAA.
i9 “The Quality of Shellfish GrowLag Waters In
the Cuif of Mexico’, NOAA. ISsft end ‘I’Iw Quality
of Shalfftsh Ctowin Water, on the West Coast of
the United State.”. NOAA. 1500
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 4 02(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 402(p)(2)
lists five types of storm water
discharges which are covered under
Phase I of the program and are required
to obtain a permit before October i,
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:
(I)) A discharge from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 100.000 or more, but less
than 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/BCF technology-based
requirements and that permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer must meet a new statutory
standard requiring controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable (MEP). As with all
point source discharges under the CWA,
storm water discharges are subject to
applicable water quality-based
standards.
Section 402(p)(4) establishes
deadlines to Implement the permit
program For Storm water discharges
associated with 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 popelatine of 100.000 or more
but less than 2 fl,00O) . This section of the
Act specifies deadlines for 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 11 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 inc
United States or is contributing to a
violation of water quality standards,
EPA. in consultation with the Statec.
is required to conduct two studies on
phase II storm water discharges that are
in the class of discharges for which EP:\
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
pollutant. Insich discharges. The
second stn4yia ’far the purpose of
establishing pre dures and methods to
control phaselL .twm water discharges
to the extent nea wry to mitigate
impacts on waler 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 Il 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 18 19 Permit
Application RegulaLwns
EPA promulgated permit application
regulations for the storm water
discharges identified under section
402(p)(2) (B). (C). and (Dl of the CWA.
including storm water discharges
associated with industnal activitg on
November 16. 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 RegiMer / VoL 57. No. 64 I Thursday. April 2. 1992 I Rules and Regulations
industrial activity: Individual permit
applications and group applications. In
addition, the notice recognizes a third
set of application procedures for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity: Those associated
with general permits. With these
requirements. EPA is attempting to
implement a flexible, cost-effective
approach for storm waler permit
applications.
The requirements for individual
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
set forth at 40 CFR 122.2O(c)(1).
Generally, the applicant must provide
comprehensive facility specific narrative
Information Including: (1) A site map: (2)
an estimate of impervious areas; (3) the
identification of significant materials
treated or stored on site together with
associated materials management and
disposal practices; (4) the location and
description of existing structural and
non-structural controls to reduce
pollutants in storm waler runoff; (5) a
certification that all storm water outfalls
have been evaluated for any
unpermitted non-storm waler
discharges: arid (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 122.26(e)(1) of the November 16,
1990 rule. Individual applications were
to have been submitted by November 18,
1991.’
The group application process allows
for facilities with similar storm water
discharges to file a single two part
permit application. Part I of a group
application includes a list of the
facilities applying. a narrative
description summarizing the industrial
activities of participants of the group, a
list of significant materials exposed to
precipitation that are stored by
participants and material management
practices employed to diminish contact
of these materials by precipitation (see
40 CFR 122.26(c)(2)(i)). Under the
November16, 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 deedianu for submuttitu en individual permit
.ppiicatioo for sta nD waler di.char 5 s. saaociet.d
with industrial activity we. ejilended from
November is. 1951 to October i isaz tse FR sesaL
(Novemb 5 556I)
• The de.dliim far .ubazitetn part I of the urp
epplicat.oo waS .zterded front Match IL 1991 to
S..piember ia 1991 (56 FR 12095 (March ZI. 19911).
EPA ha. 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 purpose, 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 (todays notice contains a
more detailed description darifying the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.28(c)(2) (iifl.
Under the November 16. 1990
regulations. part 2 applications were to
be submitted no later than 12 months
after the dale of approval of the part I
application. (Revisions to this deadline
are discussed below). Also under the
November 16, 1990 regulation. facilities
that are rejected as members of a group
were to have 12 months from the dale
they receive notification of their
rejection to file an individual permit
application (or obtain coverage under an
appropriate general permit). 5
The group application process has
been designed by EPA as a one-tune
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 CFR 1 .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 (NOt)) are established
on a case-by-case basis. A. discussed in
more detail below, today’s notice
establishes final minimum requirements
for general permit NOl submissions,
The November16. 1990 regulations
also establish a two part application
process for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more. The
regulations lists 220 cIties and counties
that are defined as having municIpal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more and
allows for case-by-case designations of
other municipal separate storm sewers
to be part of these systems (55 FR 48073.
48074). The regulations provide that part
1’ applications for discharges from large
municipal separate storm sewer systems
‘The deadline or. facility that I . te ect.d i.e
member of a wp application to subintu an
individual permit application has b.em revised to
provide that an Individual application must be
submitted tnt later than 12 onth. after th. date of
receipt of Ut. notice of ro$ ctIon or October 1, 1g99.
whichever lint. (55 PR 56549 (November 5
199111
(systems serving • pops of 250.000
or more) were due November 16. 199 1
Part 2 applications fardintharges from
large systems are due en Nowniber 16.
1992. Past I applicatinius fardl.charges
from medium municipal separate storm
sewer system. (systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more, but less
than 250,000) are due May 18 . 1992. Pzirt
2 applications for discharges from
medium systems are due on May 18.
1993. Today’s rulemaking does not
address, modify or change application
reqwrementa or deadlines established
by the November1 1990 regulations for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more.
D August 16.1991 Notice
On August 16. 1991. EPA published a
notice (56 FR 40948) requesting public
comment on four mator areas:
(1) EPA’s long-term permit issuance
strategy for storm water discharges
associated with industri ,tl activitv
(2) Proposed modifications tO 40 CFR
122.44(i)(2) addressing minimum
monitoring and reporting rrquirr ’ment
for NPDES permits for storm wdtl r
discharges associated with inductridi
activity:
(3) Proposed modifications to 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2 ) addressing minimum notice
of intent requireinenta ,for general
permits:
(4) Draft baseline getièral permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity In 12 States (MA. ME.
NH. FL LA. TX. OK. NM. SD. AL AX.
ID) and 0 Temtones (District of
Columbia. the Commonwealth of Puero
Rico, Guam. American Samoa. the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marlanmi
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands) without authorized
NPDES Slate programs: on Indian lands
in AL, CA. CA, ICY. Ml, MN. MS. MT.
NC. ND. NY. NV. SC, TN. UT, WL 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 16. 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 thus year
E. November5 1991 Proposal
On November 5, 1991. (50 FR 50555),
as a result of Issues and concerns raised

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 64 I Thursday, April 2, 1992 I Rules and Regulations
11397
In Comments on the March 21. 1991
proposed deadline extensions. EPA
requested comments on extending the
deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application from May 18. 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 apphcation and would
allow for permit issu!ng 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 1088(b)(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 I 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 1o68(b)(2) 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 18. 1992. and
part 2 applications on or before May 17.
1993.
Section 1068(c) of the Transportation
Act provides that EPA shall not require
any municipality with a population of
less than 100.000 to apply for or obtain a
permit for any storm water discharge
associated with an industrial activity
other than an airport. powerplant. or
uncontrolled sanitary landfill owned or
operated by such municipality before
October 1. 1992. unless a permit is
required by either section 402(p)(Z) (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 clarifies that the statutory deadlines
for group and individual applications
outlined above do not affect any storm
water discharge that is subject to the
provisions of either section 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
Todays rule addresses the following.
(1) EPAs 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 122.26(e)
to establish a deadline of October 1.
1992 for part 2 of group applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity;
(5) An amendment to 40 CFR
122.26(c)(2) to clarify the minimum
number of facilities in a group that must
submit sampling information in part 2 of
a group application; and
(6) Modifications to 40 CFR 122.26(e)
to codify portions of Section 1068 of the
Transportation Act of 1991.
A. Long Term Permit Issuance Strategy
Many of the initial concerns regarding
the NPDES storm water program
focussed on edap’ir.g the existing
NPDES permit program to effectively
address the large number of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Potential issues with
implementing the NPDES program for
storm water discharges associated with
industnal activity are raised not only by
the number of industrial facilities
subject to the program, but also by the
challenges pieucnted in identifying and
assessing appmprtate technologies for
preventing and reducing pollutants in
different classes of storm water and the
differences in the nature and extent of
storm water discharges.
Based on a consideration of comments
from authorized NPDES States.
municipalities, industrial facilities and
environmental groups on the permitting
framework and permit application
requirements for storm water dtscharg s
associated with industrial activity EP.\
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 flcxibiit:
provided by the CWA in designing a
workable and reasonable permitting
system.
En 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 tssu m
and compliance processes for storrri
water discharges. In addition. th .
project will examine whether and how
the currently unregulated phdse Ii storm
water discharges should be addressed
EPA will be Issuing a Federal Register
notice to an unce a series of meetings
that will addrau these phase II storm
water discharges..: -.
The strategy In today’s action COflS SiS
of two major components. a tiered
framework for developing permitting
priorities and a framework for the
development of State Storm Water
Permitting Plans.
1. Permitting Priorities
The Agency believes that most storm
water permitting activities can be
described in terms of the following four
classes of activities.
• Tier I—Baseline Permitting One or
more general permits will be de eloped
initially to cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity;
• The Court in NRDC v Tm,n 396 F Supp 1393
ID DC 1975 1 affd NRDC a Co,tle. 568 F 3d 13P9
ID C Cir 1977). bai recogmzed the idmirn5IruiI%e
burden placed on the Agency by requiring
individual permit. for a large numb,’r of storm
wilier diichrnges These courts have affirmed EPA $
duai.retion to ule certain admin,,iraiive dev,r,.s.
auch a. areii permit, or general pcrmits to iu.ip
mdnsge its workload In addition the Lourli h.i..e
recognized flesibility in the type of prrmit
conditions that are ealabliehed including
requirements for best management practice. See
Augual 15. i991 58 FR 409481 for further discua iun
of the use of general permit, for storm wilier
discharge.

-------
11398 Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 64 I Thursday. April 2. 1992 I Rules and Regulations
• Tier 11—Watershed Pein7ittittg:
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely impacted by storm waler
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual or
watershed-specific general petunia:
• Tier JII—Indussry.Specif,c
Permitting’ Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific general permits. and
• Tier/V—Facility-Specific
Permitting. A variety of factors will be
used to target specific facilities for
individual permits.
These four classes of activities will be
implemented over time and will reflect
priorities within given States. In most
States, tier I activities. isauance 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 11. 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 III
industry’specific general permit
a. Tier i—Base/we perrniu:ng Tier I
general permits can initially cover the
malonty 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 beet
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 collectand review data on
storm water discharges from priority
industries, thereby supporting
subsequent permitting activities:
• The public, including municipal
operators of municipal separate storm
sewers which may receive storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity, will have the opportunity to
review data and reports developed by
industnal permiltees 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 stotTn water management
programs in permits for discharges (rem
municipal separate storm sewer
systems.
• The baseline permits will provides
bdsis for bringing selected enforcement
actions: and
• The baseline permit, along with the
State storm water permitting plans
(discussed below), will provide a focus
for public comment on draft permits and
subsequent phases of the permitting
strategy for storm water discharges.
Initially, the coverage of the baseline
permits will be broad. However, it is
anticipated that coverage will become
more specific and targeted as other
permits are issued for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity pursuant to tier II through tier
IV activities. The Agency believes that
tier I permits can establish the
appropriate balance between monitoring
requirements and irnplemen table
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. ill or IV types of
permit conditions, such as industry
specific monitoring or control conditions
into the baseline general permit.
b. Tier 11—Watershed permitting.
Issuing permits on a watershed basis Is
potentially a desirable way to cost
effectively use Agency resources to
satisfactorily address risk. Facilities
within watersheds shown to be
adversely Impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual
and more specific general permitting
activities. This process can be initiated
by identifying receiving waters (or
segments of receiving waters) where
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been identified
as a source of use impairment or are
suspected to be contributing to use
Impairment. Information developed
under sections 304(1). 305(b). and 319(a)
of the CWA, along with information
from other sources (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
classes of storm water discharges in
these locations can be targeted for
additional permit conditions which may
provide for additional information to
characterize the discharge (e.g.
additional monitoring and reporting
requirements) or. where appropriate. for
more stringent control..
Information gathered midor initial
permits For storm water discharges as
nell as Information from other sources
can be used to reassess water quality.
based controls. As discussed In more
detail below. State storm water
permitting strategies are expected to
have a rna or role in this process.
c. Tier Ill—Industry-specific
permitting Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific general permits Thusi’
permits will allow permiting authorities
to focus attention and resources on
industry categories of particular concern
and! or industry categories where
tailored requirements are appropriate
The Agency will work with the States to
develop model permits for selected
classes of industrial storm water
discharges. In addition, the group
application process adopied in the
November 18. 1990 regulation. 155 FR
47990) will provide an additional
mechanism for developing industry-
specific general permits Group
applications that are received can be
used to develop model permiis for the
appropriate industries.
d. Tier I V—Foc,/:iy-specu ‘c
permitting Individual permits will bt
appropriate for some storm wattir
discharges In addition to those
identified under tier U and tier Ill
activities individual permits should be
issued where warranted by the
environmental risks of the discharge. the
need for additional and more complex
indi idudl control mechanisms, a
facility’. compliance history or the
potential to consolidate permit
requirements for a particular facility For
example. individual NPDES permits fur
facilities with process discharges should
be expanded during the normal proce is
of permit reissuance to cover storm
water discharges from the facility. This
provides an opportunity to develop more
facility specific individual control.
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 (or evaluating thi.
initial permitting activities for storm
water discharges required undur section
402(p) of the CWA. In addition. State
Storm Water Permitting Plans will
provide a framework within which to
coordinate and asses the relationship

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules and Pegul ons
11399
and appropriate priorities between
controlling storm waler 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 aie 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 authonty (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 Waslewater
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
successes 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 0 2 (p)(6) of the
CWA.
The basic framework for the Plan
should include the following elements
on a Statewide-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
With IndustrialActivity
• A description of the status of
activities to Issue and implement
baseline general permits. including a
copy of any final general permit for
storm waler 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 Inspections,
review of notices of Intent or review of
monitoring reports) to identify specifIc
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are appropriate
for individual permits:
• A description of how permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems require the
development of muncipal storm water
management programs addressing the
control of pollutants In storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity.
Impacted Waters
• A description of procedures to
Identify receiving waters where
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers, storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity, or
any other class of storm water
discharges are, or have the potential to,
cause or contribute to violation of a
water quality standard, including a list
of waters identified by these procedures.
• A plan to evaluate Improvements to
water quality resulting From controlling
storm water discharges.
Case-by-Case Designations.
• A description of procedures to
identify storm water discharges (other
than those currently subject to
requirements for obtaining a permit) that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard or significantly
contribute pollutants to the waters of
the United States.
• A list of storm water discharges
(and associated receiving waters) that
have been designated or are being
considered for designation under section
402(p)(2)(EJ of the CWA as needing a
permit.
EPA strongly anomwages public
participation and comment, including
efforts to coordinate with appropriate
Federal and State land managers. at the
State level during the development of
these plans.
These initial State storm water pl€in
components will assist the
implementation of permitting efforts for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity and other priority
storm water discharges by creating a
framework for planning and prioritizing
State storm water permitting activities.
tracking State permit issuance efforts.
and providing EPA information for
technology transfer purposes among
NPDES permitting authorities and other
State agencies. The State Storm Vater
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 abo e.
it will assure preliminary State-wide
planning and assessment that will be
essential to developing phase 11 State
Storm Water Management Programs
required under section 402(pfl6) of the
CWA. In reviewing State Storm Water
Permitting Plasia, EPA will coordinate
with Federal A ncIes that may be
affected by oompenants of the plans.
3. States without NPDES General Permit
Authority
As noted, the issuance of general
permits is on important component in
the recommended permit Issuing
strategy. Presently 38 States (and I
temtory) have been authorized to
implement the NPDES permit program
However, only 29 of these States hate
been authorized to issue general
permits. 11 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 Slates
that have been authorized to administer
the base NPDES program.
EPA strongly recommends authorized
NPDES States without general permit
authority to obtain general permit
autnority as soon as possible. EPA is
currently working with these States to
provide technical assistance and
support and to expedite the
authorization process.

-------
11400 Federal Register I Vol. 57,No. 64 I Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
4 Response to Comments
a. Tiered priorities. Many commenters
agreed that EPA and authorized NPDES
States should prioritize permit issuance
efforts for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, and
indicated that the tiered priorities
identified 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 hlgh-ri k
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
States should be bound to implembnting
the tiered priorities consecutively in the
order reflected by the four hers. These
commenters indicated that the draft
general permits noticed on August 16.
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 iiarify that it only intends the
four tiered set of priorities to be used as
a general conceptual framework which
can be used to describe efforts to issue
permits. The strategy for setting storm
water permit issuance priorities is not
Intended to be a set of regulatory
requirements binding on EPA. States, or
industrial dischargers. Articulating
tiered priorities does not legally restrict
conditions in permits issued by EPA or
authorized NPDES States. Rather all
NPDES permits. including permits for
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity, must be in
compliance with sections 301 and 402 of
the CWA. A major purpose of
articulating tiered priorities is to assist
in identifying and developing
spproprlate permit conditions for high-
risk facilities. Tier I baseline general
permits which have some’of the
characteristics of tier II or III permits are
consistent with these objectives.
b. Slate Plans. Some States supported
the concept of Plans, but were
concerned that scheduling plan
development one year alter the date of
today’s rule would hinder the initial
development of storm water programs in
a number of States. These commenters
Indicated that the NPDES storm water
program would be in its initial stage or
implementation and authorized NPDES
States would be busy conducting a
number of critical activities such a.
obtaining general permit authority.
issuing baseline general permits, and
issuing permits for discharges from large
and medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems. They Indicated that
these activities could be disrupted if
States placed top priority on developing
and submitting plans within a yearaf
todays action. EPA agrees with these
concerns, and believes that while
development of these plans should begin
early In the storm water permit issuance
process to help guide implementation.
draft plans do not need to be prepared
for submission untIl April 3. 1995.
One State stressed that permitting
plans were necessary to assure national
equitability and prevent economic
disincentives in States with progressive
storm water management programs.
EPA believes that one of its goals in
overseeing the development of the
NPDES program is to ensure that NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
reflect the requirements of the CWA in
an equitable manner that reflects the
technology.based and water quality-
based requirements of the CWA. At the
same time, the Agency recognizes the
need to provide sufficient regulatory
flexibility to allow States to make
rational and reasonable permitting
decisions. For example, today’s rule
provides permit writers with additional
flexibility to target high risk discharges
and establish group or facility specific
monitoring and reporting requirements
In NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, in addition, permit conditions
for most classes of storm water
discharges will be established on a
case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, the
Agency agrees with the commenter that
State Storm Water Permitting Plans can
provide an Important tool to ensure that
NPDES storm water programs in
different States reflect pollution control
requirements consistent with the CWA
while maintaining the adequate
flexibility necessary 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 Agency
believes that the approach In the Plans
Is consistent with and can be
implemented as a component of annual
EPA/State agreements If there is an
adequate level of detail and specificity
and the State and EPA Region agree on
including the elements noted above as
part of the annual oversight process. The
Agency believes that by publishing a
framework for these Plans. it will
provide States with notW .’ of necessary
Plan elements, provide a nalionall)
consistent approach far evaluating
program progress. facilitate i nnlogy
transfer activities. encourage public
participation, and ensure that risks are
evaluated ion the context of the entire
NPDES storm water program.
In the August 18, 1991 notice, the
Agency requested comments on 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
comnienters 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 4024p)(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 requesi to
prepare and submit Plans to EPA are
non-binding recommendations at this
point in tune.
B. Minimum Moaftothig and Reporting
Requirements/br Storm Water
Discharges ‘:‘
Current NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.44(i)(2J provide that all 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 16,
1991 proposaL EPA requested comment
on six major options for modifying 40
CFR 122.44(i)(2) to provide minimum
monitonng 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:
.Difficult,es in Sample Collection—.
Collection of storm water samples may
pose a number of potential difficulties
These difficulties indude determrning’
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 Doza—The types and
concentrations of pollutants in storm
water d acharges associated with

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2. 1992 I Rules and Regulations
11401
industrial activity depend on a number
of factors, including the nature of
industrial activities occumog at the site.
the nature of the precipitation event
generating the discharge, and the time
period from the last storm. Variations Ira
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 Pennat Cond,tions—Permits
for industrial process discharges and
discharges from POTWs traditionally
have incorporated numeric and/or
toxicity effluent limitations as
conditions. Monitoring reports for these
discharges provide a direct indication
whether the discharge complies with
permit conditions. However. It is
anticipated that permits for storm water
dischargers will contain a variety of
types of controls. While numenc 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 beat
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 type. 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 monitonng
data at least annually would result in a
significant increase in the number of
discharge monitoring reports received
by EPA Regions and authonzed 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.
EPA eatimate. that ii all faciiit. a with Storni
water diachuiqe. associated with industrial activity
other than oil and go. Facilities and inactive mining
operation. were required to submit a discharge
monitoring report annually. almout 15% oF all
discharge monitonng ripotis collected annually
under the NPOFS pn,wam would b. (or storm waiSt
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
deyelopment of priorities 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.
dassea of facilities will be targeted for
more specific permit issuance activities
(tiers II. III and IV of the strategy).
1. Overview of Proposed Options and
Comments
In the August 16. 1991 proposal. EPA
Identified six major options (plus a no
change option) for establishing minimum
monitoring requirements in NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
These options only addressed minimum
requirements for discharge monitoring in
NPDES permits. All options retained
authority for NPDES permit authorities
to require more stringent monitoring
requirements where appro iriate. The six
options (plus the no change option) were
as follows:
No Change Option: Case-by-case
monitoring conditions in permits for
storm water discharges. with a minimum
requirement to report monitoring results
at least annually.
Option 1: Case.by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
to report monitoring results at least
twice per permit term.
Option 2: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that facilities conduct annual sampling.
Facilities would not be required to
report monitoring information unless the
information was requested in a permit
or by the Director, but would be
required to retain information.
Option 3: Case-by-case monitonng
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
or by the Direclw . bat would be
required to retain information. For
contaminated simm water discharges
from oil and gas exploration or
production operation. or fmm inactive
mining operations wharea 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 engfrieering 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
disLharges.
Option 5: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm w,ite’r
discharges with no minimum
requirement to report monitoring rt’suii ’,
Option &- Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges, with a minimum requirement
for the first ermlt for the discharge that
monitoring reulta be reported at led St
once a year, Afteç IacIlity has
submitted five ear f 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 thdt
it would consider developing a final
regulation which combined aspects of
several of the articulated options (see
August 16. 1991 (56 FR 40957)) The
various benefits and concerns with each
option were discussed in the August 16
1991 notice
The comments received on the options
reflected differing opinions regarding the
need and use of monitoring ira the
NPDES storm water program Some of
the comments expressed views on the
benefits and drawbacks of different
monitoring strategies in different
situations An underlying theme that
emerged from the comments was that a
number of factors, such as the risk to
water quality that different types and
classes of storm water discharges
associated with industrial .ictivitv
present. the nolure 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 / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2. 1992 f Rules and Regnl.a oiis
monitoring conditions in NPDES permits
for storm water discharges.
Other commenters suggested that EPA
should allow alternatives to monitoring.
Some commenters urged the Agency to
expand option 3 to allow other dasses
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
(BMP5) 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 PEs. 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
e aluate 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
ruiemaking 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
monhtonng conditions in NPDES permits
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity on a case-by-
case basis. 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 associated with industrial
activity and evaluate whether measures
to reduce pollutant loadings identified in
a storm water pollution prevenhion 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 requu’ed io
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
requirement for annual inspections for
most storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity. The Agency
believes that a minimum frequency of at
least annual Inspections is appropriate
to ensure evaluation of changing
conditions and practices at a site,
(especially those caused by wet weather
and winter conditions occurring
throughout a year) and to ensure
adequate implementation of pollution
prevention measures on a regular basis
While option 3 of the August 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 inspections will sufficiently lower
compliance costs in some cases to allow
a higher frequency of inspections to be
feasible. As discussed below, the
Agency is providing additional
flexibility in 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 . s*,DIU have a
somewhat unique hiMory of
development and tnactsve.usinirIg sites
can be dispersed diffusely Inremole.
hard to reach locations wbüre
employee. may typically sot b. onsite
to conduct site evaluations. In addition.
the inactive nature of these sites may
limit changes to potential for storm
weier 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
occumng 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 refleci the potential
risk of the dischaigeand that are
appropriately related to the nature of the
permit conditions for a discharge
Today’s regulatory moth cation does
not preclude discharge sampling and
reporting requiremen’s In NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
Vvhile today s rule change provides
additional flexibility to establish
monitoring requirements. it does not
limit the authority of EPA or authorized
NPDES States to establish sampling
requirements where appropriate based
on a consideration of risk or other
factors.
The Agency recognizes that differer.t
types of permit conditions 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 industrial activity Typically.
NPDES permits for these classes of
discharges will contain numeric effluent
limitations, and sampling requirements
will be appropriate for these permits
Foe .‘ smpIs. ihe Agency has issued nuuwnc
effluent limitation guidelines (or ten class.’. of
discharap, ihiit are rompo.ed entirely of storm
water ,w of storm waler combined with process
W,.lrr

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 64 I Thursday. April 2.. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
11403
However. for many other types of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. NPDES permits for
the discharge will require Lhe
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 rule 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 dependent on
the nature and effect of the discharge.
but in no case less than once a year In
addition, today’s rule does not change
the manner in which the NPDES
regulations address storm water
discharges which are subject to an
effluent limitation guideline (e.g. a
minimum of annual monitoring is still
required for these facilities).
3. Response to Comment
Some conunenters 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, including monitoring
requirements in permits that do not
estabLish numeric limitations, plays a
number of other funciions in the permit
program.
Discharge monitoring data can be
used to assisi in the evaluation of the
risk of discharges by indicating the
types and the concentrations of
pollutant parameters in thedlscharge.
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 important role, along with other
information, in identifying facilities or
classes of facilities where tier II, L II and
IV permit issuance activities are
appropriate.
Several commenters offered a number
of suggestions for monitoring 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 monitonng 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 8: 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 wnters 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, stthstacross-the-board
monitoring requu snts for all Facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity may not be an
appropriate or cost-effective use of
resources. A number of justifications
were provided for favoring a flexible
approach including: (1) Regulatory
flexibility could allow establishtng
monitoring and reporting requirements
in a risk-based manner. (2) some R pes
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 monttorinQ for
determining permit compliance. (4) EP-
and authorized NPDES States have
limited ability to effectively re iew ddla
(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
commenters summarized these concerns
by indicating that they believed that or
some storm water discharges associati’O
with industrial acil . liv. o erl broad
discharge monitoring requirements
could be counterproducti’.e toward the
goals of the program. as significant
resources would have to be expended
collecting and analyzing discharge
samples, thereby) iting 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 01
these concerns. Since today’s rule
provides additional flexibility ‘n 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 toddy’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. 84 / Thursday, April 2. 1992 I Rules and Regulattone
appropriate. For example, the
identification of discharges to receiving
waters with unpaired water quality can
be used to target facilities for prionty
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 NOl can provide
information needed by the Director to
notify diechargers that a more specific
general permit was issued. The NO! also
can identify the permittee to provide a
basis to develop and implement
enforcement and compliance monitoring
strategies and priorities. In addition, the
administrative burdens on the
permitting issuing agency and the costs
to dischargers can be reduced by
replacing more complicated permit
application requirements with simplified
requirements.
One State commented that EPA
should not mandate by regulation the
information required in an 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 NOls include the legal name of the
owner or operator and the facility name
and address. EPA believes that this
information is essential to identify the
location of the facility for compliance
purposes and to provide mailing
addresses necessary to conduct any
correspondence. The minimum NO!
requirements also include a description
of the type of facility or dischargers.
Thie description is necessary to provide
information to screen whether the
discharge is eligible for coverage under
the general permit and to allow the
permit writer to begin to identify priority
discharges. Finally, the minimum NO!
requirements Include the receiving
stream(s). ‘l’hie information is necessary
to adequately identify the discharges to
impaired receiving waters where water
quality-based permits are necessary.
Some cominenters indicated that they
believed that all discharges should be
required to submit an NOl. Various
reasons were provided to support this
approach, including that the NPDES
authority needed to know of all facilities
that discharged storm water to a given
water body, and that dischargera should
not be required to comply with a permit
unless they submit a notification. In
response, the Agency believes that most
general permits will require the
submittal of NO!. However, there may
be some situations where it may be
more appropriate to have the Director
notify diachargers that they are covered
by a general permit or that NO!
requirements are otherwise-not ‘ -
appropriate.
For example. issuing a general permit
without NO! requirements may be an
appropriate way for EPA and authorized
NPDES States to min 4 mize
administrative burdens and compliance
costs in permita 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 NOls 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
general permits for storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations.
One State commented that it believed
that it would be inappropriate to
exclude a class of discharges from the
requirements to submit an NO! unless
there is an alternative method that can
and will be used to track these
discharges. A different oommenter
Indicated that oil and gas operations
were adequately monitored through the
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) program and
that NOla for NPDES general permits
would not be necessary. A number of
the cominenters expressed confusion
over the relationship between this
provision and section 402(1)(2) of the
CWAiO. and suggested that requiring
“Section 402 Ifl2) of the CWA provide. thai
NPDES permit, shell not be required For storm
water runoff from mining operation, or oil and gas
espioration, production, processing or treatment
operations or a nsmission facilities, composed
entirely of flows which sie from conveyance, or
systems of conveyance. (inciuding but not limited
to pipes. conduits, ditches, and channels) used for
collecting and conveying precipitation runoff and
which are not contaminated by contact with or that
has not come into contact with, any overburden,
raw material. intermediate products, fl,ualied
product, byproduct or waste product, located on the
site of such operation EPA published permit
application regulations consistent with section
402111(2) on November IS 1050(55 FR 480030)
These regulation, require permit applications for
discharges composed entirely of storm water
associated with Industrial activity from oil or gas
eiiploratlon. production. processing, or treatment
operation,, or transmlsaion facilities only when a
di.chsige of .tonn water, ie.ults In a discharge of a
reportable quantity for which notification is or was
required pursuant to4O (YR 117 21.40 CFR 3023. or
40 CFR 110.0 at anytime since November16. 1987. or
the discharge contribute, to a violation of a water
NOIs in NPVES p —.UP-wwflfl waler
discharge, from oil operations
would munineirm ijgácogthjion.
After evahiattond the iaemrients.
EPA believes. tht*4mthe
situation of Inactive oilandps
operation. on Federal lands discussed
below. it is not appropriate to exclude
contaminated storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
oil and gas exploration and production
operations from the minimum 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 gas
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 section 402(1)(2) of the
CWA.
One cornmentm’ requested
clarification on the-psocadurea that
would be followed toeswure that
permits requiring Director notification
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.
quality standard. (see 40 (YR 12228(c)(1 It’..))
Permit application, sie not required for a discharge
composed entirely of storm water from a mining
operation unless the dIscharge comes into Contact
with any overburden, raw materiel. intermediate
products, finished product. byproduct, or wssue
products located on the site of such operations
‘‘EPA requested commeni on using information
collected under the SPCC program to track storm
water discharges However, this approach has a
number of limitations, including thai the SPCC
program currently does not require farilii.es suhiect
to SF C requirements to submit notification, in
sddiiton. many facilities subieci to the srCc
program are nut sub 1 ect to the 4PDF.S storm wdr.’r
program either because rhey do not have a suorin
wets, discharge to water, of the United Sidle, or
becsu.e they are not activities thst .rc addressed
by the regulatory definition of ibm. water
discharge associated with industrial activity us
C m 122,26(b )(i4 ) tag certain pipeline.)

-------
Federal RegIster / Vol. 57. No. 84 I Thursday. April 2. 1992 I Rule. a v”-
1140?
12LTh and 124.57;) The Agen y wants to
point out that the NPDES regulation.
require certain opportunil es for the
public so comment during. tl e permit
i*nr* proc.... and provida for permit
appeal after thapennlt Is lasuedJn
addition. 40 C 1 2R(bJ(2) ijj --
provides th LEo PMaiaed.pezmita. -
any owner or operator authorized by a
general pennitmay request to be.
excluded from the coverage of the
general permit by applying for an
individual permit.
One cornmenter 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 wili notify dlschargers of
coverage in writing.
One comnieriter requested
darthcation on whether a discharger
that Is not required to submit an NO!.
but rather is 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 required
discharger. to notify municipalities
instead of the NPDES permit authority.
EPA disagrees with this approach.
Submitting NOIs to municipalities but
not requiring that an NOl be submitted
to the Director may not assure that EPA
or authorized NPDES States receive
adequate Information to effectively
implement the NPDES program Ioi these
discharges.
In the August 16. 1991 notice. EPA
proposed that general permits for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from Inactive mlnlng
inactive oil and gas opera liona occuning
on Federal lands wher, air operator
cannot be. identified may contain
alternative - -
requirements, & federal land
itg.mant agency commented that
Inactive landfills on Federal lands are In
some ways analogous to inactive mines
and Inactive oil and gas operations and
should be treated similarly. EPA agrees
with this comment and accordingly
todays rule allow, alternative notice of
intent requirements In general permits
for storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity from inactive
landfills on Federal lands.
One State urged EPA not to refer to
Not, ii permit applications. They were
concerned that calling NOIs permit
applications would tri er certain public
notice requirements under State law.
They further argued that the purpose .1.
NOla axe significantly different than
permit applications, and that the cited
State law. pluviswsi should ao$.apply. in
respin,s ’A recognizes the
differences between the ptupssis 4 è .
notice of intent and an Indkbbeu4permlt
application. lndividuaIpe’ ft
applications contain a ‘ grIflcant -
amount of sits-specific Information that
is typically used for-the development of
individual permiLcondltlons. NOls
typically contain oily general
information and are used for screening
and. compllsjtce purposes rather than for
the development of permit conditions.
However, the distinction between
Individual applications and NO!. 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 NOl to
constitute a permit application for
purposes of federal regulatory
provisions 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 122.6).
In the preamble to the August 16 1991
notice, EPA discussed public
accessibility to lists of NO!., but did not
publish proposed regulatory language
addressing this liaise. EPA does not
intend torad&,uthlsiseue In this
rulemaking. bat will be addressing the
issue in futuis rulemaking..
D. Deadline far Part 2 of Group
Applications. .. -
1. November 5. 1991 Proposal
On November 5. 1991. (50 FR 58555).
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
opportunftyto conduct-sampling to
support the Part 2 applicatIon and would
allow for permit Issuing agencies to
issue general permits.
2. Today’s Rule :.. - -. -
EPA receIved over 00 camments Un’
the November 5. 1901 proposal. After
careful consideration of these
comments. the-Agency I. extending the
deadline for submitting part 2o1 the
group applications for storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity froni May 18. 1992 to October 2.
1992 as proposed.
EPA Is granting this extension to
provide an appropriate opportunity to
conduct sampling to support the part 2
app1icedma s.i$b modification
will prov1de eqetiable
fr w
applicatl . - .. . . . , ,d i scharges
It
will ala. lIl IIU1_
agenc 5 ie._ g;t._ .J _., .tita ri0
to the completion of the up
application process. -
3. Response to Comments -
All of the comments received on the
November 5,1991 proposal to extend The-
regulatory deadline for submitting part
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 to, allow for the preparation of
guidance documents, training personnel
in sampling techniques. and conducting
analytical work. A number of
cominenters supported October 1. 1992
as the deadline For part 2 of the group
application. In general. these
comrnenters expressed their belief that
the deadlines for subnuttrng part 2 of the
group application and Individual permit
application. fcestorm water discharges
associated wlth nstrial activity
should be the A number of
reasons were- foriupporting this
approach. IncIedI lthkt this would be
the most equltabW appeoach. the
regulated community would have a
clearer choice of application options.
and one deadline would limit confusion
EPA agrees with these concerns, and as
is discussed above. Is 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 pan z of the
group application beyond October 1.
1992. Some of these commenters
suggested that part 2 of the group
application 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 discharger. 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
dlschargera to select the most cost-
effective approach allowable under the
NPDES regulatory framework. Other
commenters suggested that participant.
In a group should be given one complete
year from the date fter the group
—S
ni

-------
receives notice of approval of the part I
application.
EPA notes that the extension to
October 1, 1992 provIdes authorized
NPDES States with additional time to
issue general permiti for storm water
discharges assodated with industrial
activity. On August 16. 1991. (56 FR
40948). EPA published a proposal
requesting public comment on draft
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity In States and territories without
authorized NPDES programs.” The
Agency intends to make every effort to
Issue these general permits In the spring
ofig9Z.
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 NPDES States,
Each authorized NPDES State that will
issue general permits for storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity will have to go through the
procedures for Issuing general permits of
that State. Different permit Issuance
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 pwinlt,
applications to the dates when general
permits are Issued forperticutar States.
This Is particularly tinportant to the
group applicat1ow tocess where
fai litles from many different State.
may be In the’same group ;
Inaddltfcnjthe Agencyanticlpates
that there will be situations where the
vermlttthe’authorfty determines that
general permits are Inappropriate for a
given class of storm water discharges.
Additional confusion would arise In
these situations if application deadlines
were tied to the dates of genere1p lt -
Issuance. The Agency Is also ccpnorned
that unacceptable delays mayreilult
under this approach In States where the
issuance of a general permit Is delayed,
EPA also disagrees with the
suggestion that the deadlInes for
submitting part 2 of thi application
should be based on-the date on which a
part I application Is accepted. EPA
believes that establishing a fixed
- deadline of October 1, 1992 for part 2 of
the group application Is warranted for
the same reasons that the Agency
articulated above and In the proposal.
This approach provides an equitable
deadline for these facilities, reduces
confusion and uncertainty In the
regulated community, and provides
sufficient time to complete the sampling
necessary to obtain quantitative data.
£ Clarification for Pai’t 2 of Group
Applications
The November 16. 1990 regulations
established procedures for group
applications for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial actlvfty. The
group application process allows for
facilities with siinllar.storin water
discharges to file a aingia two part
permit appilcaticiL Part I of a group
application includes a list of the
facilities applying, a-narrative
description summarizing the Industrial
activities of participants of the group, a
list of significant materials exposed to
precipitation that are stored by
participants and material management
practices employed to diminish contact
of these materials by precipitation (see
40 CFR 122,26(c)(2)(1)). in addition, the
part 1 application must Identify the
group participants that will submit
quantitative data (sampling data) In part
2 of the group application. These
perticlpantsmust be representative of
thegroup. - , -
hi part 2 of the group application, the
subset of facilities Identified In the Part 1 ,
I application must submit quantitative’
data. The provisions of 40Q R
122.26(c)(2)(II) establish aininimum
alterla for Identifying facilities from
which sampling data must be submitted,
EPA had proposed that, In general,
groups submit data from at least 10
percent of the facilities In the group,
with a minimum of 10 facilIties
submitting data (December 7, 1988(53
FR 49435)). In the final rule, EPA
allowed groups of 4 to 10 members to
apply If 30 percent of the facilities
I Rules aed .Pa
submitted data IS90 (55
FR 48067fl. -‘ “.
During tbe *pi I.cáh1tht process.
the regulated c--- 1 ajrAL., P.iimd some
confusion 1 JLg 3r3
number of facilities 1 I $. ”It
sampling date for . iith ii to 99
members: For groups with ii to 99
members, some groups have interpreted
the language in the November 16, 1990
regulations to require 10 percent of the
facilities to submit sampling data. while
other groups have Interpreted the
language to require a ,w4nlmum of 10
facilities to submit-sampling data.
In today’s action. EPA wants to danfy
that for groups with ) or fewer
members, at least so percest of the
dischargere participating In the group
must submit quantitative data. For
example, at least nine facilities must
submit quantitative data if a group Ia
composed of 17 members, For groups
with 21 to 99 members, at least 10
dischargers participating in the group
must submit quantitative data. For
example. at least ten facilities must
submit quantitative data If a group is
composed of 25 members, For groups
with 100 to 1,000 members. at least 10
percent of the dlechsrgers particIpating
in the group must submit quantitative
data. For gruup, thmore than 1000
members, no mo than 100 dlschargers
participating In i s qip must submit
quantitative data. -
For groups
members, either a of two
dischargers from each pzecipftation zone
indicated in appendix E of 40 R part
122 in which ten ormore members of the
group are located, or one discharger
from each precipItation zone Indicated
in appendix E of 40 CPR part 122 In
which nine or fewer members of the
group are located, must be Identified to
submit quantitative data. For groups of 4
to 10 members, at least onefacility in
each precipitation zone In which
members of the group are located must
submit data. EPA has made a correction
to the group application requirements to
ieflect the above, which represents
EPA’s original Intent In the November
16,1990 rule., -
F Thznsportolion Act
SectIon 1068 of the Transportation Act
addresses permit application deadlines
for storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity that are owned
or operated by municipalities. Today’s
rule codifies three changes to existing
regulatory deadlines to reflect the new
provisIons of section 1068. The first two
modifications address Individual
application deadlines, and the third
addresses group application deadlInes.
11408 Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992
.Th. notice adtheaae. draft general permits In
12 Shire (MA. M L NH. FL LA. TX. O K. NM. SD.
AZ. AE. I D ). and six Terv4torisa (DtIeICI of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rice,
Cue,,i. Amencan Samoa. the Commonwealth of the
Northern Manan. Island .. and the mi ii Territory
of the Padlic lalands) without suthorlzsd NPOPS
Stale geu wea on Indian land. to AL, CA, CA. KY,
M I. MN. 548, MT. NC. PW. NY. NV. SC. 111 UT, Wi,
and WY: located within federal fadUtles and Indian
land. in CO and WA. and located within federal
tgcilhi:se In Delaware.
p

-------
The deadl Ines foi submitting
individual permit applications for storm
water discharge. associated with -.
Industrial activity that me o*ned es
operated-by municipalities ere
consistent with UwOctober I. 1992
regulatory dead1insthat ’A I’” ‘•
established .oa.November 5. 19g1199 FR
50548) with twoexceptlons: -
(1) MunicIpal facilities that have been
identified In a pa Tti group application
that has been submitted in a timely
manner where either the group -
application is denied or the particular
facility is rejected from the group. are
not required to submit an Individual
application until the 180th day following
the date on which the denial or rejection
is made; and -
(2) FacilitIes owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of le,a..
than 100,000 other than an airport.
powerplant. or uncontrolled sanitary
landfill are not required to submit a -.
permit application at this time unless a
permit Is required under either section
402(p)(2) (A) or (E) of the CWA.
With regard to facilities that are either
part of a group that haa been denied or
which are individually rejected from a
group. today’s rule codifies alternative
deadlines for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity from
facilities that are owned or operated by
a municipality and that are rejected as
members of a part 1 group application.
Such discharger. shall submit an
individual application no later than 180
days after the date of receipt of the
notice of rejection or October 1. 1992.
whichever is later.
With respect to facilities owned or -
operated by municipalities with.
population of 100.000 or less. EPA
believes that Congress Intended this
language to place all of their storm
water discharges (except for those from
airports. powerplants and uncontrolled
sanitary landfills) Into Phaapfl of the
storm water program. .
Todays ru]e”.I.d codifie, the
Transportatioá Act s’ilt native
deadlines for grou jip1Ication.s for
storm water discharges associated with
Industria l activities that are owned or
operated by municipalities with a
population of less than 250.000.
Reflecting the new provisions of Section
O68 of the Trsnsportatlon Act, the
group application deadlines for these
facilities are now May 18. 1992 for part I
applications and May 17. 1993 for part 2
applications.
EPA also wants to clarify that the
Transportation Act did not affect say of
the regulatory application deadllnei for
storm water dilcirargee associated with
Industrial activity from facilities that are
either not owned or operated by a
municipality or that are owned or
operated by a municipality with -.‘, -
population of 250.000 or more. The
legislativ, history for the Traespos$adod
Act clarified that ot Le iti”s” ”
report affect f -” i
dates for submitting atormwater permit
applications established In recent
rulemaking published In the Federal
Register on November 5. 1991. The
conference report, while silent on the
deadlines for these privately owned
Industries, is not Intended to override
the dates established in EPA ’s
Tulemaldeg actioti. ” (Vol. 137 Cong. Rec.
H11509 (dafiyed. November28. 1991).
Rep. Hainmeischniidt). Thus. the permit
application deadlines for storm water
discharge. associated with Industrial
activity from privately owned and
operated facilities, Including those that
discharge through a municipal separate
storm sewer to waters of the United -
States. are not changed by today’. rule
with the exception of the part 2
application deadlines discussed
elsewhere In today’. notice. Also, where
a facility is privately owned and
operated, but has a service contract
with a municipality, the facility Is not
considered to be “municipally
operated”. For example,.. privately
owned and operated 6nrlfill that
receives municipal waste pursuant to a
contract with a municipality or some
other form of reimburgement from a
municipality can not avail Itself of the
application deadline extensions In the
Transportation Act, which apply only to
facilities owned or operated by
municipal governments.
As dutlined above. section 1068 of the
Transportation Act contains spedal
previsions for municipalities with a
population of less than 100.000. Section
1068(c) of the Transportation Act
defines two classes of Industrial
facilities that are owned or operated by
municipalities with. population of less
than i lX t The first group of facilities
Is comprised of airports. powerpiants.
and uncontrolled sanitary landfills that
are owned or operated by a municipality.
with a population of less than 100.000. lt
Is clear that Congress did not Intend in
sectIon 1068(c) to change th. existing -
Individual application deadlines fo
these discharges. Group application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with Induntrial activity from
these facilitie, are addressed by section
1068(b) of the Transportation BilL As
discussed above, the group application
deadlines for these facilities are May 18.
1992 foe Part I appilcaltons and May.;?..
1993 for parr z applications.. $
The second group I . comprised of
facilities with storm water discharge.
associated with Industrial activity other
___ 11409
than ulrpurt.h poàes tior
uncontrolled senft yy -isnalflils that are
owned oropw4olI by auintl!ljtall ties
with-. po 1tonu( fi100.000.
Section t0e8(c)provSdei1bt PA shall
not require thi. second gtov t of
industrial facilities to apply for or obtain
a permit before October 1.1992. unless a
permit Is required under either section
402(p)(2) (A) oi(E) of the CWA.
With respect to this second group of
facilities, today’s rule reserves the
regulatory ddIIies for storm water
applications. The Agency Intends to
address these facilities in a manner that
is similar to other storm water
discharges addressed by section
402(p)(1) or the CWA.ia Currently, the
Agency intends to evaluate storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity that are owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of less
than 100,000 (except for those from
powerplants, uncontrolled sanitary
landfills and airports) along with other
storm water discharges addressed by
section 402(p)(1) in two studies required
wider section 402(p)(5j of the CWA.
These studies will be used to support
the development of regulations under
section 402(p)(6). 14 It is clear from the
legislative bistb of the Transportation
Act that Congresd Intended to address
these discharges Inthis manner. I.e.. as
discharges subject-to the permit
moratorium of sesiIc (pU1) of the
CWA. “EPA defined Industrial activity
in such a way as to require many cities
with a population under 100.000 to make
application for stormwater prmits.
notwithstanding the moratorium on
permit reqnirements that the Congress
thought It was puting In place’ ‘This
legislation will clarify that small cities
need not apply for permits associated
with some of the industrial facilities
they own or operate until October 1.
1992. the data fbi the general
moratorium on their permIt
requirements.” (Vot. 137 Cong. Rec.
S18506 (daily ed. November 27, 1991).
Sen. Chafe.). “(M )unlcipallties with
populations of less than 100,000 would
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 64 / ‘Thursday. AprIl 2. 1992 I Rulee
‘S.ciion 4021p)(t) of the CWA cresina a
moratodum on IuuIn NPOES perut.ia until Ociober
i. lasi for home water discharge. that re not
Identifled in s.ctlon 4O24pX2J of the CWA.
— ‘ ectloo 4 (pMS) 0 1 1 1w CWA requIre. EPA. In
amsultelion with State and local officials. is
required to issue regulation, by no liter than
October 1.lam. which de.Ignal. additional storm
waler discha,g ,-s to be regulated to protect water
quality and establish a comprehensive program to
regulaie such designated sources This program
mu.t eatabilab. Si a minimum. IAI pnoniles. (B)
requlreatenta foe Slats Stone Water Management
Progrsma. and (C l expeditious deadlines. ‘The
program may Include performance slandarda.
guidelines guidance. and management practice.
and treatment requirements as sppropnate

-------
11410 . Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 84 / Thursday, April 2, 1992 / Rules dP- . ti4 .
not be required to apply for pennita for
storinwater discharges associated with
Industrial actMties except for power
planiL apcontrolled sanitary landfills,
and airports.” (Vol. 137 Cong. Eec.
1111509 (daily ad. November 20, 1991).
Rep. Hammerscbmldtj.
I. Determining the Population of
Municipalities -
The Transportation Act establishes
phased requireinenta for NPDES permits
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from facilities
that are owned or operated by
municipalities with specified
populations. However, the
Transportation Act uses a different
classification scheme than Is used in
section 4O2(p) of the CWA to define
classà 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 classifying
industrial operations owned or operated
by municipalities is the population of the
municipality. This distinction is
important because a number of
municipal entities with a population of
100.000 or more are not addressed by the
regulatory definitions of large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems.
40 CFR lfl.26(b)(4) and (7) 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
entities which may own or operate
storm water discharge. associated with
Industrial activity eranot specifically
addressed. by the ie datory definition of
large and nedlum municipal separate
storm sewer systems. Examples include:
sanitary sewer districts, flood control
districts, and unincorpprated towns and
townships.
lit providing phased requirements for
different storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
are owned or operated by
municipalities. EPA believes thai o
“Sea appendices P. C. H. and 11040 CFR part
i22.
“The ea uIatm’y definitions of lss s and medium
atunlcipsl separate Storm sewer system, only
specifically identify counties with. population of
ioo.coo In usiincovporetsd. urbanizsd areas of the
county.
primary concern of Congress was the
economic burdens placed on -
municipalities with a smaller populatfos
base over which to spread costs
general. v hen determining the’ ‘.‘“ r’-
populatfon of a municipal eurtItyiEPA
will look at the general populadon or
service population of the mnnldpal-
entity.
For the purpose of today’s rule, the
1990 Census will be used to determine
the population of counties. Service
populations will be used to determine
the population of sewage treatment
districts which, operate publicly owned
trestment 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 Slate population will
be uBed 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 populationlhresbolds.
EPA believes that tha’dlatlnction
between the populatIon of a
munidpality and the population served
by a municipal separate storm sewer
system is appropriate and was Intended
by Congress. In the November 10, 1990
rulemaking. EPA noted inter-jurisdiction
complexities associated with municipal
governments developing controls for
storm water into such large ani 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 entities.
“For example, if. dlat,4ct with. commulad,.
sarvm, population of njyvi operatss iwn aswage
treutmeni plants. one of which serves W I
the othe, which saveua 5O . both plant. will be
considered to baa facility that I. owned or operated
by a municipality with, population of mILOm or
mole.
‘Under this epproach. AwnsiM has. the
population of facilities opersted by a Slit. DOT on
the entire Stats population rather than the
population of the local svernment entity with land
use authority (e .g. city, town, township, county) in
which the facility is physIcally located. EPA
believe, that this approach is appropriate because
the State DOT facility will typically be opentsd
fairly Independently of the local government entity
with land iii. authority and the mstor revenue
sources of the Stat. DOT are State .wid. (such as
gssollne taxes).
2. Unoontrollad gIa gi fflla
Section W68(4d.*s 11 — ortation
Act provsd t en ined or
operated by a’________ b a’
population aliens t1a*,1 ether
than an airport, poiuerp1 ir’
uncontrolled sanitary hirerifiht ate not
required to apply for permit applications
at this time unless a permit Is required
under either section 402(pXZ) (A) or (E)
of the CWA.
Section 1068(d) of the Transportation
Act defines the term Nuncontrolled
sanitary landfill” to mean a landfill or
open dump, whether In operation or
closed, that does not meet the
requirements for ninoa and runoff
controls established pursuant to subtitle
D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Today’s action codifies this definition at
40 CFR 122.28(b)(15).
On October 9, 1991. (56 FR 50978),
EPA publiahed criteria for solid waste
disposal facilities. Including municipal
solid waste landfills (MSWLFs),
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 alL WLF units are
required undir Pft 256’-5 to design.
construct and , us.l6 a 4 n a runon control
system to preventftw deto the active
portion of the M alt.duzlng the
peak discharge froma 25 yenr storm. In
addition, all MSWLF imits are required
to design. construct, and maintain a runS
off control system from the active
portion of the landfill to collect and
control at least the water volume
resulting from a 24-hour, 2$-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(a), which provides that all
MSWLF units must be operated In
compliance with NPDES requ irements. t 5
Any discharges of a nonpoint source of
‘polution 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
“The October 9. 1995 rule clarified that the
subtitle 0 requIrements cali for the collection and
control of runoff from the active poillon of MSWLP
Units, but do not require that the collected runoff be
sampled or treated. This was because when the
notice was issued. EPA was in the process of
implementing NPDF.S requirements fur stonn water
discharge, associated with ,ndustnal activity from
landfills. In the October 9 1am notice EPA
explained that the NPDES permit under the CWA
would be the appropnate mechanism for ensuring
thet point source discharges of ninofT from MSWLFI
are protective of human health and the environmen ,
see October 9. 1991. 56 FR 510541)

-------
Federal Registmr Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday, April 2. 1992 / Rules and
11411
effective date for these requirement. are
October 9. 1993.
Operators of landIilla that are owned
or operated by.. municipality with a
population of loss than 1 V with a
storn water disr 4 i*rge asasciated with
industrial activity ’ 0 that are . -
wicon oUed mua submit en NPD
permit applicatio* for their discharge. or
obtain coverage under an appropriate
general periniL
EPA remains concerned about the
risk, to surface water quality posed by
landfills.” The Agency wants to clarify
that storm water discharges from
landfill, that aie owned or operated by
a municipality with a population of less
than 100.000 can still be required to
-obtain an NPDES permit even where
they ale In compliance with subtitle D
requirement. where they aie designated
under section 402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA
as needing an NPDES permit because
they are significant contributors of
pollutants to waters of the United States
or they contribute to a violation of a
water quality standard.
Ill. Economic Impact
EPA has prepared an Information
Collection Request (I ) for the pwpose
of estimating the information collethon
burden imposed on Federal. Stale and
local governments and Industry by
todays revision, to requirements to
submit annual monitoring reports.
minimum notice of intent (NO!)
requirements for NPDES general
“The existleg !sndfiil attaila In pail mr
efi lani U. except Those covered by the revised
O ’It.na In pail 255. wtifth . ess . . .. .Jdpal
landfill, which receive household hazardous wastes
or ha J ...s from semS quantity
genaratore. Sy emuueL lbs P r riistovy
definition of storm wale, discharge aaociated
with industilal activity addresse, landfill. the*
receive or have received any Industrial wastes
(waste. . ...Ji .J be. say of lb. udse
fauilu ,saddsuomd hy Ito i lssery -“-- — c i
stoles waist t 5acbaiges .—tud with 1a el
O R1as.a (bXi,fl. -
“Bmfacs mate,
35. la3Isd _ aoadmestu
disposal faolZ ,h a4l . 0
‘A noted that stat. hmp.. tL date. nsa. study
ovtJs . , eèar.ttwl flon studi lb.
— dded lbol . h hce that
‘ , . ‘ — -
a tyaMthat
Older lstu 1. are almost opac..
d.y may hive received liege volumes of
hazardous In geiumul. th.frus. of destet
control. I Steno . ..,. ..i .4 that ci
the I.1 munIcipal sMid walls landfill. which
monitored discharges to mufav. w. . en
cited far ,sefses water Inipsetu !PA belts,.. that
newer and fat .. athd musts Isadillh, may premot -
low,, jud. b’ . — .,bt*deC kp
most h .za,daus arsateoutaf .ol4
In .ddlilou. destge ceetrate I,, solid mosts 5 4Al’ .
las,. Imp ,ovsd. em v .p l.J tOl....Il.... . to
impics. with lbs ip — - - olouhutt. 0
requl. . .tu (.se Oatsbur Ion ( fl fl.
permits. and for States to submit State
Storm Water Permitting Plans. . -
EPA estimates that the total annual
cost of complying with the ravised..
monl(orh $ reporting requlrementL for
storm water discharges li’$1Z7 *.
The Agency estimates that tdda ’iñile
multi hi a annual rdud1mtIub stIt
the regulated communft of *8.973.520
over the prior regulatory Tequfretnenl
EPA estimates that the annual costs of
complying with NO! submissions
required by NPOES permits to be
8282.348. However. EPA believes that
today’s rule will notlnczease the
existing burdens of complying with NO!
requirement..
EPA esj 4 ’ ’ s that the annual costs to
State governments and EPA of
reviewing monitoring reports for storm
water discharges Is 3135.158. The
Agency estimates that the annual costs
to States and EPA of reviewing NO!. is
$210,919. However. EPA believes that
today’s rule will not increase the
existing burdens of reviewing NOls.
EPA estimates the total annual costs of
preparing and reviewing State Storm
Water Permitting Plans to 3351.848
IV. Executive Ø
Executive Order 12293 requires EPA
and other agencies to p uum regulatory
analyses of major regulations. Major
regula flons are thou wIt Impose a
cost on the economy of $100 million or
more annually orMwepeilaln other
economic impacts. Todays regulatory
amendments geematly make the NPOES
permit applications more flexible and
less bur nanm. for the regulated
commwilty...These iegulath,ns do not
satisfy any of the criteria specified In
section 1(b) of the Executive Order and.
as such, do not constitute a major rule.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) for review.
V. Papos... .L Reduction Act
The Information requirements In this -
rule have been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (0MB)
under provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C 3501 etsaq. and
have been assIgned 0MB Coáfrd --
number oeo-com.’ -
Public reporting burden for thfs
collection of Infoimadon I. estimated to
average 17.40 hour, per response. sri
increase of 1.50 hours. This includes
time for rgvlcwL Instructions.
seaijilug exiSting data sources.
gathering the data needed. and
completing and reviewIng the cdU ctioa.
of Information. The 17AI figure Is an
average for all discharger. under the
NPDES program. Including POTWs.
- lndus rIsl Pr p ’ ( Inl .r water
dischargers. for storm water
• dlschargers, the ëb irden per
respons will deompse b) 8 hours per
repondenL -.- ;, .
Send cossnentsrsgerdhj 1be burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of hifocmathm. including
suggestions fo reducing this burden. to
Chief. Information Palicy Branch. PM-
223Y. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW. Washington.
DC 20480 and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Office of Management and Budget.
Washington, DC 20503. marked
“Attention: Desk Officer for FPA.
VL Regulatory }1&iv h ty Ad
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5
U.S.C. 601 at seq.. EPA as 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 subtian’tal nwriber of small
entities.
Today’s amendments to the
regulations would generally make the
NPOES regulations more flexible and
less burdensoina for permittees
Accordingly. I hereby certify. purau int
to 5 U.S.C. 005(b)..that these
amendments will bg t b vea sIgnificant
• Impact on a .ubstan 1a!number of small
entities. .
VU. APA Requirements
The amendments to permit
application deadlines for storm dter
discharges a8soc lated with industriel
activity from facilities owned or
operated by municipalities are being
adopted without notice and comment.
As they merely codify the provisions of
section 1068 of the lnterznodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,
they constitute Interpretive rules for
which notice and comment I. not
required. EPA requested comment on
the Issue of the inliaimum number of
facilities that must submit sampling data
in a group application In a December 7.
1988 notIce (53 FR 49418). AdditionaL
notice and cointripiat Is not required for
the clarification to the group application
regulations made In today s rule because
the Agency has already taken comment.
on this issue and todays action only
clarifies the approach that was intended
by the November 16. 1990 rule.
List of Suhf ,cls In 41 CFR Pert 122
Administrative practice and
procedure. Environmental protection.
Reporting and record keeping

-------
11412 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday. April 2, 1992 / Rules ______
requirements. Water pollution conlrol,
General permits. Storm water.
Authority: Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251
e seq.
Dated: March 1992.
William K. Redly,
Administrt,tor.
For the reasons stated In the
preamble. title 40 of the Code of
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS, ThE NATIONAL
POWJTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authorlty Clean Water Act. 33 USC. 1251
at seq.
Subpart B—Permit Application and
Special NPDES Program Requirements
*122.26 (AmendidI
2. Section 122.28 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(15). and revising
paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D). (e)(1). (eJ(2)(i).
(e)(2j(iii) and (e)(2fliv) to read as
follows:
* 122.26 Storm water diacherges
(applimble to S to NPDES programs, S..
*123.2 5 ).
• . S S S
(b) ’ ’ -
(15) Uncontrolled sanitary landfill
means a landlil or open dump, whether
In operation or closed, that does not
- meet the requirements for runon or
runoff controls established pursuant to
subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
(c) 5 ’ 5 -
(i)
(D) For groups of more than 1.000
members, identify at least 100
dischargers participating In the gftup -
application from which quantitotive
data will be submitted. Pot groups of 100
or more members, Identify a minimum of
ten percent of-the discharger.
participating In the group application
from which quantftstfve data will be
submitted. For groups of between 21 and
99 members Identify a minimum of ten
dlsckergre participating in the group
application from which quantitative
data will be submitted. For groups of 4
to 28 members, identify a minimum of 50
percent of the dischargers participating
in the group application from which
quantitative data will be submitted. For
groups with more than 10 members.
either a minimum of two diachargera
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 identified to submit quantitative-
data. For groups of 4 to 10 niataheri , at
least one facility In each pzedpIta n
zone indicated in appendix Eof this part
In which members of the group are
located must be Identifed to submit
quantitative data. A description of why
the facilities selected to perform
sampling and analysis are
representative of the group as a whole in
terms of the Information provided in
paragraphs (c)(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
S S S
(e) ‘
(1) Individual applications. (I) Except
as provided in paragraph (e)(1)(u) of this
section, for any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity
identified in paragraphs (b)(14) (i)
through (xi) of this section, that is not
part of a group application as descri bed
In paragraph (c)(2) of this section or
which is not authorized by a storm
water general permit, permit
application made pmiuant to paragraph
(C) of this section shall 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
municipality with a population of less
than 100,000 other than en airport.
powerpiant. or uncontrolled sanitary
landfill, permit applications
requirements are reserved.
(2)’
fi) Port I. (A) Except as provided in
paragraph (e)(2)(iJ (B) 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 less 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 less
than 100.000 other than an airport.
powerplant. or uncontrolled sanitary
landfill, permit applications
requirements are reserved.
(ill) t2. (Alif à-4nrevided in
paragraph (e)(Z)fili)(B) ef this section,
part 2 of the app! tiotishitil-be
submittted to Office of
Wastewater u.- —---’--l
Complianc. by OcwbarI
(B) Any mzmidpeIftyiiIth
population of less than 250,000 shell not
be required to submit a part I
application before May17, 1993.
(C) For any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity from
a facility that Is owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of less
than 100.000 other than an airport.
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 subini: 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 .ire
rejected as members of part I group
application shall submit an mdi ’. idual
application no laterthan 180 da s after
the date of recetpt of the notice of
rejection orOctober 1. 1992, whichever
is later
S
2a. Section 122.28 l s amended by
redesignating current paragraph (b)()
as (b)(3) and by adding a new paragraph
(bj(2) to read as follows:
§ 122.28 General permits (apptlcabte to
state NPOES programs, see * 123.25).
. . S S
(b)
(2) Authorization to discharge. or
authorization to engage in sludge use
and disposal practices. (I) Except as
provided to paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and
(b)(2)(vi) of this section, dlschargers (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 practicej. under the
terms of the general permit unless the
general permit. in accordance with
paragraph (bfl2)(v) of this section,
contains a provision that a notice of
intent Ia not required or the Director

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 04 I Thursday. April 2. 1992 1 Rules and Regulations
11413
notifies a discharger (or treatment Works
treating domestic sewage) that it Is
covered by a general permit in
accordance with paragraph (b)(Zllvi) 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
II 122.8. 122.21 and 122.26.
(ii) The contents of the notice of intent
shall be specified in the general permit
and shall require the submission of
Information necessary for adequate
program implementation. including at a
minimum, the legal name and address of
the owner or operator. the facility name
and address, type of facility or
discharges, and the receiving stream(s).
General permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from inactive mining. inactive
oil and gas operations. or inactive
Landfills occurring on Federal lands
where an operator cannot be identified
may contain alternative notice of intent
requirements. All notices of intent shall
be signed in accordance with § 122.22.
(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.
(iv) General permits shall specify
whether a discharger (or treatment
works treating domestic sewage) that
has submitted a complete and timely
notice of Intent to be covered in
accordance with the general permit and
that is eligible for coverage under the
permit. Is authorized to discharge. (or in
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) Dischargee other than discharges
from publidy owned treatment works,
combined sewer overflows. primary
Industrial facilities, and storm water
dlachi&rges associated with industrial
activity. may, at the discretion of the
Director. be authorized to discharge
under a general permit without
submitting a notice of Intent where the
Director finds that a notice of intent
requirement would be inappropriate. In
making such a finding, the Director shall
considen the type of discharge: the
expected nature of the discharge: the
potential for toxic and conven’lqnal
pollutants in the dlschargee: the
expected volume of the dlschszgee:
other means of identifylng.di.chsrges
covered by the permit and the
estimated number of discharges to be
covered by the permit. The Director
shall provide in the public notice of the
general permit the reasons for not
requiring a notice of intent
(vi) The Director may notify a
discharger (or treatment works treating
domestic sewage) that it is covered by a
general permit. even if the discharger (or
treatment works treating domestic
sewage) has not submitted a notice of
Intent to be covered. A discharger (or
treatment works treating domestic
sewage) so notified may request an
individual permit under paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of this section.
• • • • S
122.28 lAmended)
3 in redesignated paragraph
1Z2.28(b)(3)(ii). the reference; “(b)(Z)(i)”
is revised to read “(b)(3)(i)”.
4. In paragraph 122.28(c)(3). the
reference; “IZZ.Z8(b)(2)(i) (A) through
•• is revised to read “122.28(b)(3)(i) (A)
through (C)”
Subpart C—Permit Conditions
5. Section 122.44 is amended by
revising paragraph (i)(2) and adding
paragraphs (i)(3) through (i)(S) to read as
follows:
• 122.44 Establl.hlng Umitationu,
standards , and other permit condition.
(app IcabIs to Stat. NPOES programs, .se
* 123.25).
• S • •
(I)
(2) Except as provided iii 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 th. sewage sludge use or
disposal practice: minimally this shall
be as specified M-W Rpart 503
(where appliceble), bet Au no case less
than once a year.
(3J Require .ts tor port monitoring
multi for storm wat discharges
associated with Industrial activity which
are subject to an effluent limitation
guideline shall be established on a case-
by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge, but in no case less than
once a year.
(4) Requirements to report monitori i
results for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activit, other
than those addressed in paragraph (‘113)
of this section) shall be established on a
case-by-case basis with a frequeric
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge At a minimum, a perm:!
for such a discharge must require
(U The discharger to conduct an
annual inspection of the facility site t.
identify areas contributing to a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity and e aluate wheihe’
measures to reduce pollutani loadiriic
identified in a storm waler pollution
prevention plan are adequdte dfld
properly implemented in accorc inn ’
with the terms of the permit or w
additional control measures are nei de
(ii) The discharger to mairu in for .-i
period ofthreeyears a record
summarizing the results of the
inspection and acortification 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 12222 anu
(iv) Permits for storm water
discharges associated with industri .l
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(l) (1), (4). (5). and (6) at least
annually.
• . .
(FR Doc 92—727 Filed 4-1-02. 845 urn)
Siwilo COOC sseo-eo’a

-------
9724
Federal Register /Vol . 57.No. 55 I Friday. March 20. 1992 I 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’s
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
fallow zone will be 20 ft. wide and will
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 CGI’s standard
process, these varieties may be stab-
inoculated in the field using a
suspension of Cxc/Bt. CGI’s 1992 field
tests are designed: to evaluate activity
of Cxc/Bt constructions against the
European corn borer (ECB). Ostrinia
nubilalis (Hubner) in Maryland and
Nebraska: and to evaluate the
segregation of Cxc/Bt constructions.
Upon completion of the tests, all plant
debris and stubble will be buried by
disking. Harvested grain will be
destroyed by either (1) Grinding the
harvested grain, spreading the residue
onto the test site, and incorporating 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—EUP—2). 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 gloves. 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.
Stephanie R. Irene,
Acting Director. Registml,on Division. Office
of Pesticide Pmgrams.
[ FR Doc. 92-8544 Filed 3-19-92 8:45 aml
n .m
(FRL4II6-8l
Revision of the Connecticut National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program to Add
Authortty to issue General Permit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Fumigation System General Permit
Program of the State of Connecticut .
SUMMARY: On March 10. 1992. the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region I approved the State of
Connecticut’s National Pollutant
Discharge ciimiriation System General
Permit Program. This action authorizes
the State of Connecticut to issue general
permits in lieu of individual NPDES
permits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACY:
Edward K. McSweeney. Chief,
Wastewater Management Branch.
Water Management Division. U.S. EPA.
Region L John F. Kennedy Federal
Building. Boston. Massachusetts. 02203.
(617) 565—3580. -
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide [ or the issuance of general
permits to regulate discharges of
wastewater which result from
substantially sunilar 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.
Connecticut was authorized to
administer the NPDES Permit program in
1973. Its program is previously
approved, did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
are several categories of discharges
which could appropriately be regulated
by general permits 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 subiect to
EPA review as provided by 40 CFR
123.44. Public notice and opportunity to
request a hearing is also prnvided for
each general permit.
H. 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 has adequate
legal authority to administer a general
permit program consistent with the
applicable federal regulations. 1 Based -
upon Connecticut’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 administer the general
permits program.
Under 40 CFR 123.62. NPI)ES 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 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 of State NPDES permitting
authority throughout the country.
Today’s Federal Register notice is to
announce the approval of Connecticut’s
authority to issue general permits.

-------
Federal Register f Vol. 57. No. 55 I Friday. March 20. 1992 I Notices 9725
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
Apgroved
Stale NPOES
Demle
ogiim
AWcved to
regulat.
Federal
fantaiss
A89rOved
Stat.
eamiers
pragrani
AC 7 ed
“
‘°
Alabama...................... ..............._..,_.........__.
10119179
10119179
10/19/79
06126191
Afliansaa....___..
11/01/86
05/14/73
11/01/86
05/05/78
11/01/86
09/22/89
11101/88
09/22/89
Calif o’v iia_. ........ ..... .. ...
Colorado ._..._._. - — ._
Corinecbcut...._...... ..... ...__......_........_...
Oetaware... ..
03 /27175
09/26/73
04101174
—
01/09/89
—
—
06/03/81
—
03/04/83
03/10/92
—
Georgia ..._._....
06/26/74
12/08/60
03/12/61
01/28/91
tiawas. . .. .__.._.. ..
11/28/74
06/01/79
08/12/83
09/30/91
Illinois —— ..._.......__..
tndiana.......... ..
IOwa....
10/23/77
01/01175
08/10/78
06/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
09/20/79
12/09/78
08/10/78
06/28/65
09/30/83
11/10/87
—
—
06/03/81
—
09/30/83
09/30/85
01/04/84
04/02/91
—
—
09/30/83
09/30/91
...
Kansas .. .._____________
Kerm ol Iy._ . ....
Malyfand. . . .—._... .. . _. _________
Michigan .._ ...
10/17173
12/09/78
06/07/83
—
Minnesoto ..
06/30/74
12/09/78
07/16/79
12/15/87
Missisaiggu..
05/01l74
01/28/83
05/13/82
09/27/91
. .
10/30/74
06/26/79
06/03/61
12/12/85
Neb gka...... .__ ._
Nevada ..
.. .. _
plow vois...._.._..___........_._..._._.__......._...._..._....._.._........_.
Norm Ca o a l ls.....__._...._._.................... —
Norm Oaiiota_______________________ . ... .__..
Ohio. —. — .—-———-—-— ....
Oregon. ... .
Pen n sylva nia .___ _._____
06/10/74
06/12174
09/19/75
04/13182
10/26/75
10/19175
06/13/75
03/11/74
09/26/73
06/30/7
06/28/61
11/02/79
08/31/78
04/13/82
06/13/60
09/28/84
01/22/90
01/25/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
—
09/07/64
—
04/13/82
06/14/82
—
07/27/83
03/12/91
—
04/29(83
07/20/89
—
04/13/82
09/06/91
01/22/90
—
02/23/82
08/02/91
Rhode Island.___________________________ .___.___ ... .
09/17/64
09/17/84
09/17/64
09/17/84
South Carolins.. _...... .....................
06/10/75
09/26/80
04/09/82
—
Tennessee... . .
Utah — . ...._
VeimoiS -—
Wq ini s l e i ..
Wgmua.
Wasiwigea .
West Vigirsa
.
Wyoming
12126/77
07/07/87
03/11/74
06/30/76
03/31/75
11/14173
05/10/82
02/04/74
01/30/75
09/30/86
07107/87
—
—
02/09/82
—
05/10/82
11/26/79
05/16/81
08/10/83
07/07/87
03/16/82
—
04/14/89
09/30/86
05/10/82
12/24/60
—
04/18/91
07/07/87
—
—
05/20/91
09/26/89
05/10/82
12/19/86
09/24/91
39
34
27
29
Total Annual Responses: 1.325.
Number of Fully Authonzed (Federal Permit Program merely provides a Management and Budget a request for
Facilities. Pretreatment, General permit) simplified administrative process. 0MB review of the information
21.
Dateé March 13. igg . collection system described below.
W. Review Under Executive Order Paul K.OU h. Type of Review: Extension of the
2.2251 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act AcungRegionalAdmth:slrator. expiration date of a currently
The Office of Management and Budget (FR Doe. 92-8545 Filed 3-19-92. &45 amj approved collection without any
has exempted this rule from the review , coct saas.ao -u change in the substance or method of
requirements of Executive Order 12292 ___________________________________ collection.
pursuant t§lon 8(b) of that Order. Title: Application for a bank to (1)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE establish a branch. (2) move its main
EPA is required top p a Regulatory CORPORATION branch, or (3) establish a remote
Flexibility Analysis for all rule, which service facility.
may have a significant Impact on a Information CoIIctIon Submitted to Form Number None (letter applicationi.
substantial number of small entitles. OMO for R.vI.w 0MB Number 3084-0070.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the AGINCY Federal Deposit insurance pirr2tton Date of 0MB Clearance:
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 Corporation. May 31. 1992.
ci seq), I certify that this State General Ac ’T1060 Notice of information collection Respondents: Insured state nonmember
Permit Program will not have a submitted to 0MB for review and banks applying for FDIC a consent to
significant impact on a substantial approval under the Paperwork establish and operate new branches.
number of small entitles. Approval of Reduction Act of move main offices or branches, or
the Connecticut NPDES State General establish remote service facilities.
Permit Program establishes no new $UMMARV In accordance with Frequency of Response: On occasion.
substantive requirements, nor does it requirements of the Paperwork Number of Respondents: 1.325.
alter the regulatory control over any Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. chapter Number of Responses per Respondent:
industrial category. Approval of the 35), the FDIC hereby gives notice that it 1.
Connecticut NPDES State General has submitted to the Office of

-------
11993

-------
59724
Feikral Ragii*er I VoL 58, No. 21 I Wivh sday November 10, 1993 1 P *kns
unspecified kEatlons In southern
Florida and Champaign. flhlnoin.
Edhozartha iedis spores will be
inoculated into 10 to 25 percent of the
water containers at each’test site. T
sites will be isolated Train other
potential mn qu1th bieeding areas to
minimize Edhozardia aedis spread from
the test areas. Larvae, pupae and adult
mosquitoes (target and nontarget
species) will beexamiiied for
prevalence end spread of infection.
Following the 6—month test period, the
container (golf Cm l tires) ’wiH be
demised with ‘sodium hypochionle to
kill the Edhozor’fto aedis,
Dated: Septamber 20. 1993
Lawrence E. Cufirsu .
Aaingflirscror.Regssuntos Qwzswe. 4qce
of Pess xideProgmma.
IFR Dec. 93-27706 F 1ed 3-6-93. 8.45 am
sau.a.o oms lees es I ’
(OPP-1 SOSCO; FRI. 4742-3]
Ra eip1 olAppAsuden s Emergency
Exemption to ens Hy ’ci;
SolicItation 01 Pethilo Comment
AGE1 CT: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACflOIL Notice.
SUUM*RV EPA has received a specific
exemption request from the Wyoming
Department of Agriculture (hereafter
referred to as the Applicantl br use
of the fungicide Tachigaren 70 WP
Hymexazol as a seed treatment to
cuntrvl sugarbeet seedling d’L e c
caused by Aphanoinyces cochlioides. If
approved. application ofhymaxazol
would occur in Wyoming and the
treated sugarbeet seed would be planted
in Minnesota and North Dakota. In
accordance with 40 0’R 16624. EPA is
soliciting public comment hefmu
making the decision whether or not to
grant the pUen.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November28. 1993.
AooRcs5’ ’ Threscopies of written
comments. bearing the identification
notation “OPP —lgOgOL” shoi 1d 1i
submitted by mail tm Public Response
and Human Rasourue Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St.. SW..
Washington. DC 20460. In person.
bring comments to: Rm. 1128. Crystal
Mall #2. 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA. Information submitted ‘in
any comment concerning this aotice
may be claimed confidential by mt r ing
any part or all of that information as
“Confidential Business Information. ”
Information so marked wili not be
disclosed avr r in w d nca with
procedures sat forth in 40 (YR pail 2.
A copy of thsenm t that does eet
contain Confl’ ”ml &esinesm
Information must be provided by the
submitter for inclusion hi the public
record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed p.ihhdy
by EPA without prior notice. All wriUen
comments filed pursuant to this notice
will be available for 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, UI ,.U A legal holidays.
FOR FURThER 1IFORMA1ION NTACT: By
mail: Larry Fried. Registration Division
(7 50 5W), Office of Pesticide Programs ,
Enviromnerdal Protection Agency. 401
M St. SW. Washington, D.C. 20460.
Office location and telephone nuinben
6th Floor, Crystal Station 1.2800
Jefferson Davis Highway. Arlington. VA
22202, (703—308-83281.
SUPPLEMmITARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to sectIon 18 of the Federal Ins , .ctidde .
Fungicide, and Rodeeticide Act (FIFRA)
(7 USC. 136p), the Adiniiirslmtor may ,
at her discretion, exempt a State ag . . ..j
from any registration provision of
FWRA if she determine, diet a.... . .cy
conditions exist which require ouch
exemption. The Applicant has requested
the Administrator to issue a specific
exemption for the use of the fungicide
hymeimeel, available as Taduigareu 70
WP Fungicid. hem Sankyo Company,
Ltd., to control seedling disease, caused
by A phanomycee eochfloides on up to
60.000 units of seed. Information in
accordance with 40 OR part 166 was
submitted as part of this request.
According to the Applicant, seedling
disease has become a serious p.. bLrn . in
the cegarbeet growing areas of
Mltuiesota mid North Dakota duneg the
past few years due to abnormally wet
spring growing conditions which
facilitated the transmission of
Aphanomyces cochiloides. According to
the Applicant, there are no
economically or environmentaLly
feasible alternative practices Lhat could
adequately address this situation. No
seed treatment fungicides are te i lar 4
for control of this disease on sugarbeet.
If ap 1 ruv d . all seed would be treated
in commercial seed treatment plants
designed fovprocessingofpslleted
sugarbeet seed. Tachigaren 70 WP
would be applied at a rate of 45 grams
per unit of pelleted sugarbeet seed. A
maximum of one application parseed
lot would be allowed. A planting rate of
approximately one soil of seed perece
would equal approximately 60.000 units
of seed treated. Approximately 4.167
pounds of active ingredient (a.i..) would
hi utilized. The .pp ” intends to v,
Tathigame 70 WP for i. If tins
thon 18 isappni sd.___
This n it deesnot Litttte a
decisloe byEPA on the application
Itself. Th. regulations gnverning sectir
18 require that the Agency publish a
notice of reonpi in the Federal Regrate
and solicit public comment on an
application for a specific exeâspticm
proposing use of a new chemical (Le..
an active ingredient not contained in
any aezenily registered pesticidel 440
CFR 16&24(aM IJl. Hymexenol isa now
chemicaL Accordingly, int tad
persons may submit written views on
this cithji rf to the Field Operations
Divisionat the address abeve. The
Agency will review and consider eli
comments received during the commei
period in deterurining whether :0 issue
the emergency exemption reqeened by
the Wyoming Department of
Agriculture.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Pest ic :de
and pests. Crisis exemptions.
Dated: October 7, 1993.
S1..EkIL. J — l
ActtegD &..r. Itegmbmsic. D,wrioa. 4 ce
IFE Dcc. 93—27102 FIled 11-4-93: *45 aml
— , -,a
(FRL-4793-3j
Slat. of Maryland’s Submission of a
Substantial Program Revision to Its
Autivottzid National Pollutant
Olachag. Olminetion S tem
(NPOES) Prv n
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice ‘of revision, public
comment period, and opportunity to
request a public hearing.
SU ARY: TheState of Maryland has
submitted amendments to its Code of
Maryland Regulations (CX)MAR)
(adopted by the Seaetarj of the
Eowonment on May 6, 1993)
(hererna2ev the Maryland Regulation
Envisions) to EPA for review as a
revision to the State’s authonzed
adonal Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Under CX)MAR 26.00.03 Discharge
Limitations. the State is adopting
section .07. and under COMAR 26.08.04
Permits the State is adopting section
02-1. EPA has determined that the
Maryland Regulation Revunon
constitutes a suintantlal revision to
Maryland’s authorized NPDES prcginal.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 216 / Wednesday, November 10, 1993 / Notices
59725
. cccrdingly, EPA requests public
mment and is providing notice of an
ipportunity to request a public heanng
un the submitted regulation pursuant to
,o CFR 123.62(b) and part 25. EPA seeks
;iublic comments on whether to approve
jr disapprove the revisions to
tarvIand ’s authorized NPDES program.
nd a public hearing will be held if
:tiere is significant public interest based
on the requests received. Copies of the
tryland Regulation Revisions are
a’iailable for public inspection as
1 ndicated below.
ATES Comments and/or requests for
public hearing must be received before
December 5.1993.
soDRESSEES: Comments should be
addressed to Denise Hakowski. US.
EPA. Region III. 3WM55. 841 Chestnut
Street. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
19107.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT
Denise Hakowski, (215) 597—8242, at the
above address.
suPPt.EMENTARY NFORMAflON: Section
402 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
assume NPDES program responsibilities
upon approval by EPA. On September 5,
1974. Maryland received approval from
EPA to assume the NPDES program; the
State then received the authority to
administer the following NPDES
programs 6789on the dates indicated:
the Pretreatment Program on September
30. 1985; the Federal Facilities Program
on November 11. 1987: and the General
Permits prograni on September 30. 1991.
EPA has issued regulation in 40 Q R
part 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
:litiate a program revision and must
keep EPA informed of proposed
. nodifications to its regulatory authority.
In June 1993. the State of Maryland
submitted its regulation revisions for
fornal review by EPA. Under
123.62(b)(1) , a state program submittal
us complete whenever the State submits
‘uch documents as EPA determine are
necessary under the circumstances. In
;his instance. EPA has determined that
the state submission is complete.
Section 123.62(b)(2) requires EPA to
:ssue public notice by publication in the
Federal Register and in newspapers
having Statewide coverage, and to
provide a period of public comment of
at least 30 days whenever the Agency
determines that a program revision is
substantial. EPA has determined that
the 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 COMAR 26.08.03 that adopt
requirements for technology-based
whole effluent toxicity testing. The
revision also adopts Regulation .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 Increased
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 tubeg 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
Regulationbvision 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 (7R 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
Hakoweki at the above address or
telephone number.
Dated; October 29. 1993.
Alvin R. Morris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Environmental Protection Agency. Region ilL
(FR Doc. 93—27602 Filed 11—9—93; 8:45 amni
aumo coos
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
IDA 93—1334; CC Docket No. 80-2581
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 Curler
Bureau. FCC, at (202) 632—7500, or Gary
Seigel. Common Carrier Bureau. FCC. at
(202) 634—1861.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Cites,
Acting Seczetazy.
(FR Doc. 93—27804 Filed 11—9—93; 8:45 aml
S LDIS COOS 1112-01-N
(Report No.1984)
Petitions for Reconsideration of
Actions In Rulemaking Proceedings
November 5. 1993.
Petitions for reconsideration have
been filed in the Commission
rulemaking proceedings listed in this
Public Notice and published pursuant to
47 CFR 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(bXl)). Replies to an opposition
must be filed within 10 days after the
time for filing oppositions has expired.
Subjecf Implementation of Sections of
the Cable Television Consumer

-------
53200
Federal Register! VoL 53. No. 197 / Thursday. October 14, 1993 1 Notices
The following eligilñlity requirements
apply to both the general solidtatlon
and targeted a i1 ut (RFAsL
— and nanp . fit th flthnes
located In the U.S., and stats en local
governments are eligible m’ 1 — all
misting a h 4 1nii . P t.m.klng
finns are eligible only under certain
laws, and then under resth ve
conditions, Including the absence of any
profit from the project.
Potential applicants who are
uncertain of their AIIg MRIy should
study the restrictive langiing of the law
governing the area of research interest or
contact EPA ’s Grants Operations Branch
at (202) 280—0266.
Federal agendas and faderal
employees are not eligible to participate
In this program.
Review and
All grant applications are Initially
reviewed by the Agency to determine
their l al and administrative
acceptability.
A ptable applications are then
reviewed by an appropriate teithnw iL
review group. This review Is designed to
evaluate and rank each proposal
according to its scientific merit and
utility as a basis far in. .n4tng
Agency approval en disapprovaL Each
review group Ii composed r’ 4 ” ’ 4T y of
non-EPA scientists, mI gIT and
economists who are experts in their
respective disciplines. All reviewers are
proficient lii the te hnIriil areas that
they are reviewing. The reviewers use
the following oritarla In their reviews:
• Quality of the research plan
(including theoretical andFor
experimental design, migi Iity , and
eativity).
• Qualifications of the principal
investigator and staff Including
knowledge of relevant mth ect areas.
• Utility of the research. lacludizig
potential contribution to
knowledge in the environmental ares.
• Availability sad. adequacy of
facilities and equlp” ”s
• Budgetary justification—In
particular jusrlfleiid.im and cast requests
for equipment will be carefully
reviewed.
A summary 5 t t ma,,5 of the 4nrn4fi*
review end ntbii,nii of the
panel Is provided to each appI 4 e . i
Funding dedsions are the sole
responsibility of EPA. Grants are
selected on the basis of taiehii4 l jt,
program baIanr and budget.
Proprietary Information
By submir lng an application in
response to this solicitation, the
applicant grants EPA parml on to
share the appll’.ainii with technical
revi ..,. .. bath within and outside of the
Applications ta1nlng 1etery
or other types at rn6Aav tlal
Infor’ a44ou will be ii i 4 n 1 y
returned to the appH n withoid
review.
Funding Mechanism
For all general and targeted grants, the
funding —4 i.i’i .m will r’v” ’ of a
grant agr uct between EPA and the
redp i e
Federal grant regulation 40 C R
30.307 requires that all ents
provide a minimum of 5% of the total
project cost, which may not be taken
from Federal sources . OER will not
support a request far a deviation from
this requirement for any grant supported
by Its Research Grants Program.
Contacts
Far additional general Information on
the grants program, applicants may call
.(202) 280—7474. Applicants with
additional questions may contact the
appropriate in&vidua1 Identified in
Table I. Their address Is: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Exploratory Research (8703),
401 M Street, SW., Washington. DC
20460.
TABLE L—CONTACTS FOR NE
GENERPI. SCUCITATION
c
Phone
m
code
Biology ——

atMr.
che.vvPhyalce
at WaterISos.
En smdnq —
SQ4loea ,....J..
C ds Bishop —
Da
ayan.
Lone Sw y ....
Lens S by —
hobart Popel.
2604727
200-2606
280—7453
260—7463
200-7473
Minority Institution
Preapplicatlon assistance Is available
upon request for potential investigators
representing institutions identified by
the Secretary, Department of Education,
as Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) or the Hispanic
Msodation of Colleges and Universities
(RACUs).
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 asaL iw . contact Virginia
Broadway, U.S. EnvIronmental
Protection Agency (8701). 401 M Street.
SW., Was gton, DC 20460. (202) 260—
7864.
Dateé Odob 5, 1993.
lsbmtA.Pap.lft,
Director, Research Caurds Staff, Office of
ExpJo .wL .f Research.
lfl Dcc. 93—25228 FUed 10—13—43; 8:45 aml
coot - - -
(FRL—4789—1J
Proposed NPOES New Source General
Permit forth Western Portion of the
Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of
Mexico (GMG390000)
AGØICV Environmental Pr 4actLon
Agency (EPA).
ACIION Notice of proposed NPDES
general permit and availAhility of
supplemental draft environmental
impact statement
SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 today proposes
to issue a national pollutant discharge
elimination system (NPDES) permit for
the western portion of the outer
continental shelf (OCS) of the Cull of
Mexico. If issued as proposed. the-
permit will regulate new sources in the
Offshore Subcategozy of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source CAtlwJwy
located in and discharging pollutants to
federal waters In lease bkcks located
seaward of the outer boundary of the
territorial seaa off Louisiana and Texas.
The effluent limitations of the proposed
permit are based on new source
performance standards (NSPS), ocean
discharge oritetia. and. for waste
streams not subject to the NSPSI EPA’s
best p cfesaional judgment (BPJ) on the
bes(i vai1able control technology
economically achievable (BAT) and best
conventional technnlogy (BCI1. EPA has
prepared a supplemental draft
environmental Impact statement
(SDEISJ on proposed Issuance of this
permit. EPA Region 6 solIcits comments
on its proposal and the SD I-
DATW Written ‘ ‘ ents must be
received by November 29, 1993. The
Lafayette. Louisiana public meeting and
hearing wilibe held starting at6 p.m.
on November 16,1993. The Houston.
Texas public meeting cid bearing will
be held starting at6 p.m. on November
17. 1993.
*C SES Written comments should
be sent to:
Regional Admln1s ator, EPA RegIna 6.1445
Ross Avenue. Dallas, Tems 75202-2733.
Verbal comments may be submitted at
public meetings/hearings EPA Region 6
will hold at:
Holiday IDa lIolidome. 2032 NE.. Evangeiwe
Thruway, Lafayette, Louisiana; and

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 197 / Thursday. October 14. 1993/ Notices
53201
Holiday Inn aug Greenway Plaza. 2712
Southwest Freeway (US 59) Houston.
Texas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ms.
Ellen Caidwell (6W—PH, EPA Region 6.
1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas, Texas 75202—
2733. Telephone (214) 655—7513. A
copy of the draft peimit, an explanatory
fact sheet and/or the SDEIS may be
obtained from Ms. Caidwell. In
addition, the cunent administrative
recor4 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 (FSEISJ 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.
SUPPtEMENTARY INFORMATiON: Pursuant
to section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), 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 permiL The Agency’s use of
general NPDES permits is described at
40 G’R 122.28.
NPDES permits typically include
technology.based effluent limitations
regulating the quality of discharged
pollutants and conditions, e.g.,
requiring recordkeeplng and reporting.
necessary for enforcement of the permit.
Those limitations and conditions are
derived from EPA promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines including NSPS.
and, prior to promulgation of such
guidelines, the best professional
iudgment (BPfl of the Agency’s
technical staa 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 than published no BAT or BCT
‘ effluent limitations guid ..Iin . the
l of that permat
were established through BPJ.
Subsequently, the Agency promulgated
OAT guidelines. BC’l’ 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
GMGZ90000 at 58 FR 41474, in paltto
render it consistent with those new BAT
and BCI’ 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. net 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 sipificant site preparation
has commenced since publication of the
NSPS. but Ioes not Include exploratory
activities. To resolve problems which
might result from the lag between
promulgation of the NSPS and new
source NPPES permibi the NSPS
temporarily excludes from the
definition of “new source” new
development and production facilities
that would otliprwise be new sources If.
on the effective date of the NSPS, those
facilities were already subject to an
existing NPDES permit. e.g..
GMG29000d 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 technolo ’
based effluent limitations derived from
the NSPS for wastestreams subject
thereto and BAT and DCI ’ limitations
based on BPJ for wastestreams not
covered by NSPS. As required by CWA
section 403(c) and implementing criteria
at 40 GB part 125. subpart M, the draft
permit also includes water quality based
limitations protecting the marine
environment from degradation.
Proposed limitations for each covered
waste steam are summarized below:
Drilling Fluids
In accordance with the NSPS. the
draft permit prohibits the discharge of
drilling fluids contnining free oil
(monitored using the static sheen
method). con’ uning stock haute with
more than 3 mg kg of cadmium or I mg /
kg of mercury, cont nteg diesel oil, or
having en 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
maxunwn of 1000 bbllhr and less near
areas of biological concern.
Since 1988, Region 6 has included
OPJ technology-based limitations 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. ft 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 “no free oil” NSPS limitation
and thus proposes them as best
management practices authorized by
CWA section 402(a)(2). Second. the
Region lacks assurance the discharges
authorized by the permit would not
degrade the marine 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 sante
limits for drill cuttings as for dulling
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. U a
specific drilling fluid cannot be
diwk.vged in compliance with the
permit, cuttings removed from that fluid
may not be gIiw’K ,ged.
Produced Watsi
Based on ihe NSPS, the draft permit
imposes a monthly limit of 29 mg/I and
a maximum limit of 42 mg/I on oil and
grease in i ”ged produced water.
To implement CWA section 403(c),
the draft permit also imposes a toxicity
limit on produced water discharges.
essentially,requaring that they exhibit no
toxic effects 100 meters from the outfall
and estab1id .,, critical dilution values
for toxicity testing of produced water.
EPA derived those critical dilution
values using the RMIX1 model.
adjusted to more accurately reflect the
conditions under which Offshore

-------
53202
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 197 I Thursday, October 14, 1993 / Notices
Subcategory facilities may discharge
produced water.
After Issuance of the e detfng 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 would otherwise not
comply with the proposed toxicity
limits. When it proposed modification
of that permit. Region 8 solicited
comments bu 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
Mute 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/i andainaxlmum of 42 mg/!.
Additionally, the draft permit prohibits
the discharge of free oil as measured by
the static sheen test. This limit Is based
on BC guidelines.
As in the case of several of the
proposed conditions on drilling 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
workaver 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 B? W
authorized by CWA section 402(a)(2)
and to assure compliance with the
requirements of CWA section 403(c).
Produced Send, 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 dl tharge of sanitary
waste containing floating solids or foam.
It also prohibits the discharge of
sanitary waste with a chlorine
concentration less than 1 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
V of 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 Discharge.
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 diatomaceous 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’r or BAT based on
BPJ. Those limitations are moreover
consistent with the limits of the existing
source permit GMG290000.
All Discharges
To assure compliance with CWA
sectIon 403(c) and various proposed
effluent limits, the proposed permit also
prohibits all discharges which contain
halogenated 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. Limitations
in the final permit may vary from the
proposed limits of the draft permit asa
result of comments.
Other Legal Requirements
Oil Spills
CWA section 311, 33 U.S.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 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 CWA section 311.
Coa.stal Zone Management Act
Discharges authorized 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 it
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 plan
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
A4j iliisUation (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 Budget
(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 / Notices
53203
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
iequireinents 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 (dlccharge 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
disa.h ,irge 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 CFR part
6. subpart Fend 40 CFR 122.19(c). EPA
has determined Issuance of the
proposed permit will be a major federal
action which may significantly affect
the quality of the hilynAn environment
The environmental impacts of the oil
and gas exploration activities from
which the dlse Earges regulated by the
general permit arise have been
previously considered In a November
1992 FinaL £15 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. 1538. the
4anonai Marine Fisheries Service
[ NMFS) determined that OCS oil and
as development and production
Dperatzons were nnIik ly to jeopardize
he continued existence of any listed
ipecles under its jurisdiction. MatS
eaffirmed that opinion In connection
with Lease Sales 142/143 in 1992. The
L nited States Fish & Wildlife Service
FWS) similarly Issued no jeopardy
ptnions for OCS oil end gas operations
o 1937 and 1992. Accordingly, the
Regulator, Flexibility Act
The Regulatory F)e bility Act. 5
U.S.C. 601. et seq., requires that EPA
prepare a regulatory flixibility analysis
for regulations that have a efgniflr nt
Impact on a substantial number of ,y.all
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 6 certifies,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). that the
permit proposed today will not have a
signifi rrmpact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Myron 0. WmIA R ,
Director. WaterI farzagement DMsion. EPA
Region 8.
IFR Doe. 93-25229 FIled 10-13-93; 8.45 am)
coon
FEDERAL COMMUNICAI1ONS
COMMISSiON
Public Information Collection
Requirement Submfttsd to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
Octobw 6, 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 ( ‘ ii vni c- ” on’s copy
contractor, International Transcription
Service. Inc., 2100 M Street. NW., suite
140, WashIngton. DC 20037. (202) 857—
3800. For further Information on this
submlssion.contact Judy Boley. Federal
Communications CommIssion. (202)
632—0276. Persons wishing to comment
on this Information collection should
contact Jonas Nethardt, 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: Stale or local governments
and businesses or other for-profit
(Including small businesses)
Frequency of Response: On Occasion
reporting requirement
Estimated Annual Burden: 200
responses; 4.5 hours average burden
per response; 900 hours total annual
burden.
Needs arid Uses: Private land mobile
rhnnnels are becoming scare in many
areas. ma ng It difficult for eligible
applicants to be licensed on frequencies
that are available on an exclusive basis.
The Comm ion proposes to address
this spectrum scarcity by recycling
rJ atinnls that are not being used
effectively by the existing licenses. To
Identify these rha inels, the CommIssion
proposes to enlist the assistance of
persons who wish to be licensed, Under
the proposal. Individuals who provide
the Commitaion with Information that a
current licensee is violating certain
Rules would be granted a licensing
preference for any rhj.i ne1s recovered
as a result of that Information. The
Commismon will use the Information to
determine whether the rh nneis of the
existing licensee should be recovered
due to viblations of our Rules and
whether any recovered i4i*nnels 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 d j nnoIs
recovered on a first-come, first-served
basis without giving a preference to
persons who brought violations to the
Commission’s attention.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Catan.
Acting Secretor,.
IFR Dcc. 93—25135 FIled 10—13—93: 8:45 ami
eaLam cooe i7is-o,-e
that Order. It should be noted, however, effects of actions Interrelated to today’s
that EPA In fact obtained 0MB review .‘ permit proposal. e.g.. rig construction.
of a regulatory impact analysis preparid haveabeady been considered under
in connection with Its promulgation of section 7 and are considered part of the
the NSPS. Inciemental compliance costs “environmental baseline” in accordance
associated wIth the new-limitations the with 50 ( R 402.02.
proposed permit Imposes on Offshore Because the effluent limitations of the
Subcategory oil and gas operators were proposed permit are protective of -
considered in that review. sensitive mari ne organisms, as required
byEPA’s ocean discharge aiteria at 40
CFR part 125, subpart M. the discharge
authotImtion EPA proposes will be
itnifiralyto adversely affect listed
threatened or endangered species or
designated aitical habitat EPA Region
6 will seek written concurrence of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service In
this determination. The Services
provided aimilar concurrences in
connection with EPA’s issuance of the
less stringent November 14. 1992
existing source permit (GMG290000).

-------
49996
Federsllegfiter/ Vol. 58,No .184 Prfday,Septernber24 29G3 FNotfces
project mitigation meesures end project
mcrntonng.
Final mSa
SAP No. F-COE-E362 72-MS
Abiaca Creek Watershed Project.
Demonstration Erosion COntrol Project
and Sediment and FlOOd Control
Measures, Implementation, Yazoo
Basin. Mathews Brake National Wildilfo
Refuge. Carroll. Holmes and Lef lore
Counties, MS.
SummorT EPA had no environmental
objection to the proposed project.
SAP No. FS-AFS-L82010-a0
Pacific Northwest P ginn National
Forests Nursery Peat Control
Management Plan, New Information
concerning th.Use of AdiIiHnnnl
Chemicels at Wind River N nsery,
Giffozd Pbwhnt National Forest and
J. Herbert Stone Nwsmy. Rouge River
National Forest. Implem.”tatfcn.
several Counties, OR and
County, WA.
Summwy Review of the Final EIS has
been completed and the project found to
be satisfactory. No formal letter wee sent
to the piepanng agency.
Dated September 21.1913.
WillI s. 0. Dlckmeae,
IJeputyDi ..a . OofFedemlAcdvftien
IFR D cc. 93-43432 FIled 923-43 &45 am)
.iiss coos =
Etwironmental impact Statements;
Notice of Availability
Responsible Agency; Office of Federal
Activities, General Information (202)
260-5078 OR (202) 280-5075. Weekly
receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements Filed September 13.1993
Through September 17.1993 Pursuant
t 040aR150&9 .
HIS No.930327, FINAL EIS MS. P41 ’.
Little Snowien Vegetative
Management and Poblic The
and TbiiI Ma,u.IIentPz.4fr ,
Lewis and Clark National Forest.
Musselshell Ranger District, City of
Harlowton, Forges and Golden Volley
Counties, MT. Due: October 23,1993,
Contact: John a Gorman (408) 632-
4391.
HIS No. 930318. DRAFT US. CX)E. NC.
Fairfield Bridge Rep1aci rnent Project,
Implementation. Atlantic Intracosatal
Wateiway. Hyde County. NC, Due:
November 08. 1993. Contact Hugh
Home (919) 251—4070.
HIS No. 530319, FINAL EIS. NRC. UT.
Uranium and Thorium Byproduct
Material Disposal Project.
Construction and Operation. Licenses.
Salt Lake City. Tooele County, UT.
Due: October 25. 1993. Contact;
Myron a Fliegel (301) 504—2155.
HIS No. 930320, DRAFT SUPPL JT,
FHW. MD. Boston Street Corridor (a
part of the former 1-83 Corridor
Project) Transportation
Improvements. Chester Street to
Conklin 5 Street. Additional
Information concerning New
Alternatives Under Consideration.
Appuvil and Funding. East
Baltimore. Baltimore Cuwzty. MD.
Due: November15, 1993. Contact ;
David Lawton (410)992-4440.
FJS No.930321, DRAFT US, AFS, WA,
Pebble and Little Granite 1 mbsr
Sale.. Implementation. Mountain
Analysis Area. Okanogan National
Forest. Ton ck t. Twtsp and
Winthrop Ranger D I stride. Okanogari
County. WA. Due: November 08.
1993, Contact: Craig Bobziea (509)
998—2268..
HIS No. 930322. DRAFrEIS, Ci)E, VA,
Southeastern Public Service Autharity
of Virginia Regional Landfill
Expansion Pr . . ct . Ci)E SectIon 404
Permit Issuance. Cities of Chesapeake,
Norfolk, Portsmouth. Suffi4k and
Virginia Beach. Isle dWight and
Southampton Counties, VA, Due:
November 08, 1993, Contact: Pamela
Painter (804) 441—7854.
HiS No.930323. FINAL SUPPL 4T.
BLM. CA. Ward Valley Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.
Site Selection. Construction and
Operation. Funding and Right-of-Way
Grants, San Bernardino County, CA.
Due: October 25,1993, Contact: Dick
Johnson (918) 978-4720.
HiS No. 930324, DRAFT EIS, FAA. NJ.
Newark rntenzatioizal Airport
Installation and Operation of an
instrument Landing System on
Runway 11. F mdlng and Airport
Layout Plan Approval. Essex and
Union Counties, NJ, Due: November
08. 1993. Contact: Thomas Horn (718)
553—1505.
HIS No. 930325. FINAL US, UAF. ?&.
WUItSZUAth Air Force Base Disposal
and Reuse. Implementation, loeco
County, Ivil. Due: October25. 1993.
Coztact: LI. Cal. Gary Baumgaitel
(210)538—3869.
HIS No. 930326. FINAL US, UAF. CA.
Moody Air Farce Base Beddown of a
Composite Wing for F-b. AbA-b
and C—130 Aircraft, Implementation.
Lowndes and Lanier Counties, GA,
Due: October 25, 1.993, Contact
Stephanie Stevenson (804) 7644844.
HIS No. 930327, FINAL US, FHW. UT,
West Valley Highway Transportation
Improvement. 9000 South to 12600
South, Funding and Right-of-Way
Acquisition. Salt Lake County. UT.
Due: October 25. 1993, Contact: Roy
0. Nelson (801) 983-0184.
Dat.th Sep*amhsrZl. 1113.
WillIam 0.
Deputy Director. C ke of Federal ACt! V t!eS.
IFR Dcc. 93—23431 Filed 9—23—93; 8:45 aml
coos
(FHL 473S-8)
NPOES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity Located In th Commonwealth
of PuertoRico
: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region IL
ACTIOII Notice of final NPDES general
permit modification.
.$UMMARY The D Ljr , Water
Management Division, of the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Region U (the “Director”) is
Issuing a final pu.wut mo IiR , t nn
incorporating change. In the National
Pollutant Discharge 9ifmfn tion System
(NPDES) general iiaiuit (PBR000000J
for storm water discharges emaciated
with industrial activity located in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR). In
this action, EPA Is deleting e:dsring
quarterly monitoring requirements. to.
establi h ng baseline general permit
monitoring and reporting requirements,
making certain permit formal
organization change., establishing a
storm water sampling protocoL and
corecting some pollution prevention
plan deadline.. Also. EPA iainchading
min odiflcadons and has revised
PaffXLB c i the general permit in this
final ectio
DA1ES This general permit modification
shall be ffectlve on October 1. 1999.
ADC8ESSD The complete
adminisfrathrs record is located at the
Etivironmental Protection Agency.
Region U. Water Permits and
Compliance Branch (2WM.WPC . 28
Federal Plaza. room 845. New York,
New York 10273. In add t4nn . copies of -
th. public remrd are also av tihhla at
the EPA Region U CRr ’hh.an Field
Office. Office 2A. Podiatry Center
B 4 IdMg , 1413 Fernández Juncos
Avenue, Santurce Puerto Rico 00907.
Th. record may be inspected and copied
at the offices between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m..
Monday through Friday or by calling
EPA’s offlom mNew York at (212)284-
Z9 llorinPuertoR lcoat(8 09)729- .
6843. A re . .rnRl le fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR RiRTh V G 11ON COIITACT For
further information on the final NPDES
general permit modification contact José

-------
Federal Register F Vol. 58 . No. 184/Friday, September 24,1993 / Noilces
49997
A. Rivera or Anne K. Reynolds of EPA’ 1
New York office at (212) 264—2911.
SUPPLEME(TARY INFORMA1ION
I. Backgrmmd
II. Today’s Action
UI. Respaese to Cosuts
IV. Miner Permit Modifications
V. Economic Impact
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
VU. Reg ilatoty FlexibIlIty Act
I. 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 (58 FR 40948), end
that notice served as a request for State
401 Certification (5tFR 40991). A
specific formal request for State 401
Certification from EPA and a copy of the
draft general permit waco sent to the
Envuonmental Quality Board (EQB) of
PR on November 1, 1991.
EQS Issued on September 14, 1992
the 401 Certification awu as the
Water Quality Certificate”
(GWC ) for storm w 0 t& discharge.
associated with industrial a vity In
accordance with SectIon 401 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The special
conditions included in the CW ware
intended to asswo that a permittee of
the general permit would comply with
the applicable requirements of PR Law
and Sections 301(b)(1)(c) and 401(d) of
the CWA.I This GWQC provided, In
part. that all.permittees of the general
permit conduct quarterly monitoring
and report such results quarterly.
On September 16, 1992. EPA issued
the final NPDES general permit for
storm water discharge, associated with
industrial activity located In PR. This
permit was published in the Federal
Register on September 25, 1992 (57 FR
44438). In orderto Incorporate the 401
Certification special conditions which
were included In the CWQC, EPA’
included Part X I in th. general permit
(57 FR 44459). Part XI revised. among
others, the monitoring and porting
requirements of the general permit
consistent with the GWQC’s Special
Condition Number 13.
However, under PR procedures. the
401 Certification Issued on September
14, 1992 was reconsidered, and a
r vjsed and final 401 Certification
Sactan 401 o(th CWA piueldee Ib M no
?ede,uI Ii orp t. ffi vu i 1 j NFD
pel ua. (0 “• ‘ Say hIt7 IbM y r It In
fly dMthsip l nev*bls ws991 ubsil In
urnil the Siam wthth the dlacbezg. w r ’ ’
Cw1 (See thu ho dlathar .wlil cply with the
appII bie wl on of S Oom 301. 302,303,
2O , sad 307 of lbs CWA. Todsys flail genslil
rmIt bspI enn the ierh 401
(“revised CWQC’ was Issued 3 end
submitted to EPA on November 10,
1992: That action finalized the Stato 401
Certification 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.
Qn April 14. 1993, EPA pub ifahed in
the Federal Register a draft general
permIt modIfication (58 FR 19427)
describing a number of proposed
changes. Also, on April 15.1993, EPA
published In “El Nuevo óia” newspaper
an informal Notice advising the general
public of EPA’. Intention to modify the
baseline general permit.
EPA’. proposed chungm fall into five
broad categories. The first category
includes certain change. to Incorporate
substantive change . to the EQS’s
revised GQWC (i.e. deletion of quarterly
monitoring, and addition of coniHt1nne
regarding a to pollution prevention
plans, revision of the pollution
prevention plans, right of entry, and
estabHehn ent of monitoring on a case-
by-case basis). The second category
Involve. certain permit format!
or iini uion changes to retain the
requirements established by EQS’s 401
Certification Special Conditions No.14
and 18 (rain gauge and volume
estimates). The third category includes
certain changes to keep the sample type
conditions established in Part XL B.5 of
the general permit The fourth change
adds the EQB and EPA Caribbean FIeld
Office addresses. The fifth category
corrects polI ition prevention plans
deadlines established In Part XLB.3 of
the general permit.
The Apffl 14,1993 Federal Register
notice provided a thirty day public
comment period. In addition. EPA held
two storm water outreach gemin s in
San Juan and Mayaguez, PR on May4
and 6,1993, respectively. In those
guith .e, 5 , 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 Comm, ’wts section of
today’s notice whore EP addresses all
comments.)
IL Today’s Action
Part ‘ /111.8 of the general permit (57
FR 44456) established that permit
modifications be conducted according
S A presided the fufl I a of Spsdai Condition
No 13 ben £Q8 . erigiasi September 14. 1992
GWQC end bow the revIsed No,nobM 10.1992
qc
to 40 CFR 122.62.122.63, 1U.84 and.
124.5. In accord ance with 40 R
122.62(a)(3 )(Iii), EPA determined a
cause for modification of the general
permit EPA’s determination to modify
the general permit was based on a
modified State 401 CertIfication.
40 CFR 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 necessery to delete any
conditions based on a condition in a
certiflv nsinii invalidated by an
appropriate State board. in this Instance
EQS. On November 18, 1992, a formal
request for permit modification was
made.
In today’s notice, EPA Is finalizing the
general permit modification process.
Only those conditions of Part XLB.3, 5
and 8 of the general permit were
modified. This notice provides the
language of the final general permit
modification, includes response to
comments on the April 14, 1993
proposed permit modification and
addresses corrections to the general
—t
In addition, in order to avoid
confusion, today’s notice Includes the
complete and final version of Part XL.B
of the general permit. Permittees must
refer to Part XL.B of today’s action and
not to Part XLB of the September 25.
1992 Federal Register. The final general
permit modifications and corrections
may be found in Appendix 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 R 124(c)(2)(i). Therefore, today’s
notice Is being puhlid ed in the Federal
Register.
ilL Response to Comments
In accordance with 40 ‘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
perzzilttees and each person who has
submitted written comments (40 CFR
124.17).
In accordance with 40 CFR 124.71(a).
a formal evidentiary hearing is not
available to challenge any NPDES
general permit issued under 40 R
124.15. P zsons affected by a general
permit may not challenge the conditions
of a general permit as of right In further
agency proceedings. They may instead
either challenge the general permit in
court, or apply for an Individual NPDES
permit under 40 R 122.21 as
authorized in 40 R 122.28 end 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 r .nd Affiliation
11) Keith Tingberg. Schering-Plough
Corp
(2) John 1... Wittenborn. Jeffrey L Letter.
Jeffrey S L.ongsworth. Collier,
Shannon. Rill & Scott
(3) Maria M. Irrizary. Sigfredo Torres.
Unites States Geological Survey
The following is the response to
comments raised by the above parties:
Comment St
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) end notifies the plan’s
owner that it does not comply with a
permit condition, the plan’s owner has
no more than 60 days t make the
necessary changes and submit a written
certification of the completed revisions.
This 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 include structural
changes to a site such as the installation
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 “maitirnum 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
rewrittnM re d 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
latter “ Final dates for project
completion can then be agreed to in a
reasonable timeframe by the plan’s
owner and EQB on a case-by-case basis.
We feel that thin language change in
the proposed NPDES general permit
modification will allow this portion of
the program to result in reasonable and
achievable timefrarnes for the
completion of facility construction
projects needed to comply with any
storm water general permit condition.
Response
to response to the commentator’s
issues. EPA has discussed the comments
with EQB officials. EQB’s policy in this
matter is that if EQS reviews a pollution
prevention plan. EQB will provide
permittees 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.
EQS did not intend to establish the
sixty day period as a tlxneframe for
completing necessary structural and/or
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 Q .fl ,3 in
order to clarify EQB’s intent. Pert IV.B.3
is revised to read as follows:
“ ‘After receiving a written notification
from EQS requiring modifications to the
plan. the permitte. will have a “ ‘ 1 ”um of
sixty (60) days to make the necessary changes
to the written plan and submit a written
certification to EQS. the Regional Office and
EPA Caribbean Field Office stating that the
changes 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 XLB.2 of the general permit
incorporates Commonwealth Special
Condition IILC and reads as follows:
“If the consttuctlon of any ea ent system
of waters composed entirely of storm water
Is necessary, the permttee shall obtain the
approval from the Envuonmental Quality
Board (EQB) of the engineering report. plans
and specifications.”
In the event that a specific Best
Management Practice (BMP) is required
by EQS. perinittees 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
policy when EPA decides to obtain.
review and require changes to pollution
prevention plans. In Part XLB.3. EPA
revises Part IV (storm water pollution
prevention plane) of the baseline general
permit Pert 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
IV.B.3. the Director, or authorized
representative:
“may notify the permittee at say time that
the pies does not meet one or more of the
minimum requirements of this Part
(pollution prevention plan requusmentsl.
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 isici
modifications in order to meet the minimum
requirements of this Part. Within 30 days of
such notification from the Direcfor, (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 th. requested changes have
been made
EPA believes that a 30-day period will
be sufficient for rnanr 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
modifications, 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 skn plan. EPA will provide the
perinittee with 30 days of notification to
modify the poilution 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 180 days to implement and
comply with the required requirements.
For both cases, the pemmttee shall
submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made.
Comment 52
A second comment from the
commentator deals with monitoring
requirements imposed by the baseline
general permit For facilities required 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 RaglstIL / Vol. 58, No. 184 1 Friday. September 24. 1993 / NotIces
4g999
Response
EPA believes that the monitoring
requirements are rs srmshle. that the
sampling results will be useful in the
Lmpiementation of the tiered permitting
strategy? and that the sampling results
will allow for evaluation of the
effectiveness of pollution 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 deer 4texia for
reduction or elimination of monitoring
requirements. For these reasons. EPA
will not change the general permit
•equirements in response to this
:ommenL
In addition. EQB s November 10. 1992
•evised GWQC Special Condition
4umb& 13.d references EPA’s baseline
;eneral permit monitoring requirements.
rherefore. maintenance of the baseline
‘nonitoring iequirements is necessary to
ncorporate the PR 401 CertificatIon.
:ezz eiit #3
Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott
.ubmitted comments on behalf of the
ollowing clients with approved group
ermit applications with member
acilities in the Commonwealth of
‘uerto Rico: Chemical Specialties
4anufacturers Association (‘CSMA”—
;roup #619), National Juice Products
‘ ssoaation (“NJPA”—Group 1789) and
‘ational Tank Thick Gathers. Inc.
NTrC”—Group 5790). GSMA. NIPA
nd T C support EPA’s proposal to
lelete existing quarterly monitoring and
eoorting requirements established for
ha Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s
eneral permit. In addition, the
.3rnmentator raised same Issues
eSa ding the storm water group
pplication process.
esponse
EPA acknowledges the comments.
egarding the deletion of quarterly
rionitoring and reporting. Regarding the
oinments about the storm water group
pplication process. the comments are
‘EPA dlscuu.d di. .rc . . %vslm pc. .Itdng
rrits 5 y in ha Apr51 2. rem Fsd. ’.I Ia c. Nodes
riulled ‘ p.&uflonaj Polloeni Dtichai 5 sFt
Vil 5 AppliesUos Deadlinas. CSee .I Pc.mit
‘qwr..aa sad Rsquu sai. r
ia,, Wai Ø5j Iadc.e4al
C!iv%1y Final Ret.’ t57 1 ’R 113571.
CQmment l4
Th. Caribbean District of the US.
Geol igfrrd 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
appropr IarI and sosuracy of the
proposed change as well as the
applicability to a tropical Island. The
National C n1r and Atmospheric
Administration (NOA.A) divides the
Island (Puerto Rico) into seven diffetent
rainfall regions, namely: North Coastal,
South Cnautal . Northern Slopes.
Southern Slopes, Eastern Interior.
Western lntthor. and Outlying Islands.
USGS Ir t ad a table that identified
“Annual P*in lI Precipitation h
Selected Stations Lamted in Mainland
Puerto Rico”. USGS . ain ’nin d data born
two stations from the n tiuu,ri operated
by the USGS. located In two different
divisions of the Island, namely, Rio
Pledras and Humacao. Th. data
examined wes collected In 1992.
Estimates of annual precipitation far
these two tations were presented. Also,
USGS provided figures that show
rainfall data, accumulated daily
precipitation and dry periods versus
time during thi 1991—92 water year.
When a statistical analysis of each of
the stations isdone, the data show that
the dry periods vary censiderabty for
each locatio The average dry period
(in hours) between measurable
incidents for Rio Piedras station is 29.80
and for Hirm o station is 17.71. The
maximum dry periods (in days) between
measurable rein 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 ivuth
station is 1.6 for the Rio Piedxas station
and 2.7 far the Hrim o station.
Therefore, the proposed reduction in the
length of the dry periods between
sampling events seems inappropriate for
Puerto Rico. EPA should further
. ,rnmln . this parameter, and consider
estabH ehlng different values for the
different rainfall regimes on the island.
The USGS operates a network of 70
continuous recording raitifeil gauges
throughout Puerto Rico. its offshore
Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The
USGS proposes that before establishing
the final protocol for Puerto Rico as to
the sampling requirements for the time
period between reinfnll events, an
analysis 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 allow a fl 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-wide, during normal business
hours. In an attempt to strike a balance
in this matter. EPA has changed the
final language in the general permit
which requires permitlees 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 language.’ for the
Sample Type condition of the general
4. Sample l) pe
a. Parmittees should sample the
discharge during normal business hours.
In the event that the discharge
commences during normal business
hours, the perruittee 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 retention
period greater than 24 hours (estimated
by dividing the volume of the detention
pond by the estimated volume of water
d(aa4tii,ged during tha 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 end a composite sample.
All suck samples shall be collected from
the discharge resulting from a storm
event that is greater than 0.1 inches in
magnitude.
(1) For the first half of the sampling
period, all such samples shall be
collected from the dis 4 nrge resulting
from a storm event that occurs at least
72 hours from the previously
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
nun ( nil ) storm event.
(2) In the”event that the perinittee is
unable to satisfy the conditions of
paragraph c.(1) above during the first
half of the sampling period, beginning
‘EPA nesrpcsateg rhta esadidea late dis
.a.ral pai ai it Pat xi.B.5. which ,s,ti .. Paul
VLB4 oldie paimit.
complienie (Including th, attainment of .not related to the proposed general
applicable water quality standards In pi r iite rno l 1 ’ 4 ou. so EPA not
the receiving body of water), then the ‘ responding totk However, EPA
monitoring requirements should be ‘ encourages the commentator to
reduced in frequency or eHn .iainted from participate In the public comment
the petitioner’s permit conditions in an period for the NPDES multi-sector
effort to minim ,i1 the high costs of permit.
meeting the general permit conditions.
•1

-------
50000
Federal Register I VoL 58, No. 184 I Friday, September 24, 1993 / Notices
on the first day of the seccerd half of the
sampling period, the permittee shall
collect sample. 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
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 r ,thi mum of three
sample aliquota 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
mivthnum period of fifteen minutes.
Composite samples are not required for
pH. cyanide. whole effluent toxicity.
fecal coliform, and oil and grease.
L The pennittee 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 It 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
VLD of this permit.
EPA decided not to divid, the Island
Into different r thitiill zones which
would establish different values at this
time. EPA believes that in dnlng so, the
Agency would meat. 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
establiching such sophisticated rmnfall
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 i i—
Standard Permit Conditions” Is
renumbered Vfl.—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. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit
This permit expires on mlilnlght.
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 NO! In accordance with
the requirements of Part!! of this
permit, using a NO! form provided by
the Director (or photocopy themofl
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 axe
not substantive changes In the scope or
ntent of the affected provision.
Therefore, in aixordance with 40 CPR
122.83. public notice and comment on
these revisions Is not necessary.
V. F ini 4e 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 reducing the frequency
of sampling and reporting.
VI. Papurwuk R.d ullmt 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
at seq. The Region did not prepare an
Information Collection Request (IC )
document for today’s final general
permit modification because the
Information collection requirements In
this general permit has been already
approved by the Offic. of Management
and Budget In submission made for the
NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
VI I. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.. EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the Impact of rules on
small entities. No Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Is required, however, where -
the head of the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Today’s final modifications to the
general permit will make the general
permit more flexible and less
burdensome for permittees.
Accordingly.! 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.
Autherlty Corn Water Act, 33 U.S.C 1251
it seq.
Dated: September 3, 1993.
William J. Muerynsid
Ac t ingReg i anal Administrator.
Appendix A—General Permit
M fica t ions
NPDES Permit Number PRR000000
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
IImInp System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C 1251 at seq.: the Act), e ept as
provided In Part LB.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
“associated with Industrial activity”.
located in the Cn,nmonwealth of Puerto
Rico ar authorized to discharge in
acçaed hce 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
accord nre with Part!! of this permit
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity who
fall to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part U of this permit
axe 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 Cup.,
Director. Water Mana emerzt Division. (IS.
Environmental Protection A ency Region if.
This signature Is for the permit
conditions in Parts I through X and for
any additional conditions In Part U

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 184 / Friday. September 24, 1993 I. Notices
50001
which apply to facilities located in thp
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
• S • • S
Part X I. State Specific Conditions
• S S S S
B. Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico 401
Certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Azra. The permit covers all
areas at4mlnistered by EPA Region 11 in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
• S S S S
2. Part lii. Special Conditions
• S S S S
C. Commonwealth Special Conditions
1. 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.
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 perznittee shall submit to EQS
with a copy to the Regional Office, the
following information regarding its
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity; the number of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity covered by this
permit, and a drawing Indicating the
diainage area of each storm water
discharge associated with Industrial
activity outfall and its respective
sampling point:
a. For industrial ectivities 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. 192. 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 dlsrharges associated with
industrial activity shall be labeled with
a 18 in. x 12 In. ( sth 1mum dimensions)
sign that reads as follows:
“Punto do Muesteo de Agun de I.luvla”
3. Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
S S S S S
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparntion and
(ompliance
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) thq plan for a storm water.
db chaig associated with Industrial
activityihat is e dstIng on or before
dctober 1, 1992:
‘ei Shall be prepared on or before April
1, l9 3 (and updated as appropriate);
1. No later than April 1,1993, the
permittee shall submit to the EQS 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 far implementation
and compliance with the tories of the
plan on or before October 1, 1993;
I. No laterthan October 1,1993. the
perniittee shall submit to EQS with
copies to the Regional Office end 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
V !IG of this permit.
2. a. Theplan for any facility whore
industrial activity commences after
October 1, 1992. but on or before
Decemb 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):
I. 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 Part
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 uat t as provided elsewhere in
this perthit. shall provide for
compliance with the toxins 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);
1. Within thirty (30) 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
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 ‘R 122.26(c)(1)(lifl, 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.
shall be prepared and except as
provided elsewhere in this permit, shall
provide for compliance with the terms
oftheplanandthispermiton orbefore
the date thi y (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
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
V lLGofthisperm lt
8. Signature and Plan Review
• S S S S
2. The permute. shall make plans
available upon request to the Dhertor.
or authorized representative, or in the
case of a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity
which dicharges through a municipal
separate storm sewer system. to the
opereto 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 Rigiuf ir I VoL 58. NO.184 I 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 ais 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 complies or does not
comply with one or more of the permit
conditions. After receiving a written
notification from EQS requiring
modifications to the plan, the permittee
will have a maximum of sixty (60) days
to make the ne sary 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 Cwveztt
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 mln4,, i,ing
pollutants from sources identified under
Part IV.D.2 (desa’iption of potential
pollutant sources) of this permit. or in
otherwise achieving the general
objectives of controlling pollutants in
storm water disch n’ges associated with
industrial activity. Amendments to the
plan maybe reviewed by EPA In the
same manner as Part NB (above).
2. In addition to Part IV.Ci (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 occors which requires
the modification of the plan, the
engineer or qualified professional who
performs the corresponding review must
submit to EQS with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean
Field Office, a certification stating the
plao has been reviewed and 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 EQS with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean
Field Office, a certification stating the
mo& 4 lfiriitions performed to the plan. As
soon as th. modifications p fu wed to
the plan are Implemented, the person
who fulfills the signatory requirements
in accordance with Part VlI.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 o 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
qithh tion3 of the individual who
developed the plan.
• • • * •
4. Part V. Numeric and Narrative
Effluent Limitations
• S S • •
B. All Permiltees. The discharge(s)
composed entirely of storm water shall
not cause the presence of oil sheen in
the receiving body of water.
C. All Permitteex 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 S S
B. Monitonng Requirements
S
1.
• a • a
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 VLB.3 (annual
monitoring requirements). that It shall
conduct the annual discharge sampling
required by Part VI.B.3.d (additional
facilities), or specify an alternative
monitoring frequency or specify
additional parameters to be analyzed.
For all other industries 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
deemed 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.
2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements. Beginning on October 1.
1992 and luring through the expiration
date of this permit. permittaes with
facilities identified in Parts VLB.2.a
through f. must monitor those storm
water discharges Identified below at
least semi-annually (2 tImes per year)
except as provided in VLB.5 (sampling
waiver), VI.B.6 (representative
discharge), and VLC1 (to cfty testing).
Permittees with facilities identified in
Parts VLB.2.a through £ (below) must’
report 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: rninfall 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
rninf II ) storm event. For permittees
identified in Parts VLB.2.a through f.. an
estimate of the total volume (in gallons)
of the disrhsrge sampled shall be
provided. For permittees identified in
Part VI.B.2.b, d., e. and f., 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 4O%), nedium (40% to
65%) or high (above 65%)l shall also be
previded
3. Annual Monitoring Requirements.
Beginning on October 1, 1993 and
lasting through the expiration dite of
this permit. permittees with facilities
identified In Parts VI.B.3.a through d.
(below) must monitor those storm water
dischargesjlentified below at Least
annuallftt time per year) except as
provided in VLB.5 (sampling waiver),
and VI.B.6 (representative discharge).
Pernuttee. 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 perinittees
must retain monitoring results in
accordance with Past VLE (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
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 feeti and an estimate of the
runoff coefficient of the drainage area
(e.g. low (under 40%). medium (40% to
65%) or high (above 65%));

-------
Federal Register F Vol. 58, No. 184 F Friday, September 24, 1993 F Notices
50003
4. Sent pie l ’pe.
a. Permittees 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 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.
(1) For the first half of the sampling
period, all such sampler 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 peimittee Is
unable to satisfy the conditions of
paragraph c(1) above during the first
half of the sampling period. beginning
on the fist day of the second half of the
sampling period, the permittee shall
collect sampl & 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 tune.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 toxicity.
focal 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 restllts.
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 iv1th the specified sampling
protocol and requirements.
g. Alternatively. If no samples.are
takóh during the sampling period, EPA
will ansider that the permittee has met
Its sampling requirement If it certifies
that It was not possible to meet the
above sampling protocoL However, the
pertnittee is required to submit the
required reports in accordance with Part
VLD of this permit
• • • • •
9. 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 parmittoes where industrial
actybasbegwi aftarOctobor 1,1992.
the rain gauge must be installed on r n
before the date of submission of the
NOL
c. The permittee must keep daily
records of the rain. Indicating the date
and amount of 4i f I1 (inches In 24
hours). A copy of these records shall be
submitted to EQB with copter 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. Repoz ng: Where to Submit.
1.
• • • 0
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a , VLD.i.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. EQB
and EPA Caribbean Field Office at the
following addresses:
United States EPA. Region 11, Water
Management Division. (ZWM—WPC).
Storm Water Staff, 26 Federal Plaza,
New York, NY 10278
Water Quality Area, P.R. Environmental
Quality Board, P.O. Box 11488,
Santurve, Puerto Rico 00910
EPA Caribbean Field Office, Office 2A.
Podiatry Center Building. 1413
Fernández Juncos Avenue, Santurce,
Puerto RIco 00907
• • . • •
6. Part VI I. Standard Permit Conditions
S S S S S
B. Continuation of the Expired
GeneroJ 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 U 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.
C. Signator/ 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 perinittee.
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director or EQU 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 auidliary facilities or similar
systems. installed by a perinittee only
when necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of the permit. Also.
proper operation and maintenance
includes, but is not limited, to effective
performan e based on designed facility
removals, adequate funding, effective
management, qualified operator staffing,
adequate training, adequate laboratory
and process controls.
• •q • S S
Q. Inspection and Entry. The
perinittee shall allow the Director . n

-------
50004
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 184 / Friday, September 24, 1993 / Notices
authorized representative of EPA, the
State. or,in the caseofa cilltywhich
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 perniittoe’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 dines, 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); afld
4. EQB reserves the right to inspect
the implementation of the pollution
prevention plans (see Part IV), on a case
by case basis.
(FR Doc. 93—23436F1led9 -23—93; 8:45 aral
saa.ms coos iue-sa-
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(FEMA-.997—DRJ
Illinois; Amendment to Notice of a
Major Disaster Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster for the State of
illinois (FEMA—997—DR), dated July 9,
1993. and related determinations.
EFFECTIVE DATE September 1. 1993.
FOR RJRThER INFORMATION CONTACT
Pauline C. Campbell, Disaster
Assistance Programs, Federal
Emergency Mana8ement Agency,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the incident period for
this disaster Is dosed effective August
31. 1993.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.516. Disaster Assistance.)
Pfrh.vd W. Erisase,
DeputyAssociate Director, State and Local
Programs and Support.
lYE Doc. 93—23448 Piled 9—23-43:8:43 ami
DIUJNO CODS S71’
(FEMA-097-DR I
Illinois; Amendment to Notice of a
Major Disaster Declaration
AGENCY Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster for the State of
illinois. (FEMA-997-DR), dated July 9,
1993, and related deternth’i i4ona.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Pauline C. Campbell. Disaster
Assistance Programs. Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646—3606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice of a major disaster for the State
of Illinois dated July 0. 1993. 1* 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 Assistance. (Already
designated r Individual Assistance.)
Notice Is hereby given that the
incident period for Mason County is
reopened. The Incident for this county
is April 13,1993. and continuing.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.510, Disaster Assistance.)
“ ‘“d W. Krbi ,
DeputyAssociate Director. State and Local
Prupoms and Suppoit
(FR Dec. 93—23447 Filed 9-23—93: 8:45 aml
ue.&sss coos erls .er.M
(FEMA-OSS-ORI
Missouri; Amendment to Notice of a
Major Disaster Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACrtON Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice
of amajor disaster farthe State of
Missouri, (FEMA-995-DR), dated July
9.1993, and related determinations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 17. 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACY:
Pauline C. Campbell. Disaster
Assistance Programs. Federal
Emergency Management Agency,
Washington. DC 20472. (202) 646—3606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 Assistance No
83.526. DIsaster Assistance.)
afrhwd W. Krlmm,
Deputy Associate Director, State and Local
Programs and Suppost
lYE Doc. 93—23448 Filed 9—23—83:8:45 aml
ism coos eris.ss-u
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Central Bancehares of the South, Inc.;
Acquisitions of Companies Engaged in
Penniulbie Nonbanldng Activities
The or ni,Ations listed in this notice
have applied under S 225.23(a)(2) or (I)
of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR
225.23(a)(2) or (f)) for the Board’s
approval under section 4(c)(8) of the
Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1843(c)(8)) and S 225.21(a) of Regulation
Y (12 R 225.21(a)) to acquire or
control voting secunties or assets of a
company engaged in a nonbi nk4ng
activity that is listed in 5225.25 of
Regulation Y as closely related to
h nking 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 .lt will also be available for
insp t1on 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 effi ency. that
• outweigh possible adverse effects, such
- as undue concentration of resources,
deaeased or rn fn4r competition.
conflicts of Interests, or unsound
bunking practices.” Any request for a
hearing on this question must be
‘accompanied by a st atement of the
reasons a written presentation would
not suffice in lieu of a hearing,
Identifying specifically any questions of
fact that are in dispute. summariring 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

-------
Part III
EnvionmeAtal
Protection Agency
Final National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits for
the Coastal Waters of Louisiana; Notice
Tuesday
September 21, 1993
I
kMl

-------
49128
Federal Register! VoL 58. No. 181 1 Tuesday, September 21, 1993 / Notices
AGENCY
(FRL-4732-41
Final NPDES General Permits for the
Coastal Waters of Louisiana
(LAG330000) and Texas (IXG330000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
acnori: 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. dnlling, 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
rivers..lakes. streams, freshwater
wetlands and intermediate w ’-
These permits are consistent with EPA
guidelines at 40 Q ’R part 435. subpart
D and water quality-based iteria of the
Department of Environmental
Quality and the Texas Railroad and
Water Commissions.
OAT These permits will become
effective on October 21, 1993.
AD0R S Notifications required by
these permits should be sent to the
Water Management Division. -
Enforcement Branch (6W-EM, EPA
Region G.P.O. Box 50625. Dallas. Texas
75202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT:
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 fadli Im-
in the Coastal Oil end Gas Point Source
Extraction Point Source Category 140
0’R part 435. subpart D). The ponalha
also apply to facilities which would be.
classified Onshore but for the decision
in American Petroleum Insti bite v. EPA.
661 F.2d 340(5th dr. 1981). The
permits do not apply to facilities in the
Offshore Subcategory (40 .R part 435,
subpart A). the Onshore Subcategozy
(subpart C). the Agricultural and
- . Wildlife Water Use Subcategosy
(subpart E) or in the Stripper
Subcategory (subpart F). These permits
do not apply to “new sources” as
defined at 40 (7R 122.2. nor to
operations which adversely affect
properties listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of lfldctic Plams.
EPA Region 6 proposed to issue these
permits at 55 FR 23348 (June 7. 1990)
and provided additional notice of the
proposal in the New OrIeain Times and
the Houston Post on June 3,1990. The
comment period was originally
scheduled to and on July 23. 1990. but
was extended to August 13, 1990. The
American Petroleum Institute (API);
Amoco Corporation; Conoco Inc.; Krmn
Company, LLS,A. Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources;
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 Counuil (NRDCJ;
Sierra Cub. Delta Chapter. Project Reef
Xeeper’ Shell Offshore Inc.; U.S
Department of the Intetior and private -
- ei1i C. Baek. R. Cook. R. Ernst . J.A.
Freeman. M T. Gordon. J. Hiytzen. E.
Johncrm C. Mitchell. J. Moms. P. Oblak,
L Reitman. F.H. Rudenberg. D. Silver.
Spackman. D. Swanson. J. Toigo. M.
‘Valrass submitted comments on EPAs
proposal to issue this permit EPA
Region 6 has considered all mente
received. In some instances. minor
wording changes in the final pencil may
differ from the proposed permit 1.
clarify some points as a result of
comments. These final permits contain
no substantive changes from the
proposed permits. . -
State Certilicatioo
In accordance with section 401(a)(’l).
EPA may not issue a NPDES ponnit
until the State in which the discharge
will occur grants or waives certifi 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 Managnneat 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
issuance 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 C?R 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 modification of their critical
- habitats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has concun -ed with Region S’s
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 am’
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 MPRSA
-establishes the Marine Sanctuaries
Program, implemented by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Adyninictration (NOAA), which requires
NOAA to designate ocean waters as
marine sanctuaries for the purpose of
preserving or restoring their
conservation. recreational. ecological or
aesthetic values. There are presently no
misting marine sanctuaries in coastal
waters of Louisiana or Texas,
Economic Impact -
The Office of Management and Budget
OMB) has exempted this action from
th. review-requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to section 8(b) of
that order The economic and
inflationary effects of these regulations
(40 Q R 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 / Vo1 58, No. 181 / Tuesday, Septesnl r 21, 1993 / Notices
0127
in submissions made for the NPDES
per’nit 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 (DMWs). 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
impact on a substantial number of small
entitles. 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 small business under the
Small Business Mministratlon
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. 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 Feigmon.
Director. Water Management Division. EPA
RegionS.
General Permit Authorization To
Discharge Front the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source C L&guiry to
Coastal Waters of Iou.ui.i
Permit No. LAC330000 -
In compliance with the provisions of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq: the
“Act”), the following discharges are
authorized from coastal oil iiid gas
facilities (defined in 40 R part 435.
subpart D) to receiving waters.
desmibed below (encompassing the
coastal waters of Louisiana) in
accordance with emuent limitations,
monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth in parts I, II, III, and
IV thereof:
Drilling Fluids.
Drill Cuttings.
Deck Drainage.
Sanitary Waite.. :, -
Domestic Waite..
Desalinization Unit Discharge. “
Diatomomous Earth Filter Media.
g, . r ant Slurry.
Unam’ ’n”ted BallastlBilge Water,
Boiler Blowdown.
Blowout Preventer Control Fluid.
Well Treatment Fluids.
Workover Fluids,
Completion Fluids.
Formation Test fluids.
Treated Waitewater 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 Suboategory oil and
gas facilities engaged in field
exploration, drilling, well completion.
and well treatment operations. -,
Prdduced water, produced sand and
source water and sand discharges are
excluded from coverage under this
general permit, but will however, be
regulated under a separate general
coastal permit.
For the purpose of this NPDES general
• permit. Coad l Subcategory facilities
means oil and gas facilities assooated
with a wellhead located in waters of the
United States (including wetlands), as
defined at 40 CFR 122.2, landward of -
the Inner boundary of the territorial seas
and those wells In the vographic area
(land and water areas) suspended from
the Onshore Subcategory desaibed in
40 R part 435. subpart C. The term
wetlands means “those surface areae -
which are inundated or saturated by
surface ‘or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do
.upp rt. 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 measmed from the
line of ordinary low water along that
portion of thecoastwhich 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 desaibed
in the regulations is broad by definition
and includes all rivers, streams and
lakes, bays. estuaries and wetlands that
omur inland of the territorial 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 1976 Interim Final Regulations
for the onshore subcategory (See
Suspension of Regulations, 47 FR
• 31554, July 21. 1982). A facility is
considered lobe covered under the
- proposed general permit if the lo on
of the weithead is within the de ihed
— ares. -
This permit does not authorize
• dieelinvge from “new sources” as
defined in 40 CFR 122.2. This permit
also does not authorize 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 on
October 21, 1993.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, October
21. 1998.
Signed this September 7. 1993.
Myron 0. Knudson. FE.,
Director. Water Management Division, EPA
Regions.
Part I
Section 4. General Permit Coverage
1. Intent tobe Covered
Written notification of intent tobe
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. -
Notm 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 (br 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 B. NPDES Individual Versus
Generoi Permit Applicability
1. The Regional Administrator May
Require Application for an Individual
NPDES Permit
The Regional Administrator may
require any person authorized by this

-------
4912$.. .. YiAI 3e t .Vo5a. No.. 181/. Th dayr Sept ib 21. 1 3 I I’1f74
permit to apply forand t an
Individual M 1 DES p t wlu .’ .- -
- (Jed lscharls)IsgrlC c ant
• contributraofpo l lud e n
(b) The discharger is not in
compliancowith the c 4 ttJcos of this
permit:
(c) A r h*nge has oixurxed in the
availability of the demonstrated
technology or practices for the control
or abatement of pollutants applicable to
the point souzces
(ii) Effluent limitktinn guidfilhtms.aze
promulgated for point sources covered
by this permit:
(a) A Water Quality Management Plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point sowce is approved:
(fJ The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longen
(1) Involve the same or substantially
.imi lrtype safopuz .tiQ o s ;
(2) Discharge the same types of
wastes;
(3) Require the same effluent
limitations or operatin conditions;
(4) Require the same or similar
monitorin or
(5) En the opinion of the Regional
Iminiahator , are rn_ore
appropriately controlled s.n4 an
Individual porn_lit than under a
general permit. -
The Regional A’4”in trator 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 x—n twn supporting the
request to the Regional Mrnini vator
no latar than Du ” 20.1993.
(b) When an individual NPDES permit
Is Issued to an operator otherwise
subject to this general permit, the
appli hilify of this pemtit to ti own_er
or operator is aut im t Ily terminated
on the effective date of the individual
permit.
3. General Permit Coverage May Be
Requested
A source exduded 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).
Perth
Section A. Effluent Limitations arid
Monitoring Requiirmern s
Specific nflliinnt l1mita oris end
monitoring requirements are discussed
below. They are organized by the type
of discharge in the text. and by
discharge type, affluent limitation and
monitoring requirements In Table 1.
1.DrillingFluids -
(a) Applicability. Permit conditions
applyto all drilling fluids (muds) that
are discharged. in Clud1ng fluids
adhering to cuttings.
(b) Prohibitions. This permit prohibits
the discharge of all drilling fluids.
2. Drill Cuttings -
5p 1 Na The p it prahihidoes and
limitations that apply to rhilling fluid_i also
apply to drilling fluids that adhere to drill
cutting.. Any permit nñif 4 , ,, . thatapplle.
to the drilling fluid system. therefore, also
applies to cutting. discharges.
(a) Prohibitions. This permit prohibits
the discharge of drill cuttings.
3. Treated Waste water Prom Drilling
Fluids/Cuttings, Dewataring Activities
and Pit Closure Activities
(a) A ppliccbili4’. Treated waste water
from dewatered drill site eneive pits.
shale barges, ring levees and IUactIY&
abandoned reserve pits. mud tanks and
effluents from solids control systems.
(bi lImitations. Free OIL Discharges
cont in ng free oil are prohibited as
determined by a visual sheen on the
surfach of the receiving water. Discharge
Is authorized only at times when visual
sheen observation is possible.
Monitoring must be wrnvnplished once
per day, when discharging. The number
of days a sheen is detected mud be
recorded.
(Exception) Treated waste water may
be di rhargnd at any time if the operator
uses the static sheen method for
detecting free oiL
Oil and Grease. Treated waste water
must meet a 15 mg/I daily maximum
limitation.
Total 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 wastewater
must meet a pH limitation of not less
than 6.0 and not greater than 9.0 at the
point of dis& 4 inrge.
Chlorides. Treated wastewater shall
not exceed a 500 mg/I daily marcimurn
discharge limitation.
Total Chromium. Discharges of
treated wastewater shall meet a 0.5
mg/I daily maximum limitation.
Zinc. Trestod westewatar shall not
• exceed 3.0mg/I daily mn tnniln for
• zinc. . - - - -
Monitre ng The monitoring frequency
for the above Ii ...itntioua are once per
day when discharging. However, if the
- effluent is ba treated and discharged.
the monitoring requirements for all
effluent charactzristice are once per
discharge event by grab sample.
(c) Other Monitothig 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.DeckDrainag.
La) Limitations—Free 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
pet day, when discharging during
conditions when an observation of a
sheen is possible and when the facility
• Is mnnned. The number of days a sheen
- Is detected must be recorded.
(b) Other Monitoring Volume. Once
per month, the total monthly voluznr
(bbl) must be ctinii ted.
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 refugee. game preserves, scenic
streams, or other specially protected
lakes or waterbodies.
- (Note) Freshwater and intermediate
wetland areas, wildlife refuges and
game preserves can be identified from
the 1978 Veautitivu Type Map of
Louisiana (or any .uubsequent revision_al.
published by the Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and F. hiwi Tha listing of
scenic streams in Loti i ’ n is found in
the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries publication Natural and
Scenic Streams System’. (1981).
(Exception) Discharge of formation
test fluids ii 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.
(b) Limitations—Free Oil. Discharges
containing free oil are prohibited m
determined by a visual sheen on thL
surface of the receiving water. Discharge
is authorized only at times when visual
sheen observation is possible.
Monitoring must be accomplished once

-------
Les 5 Pk . at F Th y., .$
129
orw eat i -
ther- andtes -
interma sW d e:hIi ,
dIscharg .a ah aeà 4dlif. - ___
ref ges. ap sri i,a ie - .
or othersp.cialLy pm ed.la 6r
waterdiss.. . ., - .‘— . ..‘ — .
Note: Freshwater aadinter la —”-J
areas, wildlife efe e and gamapmeerves
n be _____
Type Map of the l eleiana (or any - ____
subsequent wvlslons). published by the
LouisianeUeparlmael of W4M m
Fl gcI-— r.
________ in the b— ’ — —— .
DertaeWlidl l al o fP hies
Syalcn ”..U98LL -.
(Excoption) Discharg eLw & -
completion. tmatuient or workover
fluids are allowed on the llfsaissfpp(
River below River
below ?forgan Qly. .an Wax.Laka .
Outret. Drschazgpe ar e arsgaflowed ta
wa erbod1ea and ad acasit wetfamfa n I
bra sh or nltn marsh areas.
ri13rrra irfThiLaau .A. ,ar
& mieor flui .a mpfet1 w it
workover Qofcfz the -. pro i nbLy
priority pollutants (eueAppan AJ ,• di tb
prohibited. e uept in traca;anz ” th
well completion, treatment or workover

the discb d n ui1a . . .. p iiy
pollutants. seesptha —--
Cat en e a ew
prieritB poP1a*
en. theisçi.cifie th ieaI
comn un. eddiL iws s .i ethin.theen
fluids, and their concontrations in. the
fluid, must be recorded If priority
pollutants are present, In any amount,
in these additives.
•
— — —0 — -—-—-I
-4akes iiverg, strsame, se-fresfrieet r
wethnd&aa In
I ad i..edand
10. Mlscnffaneous Discharges -
Desalinization Unit Discharg - .
Blowout Preventer Fbrfd’ , -
Lreceut nete 1hetWa r.
Unceatwihrete4 lge Whtm. Med.
Cnttfags and nwn at thef!eer.
Uneant faatnd Seawafe -
t ain nArated Pbwecer Feiler
BlOwiewn , tei. .- ’ ’ Ees’tbPllt
Media. Uncont fed Fteshwat r
Including potable wales nd edwing
tank.transfer and emptyingoperations
wit condbsrsatH mr afrcundltloner
units..
nTLbnitvtibnrF - TJL.d .w .
cofi. .çfrae oi} are prvbibfted er
deteu wd by ’ud ua1aliuini an the
.v oftheiucofvirgwaree
ML,wlorãrgmusr be a Nsfied once
per day. wiw ugdbrIn
an ob . . thm of a.
Li pomib . Vtm6urge Is
anthu tanl rar t imes. when isuaI’
Ji suaul uivution i passible The
‘ni L ., . of ds p a sheen is det ctect must
be recorded
per l1 .h __1_sIda .. : -—C ’ p
sheen Is detected must be ret wilød. .contni i. à -
1Enea dJ . ay - - . ..: .. r . ... t .
be disc IL7 .-p----l- - .
the L 5 . . Is authoi éon thi 1.i ’— ___ _____
_____________ - . sheen áami — is— -- - .he .. . . ed 4itlni ; dischai are prohibited to
p 11 Is e I-—- L 11 ih II i he __ . u’..u1 wrelhgea.geme y v!iS . eic
m imi mae ep&IIII astn sf ni l per ã - u ! -
Wea 1b1A9OI.AtVth of days a “- lakes orwstm’bediss
sampleu atb. ioeeapse recorded. . •. .: -. -
. - ‘(E*cepfion) wefl treatment ffuid’a, . -
sh e Lbs niufr li d .bü retien . N eri s.etuver ffi j ___
suah.that tha pIL.& the pna”to . Type Mlp of the LouMma ( be any
discharge meets the limitation.. . opwitermentheidalfrIemrmstflej uubusqjiant___cnIr L Pbythe
(c) Other Monitoring. Volume. Once . foe - - ....: •Lo d orw&mr . , and
: pit WbIPI UI1 . p th amf,
as number of barrels wit downho e _______ . - : ____
during tee& . arid tlemmtherofbrre!s flmL.thj ofuot ibea then 6.U Pnnf - - -
dIschn r gpdth b,. niatn i t.n .. rfcrtIii ; . . . . .. -
r epo eêe eesp e s tL - - discharged. Sampling muarbe .
6. accomplished once pea ,1
Fluids. W ’- -— ’ — Fluids .. -- -r ?... - MIsa mfppi erhebw at -.
L L _ _ (1 IR dsIIW OIII Atcha yHt belbevMorgea 01%
- per month. the.d hri.4IJal, and Wax Lake Outlet. DisJ. sem -‘
__________ must bsssi*me . -..‘ . I.p illowedt weair a
___ - . -. adjacent wetlands in brackish saline
marsh areas.
(a) Pmh,bsbee.—&i Ns ffoui
___ -- .‘-. - . - _____
- -4b) Qmitotions—BioJog ( gess determiesdbiy tviasas en
mendQ Y” - surface of the receiving water. Discharge
____ er lm,uPsd ar ds2y - - is authorized only at t n es wh t visun?
II .. Wfw . A - sheen b r---’ is . . _ .:kl L - .
must hec antZu onns per Monitoring must be accomplished once
q” - -- r. - —• ‘ .- - I’-. ’ - per day, when discharging. The number
- ____ - is
_____ - waste discharges shall meet recoided - -
___ ____ daily maximum L mMaIøn.. .A th - -_____
sample ehaIbhewUe d.aed eath s t a as an timsit th cp.ramr
on per quarter.. - . . - • .-. - : mesth.-stadcshaqn athod n
fwi&CaMSea lt apvw - dlfeig’he.oiL -
limitetio16 m he
- cell .Lgethwn .he be
aud l - -
- Netern.sp . .aff . dës%ntu P
- the State rpiUp jiCen . th.
r- — -- -- --—- -
alIowed I1 .— 5 14 pea 1SS an
an MPN of 43 per 100 ml For a 6ist e .
dedmal iIIl , .a i. -
- e e a u n a le
and pollution conditions. • . -
( c ie &,ni1br’—J iW ee per
ment the svwigeffo e geRe
ps dayM D muot beee ma
S
8. Domestic Waste -
(a) Prohihitions—SoJidh This permit

ing xtwest ( n nfn tad or
notJ u’araff u aSk and df.nkerv .
NeiTher FTsb and ffsh debris from ffsfr
definition.

-------
: 49130 ‘ rederal RegiSter I Vol. 58, No. 181 I’Tuesdäy,. 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) Prohibitions—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 desaibed
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,
dispersants, and detergents used to
wash working areas shall be minimized
except as ne ’ ’y to comply with
applicable State and Federal safety
requirements.
Section 8. Other Conditions -
1. Samples of Wastes
If requested. the permittee shall
provide EPA with a sample of any waste
- in a manner specified by the Agency.
Perth!
Section A. Ceneroi Conditions
1. IntroductIon - - - -.
In accordance with the provisions of -
40 O R 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
“Ad”) as well as ALL applicable Q R
regulations.
2. Duty to Comply .
The permittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompIi nee constitutes a violation
of the Clean Water Act and is grounds
for enforcement action or for requiring
a permittee to apply for and obtain an
individual NPDES permit
3. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding ULA.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 affluent standard or prohibition
and the permittee so notified.
The pormittee 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 modifle4 to
incorporate the requirement S
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 a rply for a new
permit. Continuation of the expiring
.permit shall be governed by regulations
at 40 G”R 122.8 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:
(b) Obtaining this permit by
misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully
all relevant facts; -
Cc) A change in any condition that requires
either a temporary or a permanent reduction
or obminittion of the authorized discharge or
• - (dl A determination that the permitted
activity endangers human health or the
environment sad can only be regulated to
acceptable levels by permit modification or
termination.
The filing of a request by the
peruhittee for a permit modification.
revoèatlon 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.
8. 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.
7. Duty to Provide Information
-The permittee shall furnish to the
Regional Atlminl’trator. 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
Regional Administrator upon request.
copies of records requireti to be kept by
this permit . - -
8. Clvii and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit
conditions on “Bypassing” and
“Upsets” (see IILB.4 and 111.8.5),
nothing in this permit shall be
construed to relieve the permittee from
civil or iminal 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 ( ‘R regulations which
avoids or effectively defeats the
regulatory purpose of the perpiit may
subject the permittee to aiminal
enforcement pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001.
9.011 and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
- any legafaction or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penaltiee-to which the permittee is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act. -
10: 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 Clean 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.

-------
- -. -‘ i I L . 1 I rb a &7 r 21
49tfl
_ .s ‘ -•
it
- - -- -. . —
Is — - — — — — -
(c) adft M-.——,fra
flw- - ____
-
other
(11 An upoe oczurred and th iths
u ths W .1
and da irs b
p---- Isrop A eI d1
- measurement, or reporting. pi.ix1
____ D Tyw d
S r_ -krS?1 •hW ‘—. ‘.. 1i f
twij . - -: .
b ’ ’ _______
____ - ‘ -.
__ ____ - ___
________
- - - w L bL
•—- (dbJh _L_ 1 JL !r
. l ia of life pomona! inpuy, or.. —
- . FoPW Y llAma - . . . ....m d.a
- . .. . ‘- - . WI Tbe w nø imb sl na ups h -
2 Th .! tf tt . to th.t 1 ,....s 1 -. .- -I
Thsp 1ti . a . ‘ . aea f.ey i—’ ---i LWWUVUU U
reaso—.’ 11 — of . - . -Solids. sludges, fflt.r L. er
any dt harge -In vf 1 fd thp dt- ’-’ ptui - mth....... 1 ..
which . . dotime. .• • O( tSW I
advez y satisfied If adequalaback-up — s speseEof ba maeaea .ith
• ,.; idliveb. Uediri -. tCpN.nt f
. . engin.erüig
. - . . ‘ ‘ Wit 5. Axe. spasi z
The pemo1Ue sb.I . . J_P pur ef - thie.Pm iI mll mha m
v . rda eJ’ n
-fc) 11. 1 T - bJ 1 ..ó. Section Monit -.
a .eti bpI requi,J - ! . ‘& . -. -
.1. nspedfon and. Fmr, ...
Y ,r .- -The - .
uumidering Its adveras e e s. - ‘ - .
laboratory wiiliuli and eppeapriata - Regona! .Admi.iateat ‘-z- . ,.— .tative, nnnn the nlmanf2ffog of
quality omemow o Th .‘ - ft will moe ! the three mu ma____ .
-S... —L4AtP . . - b .esc
5 . ?- - 2 2 -
i__ _ILA __ • a— - . • - -.. -
( 1 . :- - —___ 7 -
ach us ean su .= .__ : :___ 1 iX __aU • wbeat ’;ecords —- apt n lAs the.
of anp—.— -i p -s . s%t.. - mitlit Ian& UuuL 1 ___, -
- . . -4 aop’—----an tad -. Ib) HS—ta t .m
t !y -. _ _aw..a - asae ’ ’— .. y —i - t
(2)’ pase.” - . L_k..._ _ ._... .th .J .L .__ _X d
the . - Ibo permttt 1 . ,_ dsS$ -. -. - -
streams from any 4è?iI L - -
facility. .. - thedb — SLL.y r - fr4l s àç t IJ..hidn
(2) Sevese 1 _ .. ._r, ele’emo desigpod —m.——’ a _’ - .mmi .__!___d
s aè p 1 ! vOIk. . - sre lit —
- “ • mp-; &mii p —,-,-. - • ra1 ead -.
muses th L. —hlv 1 • pv • - - -
subs ta udF-. d - • - .
natural reso’ tàM ______ -- - - - as -
expected to “ f tba o le. . - — e m L a — ..“ - -- fay
bypass. Severe pwjmf)- regw suth g- pe -a —— r — t — a i, • -
not meaa—-- 1 . li onsItb.— - ‘ -ol - .- - - .. . -
delaiainproè -_- c,.&•-’ .--. Sea .
) dst.rminatian ..doth ie - . - - 2. Representative Samp&
-“—-- 1v— I_ _ ..g5
- -- - - required herein shalLkerapra.mi -
of the volume and nature of the
I — —- •i-- — _j — - . -
3. Reta tf Qfu ArTSrf&
._ iI t. s—.
li ui . tab.— — I. .b ‘M
it also fa. — L L
assure el ”
bypst= . &
aaó 4d oi l . - - - . - -
(4M H..
the. porai e.ba.m iè’ d
‘Isa
notimbli r M beg - —
before tbod oLt b pssa. -
pe M .sbaLL ll t ie ae.
all

-------
. .49132 - .‘ ‘Federal Registers VoL. 58. No -iaI L’ruesday. September 21 .4993/ Notlce
— — — — — — — .—_n.— — — — — — — . .. . —
• mq be extended by request of the - (b) The alteration or addition coul f
• Regional Mm4ni rator at any Urns. -. - significantly change the nature or
-The operator shall maintain rec ls at lnaeas. the quantity of pollutants
‘development and production facilities discharged. This notification applies to
for 3 years. whw,v t pi 1r hIe and at pollutants that are subject neither to -
a specific shore-based site whenever not effluent limitations in the permit, nor to
practicable. The operator is responsible notification requirements under 40 OR
• for mainthining records at exploratory 122.42(a)(1) (48 FR 14153. April 1.1983.
- facilities while they are discharging- as amended at 49 FR 38049. September
wider the operator’s control and at a 26, 1984). -
specified shore-based site for the 2.. Antldnated Nnnenmnlinnrn -
r mainder of the 3-year retention
5. Monitoring Procedures -
dance
notice to the Regional M’nini trator of
- - - - any planned changes in the permitted -
facilityoract lv itywhich may result in
noncompilanr with permit
requirements. -
3. Transfers - - -
This permit is not transferable to any
• person except after notice to the .. - -
Regional MYnini. hator. The Regional
Administrator may require modification
or revocation and reissuance of the
permit to rhunge the name of the
• permittee and incorporate such other
requirements as may be necessary under
theAct. -. - - -
Monitoring must be conducted
• according to test procedures approved
under 40 OR part 136. unless other test
procedures have been specified In this
permit (bee part W.A.. below)..-
6. Discharge RatelFlow Measurements’
Appropriate flow measurement -
devices consistent with a pted
practices shall be selected, maintained,
andusadtoensuretheaocuracyand
reliability of measurements of the
volume of monitored Ai charges. 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 ma in um deviation of less than
10% from true discharge rates
throughout the range of expected -
discharge volumes. - . •
Section D. Repcthng Requirements
1. Planned Changes
• The perinittee shall give notice to the
Regional Mn’inisirator 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 or deternining whether a
facility is a new source in 40 OR
122.29(b) (48 FR 14153. April 1. 1983.
as amended at 49 FR 38049, September
26. 1984): or
4. Record Contents
Records of monitoring Information
shall lnclude - • - -
(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. -
- (dJ The individual(s) who performed
the analyses. . .
- (e) The analytical techniques or
methods used. and -
(I) The results of such analyses.
• — - — ,•_•_
has been absolutely no activity or no
• discharge within the lease (or lease
block) for the entire reporting period..
these ca , EPA Region VI will ancept
a listing of leases (or lease blocks) with
no discharges or no activity, L a lieu of
submitting actual DMRs for these leases
(or lease blocks). This listing must —
specify the permittee’s NPDES General
Permit Number, lease/lease block
desaiption. and EPA-assigned outfall
number. The listing must also include
the certification statement presented in
Part ULD.ii.d of this permit and an
original signature of the designated
responsible official.
Upon receipt of a notification of
Intenttobecovered,(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 noti and reports required under
this permit shall be sent to EPA Region
6 at the following address: Director.
Water Management Division. USEPA.
Region 6. Enforcement Branch (6W—EA),
P.O. Box 50625, Dallas, TX 75270.
5. Additional Monitoring by the —
Perinittee •
If the pernut ee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than requi.
by this permit, using test procedures
approved under 40 OR 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 Lnaeased
monitoring ftequency shall also be
indicated on the DMR.
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, etc.) 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 . 6. Averaging of Measurements
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Calculations for all limitations which
Form (EPA No. 3320-i). The highest require averaging of measurements shall
monthly average for all activity within utilize an arithmetic mean tinl ict
each lease (or lease block) shall be otherwise specified by the Regional
reported. The highest daily maximum - Ailmin 4 trator in the permit
sample taken during the reporting - •- ‘ - .
period shall be reported as the 7. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
maximum concentration. ( 5 - The perurittee shall report any -
“Definitions” for more detailed - noncompliance which may endanger
explanations of these terms.) - - health or the environment (this indudes
lfanycategoryofwaste(discharge)ls anysplllthatreçuresoralreportingto
not applicable for all facilities within -. the state regulatory authority).
the lease (or lease block) due to the typs Information shall be provided oraliy
of operation ( g. drilling, production). - . within 24 hours from the time the - -
“no discharge” must be recorded for permittee becomes aware of the
those categories on the DMR. If all circumstances. A written submission
facilities within a lease block have had shall also be provided within 5 days of
no activity during the reporting period. the time the permittee becomes aware of
then “no activity” must be written on the circumstances. The written
the DMR. All pages of the DMR must be submission shall contain a desaiptlr
signed and certified as required by Part of the noncompliance and its cause;
D.11 of this permit and submitted period of noncompliance. including
when due, exact dates and times, and if the
The Permittee must complete all noncompliance has not been corrected.
empty blanks in the DMR unless there the anticipated time it is expected to

-------
continue: and steps taken or planned to
reduce. eliminnte. and prevent -
reoccurrence of the nnnc npliance. The
Regional Administrator may waive the.
written report on a case-bycase basis 11
the oral report has been received within.
24 hours.
The following shall be included as
information which must be reported
within 24 hours:. -
(a) Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any efiluent limitation In the permlt
(b) Any upset which exceeds any effluent
limitation in the permit.
(c) Violations oft maximum daily
discharge limitation or daily minimum
toidclty limitation far any of the pollutants -
listed by the Regional Administrator In Part
mofthep erin lttoberepoxtedwithin24
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 Ill, section D,
paragraphs4and7atthet lnie -
monitoring reports are submitted. The.
reports shall contain the Information
listed in section D. paragraph 7.
9. Other Information - :
When the permittee 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. Changes in Discharges of Toxic
Substances
For any toxic pollutant (see Appendix
A) that is not limited in this permit,
either as an additive Itself eras a
component in an additive formulation,
the permittee shall notify the Regional
Administrator as soon as he knows or
has reason to believe:
(a) That any activity has occurrcd or
will occurwhich 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” described at 40
R 122.42(alll) (1) and (ii);
(b) That any activity has accursed 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” described at 40
‘R 122.42 (a)(2) (I) and (ii).
11. Signatory Requirements . -•
All applications. Ieports.or
Information submitted to the’Reglonal
Athnrnistrator shall be signed and
certified as required at 40 CFR 122.22.
(a) All permit applications shall be
signed as follows: -
Ii) or 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
aimili. . policy or dedsloninnHng
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), If
authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager In
accordi.nr with corporate procedures.
(2)Forapa rlne r shiporsole
proprietorship: By a general partner or
the proprietor. resp.cdvely. -
(b) Authorized Representative. AU
reports required by the permit end other
Information requested by the Regional
A tnlnlstratoT shall be signed by a
person described above or by a duly
authorized representative of that person.
Apersonlsadulyauthorized
representative only Ifi -
ji) 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.
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
- Admiisfrator.
(c) Changes to Authorization. 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
reports. information, or applications to
be signed by an authorized
representative.
IL Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 D ’R 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 At 4 reinistrator. As required by
the Clean Water Act, the name and
address of any permit applicant or
permittee, 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. Penoities 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 Ad is
subject tb 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 bath.
(b) Knowing Violations. The Act
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.
(c) Knowing Endangerment. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
- Federal Register I . - VoL 58, No. 181 I Tuesday. Septêmbe 21 1993-1 Notices
49133
(d) Ceftificotion. Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the following certification: -.
1 cezt1 under penalty of law that this -
document and all attachments ware prepared
under my direction or supervision In -
rdance 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
TTtanmge the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is. to the best of my
knowledge and belieL true, accurate, end
complete. lam aware that there are -
- . ig .ificant penalties for submitting false -
Information. including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.

-------
fl134 .. Fa. 1 — 1 1r I L 58. No. 1311 TiutiLly, Septeniber 21. 1983 1 Nod
—— 301. 3 398,
397. 308.31L493of theActaed whe
knovsattha timethdheisp 1 w ia&
another pemon L a imrninant ang of.
death or serious bodily Lapiuy i i1ijar4
to a fine of not .thaoP ct1Jt0Q per
clay of auikcrby iIq1risoftm 1 for
not mere d 15 or b.
(dJ F&se Stateoueots. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly make, any false material
statement. or
certificotlais ma yapplIa thut. uwiinL
report, plan. or at dm rment filed or
required to he maintained end the Ad
ouwlio knowingly falsifies. tampers
with, or vud.ni inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required
to be mintmned under the Act, shall
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than 310.000, orby
imprisonment for not more than 2 years,
orbybotb.lf a conviction of a person
is fore violation committed aftera first
conviction of such poison under this
paragraph, punishment shafl ha by a
fine of not mote than $20,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment of not
more than 4 yeara. or by both. (See
Section 309.c.4 of the Clean Water Act).
2. Clvii Penalties
The riw Water hdat thm 309
provides that any person who vl”l a
permit OnAitfnn lnplRmanflng c .1nn .
301, 30Z , .206.307.308,313, or 405 of
the Clean Water Act is subject to a avil
penalty not to nvr..,d 125.000 per day
of such violation. Any p n who
willfully or ungilgently violates permit
conditions implementing c rri,w , . 301,
302. 306.307.01308 of the Clean Water
Act Is subject to a fine of not 1... than
$2,500 nor more than 325.000 per day
of violthna. ce by --- oat
more than 1 year. or both. The
maximum penalty may be a .c .w4 for
each violation occurring on a single day.
A single operational upset which leans
to simultaneons violatiana .f mere thad
one pollutant amatwsbail be treei.d
as a single violation.
3. MminIsiraZIv. P siI4a .
The Act at SectIon 309 slows that the
Regional Administrator may . a
Class lorClassfl vil penalty for
violations of aoCtluus 301,302,309.307,
308. 318. O5oftheAd.AQaesI
penalty may not $10,000 per
violation p ( that the noaanmm
amount shell not exceed $25,000. A
Cam II penalty may not e wed 310.000
per day for each day which the
violation continues. s copt that the
ma,ainuzn am t shall not exceed
$125.000. An up that leads to
violations of mote their one pollutant
parameter will be a.atad esaineja
violation.
PadlV
SectionA. Test Pz . dwes -
Far’ teat piucediiu . epedfied
below, the only authorired pwi.i,diares
eiethos.deecrthed at4OG ’R pert 136.
1. Viemi Test
The visual sheen test Is used to dDtct
free oil by observing the surface of the
receiving water for the premace of a
sheen while dlstharging A sheen is
defined as a silvery’ or ‘metallic’ sheen.
gloss. or Increased refl t1v tj, visual
color or Iridescence on the water
surface. The operator most conduct a
visual sheen test only at times when a
sheen can be observed. This restriction
eliminates observations ii night or when
atmospheric or surface conditions
prohibit the observer from detRctiug a
sheen (e.g. Tog (not overcast skies).
rough seas. etc.3. Certain can
only occur i1 visual c1 i test can be
ur
The observer must 1* posiiiauasd
the rig or pIaaSi.in , or o ea e
point . relathe to bath the d . 1wg
poiatand urmrgflowdtbe6ioaof
discharge, that the . .L.. . can
detect a 1 should it enr down
onu kern the diach For
discharges that have ham ocsnnnrg fiw
at least 15 minutes preelously.
obsarvatiam may be mad. any
ther hw- You’ dierthaigs. of lees than 15
minn Ie. duzedon. waLioua must be
made d ’ —ing both dlatharge and at S
minutes after discharge has m s L
2. Static Test
Region 10. Modified Static Sheen
Test, “Bucket Ted’: Cotabined 50 FR
No. 165 August 26,1985 and u r(t
Region 10. ln im Ceid. for the
Static (Laboratory) Sheen T . Jermery
10. 1964. -
1. Scope and Applirt4mi
The static sheen ted I . to be used as
a compliance test for all diwhsrges in
this permit with the no free oil
discharge’ requirement, when it is not
possible for the upvratuitO uut.uui plish
a visual sheen ob valion on the
surface of the zeceivwg water. This
would preclude an operator from
attempting a visual sheen observation
when e ospheric or iface conditions
prohibit the rvev from detectinge
sheen (e.g.. dining rough sam. etc.). Free
oil refers to any oil contained In a wi . t5
stream that when discharged will ceuse
a filmorsheen upon ova discoloration
of the surface of the receiving water.
2. $““— “y ofNeth .id
15 ml samples of dsiU ds . des
mail
and wertousu fluids,
fluids, tausted w 1uw.II five.
drilling fluid d.wsi g an *viti.s. or 15
gin (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 011000 2 (155.5 mel).
Samples are dispersed within the
- sod ohamvdiam e no
more than one hour b to ascertain if
these materials cause a sheen,
iridescence. gloss, or
reflectance on the sotfa of the test
seawater. The occurrence of any of these
visual observations will constitute a
demonstration that the tested material
,nt.iu free oil”. and therefore,
results ins prohibition on Its discharge
into receiving waters,
3. lntethrences
Residual “free oil” adhering to
sampling contiI v . the mag elic
stirring bar used to mix drilling Fluids.
and the stainlees steel spatula mad to
mix drill cuttings will be the pnnapsl
sources of centzeiinedon problems.
These prebleam should only occur if
hniwr er1y w ied end cleaned
equipi i t am esad for the test. The .
of disposable equipeesit minnuizes the.
potential for similar I min .on from
pipets and the test container.
4. Apparatus. Ui ia1a , and Reageats
4.1 A 1 p....tbI
4.1.1—Sampling Containers—i L
polyethylene beakers and 1!. glass
beakers.
4.1.2—Graduated cylinder—lilo ml
graduated cylinder required only for
operations wham erIA1ution of mud
discharges is required.
4.1.3 Plast&c disposable weighing
boats. . -
4.1.4 Triple.beam scale.
4.1.5 Thsposablapipets—.25 ml
disposable pipeta. -
4.1.6 Magnetic stirrer and stirnng
bar.
4.L7 Stainless steel spatula.
4iJ Test container—open plastic
coner wh’ o .iu1erual cuss-section
parallel to opening has en ares of
1000±50 2 (155.5 .75 ln2 , and a
depth of at least 13 (5 Inches) and
no more than 30 (11.3 inches).
4.2 M’r .l ’ and Reagents
42.1 PlastIc liners forthe test
container—OIL free, heavy duty pies.
trash con that do not inhibit the
spieadingof an oil film. Liner, must be
of sufficient size to completely the

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 181 / Tuesday. September 21. 1993.! Notices . 49135
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 fluid to be
tested shall be taken at the shale shaker
after cuttings have been removed. The
sample volume should range between
20 0mland5 00mL
7.3 Samples of drill cuttings will be
taken from the shale shaker saeens with
a clean spatula or similar Instrument
and placed in a glean Cuttings
samples shall be collected prior to the
addition of any washdown water and
should range between 200 gand 500 g.
7.4 Samples of produced sand must
be obtained from the solids control
equipment from which the discharge
occurs on anygiven 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
dewatering activities must be obtained
from the holding facility prior to
discharge; the sample volume should —
range between 200 ml and 500 saL
7.6 Samples must be tested no later
than 1 hour after collection. -
7.7 Drilling fluid samples must be
mixed in their sampling containers for
5 minutes prior to the test using a
magnetic bar stirrer.!! predilution is
imposed as a permit condition, the
sample must be mixed at the same ratio
with the same prediluting water as the
discharged rnudsandstiired .for5
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.
5. Procedure
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
axis. 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 teIt container, and di. rded
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
dewatering activities must be -
Introduced by pipet into the test
container I below the water surface.
Pipets must be filled and discharged
with test material prior 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
foratestandthendiscarded. -
8.4 Drill cuttings or produced sand
should be weighed on plastic weighing
boats; 15 gram samples must be :.
transferred by soaping 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 soaped
with tb,e spatula to transfer any residual
material to the test container. The drill
cuttings or produced sand must be
stirred with the spatula to an even
distribution 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.
8.6 DetectIon of a “silvery” or
“metallic” sheen, gloss. or increased
reflectivity; visual color or iridescence;
oran 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 inaeased 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.
• Uan 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. If the sheen or slick
does not inaease in size to cover greater
than one-half of the test container
surface area after one hour of
observation, discharge may continue
and additional sampling is not required.
If a sheen or slick occurs on greater
than one-hall 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-half of the surface area of the test
container, discharge may continue.
Section 9. Definitions
Administrator means the
administrator of A 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 A and the State.
collectively, containing significant
biological resources or features that
- require “No DischarRe” conditions.
Average doily discJrarge limitation
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. -
Avervge monthly discharge limitation
me s 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.
Botch or bulk discharge means any
discharge of a discrete volume or mass
interior surface of the test container.
Permittees must determine an -.
appropriate local source of liners that do
not inhibit the spreading of 0.05 ml
dieselfueladdedtothelinedtest -
container under the test conditions and
protocol described below.
4.2.2 Ambient receiving water.
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

-------
4813$ . Fed la rI Vol. ss. No. 1811 Tiesday. Sep ubev 21.19811 Ni*M s - - -
of - . fime a p . k orsuailar
container t -------- a s or
Batth xM&1 m .
treatment tie TcdnmS orwasa
0 f*Mii d ho_rn a pit. k. iIa
4 ’w pzi rriodisthrnge.
Rlow.cint jx vcuLw i 4wiJlnidis
fluid used to uate the h’ 4 ’rnilic -
equipment en the blow-oust
JCW5 is five day bl emcai oxygen
demand.
&ilorblowdosei is discharge bent
boilers n ’ ’y to ii1i tm snJj g
build-up ui the boilers, include. seats
from boilers and ot heating ss.
Clinkers am enail lumps of melted
plastic.
Coostol ) waters of the United
States (as defined at 40 2 122.2)
landward of the territorial seas.
COThs thø i4 I oxygen
Completion fluids am salt solutions,
wiiighfnd hvin , polymers or various
additives used to prevent tt miige to the
well bore duthig operations wbich
prepare the drilled well for hydrocarbon
production. These fluids move into the
formation and reUxm to the surface as a
slug with the produced water. Drilling
muds r ining in the weilbore during
f 0 ing, r c ng and rmn tnaing
op nHnni or dining temporary
abgnaInnm mt of the well are not
considered completion IiHid .
regulatedby drilling fli.aI.
vflaflt
re rymoJi,mimdischlip flm ’ ”
means the highest allowable “daily
discharge” duri the calendar ninnth
Deck drainage is all waste resulting
from platform washings, deck ws hing, ,
spills. rainwater, and runoff from curbs.
gutters, and drains, including drip pans
and wash areas.
D.cnIini nf in w a rt thschwge fl’ fl
wastewater ss ’ d with the p—
of creating fresh water from seawatar
and includes potable water tank weste
water diich&’ge. mod t n ru
. DinMm iii tb filter rn,dL .
means fflisrmedla used to
seawater or other su’ 1 ” 4 ”d completion
fluids and subsequently w IiA i from
theflular.
Domestic iwo_ate is discharges from
galleys. ginirt , showers, safety showers,
eye wash stations, hand wash stations
and laundries.
Drill cuttings are particles generated
by rfriJlln into the subsurface
geologimffnTnu.sinmt 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 time a
well l ’s begun until final cessation of
dnlling in that hole.
Excess Cement Slurry is the excess
cement including additives and wastes
from m .-1 1 --. w.sMmen tier a
____ ten. -. .‘ . -
b ee isoflhtiat r ashem
wlwe dlenhargu. , .lmwI or i .4ien a
tic sh.- teat Is used.
FcaseWioa led jluidsar. the
that would o n should hydrocarbons
be located during exploçetouy drilling
and tested for formation and
content.
Gorbogemesns alt kind. of victual.
domestic end operational weste
generated dining the enrmal operation
of the ship and liable to be disposed of
continuously or pericalically (See
MARPOL 73/78 regulatIons) .
Grab sample a single repre taIlve
‘effluent awyle taken at the recognized
discharge point in en short a period of
time as feasible.
Gnzywuter means drainage from
shower, laundry, bath, and
washbesth d,oin and does not include
drainage from toilets. tirMal hospitals.
and drainage from go areas. (See
MARPOL 73/78 regulations).
L . emulsion drilling fluids means
an oil-based drilling fluid that also
contains a large amount of water.
Moxthmnn hourly rote moms the
greatest number ofbarrels of drilling
fluids ditcharged within one hour.
expressed as barrels per hour.
MGD refers to units of flow
measurement,, as million gallons per
day.
AWN means most probable number.
Muds. cuttings, rind cement at the
seafloor are disdiarges which occur at
the seafloor prior to i,ittallation of the
marine riser and during marine riser
disconnect and well abandonment and
plugging operations.
No Activity Zones are those areas
identified by I&t4S where no structures.
drilling rigs, or pipelines will be
allowed. See Areas of Biological
Conco
No Discharge Areas are areas
specified by EPA where r?iwhitrge of
pollutants may not o ir.
Pricker Fluid means low solids fluids
between the packer. production string
and well casing. (See workover fluids).
Priority Pollutants are those cbemirn1
or elements identified by EPA. pursuant
to section 307 of the Clean Water Act,
and 40 CFR 40L15. See Appendix A.
Sanitar,’ waste means hun .n body
waste discharged from toilets and
urinals.
Sowce 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 I V, Section A.2 of the
permit.
Ternbriti Sea, ls ”th. belt either
measured kern tim flue of adheny I .
- dengtI — the co
which l eindh e o toentadw lththeopea
ocean and the line w kiug the seaward
limit of inland waters, are! estending
seaward a distance of three miles” -
(CWA SuctIon 5021.
TVS means total dissolved solids
Toxic Poilu’Innt (See Priority -
Pollutants. Appendix A)
Treated .csteenftr from dewuterad
drilling fluids and crrWags
wastewater from dewatering activities
(Including bet not limited to s or
other tank. or pits which have been
floixulazed or ot wiser-hamir”lly or
mechanically treated to meet specific
discharge ainditinas) and any waste
commingled with this waler.
meem total suspended solids.
ballast/bilge wa is
seawater added or removed to maintain
properdraft oft vesseL
Uncontaminated Fi ’4ermo_eons
freshwater which Is , ith.r,iitd to the
i,ldiiwtn of
any cala 4i . .-In .1 1 (1)
discharges oi * that
permit the . .--fi- . - operation of fire
control end utility lift pumps. (2) -
freshwater horn p wu4 fr it
and r dmry recovery cts . (31
water released during the tr ini and
testinofpur- 1 in fire yrotedion.
(4) water used to preemne piping.
(5) once thicegh. non-contact cooling
water, and (SI potable water released
during transfer and tank emptying
operations and condensate from air
conditioner unite.
Uncesrtammnàted Seaimter is seawater
which is returned totheeee without the
addition of chemicals. Indudad aie (1)
Discharges of excess seawater which
permit the wthuous operation of fire
control and utility lift punaps. (2) excess
seawater from pressure maintenance
and secondary p ujects . (3)
water released dm5Mg the training and
testing of personnel in fire protection.
(4) seawater med to pressure test
piping, and (5) once through.
noncontact cooling water.
Visual Sheen means a ‘silvery’ or
‘metallic’ sheen, gloss, or inmeased
reflectivity: visual color or iridescence
on the water surface.
Well treabnezd (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 f auoz..
and return to the surface as a slug with
the produced water. Stimulation fluids
include substances such as acids,
solvents and propping agents.

-------
IsgIci 7 Vol. , 1 I Tta y. ex 11, fl4snL ___
WorkoverJlwdj u 1tis1nthrna , d dnsin 5 w pwe s n rnAiws1. .. ng .i well r cing . are
w, 5 ht.J b 1 . 11 , A, aiaer hm de redwerkovei fleids y - - - iwed wo over fluids and
specialty additives used In* ieds ug definition and therefore must et must meet only the effluent
welllo aflowsafa sepair ad dif fling Thiia tm tilrnitafloce befais requirements imposed on warlaver
l,I .m i * Aicrhiii . jn y ew w fluialc low
procedures. High solids drilling fluids solids fluids between the packer.
TABLE 1.—PERMIT COPI)moNs AND O1SCI4AAGE MONITORING FREOUBIICY
Effluent characteristic
.
Discharge Hnltatien
Moiti ing reUwmr -
Meatemer* 1 Recorded value(s)
(A A Fklda-no — __-
MB). ThI O -4m iLd i
(C). Tm d Wa alivlvmOvlb ip fl Dewatwirç ActivIties, idPIt CI w ‘ s :- -
Free all
.
Di and grease
1 5 5
COO
p 11
agendas
Totel ctvonsian
Zinc
Vokane
No free ci
15 algA.___________
flOn l glI
125 algIl______
6.0-9.03
5 regA
Once/day’
‘
-
Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day’
O i 1
Once/da T’
Or ay’
‘Once/day’
Visual sheen on reonsng
.
ish
Grab —
Grab
Grab ——
Gr
.—
a b
E._ l.. . ,u.
NwTter of days sheen ob-
served.
Daily
Daily maxu iw i.
Daily nueiman.
pH elue. . -
ym au
Daly ii aiin. -
y
D& y .
0.5 mgfl
5.0 mgA
Rspun (bbs ,)
i)). Dndc
.
-.‘ -
•
cwe ci O *seiei
.
Vokr ’e Repast (bbis)
-
Once i iorsti
‘Vhaal sheen on Eig
w .•. .
iEa&. .st, . —
$ r ci days sheen cb-

urenb
(E). Fosmabon Test Prids ., , . -
There shall be no discharge at bm 1 .tkin test flUids to sites, rivers. afreams. freshwatmr w th if gd6luu a In aJJtam . cts-
charges are prohbted to audit a refuges, game preserves. scenic eane, or iar specially protected lakes or waterbodies.
(Exception) Discharge of formstion test Ikads is allowed to the Mississippi River below Venice. Atchafalaya River below Morgan City. Wax Lake
Oudet. and to waterbodies and a4..il wetlands in braclosh or saline nwrsh mon snowed dsdwgss ae sud ct to me following
IliTstat lo re and re wei .
Free oil ___________— No: Cl ._.....___.. Once /ct iatge. VheCl sheen on receMng Nunter of days sheen ch-
w a ter. . served.
pH.. 5.0-90 ’ Onc&dischwge .. Grab pH value. /
Valises —— Report (bbs .) ._ _ Onceldischarge _. Ealncis ..___ Monthly totaL 4
(F)WeN Treabnertl. Conipleonn,.aiid Wortever fluids
There stieS be rio dactmge at sal Th.bii..4. c ir ladcn and waitcover fluids to laicas ,iker . streams, freshwater wetlands or mtamiediate st-
lands. In hwgas as , .J 4ad to wildlife refuges, game pres—’ee . .sceon streams, or other specially protected buss or
( F ceptMJn) Olocharge of well beativerd, ccnçletion end wodcover flwds is.allowed to the Mt pp . River below Venice, Ala*iafalaya Rllirer
below Morgan City. Wax Late Oi slid waterbodles and c ” i we!anda in teaalteli or saline mush asses. These allowed dsallerges
we sud ect to the fulowhig lkb.l aid mOrUtonflg reeifleflte . -. -
Pnonty Pohk iva
d
.
pH .__ ———
volume
No Ll ,IiI
No on C l
0.0-90’
eptet (bbic) . __.
.
Ccld lL,atlo ne.
Visiwl sheen on leceaivig

Grab
Estxnate --_ -...._
N&mter of days sheen ab-
_
e
MonOtly
Once/day’ i
Once/day’
Once/month’
(G). Sanitaly Waste
‘
Solids
9005 —_________
ss
Fecal colitoim. .
Flow
No floalaç mllds
45 mgfl
45 mgfl -
200/100 it’
Report (MGD) ... ....
Once/day . -.._____ ..
Oncelq imrtav —_____
Once/ u iwter . .._ ____
Once/week
Once/month ......... — . -..
ObeirvationO
.
Grab ...__...
Grab . _ -
Grab ... . . -. . . . ..
Estireste .........._....._..
Nuntu - of days scuds ob-
onved.
Daily moxamali.
Daily nmdsun
Daily vesamun.
Montrdy avg.
(H). Dul n e stiG Waite
ds . .... INodischar9e.1. I I I

-------
- ,4!138 .Iedenl Regieter I VOL 58. No. 181 f Tuesday, September 21. 1993 / Notices -
- TABLE 1.—PERMn CoNomopis AND OuscltARGE MONITORING FREQUENCY—Conthued
chainotedeho
.
.
I tati
.
- Mrequvsmui
Measurenuid atr y Saisple type mstIh.d . R ird .,d value(s)
9). F CareerS Shavy
Freeoi
.
LDEO field wide pemito ....
• -
.
-
Nofreeod .___.
No discharge to lakes, is ,-
6’s . rename, and fresh-
- water wedande or Inter-
wedan
Once/day’ .._..._._
Visual sheen on receiving
water 2 .
.
.
-
Nunterofdayssheenob-
served.
.
.
C,)) Miscellaneous Oischarges Desalirezabon Uiet Discharge. Blowout Preventer Flied. Uncontansnated Ballast Water, Uncordansnated Bilge
Water. Mud, Cuttings, and Cement at the Seafloor, Uncontanmated Seawater, Uncontanenated Freshwater, Boiler Slowdown, Diatoniaceous
Earth Filter Media. U i itam l.id Freshwat cC dsig potable water releases zmg telt transfer and eiT t ’,,ng operations, and conden-
sate from an conditioner wets.
Free of ............._...__.._.
No free oil .
Once/day’
•
Visual sheen an receiving
water 2
Nunter of days sheen ob-
seqved_
Footnotes forTab le 1. - - • -
‘When dathai n _
2cisdlarge is posatfe di.slng times other than when a visual sheen observation is poestle, if the static sheen test method is used.
at the porn of discharge shafi not be less tIwi 6.0 or greater than 9.0.
lnfarnwlion shall be recorded, bid not perhd unless specilicafly requested by EPA.
‘No discharge axcef* in trace amounts. Certification that each discharge does not contem priority poihitants (exceç in trace amounts) on
DMR ’s is sufficient to meet priority polluters lists. Information on the specific chenical ccfT osition shall be retained by the pemettee but not
reported unless requested by EPA. -
SMoivtonng by visual observation of the swface of the receiving water in the vicinity of outfall(s) shall be done &nng daylight at me bine of
mawnws estisated discharge.
For specific water bodies desqiated by the state for oyster propagation, Fecal coliform not to exceed 14 most probale minter (PAPN) fecal
delifomis per 100 riti, and not more Sian 10% of the uncles shall exceed an MPN of 43 per 100 nti for e5 hibe decimal dilution test In areas
meat pmbobly exposed to fecal contaiTvisxn dining most unfavorable tiyreographlc and po liui ’on conditions.
S Annex V of MARPOL 73 (78 pioht the discharge di gwtage’ Induding food wastes, incineration ash and olkilcers. Graywater, din’
from dishwater, shower. Iaun y. bath, and wastibasins may be discharged.
SMorstoring of visual sheen to be made at times islien visual observations can be made.
ieWhen discharging and when the ildys nweiet • -
Appendix A. Priority Pollutant List Ethylbeezene . Pluorene
- Fluoranthene Phenanthmne
Acenaphthene 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 13,LO-dibenzanthracone
Aciolein 4-broinoohenyl phenyl ether Id lbenzo(h)anthreeane )
Aaylonitrile Dlch1om ,omiomethane —
Benasne . Orlordibromoscethane
Bennd lne • Hexachiorobutadine
Carbon tetrachiorlde (tetrachlonmzethane) He lo rcIoosntadine
C i lorobenzene
12 (-trichlorabenzene
Pentach1omph’ ioi’
Phenol
BIu(2-ethylhexyl) phtha!ate
Butyl beozyl phihalate
Dt.a-butyl phthalate -
DI-a.octyl phthalate
Diethyl Phihalate
DlniethyI phthalate 1.2.benzathracene
(benw(a)anthracene)
Beczo(a)pyrene (3.4.benzopyrene)
3.4-Benzofluoranthene
(benzn(b)fluornnthene)
Indeno (1,2.3-cd) pyiene (2.3.o.phenylene)
Pyrene Tetrechioroethylece
Tohiene -
Endosuiphan sulphate
Endrin
Endnn aldehyde
Heptechior -
Heptachior epoxide (BHC-hexachloro -
cyclohexane)
A lpha - BHC -
Beta-BHC
C m .8HC (lindane)
— DeIta-BHC ( -polychlor*nated biphenyls)
—l242 (Arochlor 1242)
—l2S4 (Arochlor 1254)
—1221 (Arochlor 1221)
—1232 (Arochlor 1232)
—1248 (Aznchlor 1248)
—126O (Arochlor 1260)
—1O16 (Arochlor 1016)
Toxaphan.
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
eryI1Ium -
Cadmium
Orromluas
Copper
Cyanide. Total
ad
Mercury
Nickel
leophorone
Napthaline
Nitrobensene
2-sitrophenol
4-n itrophenol
2.4-dinitiophenol
4.6-d lnltro-o-anaol
4,6-dlnrtro-o-ae sol
N-aitrosodimethylamine
N -nitrosndi.n.nmnvlamins
1,2-dichiorcethans
ij. 1-irtchloroethan.
H .Ioroetha n e - -
1,1-d lch loroethane
f .1,2-trlchloxoethaee
1, 12,2-tetrach lo rosthane
Caloroethane ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether ( mixed)-
2 .chlcronaphthalene
2.4 .S4richlovophenol
Parech lorometacesol
QiIo,ofonn (trichlcromethane
2 -chloxophenol
1.2-dichlorobeozene
1,3-dichlambenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenz.ne
1.1-dichloroethylene
2.4-dichIorophanol
1.2-dichlozvpropane
13-dichloropropylene (1.3-dlchloropropene)
2.4.dimethylphecoi
2.4-din itzoto luene
Z.8-dinatroto luene
1,2-diphecylhydnzine
(benzo(bflluoranthene)
airysei e
Acenaphthylene
Anthrecene
1.12.benzoperylene(benzo(ghi)pery lene)

-------
L I Rmr I VoL 38 , No. 1 I Tue. 4 ’ry,Sep ibar_2L ____
Methyl chloride ( d thlik. )
Methyl oinIde (bromomethane)
Bcomofeim Thbrogioethaus
Ththl e roethylene_____
FII
fauiuiti ‘—aies nd gu llti
assodsted wIth eweflheadiorntedin
( T D) waters of the ULa1M IPCIOdIIIg
weahnd. ) asdefrned at 40 k t’
- landward ofihebinomdery.f
territnri l seas and ihosa walls in the
ge gr hjg ge (landand water aeea )
suspended from lb.
Subca’tegory described at 40 CER part
435 subpart C. The term w etlands shall
mean “those surface ames which axe
___ Inundated or satuzatedby surface or
ground water at a frequency and
diu f IOn an ficient io.supptvu.t.and that
under n i i i do auopo
Dialdrin
. u .i u . . quI
4.4-DOT -
4 4.oDg (p4DDXJ
4.4-ODD (p ,p.TDE) -
AIpha 4 a TV n.
Seta .eudosu lphan . -
Zinc
General risallen Ia
fl ..! rg5 From 4h.OU and Gsa Point
Sourue Category I a Ceasta! Watam of
Texas
Permit No. TXG330000
In compliance with tb.puwisioosof
the In I WaterPgllutioza’Cnntrol Act.
as amended (33U r 1251ef seir the
“Acti. the follaving disthargas.are
authorizad from I ct I nil and gas
fi rillliea In 40 CER.Paxt 435,
Subpart D] tomiwing waters..
desbedbelow ( pai ing the
crn .Ml waters of Texas) in at rdanse
with RillilAnt IiTnitMinnç x iIndng
requirements and others 1 .litLons sat
forth in Parts UI. I L andlV thereof:
DnlUi P l a ids,
Drill Cuttinga. -
Deck Drainage.
Sanilaiy Wastes.
Domestic Waster.
De salin .fismtnitflischazge.
Datnm r n Earth POterMedla.
Cement Stony.
UnconI mlniited BallastfBilge Water.
Doilerthowdowa.
Blowout Pre,eoter indI1uid.
Wall Treatment Fluids,.
Workover Fluids.
Completion Fluids. -
Formation Teat Fluids.
Tie Wtewaier B.& .d D ’illIeg
FluidsiCutt.
Muds, Qittanga. and r t 5e fle ,
Unimntemmnswd Seaenter.
Unt i .1 t1r4I erhwates.
This permit authotizan’di.l’ — sto
nl wa s of.Tiaxas from oil and
gas 1 Iities engaged lx prodactien.
field exploration.- drilling, well
completion.. and wail $ in t
operathui pm i1a .r . . .4’ water, psodnoed
sand and.aot water and sand
discharges are excluded froinomrersge
under this — pemut. bid will
however, be regulated under a separate
general coastal permit. ____
For th. purposes taithis Nrue
general permit. Coastal Subostegozy
a prevalim of vegetation ty li
adapted for life An.c.i . tadeoil
anulitioos. Wetland . generally include,
swamps. marshes. begs and jmLI ,
g” Tathtoriai sees rofeorto “the belt
of the -seas measuoul hem lb. ioa.af
ordinary low water along t partion-of
the coast which is direct contact wlth
th. open em and the line raarkixag4b.
seaward limit of wdaad wate8 ,
extending emwude nf•tha.
miles.” (See Clean Water.Ast.Sealmne -
502). - -. . -
The aiadrd peamitales as d Thed
in the regulations is broad by definItion
and includes aflrivers,
bays. estuaries and adaceut wetlands
that ocoir Inland of Lnnartuiwdazy of
the territorill seas. The r l
suboetegory also includes lb.
geographic area along the coast ofTexas
and Lowai a Chapman line lana)
which was originally defined as coastal
in EPA’.s 1976 Interim Final Regulations
for the nshom subcategory lSoo
Suspension oTRegulafions. 47Y.R
31554, July21. 1982). A frrflityis
consj4a 1o be vamd .iinil.ir.tha
proposed general permit if the Jt tinn
of the welihead Is within the dast flmd
permitarea.
This permit does nntanthnrian
discharge from “new so s’ as
d nad in 40 CER” Thisr”ni’
also doesnot wiht 4 . Ai th j.a
oil and gas extraction operations which
adversely affect properties listed or
eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Plams.
This permit shall become effective on
October 21. 1993.
This permit and the authoriantiozi in
discharge shall expimat midn ght .
Octob.r21. 1998.
,_ U.
-
Thzesto Water Management Dmsiaii EPA
Region 8..
Part! -
Section A. Genemi Pemüt £ovemge -
1. IntentTo Be Covered
Writtennotificatiun of Intent tube
wvvred , including the legal name and
address of-the operator. the lease (or
lease block uwuL irossignnd by the
Railroad COmmISSIOn df ’Texas or, if
none, the name u ily aeaigned to
the Jeer. arm, and the typeof facilities
located within the lease (or lease binrkj ,
shall be submitted.
(a) By operatorsaf leases (or lease
blockn)that are located within the
geographic ncope of this permft. within
45deysoftheeffuoti vdatenfthis -
_t_. -
- Nete.C teatme mast request ‘ e
under this general permit whseeaneflective
izadivtduaipecnlt. -
. (b)Byoperairesoflee ses(orlorse
blocks) ebeaii I suheequent to the
effectisre date of this permit fourteen
days prior 1.0 the ,Lm l, n ent of
discharge.
2. Termination of Operations
Leas.’(.rlesaeblock) operators shall
notify the Regional Administrator
within 60 days after the permanent
• imin tion of discharges from their
facilitiea.ln addition. ‘lease (or lease
blockj-opersaors shall notifytbe
Regional Admini itrator within 30 days
of anylraasfer of ownership.
Section !. NPDES Individual Yersus
General emait Applicabi1i y
1. The Regional AdministratorMay
Require Application for an Individual
NPDES Permit
The Ia iuiial Ai 4 ,, .inistrator may
require any person authoriand by thu.
permitto apply for and obtain an
individual bU’.DES permit whom
(.1 Tlasiilrh .wg .(s)is a rlg ’iifimat
con ibutor atpolluti ner
(h) The-discharger aa nor in compliance
with the.omditlons of this permit
(c) A change has occurred in the
availability of the demonsuniad tudmnlogj’
or practices for the confrol or abatement of
pollutenteipplltnbieloth. point mercer
(d)EIflu.ntlinzttatloa guidelines era -
prom dgawd paint smrzom emd by
this permit _____
jet AWaterQtality M 11 . - ’ Plan
containing saqulermsnu appIlr .ih1 to mach
point source is approved:
( (I The point source(s) covered by this
permit no loogac
(1) involve the mama oriubstantialEy
similar types of operations.
Silver -
Thallium
Bis(2-di la

-------
. .-‘ 49140
- Federal er 1 Vol.58 , No. 181 1 Tuesday..SeptembeL 21. 1993 1 Notices
(2) Discharg. the sene types oLwsstes
• (3) Require the mere effluent limitations en
operating conditloen
(4) Requite the mine miI r mnftorlng
(5) In the opinion of the Regional
Administrator. ate more appropriately
controlled under an individual permit than
under a general permiL
The Regional Administrator may
require any operator authorized by this
permit to pp y 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). -
PaztlI
Section A. Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring RequiremenLt -.
Specific effluent limitations and
monitoring requirements are discussed
below. They are organized by the type
ofdischargeinthetext,andby
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. including fluids
adhering to cuttings.
(b) Prohibitions. This permit prohibits
the discharge of all drilling fluids.
2. Drill Cuttings
Special Notar The permit prohibitions and
liimtations that apply to dnlling fluids also
apply to drilling fluids that adhere to drill
cuttings. Any permit soaditi on that applies
ta th. drilling fluid . y.tuw . therefore. also
applies tocuning, discharges. .. . -
(a) Pmhibition,. This t 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 pits, 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.
(Exceptioni 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 ma mum
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.
(Exceptioni 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 TDS
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
diwhnrge.
Chemical Oxygen Demand. Treated
wastewater shall not exceed 200 mg/I as
a daily maximum.
pH. Discharges of treated wastewater
must meet a pH limitation of not less
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 watercourses.
(Exception) Chloride concentration may
exceed 1.000 mg/I in tidally influenced
watercowses (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 watercor
which Is not tidally influenced.
Hazardous Metals. The discharge -
must not contain concentrations of the
substances classified as “hawdous
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 characteristice 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. If the 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
contalning 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
sheen is possible and when the facibty
Is manned. The number of days a sheen
is detected must be recorded.
(b) 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. -
(Exception) Discharges of formation test
fluids are allowed to bays and estuaries
where no chloride standards have been
established by the Taxas Water
Commi ion.
(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 p. ssiblo.
Monitoring must be accomplished once
per rliwharge. The number of days a
sheen is detected must be recorded.
(Exception) Formation test fluids may
be disrharged at any time if the operator
uses the static sheen method for
detecting free oil.
pH. Discharges of formation test .1
must meet a p11 limitation of not less
than 6.0 and not greater than 9.0. A grab
sample must be taken once per
discharge. Any spent acidic test fluids

-------
thUbeneutralimdbeforedIscha e
.uchthatthe pH atthe point of
discharge meets the limitation. -.
(c) Other Monitoring—Volume. Once
per discharge. the total volume reported
as number of barrels sent downhole
during testing and the number of barrels
discharged shall be estimated and
reported once per month.
6. Well Treatment Fluids, Completion
Fluids, Workover Fluids
(a) Prohibitions. These shall be no
discharge of well completion. treatment
or workover fluids to lakes, rivera,
streams, bays or estuaries.
IExceptldn) Discharge àf well
cxnnpletion, treatment or workover
fluids are allowed to bays and estuaries
where no chloride standards have been
established by the Texas Water
Commi ion. .. - •
Priority (Toxic) Pollutants. For well
treatment fluids, completion fluids, and
workover fluids, the discharge of
priority pollutants (see Appendix A) Is
prohibited. wi pl In trace amounts. U
well completion. treatment or workover
fluids are di .4u ged, the pesmittee is
required to retain records Indicating that
the discharge did not contain priority
pollutants, except In trace amounts.
Certification on DM&’s will suffice for
priority pollutant limits. -
Information on the specific chemical
composition of additives used in these
fluids, and thefr con Lnitlons in the
fluid, must be recorded if priority
pollutants are present, in any amount.
in these additives. -
(b) limitations—Free Oil. Discharges
conr*rning free oil are prohibited as
determined by a visual sheen on the
surface of the rqceiving 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. .c
(Exceptionl Well treatment fluids.
completion fluids, or workover fluids
maybedischargedatanytlmeifthe
operator uses the static sheen method
for detecting free oiL ‘ -
pH. Well treatment, completion and
workover fluids must meet a pH
limitation of not less than 6.0 and not
greater than 9.0 prior to being
Sampling must be
accomp edonceperdaywhen
discharging. -
(c) Other Monitoring—Volume. Once
per month, the discharge volume (bbls)
must be estimated.
9, Mi lIan g Discharges
De Iini.iition Unit Disèharge, •. .
Blowout Preventer Fluid. •. . .
Unco 6 mirnited Ballast Water,
Uncont*minRted Bilge Water, Mud,
Cuttings, and Cement at the sea floor.
UncontRminRted Seawater. Boiler
Blowdown. Excess Cement Slurry, -.
Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media. . -
Uncontainin ted Freshwater, including
potable water releases during tank
transfer and emptying operations, and
condnsate from air conditioner units.
(a) Limitations—Free Oil. Discharges
containing free oil are prohibited as ‘ -
determined by a visual sheen on the
surface of the receiving wajes. Discharge
Isauthorizadonlyatthneswhenvisusl -
sheen observation is possible.
Monitoring must be accomplished once
per day, when discharging. The number
ofdaysasheenisdetectedmustbe -.
recorded.
lExceptionl Miscellaneous discharges -.
may occor at any time if the operator
uses the static sheen method for
detecting free oil.
10. Other Discharge Conditions
(a) Prohibit! one—Ho) ogenoted Phenol
Compounds. There shall be no
discharge of halogenated phenol
compounds.
Rubbish. Trash, and Other Refuse.
The discharge of any solid material not
Notwithstanding IILA.5 below, if any
toxic effluent standard or prohibition
(induding 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
ailcrhnvge and that standard or
prohibition is more stringent than any
limitation .m the poilutant in this -
permit, this permit shall be modified or
sevoked and reissued to conform to the
toxic effluent standard or prohibition
and the permittee so notified.
The permrnee 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, oven if the
permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement.
• • : : ‘ “ F deraI RagI.twi VoL.58, No. 181 l.Tu thy,Septemberzl,.t993.1-Notlces -4 -49141
- .;.: . iautho r ized I nthrmit(asd e sc r bed
- (a) Prohibitions—Solids. No float1 g bia) Ispiohibliad. ... .-
solids may be discharged. • (b) limitations-Floating Solids or .
• (b) Lintitations—8iochemic J Oxygen Visible Foam. There shall be no
Demand (BOD5). Sanitary waste ‘ discharge of floating solids or visible
- discharges must meet a 45 mg (I daily foam In other than trace amounts.
IflAl(imum limitation. A grab sample . . Surfactants, Disperaants. and
must be collected and analyzed on per Detergents. The discharge of surfactants,
quarteri ‘ -. ts and det ate used to
Total Suspended Solids. Sanitary , - be___
waste discharges shall meet a 45 mgfl - except as necessary to comply with
daily maximum limitation. A 8 5b ‘ applicable State end Federal saiety
sample shall be collected and analyzed. zaquirements. . . -, . .
once per quarter. . - : - - . - . -.-. -
Feccl Coliform. Sanitary waste SectionS. Other Conditions
hesmuatmeetadymalrnum 1. Samples o Wastes
- coliform . A grab sample must be taken .. If request d, the permittee shall
and analyzed once per week.. . . provide ‘A with a sample of any waste
(c) Other Monitoring—Flow. Once per In a manner specified by the Agency.
month, the average flow (mIllion gallons -
___ perda)r,MGD)rnustbee.tlmate€L
8. DomestIc Waste • - -
(a) Prohibitions-Solids. This permit
prohlbftsthedlschargeof”garbage” ., ____
Including food wastes (c’nnmlnuted or -
not), Incineration ash and dinkar , -
Neither fish and debris from fish -
_____ daanlng stations nor graywater arw not
considered garbage under this ..
definition. - -
— (
-Section C General Conditions
- . . -,__ . — .. .
1. Introduction - •.
- —
In accovlanra with the provisions of
40 ‘R 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 well as ALL applicable CFR
: - regulations. - —- . - •. -
LDutyToComply . ‘ . -
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 or for requiring
a permittee to apply for and obtain an
Individual NPDES permit.
3. ToxIc Pollutants -

-------
- ..i g v $ iy1, iIof’ zi. r’ tiC .. -
.4.Thit ToR.ppIy * 4 .anuspflRc.wlththisp usILThr
- gibe p itteewiiZ . IS C0! Ius1S1I 1”4àIil 1 IS kmk the E anvirown . .. .‘ - - -
___ _
tobOwdand15Ust1 Ply IlflW - &OvfJandCr mh2 sILWJ1flty ,. ..
• t. olths • . •.• - .••
psrm - PU . Erthpt as provided in p ii -. c ol (and i- 1 appurs.. J tbet
‘ conditions o y aasin( and - • are installed or used by the p. _ ..I lle to
at - Upus*s (as ULL4 end aB.3). - athieve complianco with the ‘ ‘t ’ ”
. nwl Al -. .. 4 nothing in this p mit shali he . of tith pormiL Prepei opth4lon and
5. P wit Fhea Jity . conetrusd to relieve the p—n’iUe. frem - nteoanco abe, Includes adequate
_
• lndudmg. not limited to. the P” °° or 1 mube 5ot of p oins , inquires the opastion of• -
follow” _.- Infarzusbnu required to be reported by øa up or auxiliary litias or_____
r - the peovisioosofthepazmt.th.ACI ’ , ys*ems that iii Installed byapennitlee
(i)VIn ” 1 oi y C thtMfl 5 of or appIi Lle C R regulations which ozuy when the opesation Is n.oremry to
___ ___ • e v a soreffectively defeat s die : - ‘echie v e phi wfththea a ndition s
.min,p,.ea i crIiiheeA1_ri regulatory purpoes of the permit may of the permit. -
all relevant subject the imittes to almi .a
• )A change In any amdflbm th enfoiumireni pursuant to iau.sc u 1 t! -
either e y • p Trn t lk..44f .. . ott and Hasurd - (a) Definitions. (1) Bypass’
or ellmissdoncf the autb imd decharge or i . , . - the intontloual hvorsicxi of waste
- IdLA determination that the 1 —- --à • ‘ “ ' “ ‘4Y -. • — . . . . - eams fran any portion of a treatment
yendangsrsbwn.nhaalthorthe ..‘ othinglnthispui wtehalIbe - - - lleilJty. -. -
sevhsu and analy be g 1 m t .. construed to preclude the I tution of (2) SOvaie upetty bmlag& ’ nc
ptebl. levain byywi . i — dss or • any legal on a relieve the psrnutlee suh.”. . .-iJel pbyslonl dnmeg . to property.
_____ : ; - ‘ - fiuni any respomibliltias, liabilities, . damage to the oatment facilities that
• -n. m1ir ofa quast .by di. . r -. penalties to which (he permittee l eer . àuses them to b uwe Inoperable, or
j 3 j Ifian (jon,• • may be anb es undor sectf tar 311 oltb. 1 ,h.t.i,*iaI and perlnanest’)oss of - .
an f or Clean Water’ Act. . - . - . fl tu .J resow s that on reaaunab’ ‘le
or a “ ‘ . State Laws • - . l&tVJ t O o In the ahance c
changes or antldpated n t &11np 1 t nnut . • ,, . . -. bypass. Severn property damage dre
does not atay any ummit ‘ niIciion -, No P° not man wamic less creuusd by
or • constiued to preclude the fu 1ft’l1asi ° ‘dole,, in production. - . -
alternatively, revoked and reàmied. o - . any legs! on or zelian permft ( 5 5•• J ____
comply with any appliohle fit - ’t - . from any rmponsib1I1tf i. liabilities, or The wftes may allow anybypsu 10
stuidaid or limitation luii.d or- penalties established pursuant to-any o that does not omie affluent -
- a yuvi 4 , appllcoble State law or regulation wider limitations to be i ,ded . but only If
307 of the Can Wale, Ad If the -. authority 1 uv3 ’ied by sectlon.3l0 of - - it also Is for aseritla) main’ ’ to
aiuiii nt en iin the Clean Water . - . . . assure efficient operation. These
-orspproved - : !. . .1. iLSeverability - -
(a) C n ,n tdl rent amtfldana or • • • - . pov ” of aection B. paragraphs 4.c
litnitatlons thanany In the p rzalt or’ - The provisions of this permit we •.. of this i4m - -
‘.(b} controls any pollutant jim . severable.. and If any cf -Ibis - . • - ci Nu (im (1) Aitldpated bypasi If
in the paniL -. ; . -• - pand or the epplkmiom of any , .• . knows In advance of the
• - The panit as moilffied or ‘ d provision of this permit to any :. -neea for a bypass, It shall submit prior
unties’ tins .ara ep abait ala. aia uin -”ce Is held IiW*lld. tine ‘ - nodce If pti. h1n at least ten days
any othor r y . . _ ...’ntu g p 1 appilolian of such provision tO h1 m ’ - ‘before the data of the bypass.
_____ • - :-- --: .: - dj - .’. ..i.tana-1.1 .. . end the runsuiider l - • (2) UnantIcipated bypass. Th.
• ______ :. - -• . -.. • - • this permit, shall not be aI!octad - - . pormittee shall submit notice of an
P p .1ty R# s •. • - • thereby. - unanticipated bypass us required in
The isaumion of this p.wnii dose not Se Ion B. Oprmiico endMg section D, S (24-hour
convey any prupesty rights of any sal, ‘IFPOThIÜiII controls - reporthial .
-or any exchnsiv. privileges. na ilan ft •‘ - d) Pmhibitlon of hype.. . (1) Bypass i
suthorias any blur, to prlv.t. p tip y 1. Need to Hail or Reduce not a D ” ” , prohibited, and the Regional
or any suveelon of perasal rights, nor It shall not boa defense for a -- - - - . Adinin 1rator may take anLi .. .est
any lnMngrment of FederaL State, or perinittee in an eslincemant action that action against a pormittee ror bypass.
lool law, a regulations. • ii would hav, been r -—-r to halt or nolan • -
7 Du’ to Provide - - - reduce the permitted activity In order to (a) Bypem was unavoidable fOp n
• maintain compliance with the toes of life. personal mjury. or
The permutes aba )! fwuiih tO - conditions of this permit. Property dainage
Regional M” ‘i ” ’ator,. within a • . (hi There were no feasibl, alter
reasonable time, any information which - L Duty tø MI11 $tO - to th -’by e. . , such us the use of
the Regional “ “ 'trator may requ The pennittee shall tak, .11 auxiliary treatment fad lities, ietem un
to determin, whether as for i ahJe steps to minimim or proveat of untreated wastes, es maintenance
modifying, revoking and isfiaving. or any discharge in violation of this permit during normal periodo of equipment
terminating this permit, orb determine which has a zeesatnnhlm likelihood of downtime• This condition is net

-------
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 181 I Tuesday. September 21 1993 I Notices
49143
satisfied if adequate back-up equipment
shouldhavebeenlnstalledinthe •-
exercise of reasonable AngiPeering
judgment to prevent a bypass that -
occurred during normal periods of -
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance; and - . -
(c) The permittee submitted notices as
required under section B. paragraph 4.c.
(2) The Regional Mm.n,strator may
approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, lithe
Regional Administrator determines that
It will meet the three conditions listed
above in section B. paragraph 4.d.(i).
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 peluttee. 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 for noncompliance.
is final administrative 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 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 o
the upset as required in section D,
paragraph 5; and,
(4) The perinittee complied with any
remedial measures required under
section B. paragraph 2.
(d) Burden of proof. In any
enforcement proceeding the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, c ’r
other pollutants removed In the course
of treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be disposed of in amanner such
as to prevent any pollutant from such
materials from entering navigable
waters. Any substance specil cally listed
within this permit may be discharged in
accordance with specified conditions,
terms, or limitations. . ... -. -
Section C Monitoring and Records
1. Inspection and Entry . -
The permittee shall aI)dw the
Regional Administrator or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of
t edenUals and other documents as may
berequizedbylaw,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) Mayo ecr e to and copy. at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit:
(cI Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment).
.practices, or operations regulated or -
required under this permit; and -
I 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. . ,- -
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 permittee shall retain records of
all monitoring information, including
all &ibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recording for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
and copies of all reports required by this
permit. iota periodof at least3years -
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 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
(I) The results of such ana’yses.
5. M’onitoring Procedures -. -
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
.undar 40 CFR part 138. tinless other test -
procedures have been specified in this
- permit (see part JV.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
.dlscharge 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 is a new source in 40 CFR
122.29(b) 148 FR 14153. April 1, 1983.
as amended at 49 FR 38049, September -
26, 19841; or
(b) The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
ina eas the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants that aie subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to
notification requirements under 40 CFR
122.42(a)(1) (48 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.

-------
___ ___ texkity ative for any of the -
______ pollutant. itated byth, Regional
Mininhbetormn partiD ottheponsn to
_____ ______ be reported Within 24
The r p its should be made to Region
6 by telephone at (714) 655-65 . lb.
Regional Adxninistrator may waite the
wrzihzi tepOTt on a -by-cose basis if
the oral report has been within
24hours.
- _;_
8. Other
The p.udttee shall report all
lass-.--- - aim . pIiaiice n
r purtad under p t Ill. section D.
______ paragraphs 4 and 7 st the 1mw
monitonng reports ass submitted. The
reports shall contain the ftilarmatlan
___ listed In section D, paragraph 7.
9. OthsvLL _ .. iiiia
Wheui the p rz thebecranas ewere -
that I? foiled to submit any ielavent lbcts
in a permit application. ar5ubmittI J
ln 1 1 .a InfOrmation hr a p t
application orhfany repdrt to the’
Regional Athninistrator. it shall -
___________ promptly submit such facts or -
information.
10. ( 1t . ui . in I orge, of Tonic
For any c poihitant (see appt
A)thatlsnotthnited lntbL permh.
eith erasansddWvvitsetforasa ‘• -.
component in an additive formulation,
the pesmittee shall rzotif - the Rag(onal
Administrator as soon as he knows or
has to believe:
(a) That any sctivfty has w d or
will which wooEd result In the
discharge of such toxic pollutants, on a
________ routine or frequent baais. if that
dlschargewlli exceed the highest of the
“notification levels de ibed at 40
___ O ’R 122.42(aJ(1) (fland (iih
(b) That any activity has occurred or
___ ___ will or which would result in any
LUAL UI M . .S• fl• -- discharge of such toxic pollutants on a
exact dates and times, and if the. non-recLine or infrequent basis, if that
noncomplianc, has ant been onm ed. - dischar e will exceed the highest of the
the anticipated LIme it Is expected to .. “notification levels” daaaibed at 40
continua; and steps taken or pl ”r’n’id to G ’R 122.42(aK2J (H and (II ).
reduce, iuwI and prevent
reoocurrenceofth. mp 1 The
P gitm*l Mministrator may waive the
written report on-a case .by . s basis ii
the oral report has been received within
24bouzs. •, . . -
The following shall be indudad an
Information which must be rapoiled
within 24 hourm - ________
(a) Any um ntidpated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit:
(b) Any upset which ede any
effluent lisutasion in the penrnL
(c) Violations ala maxiin, daily
discharge limitation or daily minimum
.Rig VoL-5a,-Na 111 PTvdiy. Se - ..Jier 21, 19 i -Not6,
4S144 ___
• 1.1 insh”s - . ; - - - . C . peithfltsewllJbenotiflhltsip.d&
i. - ________ 1
• This
__ _____
.Mnth Lstretor may reqwze modification and L 9 rIRb
• . ot ZSVomIIOQ d i ” ii . :- this permit shall bemot to EPA Reglos
permit to change th. name -— . - —
• __
• the Ant. -. -. . -. . cli (6W-EA), P.O. Box 50
4D hi it o riDgR ’ports . -. -•: Dsl l a Tx752m
The u 1 .k oI.th has. (or ham . r ii r nvii ghy the ‘. • -
block) shall be Nlp4uisibl. for •. . .;• . . .
, -.I-.-UIug monitoring results (mall - •
IitM . within seth lease (estee .. u we ____ ____
block). The moaltoshig reudb th.. __
aQiltian (P1atfo . d I ng -. appuvved 40 (7R part 136 or
barr. etc.) within the perbianar wane th.•- • ,
- (or ease block) shall be IIW l U On this mooit shill be Included In the
the annual Diodunge Mmutarmg Report reporting onh date
for that lease (or team block). - submitted in the D . Seth M J -
- Mamtonng results uIwIlg . • - 5 . h also be
L ‘-“e abeD be • •. mom o . . g . uency
- _____ - •1:.- & J -
nrmmarfand and purti d on a r. - iflw .a i an •
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMRI 8. Averaging of Measurements
Form (EPA No. 3320-fl. The highest Cakulstham fir all ilmitaff which
monthly evera e for all 5 LVIUY WLLhUI require averaging ofmu.,. .b Shill
e tease (or lame blOCk) shall be - utiuise an arithmetic mean uinles. -
reported. The highest daily otherwise sp dfled by the Regional -.
sample nthgterapot • Mmithstratw in the p -
- ma,dznum rmi,wi adcn. (See , -- - 7. Twenty-Foul Hour Rapoating -
“Deflnitions for more detailed . • ‘rho permittee shall report any
explanations of these terms), noncompliance whii4i may iI itgn . -
If any . ipi.y of ws 5$ tdIsth ) • health or the onvfronment (this Indudes
not applicable for all facilities within y tizat reqimea orti reporting to
• the lease (or lease block) due to the type Re wat Authority).
of operation (e .g. diillin& production). Inf ormation shall be provided orally
Nan di harge ” must be r iuiiuj within 24 hours from the time the
those cstersdes on the - permittee becomes swam of Lb.
fodilitle. within a lam. block bee. had • A. written qzihmt , ,in
no edivity during the reporting period. shall aLso,be-providad within 5 days of
then no adMty ” m be written on - Lb. time the permittee becomes aware of
• the DMR. All pug of the D!I4R meat be the circumstances. The writt n
signed and ontifiad 51 I’CSULlJd ‘? Pa suhmiseion shall Ca r?tI% n a desaiption
W.D.I1 of this pusmit and submitted of the noncompflwir n and its
when due. - , , . r- -.. - - -- -
Th.Pa tt onnt asuplete all
empty blanks in the DMR noises tham
has been absolutely no . thlCy or no
discharge within the hose (or !as ___ ____
block) forth. enthe iurpwrtLig period. Zn ______
these . EPA Region V I will aixept _________
• listing of lames (or team blo J with ______
iiodischargesoriaosctivity,m lieu of
submitting adual DMZIs fir these leases
(orteaseblothsLThialiatingmust
• specify the peimittee’, Prur .S General
Permit Number, lease/tease block
desaiption. and EPA..sngned o ll
number. The listing must also hw.h,ain _____
the car’t r .Iif statement pi tad in
Part IILD.ud of this permit and an
original signature of the i gpiwad
responsible 0 ffii titL -
Upon receipt ole noti ’ ” of
intent to be covered. (past l.A.) the
11. gestu,y g.111 13
All applicatIons, reports, or
information submitted to the Regional
Administrator shall be sign’.d and
certified as requiredat 40 GR 17 1
(a) All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
(1) Fox a corporation: by a nvt htm
corporate For the pwposeof this
section. a responsible corporate oP
means:
(1) A psesLt t ont saaetary, treasurer, or
vim.prI ’i’I nt of the corporation iii
charge of a pnndpal buisin ss functinn .
or any other person who performs

-------
Federal Regiater VnI. , No. IBI I Tuesday, Sptembei 21. 1 Nutk
49145
similor polky or dedsionmakiag
functions for lb. osrposutioe. or
(ii) The of one or more
maznifacturuig. production, or operating
facilities employing more than 250
persons or having gi mmml sales or
expendilmesexuseding $25 million rm
second-quarter 1980 dollars). if
authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accoudanon with corporate p di ir s .
(2) For a partnership or sole
propretoiship? by • general pes’tnef’ or
the proprietor. , live)y .
(b) AuthorEed Reprasenlathe. Al!
requited by the permit mid other
Information requested by the Regional
Administrator shall be signed by a
person deecribed ab ,vv or by a duly
autimsized rupreeastMi e of that
A person is a duly Sdthurizvd
representative only if
(1) The auth izatlon is made in
writing bye person de % .J above .
(2) The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position ha .ng
responsibility for the overall op z tion
of the regulated focility or activity. such
as the position of plant manager.
operatoroti well era well field.
superintendent, or position of
equivalent responsibility, or an
individual or position having overall
responsibility for enviromnental matters
for the cem uy . A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a
named individual or any individual
owupying a named position; and,
(3) The written authorization is
submitted to the Regional
Administrator.
(c) Qi oAuth ,. Aion. if an
authonmtion usda, p iph (b) of
this section is on longer acoorate
because a different individual or
position has responsibility for the
overall operation of the facility, a new
authorization satisfying the
requirements of pma aph (b) of this
section must be submitted to the
Dir . tuir prior to or together with any
reports. information, or’ applications to
be signed by an authorized
representative.
(d) Certifica on. Any person signing a
document wider this section shall make
the following certification:
I certify under pesulty of law that this
document as all attwh,, t . wan pr pa. .d
under my direction or supervision in
accordanos withi systan designed to usure
that qualified p”p .’ly g.thev end
evaisaw the igfw , , ,.Lhw .ulanittsd. Based an
my rnqwry 01 the or p ..w . . who
manage the system. or those a directly
rmpuz wibI• for gsth mionnaiion. the
information ii. to the best of my
knowledge end belief. vise. aonarste. and
complete. & am aware that there are
signifimal — he minieg ss:
1 r— 1 dity at
and be _ ..o., ., ...,i krknowiagvi( Li i._
12. Availability at Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 ‘R pazt.2. all
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be w 1 ’ 1 e
for public inspection at the office of the
Regional idTaiI g . As raquizerl by
the Clean Water Act, the “ ‘ and
address of a my pennitapplksett or
perinittee. permit applications, permits.
and , ffhi * datashaflnotbe
considered confid flat
13. Comp’ — Sthedub.
Reports of compliance or
nonconrpl- ... .. with, or’ any s
wpuIIs on, u1. and final
requirements contained in any
comp’ ” schedule of this p .nit
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
schedules) requirement. -
Section E. Penalties for VkAa&xat of
Permit C” ditieam
1. mioa
(a) Negligent Violations. The Act
provides that any person who
negligeniiy yiftI tse pAl I .it conditions
Implementing sections 301. 302.306,
307. 308,316, or 405 of tha Act is
subject to a fine ohrot less than $2,500
nor more than 325.000per day of
violM%’ t. or by impr’annm for net
more than I yeer. or both.
(b) Knowing Violations. Act
prov 1es that any person who
knowingly violates rrTn rrmAil ons
implementing sections 301.302. 306.
307.30 8, 318, or4 05 of theActi s.
subjecttoa fine of not lass than 35.000
nor morn than 350.000 pes..day of
ViadAtinn . or by impri nnm nt føc ant
more than 3 years. or both.
(c) Knowing EndangarmenL The Ad
provides that any person who
knowingly violates pormil r nr.iilimn
implementing sections 301.302.306,
307, 308.318, or 405 of the Ad and who -
knows at that time that he is placing
another person in immin n1 danger of -
death or serious bodily injury is subject
to a fine of not more than $250,000
day of violation, or by r rn t for
not more than 15 years. or both.
(d) False Stz itanimits. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false material
statement. representation, or
carti r tion in any application. record.
report, plan, or other document flied or
requited to be 1 . .thined . . .a] the Act
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required
to be maintained under the Act, shell
epon conviction, he pimished by a fine
of not mere than $10,000. or by
imprisunmerit for not more than 2 yeers.
or by both. 0. conviction o le person
is for I violation committed after a first
conviction of such pu under this
paragraph, punishment shall be by a
fine of not more than 320,000 per day
of violation, orby Imprisonment of not
morethmi4yeors. orbyboth. (See
Section 309 c.4 of the Clean Waler Act).
2. Civil Penalties
The dma W ’ Ad at section 309
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition ii vpL _ ...intiiig ses±ons
301.302.306.307,308.318. rn 405 of
the O e m WatarAct is subject toe civil
penalty net to emeed $25,000 per day
of siach violation. Any person who
willfully or negligently violates permit
conditions implementing sections 301.
302. 306. 307, or 308 of the Clean Water
Act is bject ins boa of not lass than
32.500 nor more than 325.000 per day
of VI.ITatkIn . or by miprw.-. ..—-.t fir not
more them 1 year. or both. The
maximem penalty may be . ..dd for
each violation occurring on a single day.
A single operational upset which loads
to simultaneous violations of more than
one po)hrtant poumeter shall be treated
as a single violation.
3. Administrative Penalties
The Act at section 300 allows that the
Regional AdnI%ni tretor may assess a
Class larClaesU civil penalty he
violations of sections 301,302,306.307,
308. 318. or 405 of the Ad. A Class I
penalty may not w ed 310.000 per
violMi except that the ma ima ,m
ma ia shall not exceed $25,000 A
Class fl penalty may not exceed 310.000
per day for each day during which the
vinti inn flliflJ R wr pI that the
mayimuii amount shall not
$125,000. An upset that leads to
violations of more than one pollutant
perameler will be treated as a single
violation.
Part IV
Section A Tess Procedures
For ted pruwdLueS Dot specified
below, the only onthesized procedures
are those cribed at 40 a a pert 136.
1. Visual “ Test
The visual sheen test is used to detect
free oil by observing the surface of the
receiving water for th. presence of a
sheen while discharging. A sheen is
defined as a ‘silvery’ or ‘metallic’ sheen.

-------
49148
Federal Register! Vol. 58, Plo. 181 t Tuesday, September 2!, 1993 / Notices
g?osa. or in eased reflectivity; visua’
color, or iridevRmr!e on the water
surface. The operator must conduct a
visual sheen test only at times when a
sheen can be observed. This restriction
,limini tes 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
early occur ha 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 15 minutes previously,
observations may be made any time
thereafter. For discharges of less than 15
minutes duration, 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 USEPA
Region 10. Interim Guidance for the
Static (Laboratory) Sheen Test. January
10, 1984 -.
1. Scope and Application
The static sheen test Is 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 for the operator to accomplish
a visual sheen observation on the
surface of the receiving water. This
would preclude an operator from
attempting a visual sheen observation
when atmospheric or surface conditions
prohibit theobsarver from detectinga
• sheen (e.g.. during rough seas, etc.). Free
• oil refers to any oil contained In a wage
• 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 drilling fluids; de ik
drainage, well treatment, completion
• and workover fluids, formation test
fluids, or treated wastewater from.
drilling fluid dewatering activities, or 15
gm (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 r (155.5 ins).
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 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 discharge
into receiving waters.
3. Interferences
Residual “free oil” adhering to
sampling containers, the magnetic
stirring 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 minimi the
potential for similar contamination from
pipets and the test container.
4. Apparatus, Materials, and Reagents
4.1 Apparatus.
• 4.1.1 Sampling Containers—I L
polyethylene beakers and 1 L glass
beakers.
4.1.2 Graduated cylinder—100 ml
graduated cylinder required only for
operations 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 ml
disposable pipers.
4.1.8 MagnetIc stirrer and stirring
4.1.7 Stainless steel spatula.
41.8 Test container—open plastic
container whose internal cross-section
parallel to its opening has an area of
1000±50 an 2 (155.5±7.75 m l), and a
depth of at least 13 an (5 inches) and
no more than 30 an (11.8 inches).
4.2 M aterials and Reagents.
4.2.1 Plastic liners for the test
container—Oil free, heavy duty plastic
trash can Liners that do not inhibit the
spreading of an oil film. Liners must be
of sufficient sins to completely cover the
interior surface of the test container.
Permittees 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 descibed 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 minimum 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
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 beaker. 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
•between2 0 0gand50 0g. -
7.5 Samples of deck drainage, well
treatment, completion and workover
fluids, formation test fluids and treated
wastewater from drilling fluid
dewatering activities must be obtained
from the holding facility prior to
discharge: the sample volume should
range between 200 ml and 500 ml.
7.6 Samples must be tested no later
than 1 hour after collection.
7.7 Drilling fluid samples must b
mixed in their sampling containers f .
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
i4iwh rged 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 dose as practicable 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
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 shall be used, one
per test container, and discarded
afterwards. Some liners may inhibit
spreading of added oil; operators shall
determine an appropriate local source c
liners that do not inhibit the spre’
of the oil film.
8.3 A 15 ml sample of drilling i,uid
deck drainage, well treatment,
completion and workover flwds.
formation test fluids, or treated

-------
feàral R’gi I Vol. 58. No. 151 1 Tueeday.. eplanihor 21. 1 I Natk m
49147
weetawatar from doling fluid
dewalezing activities must be
introduced by pipet into the test -.
contai I below the water surface.
Pipets must be filled a d dicath ,ged
with test material prior to the transfer of
test material and its introduction into
test containers. The test water-test
material mixture must be stined using
the pipet to distrihute the test material
homogeneously throughout the test
water. The pipet must be med only once
for a test and then 4i ,ded.
8.4 Drill cuttings or produced sand
should be weighed cm plastic woighiug
boats; 15 giwe samples must be
tran ,fa.... .d by saupiag - material into
the test water with a stainless steel
spatula. Drill cuttings shall not be -
prediluted prior to testing. Also. drilling
fluids and cutting will be tested
separately. The weighing boat must be
immersed in the test water and saaped
with the spatala to transfer any residual
matertal to the test container. The drill
cuttingsorproduced sand must 1w
stirred with the spatula to an even
distribution Of SOlids on the bottom of
the test container.
8.5 Oheerv ’i uiustbe made no
later than 1 hoer after the test ial
is transferred to the test
Viewing points above the lest auitáier
should be made from at least three aides
of the test container, at viawing angles
of approximately 60° and 300 fr the
horizontaL Ifluminsthm 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
fluoiu ut light Source such as a
dissecting mk u pv light. The light
source shall be positioned and
directed over the entire surface of the
pan.
8.6 Detection of a “silvery” or
“metallic” sheen, gloss, or inaeased
reflectivity; visual color or iride nce
or an oil slick, on the water surface of -
the test container surface shall
constitute a d onatration of “free oil’.
These visual observations include
patches. streaks, or sheets of such
altered surface characteristics, shall
constitute a demonstration of flee oil. If
the free oil content of the sample
app.u.a.rhi . —.di 10 p u. t the
water surface of the test container may
lack color, a sheen or iridescence, due
to the increased thicknessof the filnr
thus, the o6arvztion fermi oil slick is
required. The sorfaco of the test
container shall not be disturbed in any
manner that r hir th. size of any•
sheen or slick that may be present
lies oil shoni erslick .o ea an
than one-hail of thesur z wee alter
drilling muds or aininge am i*oduaid
to the test aieer, wifl
continue for up to we hoer. If the dioi . .
or slick ii in mm and we
greeter than one-half of the surface wee
of the test container during the
observation period, the dIech . of the
materiel shall cease. If the eheen or Slick
does not hiaease in size to i si-
than one-half of the test container
surface area after onehourel
O viituu . discharge may ti e
and additional sampling is not required.
If a sheen or slick i wi on greater
than one-hall of the mm ci the
test container after the test material is.
introduced, discharge of the tested
material shall ass . The permittee may
retest the materiel causing the sheen or
slick. if subsequent tests do not result in
a sheen or slick covering greater than
one-bali of the surface area of the test
container, discharge may rnnftnu8.
LDefiniticrts
Adminisfratormeansthe -
‘ ‘ i tratar of EPA Rpginn £.ar an
authnri rapr nthfiv.. . - -
Areas of Biologiasi Concern (ABQ ars
Io th n jd fi Ad byth. State of,
Taxa as “no activity same” or areas
rint rmi.i...d by EPA and the State.
collectively. ContAining SIgnIfiaiDL
biological resources or features that
require a “No Discharge” ditiai.
There ar. currently no deaigniuuvt ames
of binle&rAi I r rn
Average daily discharge 1 ”° ’n
means the highest allowable avesege of
discharges over a 24-barr period. -
calculated as Lbs sum of all di= h* gee
measured divided by the monber of
discharges measured
Average wrthly dierhwge
means the highest allowable average of
“daily discharges” overt ____
month, calculated as the sum of all
“daily discharges” measured during a
enlendar month divided by the number
f di rh... q measured that month.
Batch or bulk discharge means any
discharge at a di ate voluma or mass
of effluent from a pit. Lank or similar
container that ocours on a one time or
infrequent or irregular basis. - -
Batch or balk beaturenrmewe wry
of a disaete volume or mass
of effluent from a pit. tank, or similar
. mi. ner prior to discharge.
Blow-oat pre .da - conbmvlftwd is
fluid med to a tuat , the hydraulic
equipment an thebtow-out preventer.
BO means five day b rhnmical
oxygen demand.
Boil at blowdown is discharge from
boilers necessary to mtr ” .v . ’ solids -
buuld ap In re boil.,. inclardes vents
from boilers’and other heating sy
we small heaps aIrztalted
. all waters of the United
States (as defined at 40 Q R 1221)
of the towitorial sesa.
D is chemical oxygen dwend.
CompJetioa fluids are salt solutions,
weigined bones, polymers or venous
additives used to prevent leiniiga to he
well bore during operations which
prepa re the drilled well for hydrocarbon
p utui n These fluids move into the
formation and return t o the surface as a
slug with the produced water. Drilling
muds remaimag in the weilbore during
logging. og and cementing
operations or during temporary
abandonment of the well are not
considered anupletien fluids and are
regulated by drilling fluids
reauirem tE
L’oily maximum discharge limitation
moans Lb. highest allowable “daily
diecharge” duzin the calendar month,
ck drainage is all waste resulting
from platform washings, deck washings.
spills, rainwater, and runoff from curbs.
gutters, and drains, hu.I ’a4ing drip pans
and wash areas,
T soJ1nizaLion unit discharge means
wastewatar associated.with the process
of aeating fresh water from seawater.
Diatomaceous earth Ji lter media
means filter media used to filter
seawater or other authorized completion
fluids and subsequently washed from
the fi.lter.
Domestic waste is discharges horn
galleys. sinks, showers, safety showers,
eye wash stations, hand wash stations
and laundries.
Drill cuttings are particles generated
by chilling into 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 time a
wall isbegun isutil final cessation of
drillingin that hole.
Excess Cement Slurry is the excess
hrding additives and wastes
from equipmenrwashaown after a
cementing operation.
‘ree Oil is oil that causes a sheen
‘when discharges am released or when a
static shc u test is used.
Formation test fluids are the discharge
-that would ocour should hydLU 1hons
be located during exploratory drilling
and tested for formation pressure and
content.
Garbage m aus all kinds of victual,
domestic and operational
waste . .. generated dnring the
normal opamtion of the ship and liable
to be disposad of c nfirn .nualy or

-------
Federal Ragister I VoL 58. No. 181 F Tuesday, September 21, 1993 / Notices
49148
periodically . - . (See MARPOL. 73/78
regulations). -
Gxvb sample i a single representative
effluent sample taken at the recognized
discharge point in as short a period of
time as feasible.
Gre ywater means drainage from
dishwater, shower, laundry. bath, and
washbasin drains and does not include
dxeipage from toilets, urinals, hospitals.
and drainage from cargo areas. (See
MARPOL 73/78 regulations).
Inverse emulsion drilling fluids means
an oil.based drilling flwd that also
contains a large amount of water.
Maximum hourly rate means the
greatest number of barrels of drilling
fluids discharged within one hour,
expressed as barrels per hour.
MGDreferato units of flow
measurement, as million gallons per
day.
MPN means the most probable
number. -
Muds. cuttings. and cement at the
seafloor axe discharges which occur at
the seafloor prior to installation of the
marine riser and during marine riser
disconnect and well abandonment and
plugging operations.
No Activity Zones axe those areas
Identified by MMS where no structures,
drilling rigs, or pipelines will be
allowed, See Areas of Biological
Colicern.
No Discharge Areas are areas
specified by EPA whine discharge of
pollutants may not occur.
Packer Fluid means low solids fluids
between the packer. production string
and well casing. (See workover fluids).
Priority Pollutants axe those chemicals
or elements identified by EPA. puxsuant
to section 307 of the Clean Water Act, -
and 40 C ’R 401.15. See Appendix A.
Sonitarj waste means 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.
TDS means total dissolved solids.
Temtonoi 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 the line marking the seaward
limit of inland waters, and extending
seaward a distance of three miles”
(CWA Section 502).
Toxic Pollutants (See Priority
Pollutants. Appendix A)
Treated wastewoter from dewatered
drilling fluids and cuttings means
wastewater from dewatering activities
(including but not limited to reserve pits
which have been flocculated or
otheiwise 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
control and utility lift pumps. (2) excess
freshwater from pressure maintenance
and’secondary recovery projects. (3)
water released during 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 sea-
which is returned to the sea withou
addition of chemicals. Included ate: (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 brines. polymers or other
specialty additives used in a prodir -
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 fluids between the packer.
production string 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 FREQUENCY
Free 01
Oil and grease
TSS._
“Os
Coo
C es ....-_- - -
Hazardous Menla
15m 1.
50mg1.......... ... ..
3000 mgI’ ..._ _...... -
2 0 0mg i t
6.0—9.0’
500mg 13

Nod l schavge3 ..
Visual sheen an receiving
water’.
Grab ..
Grab...... ,.........
-
Grab...... -
Grab -- -
Grab .. -
Grab ...
Grab
NuiTter of days sheen ob-
se et
Daily maxumum.
Daily maxinam.
Daily maximum.
Daily maximum.
pH value.
Daily rmxenum
Daily nuxinun.
Daily maximum.
Effluent diar flsbc
Discharge limtation
Man ng requimm
Meat gemin i frecrjency SWTç Ie type/method Recorded value(s)
A) Onlilng Fliath—no dachaige.
(B) DnI Cumng,—no ctscharge. - - -
(C) Treated Wastewater from Oniring Fluids/Cuttings. Dewatenng Activities. and Pit Clostie Activities.
No free od .__....._._ Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/thy’
Once/thy’
Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day’
Once/day’

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No.. iai I Tuesday. September 2t , 1.993 I Notices 49149
TABLE 1 . frào orrs AND DISCHARGE MOr ffORING FREQUENCY—Continued -.
Efiluerl charactenstic
‘
Discharge fmda&in
-. MO JId1 ,u rer irenisnte

MeaswemeM ‘ Sw e &method Recorded vales(s)
Volume
Report (this)
Once/day’.
k. ..l
Daily totaL S
(D)DeclcOrainage.
.
.
Nofreeo i ....._ ..__ Once/daye
Report (this) Once/month ‘ .
CE) Formation Test Rids—No dacharge of I tion test flIidS to lakes, flvers , absams, bays and estanes. EzceØiwl for bays and esiuanes
where no cNonde standards have been eatabushed by the Texas Water Conviilssion, the following dscharge knitaflons and moakonng re-
ienienta shall appiy . . . - ‘ . : - . -
Free oil —
pH.
Volume
No free ci
-
6.0-9.0 4 —
Report (this)
•
Once/dacherge
- •• .
-
Onçeldacharge
Visual sheen on receiving
2•
Grab
C il 1 u.Le
Nue er of days
—..
pH vales.
Monthly totaLs
sheen ob-
.
(F) Weil Treatment, Cortletion, and Wcd(over fluids—There shall be no dither 9 . of wed treatinesi, conUebcn and wcdcover bids to lakes.
rivers. streams, bays or estuaries. P.r ptio,. . for bays and estuenes where no hlwid . standards have been established by the Texas Waler
CO 1TVTssS 1On, the following Ilinitationo arid nwn&..g rs xsmams shall apoly -
Pnorvty Potutants
Free oil
pH . .
Volume
(G) Sanitary Waste.
No dis uitge
No free oil
:
6.0-9.04 .
Report (thIs)
-.
Once/day’ —
.
Once/day’
Once/month’
Ceiti&ebon7 —
Visual sheen on receiving
—
Grab
E ,b.. ..il 5
-.
Nueter of days sheen cb-
served.
pH vahie.
Monthly totaL - -
. . -
. . .
Solids .
BOD5
TSS
Fecai .__._ _.__.
......
No floating solids
,
45 mg I! ... . . . .L .._
45 mgI! —
2001100 rid ......-_______
Report (P .4(30) .
Once/day.
...
Once/quarter . .
Oncelquwter
Once/week —— .
Once/month
Cbssrvation —_____
.
Grab
Grab ——
Grab ____ ._.
E 0 t .in . .ta
Nunter of days adds ob-
served.
Daily maxlnv.vn.
Daily maxinssn.
Daily lYisXllYUft
Mondily avg. . -
(H)Domest icWaste. . . - - - - . . -
—— No dstharge’ • I
- (1) Miscellaneous Discharges: Desalmaabon Unit Discharge. Blowout Preventer Fkad, Unxntavrmated Ballast Water, Uncontarisnated Bilge
Water, Mud, Cuttings. and Camera at the Seafloor, Uncontanwisted Seawater. Bailer Blo ’ml Excess Cemerd Skiny. Diatomacecus Earth
Filter Media, Uncontaminated Fresherater mdudng potable water releases dung taidc transfer and en!*ylng operations, and condensate
fromairccndrbonerutwta. -
Free ad ._.. No free oil .._.__. Once/thy’ . Visual sheen on feceiving NLuter of days
waha’2. served
sheen ob-
1. When dschar ng.
2. Discharge uspocsibie dung tknes other than when a visual sheen observa1 in is poesI e , if the static sheen test method is used.
3. See permit Part II A.3.b.
4. pH at the point of discharge shall not be less than 6.0 or eater than 9.0.
5 When dscawrgina and when the facility is nwined -
6. Information shall be recorded, bid not epoih4 unless specifically requested by EPA.
7. No discharge except in trace amo,a . Certification that each discharge does not contain priority pollutants (except in trace amounts) on
DMR’s will suffice for reporting priority pollutant knits. Information on the speafic chemical corsposibon shall be recorded bid not reported unless
requested by EPA.
8. Monitoring by visual observation of the swface of the receiving water in the vicinity of outfafl(s) shai be done dring daylight at the time of
maximum estimated discharge. . - - - -
9. Annex V of MARPOL 73178 prohIbits the discharge of ‘gaftage induding food wastes, incineration ash and du*ers. Graywater, drainage
from dishwater, shower. laundry, bath, and wasitasins may be discharged
10. Monitoring of visual sheen to be made at times when visual observations can be made.
Free oil
Volume
Visual sheen on receiving
water-’..
Eshmato
Nunter of days sheen ob-
aervet•
Monthly tetaL

-------
S
PeàaI VoL f jj 0 ..:..: —. -
A sphthms
,ø1wdiii.(teth.
- -- —- - - •
I,4-WT . - •. -
- - - —— — - — — . — - - — - —
3en. die •- . - -. — .
- - --
1.2.4 -ci4chIavbsnze . - ... - . - — . .. ... : ... E dosuffin sv)fate •. . -
- •. . . ,. . . .
t2 -dkb1oroetha . . ‘ .. Endrinildehyds . -
tU4fchlgroethai. . - -. ph o . ... i-’. )li r
- - - - - -- :
1.1. -4flcJ ’ ’uhI - . - - .... 4j -&n .oa -. . • . - - -qcI aamö -
- 1.t2 - itht vs , ..• -. . fl Jtd th = —• ‘ . . - -
I 12 i th thu. — • -
C2domethane . - . C 8HCt’ -
- -: .:
- -. L 1 . : • -. .. . I2541Ar xh1o,12S4J
- . - . ...-.. II Ih ’ #t• . I• . 4flt( % 1ar 12221
• QIJ m . .• - •Dthy1Pbth 1 • • • • •
• 2 .cMsi 6 oI ..... . LI__ 1248) -
• : • ‘. • - -.
• - 1.3 .dkhlob. • 8ea () -‘ - - - - — i-’: . -18 LMi M
- - . -. - - - . -. 1.4- fluciinTh s ... •-
• • . . • • . ..•• •• - -- - - A tl__y . -
- :• -- — - ••- . - - - .. .•... .;.• - - -. - . •. . - -
2.4dIChloIOPb : • - -. -. • •
1.2 -dich1o1opiur . ••• .-. - • ••• S.lS T ..: .. . ry1ii • - .
• : • - .
• ••• ? lUWW •• — ..I . ..- - -
2•4dth1 Ot0 .. .. . . - •. .2.1Z- mnzopoiyIene (be z g .) . Qçp •. . -
- - — . • .: F ui. s - - — — .—• — —--- - - ---•• .• • -
1 .2 IbJá SS . : - r h . • -L t-;S’ - ....:. -‘t - -• - -
EthyIben ns .• - - •: Meicuq - •
Pluorsnthem. - * - .‘• - . ••. - • - • . •• •.•-
• ... • .:... . .-; -. - •. • -
81 2< F - - - -
-. BL 2 -chIozostbyi yJ , , ,h. ,. . - . - •- - thI-—-th • - ...s. .. - :, -224%4 ZU 4 S3 I,45.e
- MethyIe 5 chloñd. WkMozcmstha .) - Vinly ch i4s (y Id - . . -.
- .-. — ---S . .• ....- .• — . - . -‘ . . — ..•— .4 - — —- - —— -- - S -‘ -- —— — - . — — —

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 173 / Thursday, September 9, 1993 / Proposed Rules
47417
46. 256—66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
IO(a)(2).
If U.S. EPA issues a final disapproval.
based upon the States failure to meet
the commitment. it will not affect any
existing State requirements applicable
to small entitles. 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 have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it would not remove existing
state requirements nor would it
substitute a new Federal requirement.
List of Sub .c1s In 40 CFR Pitt 52
Air pollution control. Carbon
monoxide. Environmental protection,
Nitrogen oxide. Particular matter,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.
Dated: August 30. 1993.
Valdu V. Adamkus.
Regional Adminis 5rator.
IFR Doc. 93—21981 Filed 9-8—93; 8:45 ami
BILLiNG CCC I NIO-R- ?
Part 123
(FRL.-4727-63
Water Pollution Control; Application by
South Dakota to Administer the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program;
Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Correction.
SUMMARY: This document contains
corrections 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
hearing date is corrected to read October
14. 1993. On page 46145, in the second
column under DArES, in the fourth line
the date September 27. 1993 is corrected
to read October 14. 1993. The date
Previously published in the Federal
Register as the date by which public
‘ flmments must be received was
OCtober 8. 1993. On page 46145. in the
curond column under DATES, in the
i line the date Is corrected to read
ar 22. 1993. On page 46147, in the
.:. i column under the heading “Public
hearing Procedures”, in the second
i)aragrap . in the sixth line the date
October 8. 1993 is corrected to read
October 22. 1993. On page 48147 under
the heading “Public Hearing
Procedures”, In the second column, hi
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.
(W’fl 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.
R PJRTHER VIPORMAtION CONTACT
Janet LaCombe at (303) 293—1593.
Dated: September 2. 1993.
Kerrigan C. cough.
Acting Region al4dminister. Envzronmentoi
Protection Agency Region Viii.
(FR D cc. 93-21979 Filed 9-8-93; 8:45 aml
CCCI = r
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTh AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement
45 CFR Parts 301 and 305
PIN 0970-AA74
Child Support Enforcement Program;
Revision of Child Support Enforcement
Program and Audit Regulations
AGENCY: Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE). HHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking .
SUMMARY: OCSE is proposing to amend
the Child Support Enforcement program
regulations governing the audit of State
Child Support Enforcement (IV-D)
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-D 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 and 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. Mall Stop OCSEFPPD.
4th floor. 370 LiEnfant Promenade SW.,
Washington, DC 20447. Comments will
be available for public inspection
Monday through Friday. 8:30 am. to 5
p.m. in the Department’s office at the
above address.
R RJRThER INFORMATiON CONTACfl
Lourdes Henry on (202) 401—5440 or
F l’S 8—441—5440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not require any
information collection activities and.
therefore, no approvals are necessary
under this Paperwork Reduction Act.
Background
As a result of the enactment of the
Child Support Enforcement
Amendments of 1984. (Pub. L. 98—378),
OCSE published final audit regulations
on October 1, 1985, which affected the
audits of State V—D programs beginning
in FY 2984. 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 use
a substantial compliance standard to
determine whether each State has an
effective IV—D program: provide that
any State found not to have an effective
IV—D program in substantial compliance
with the requirements of title IV—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 I 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 IV—D 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
4305.20 (which include numerous
related suba’iteria) which encompass
the requirements of part 302 which are
procedural in nature. These procedural
criteria must be met for a finding of

-------
! Ieral Register I Vol. 58, No. 168 / Wednesday, September 1, 1993 I Proposed Rules
46145
F ‘utivo Order 12612 and has
iiined that this proposal does not
h - 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
(c) and (1) of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B, this proposal is
categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. The
deletion of the Ambrose Chinnel
Regulation will not affect the
environment or vessel safety. A
Categorical Exclusion Determination is
available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects In 33 R Part 162
Navigation (water). Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 R part 162 as follows:
PART 162—INLAND WATERWAYS
NAVIGATiON REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 162
“ ‘nues to read as follows:
ienty 33 U.S.C. 1231:49 R 1.46.
(Removedi
2. Section 162.25 is removed.
Dated: August 37, 1993.
I. Ecker,
s’par Admami, US. Coast Guard. Qtse Office
.‘Vavigauon Safety and Waterway Services.
R Doc. 93—21305 Filed 8—31—93; 8:45 awl
uWNG oeaa
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 123
:FqL -4, 0 0 _2 1
Water Pollution Control: Application by
South Dakota To Administer ths
iatlonal Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program
AGENCy: Environmental PTG:cct:an
\ t ricy (EPA).
*CflON: Notice of application, public
,°fnment period, and public hearings .
SUt UARy: The State of South Dakota has
‘ bmiLted an application to EPA to
idminister and enforce the NPDES
rn for regulating discharges of
.on( into waters within the State.
\i ‘.ording to the State’s proposal, the
program would be administered
“V II e South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
(SDDENR).
The application from South Dakota Is
complete and Is available for inspection
and copying. Public comments aie
requested, and public hearings will be
held.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 8, 1993. Public
hearings have’uieen scheduled for
September 27, 1993, from 3 p.m. to 5
p.m. (CDT) and from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
( C DT) at the Matthew Training Center,
Joe Foss Building; 523 East Capitol;
Pierre, South Dakota 57501.
AODPsaSsa: Janet LaCombe, NPDES
Branch. (8WM-C); U.S.E.P.A.. Region
VIII; Denver Place, 999 18th Street, suite
500; Denver, CD 80202—2466.
FOR RJRThER 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 NPBES
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
jurisdiction. 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 Ragional
Administrator, Region Viii. EPA, and
the Secretaiy of the SDDENR.
Under 40 R 403.lO(fXl)(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, prior 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 Corn plaints from the
General Public.
South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL)
Section 34A—2—111 prohibits the
SDDENR front performing inspections
or taking other actions pursuant to
SDCL Sections 34A—2—40, 34A—2—44,
and 34A—2—45. such as sampling
effluents, entering 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)(2XB) 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
program to have adequate authority to
abate violations of permits or the permit
program through penalties and other
means of enforcement. 40 CFR 123.26(b)
(3) and (4) require an authorized state
program to maintain a program for
investigating information re8arding
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 rsiporting
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 stare
environmental statute to handle the unsianed
complaint. If not, the cittzen shall be referred
to Emergency and 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
complaints. To confirm EPAs
understanding of how the proposed
State program would operate. EPA has
requested that South Dakota add-the

-------
46148 Federal Register /VoL 58, No. 188 I Wednesday. September 1. 1993 / Proposed Rules
following sentence to the MOA: “The
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
SDD 4R follow through with the
Investigation and response. EPA has
also Informed South Dakota that, at a
minimum, all agencies other than the
SDD 4R that are referred to In the MOA
should become signatories to the MOA.
Alternatively, the Covernor 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.
EPA 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 Pen alty Authorities for
Unpermitted Facilities.
40 CFR section 123.27(a)(3)(i)
provides 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 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, or
criminally enforce, a failure to comply with
SDCL 34A-2-44 (. .d-keeptn . 34A-2-45
and -46 (InspectIon authorttiesj, due toe
lack of citation to SDCL 34A—2—78 (penalty
provision) In these sections. However,
because the Department (of Environment and
Nitural Resourcesi can prosecute (both
civilly and auninally) violations of permit
conditions and because it can set permit
conditions for recording. reporting,
monitoring, eney. and Inspection under
34A—2—40. it therefore can enforce these
statutes. The Department con, 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 SDC. 34A—2—75 and
the violation of SDa. 34A—2—38 (operating
without the required permit). Civil penalties
for failure to comply with SDCL 34A—2.-44,
-45. and -46 by en 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 SDC. 34A—2—53 for violations by
unpermitted facilities con be Issued In a
timely fashion: if necessary, within the same
day. In addition, an administrative search
warrant under the DENR’s Inspection
authority of SDCL 34A—2-45 and —46, could
be obtained to Immediately permit access to
a facility.
Penalties for the underlying violations,
such as operating without a permit, accrue
during the time period of appeal of the
Secretary’s order end 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. SDC.
34A—2—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
Enforcement Actions. 40 CFR 123.27(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 action
• byany citizen havingan Interest
which is or may be adversely affected; or
(2) Assurance that the State agency or
enforcement authority will (I) Investigate and
provide wntten responses to alt citizen
complaints (ii) Not oppose
Intervention by any citisen when permissive
Intervention may be authorized • ; and
(Iii) Publish notice of and provide at least 30
days for public comment on any proposed
settlement of a State enforcement action.
The South Dakota Attorney Ceneral’s
Statement (pages 28—30) indIcates that
citizens have the right to intervene in
administrative enforcement actions
pursuant to SDCL section 34A—l0—2. It
states that any citizen who is denied
Intervenor status in an administrative
proceeding may file a circuit court
action pursuant to SOd.. section 34A—
10—5 to have the court order the citizen
to be named as a patty to the
administrative proceedings. As to
judicial actions. SDCI. 15—8—2(a)
provides for citizen intervention unless
the interest of the citizen is adequately
represented by existing parties.
The MOA (page 3) states that the
SDDENR will allow intervention as of
right in civil proceedings to at least the
same extent required by 40 CFR section
123.27(dfll) and shall not oppose
citizen intervention in administrative
proceedings as provided by 34A—lO—2.
EPA requests comment regarding tb
effectiveness of the State’s proposed
approach In ensuring the opportunity
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 in 18 U.S.C. section 1151. EPA
would retain authority to issue NPDES
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. Slsseton 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 VIII, Water Management
Division at the address provided above.
in withholding authorization for these
areas, EPA Is not deternining that the
State either has adequate jurisdiction
lacks such jurisdiction. 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
prejudice.
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 an appropriate analysis of the
State’s jurisdiction to regulate
discharges in these areas, as required by
40 CFR § 123.23(b). In order for astute
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 authorization or under
the principles of Federal Indian law to
enforce its laws against existing and
pct;nz al pGllutioii 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 over the Indian
reservation areas designated above, and
EPA is not satisfied at this time that the
State has made an appropriate analysis
with regard to these areas.
EPA’s future evaluation of whether to
authorize the South Dakota program to
include Indian reservation lands will be

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 168 I Wednesday. September 1. 1993 I Proposed Rules
46147
,overned 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 64878. December
12. 1991).
Availability of State Submittal
South Dakota’s submittal may be
reviewed by the public from 8 a.m. to
4p.m. (Cull. Monday through Friday.
excluding holidays, at the SDDENR. 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 of ten dollars ($10.00)
by check payable to the South Dakota
Department of Natural Resources.
Requests for copies should be addressed
to Kent Woodmansey. South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources at the address provided above
or at telephone number (605) 773—3351.
Public Hearing Procedures
\e public hearings have been
.dduled for the date, limes, and
location indicated above. The Hearing
Panel will include representatives of
EPA Region VIII and the SDDENR. The
following policies and procedures will
be observed: The Presiding Officer shall
conduct the hearings in a manner that
permits open and full discussion of any
issue involved. Any person may submit
written statements or documents for the
record. The Presiding Officer may, at his
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 takea 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 written statement or to
mt views or evidence tending to
.. t testimony presented at the public
hearing
Hearing statements may be oral or
written. Written copies of oral
statements are encouraged for aocuracy
of the record and for the use of the
Hearing Panel and other interested
persons. Statements should summarize
any extensive written materieL
All comments or objections presented
at either public hearing or received In
writing by EPA Region VIII 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
LaCombe 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 wilrbe
based on the requirements of sections
402 and 304(1) of the CWA and EPA
regulations promulgated thereunder.
If the 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.
UEPA disapproves South Dakota’s
NPDES program. EPA will notify the
State of the reasons for disapproval and
of any revisions or modifications 10 the
State program that are necR ary to
obtain approval.
Review Under Regulatory Flexibility Act
and Executive Order 12291
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 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 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.
JackW. Mctraw,
Acting Regionoi Administrator.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region
Vi i i.
(FR Dcc. 93—20969 Filed B ’•31—93; 845 aml
coes
40 CFR Put 180
(PP 0E3906 1P568 FRL—4841-6]
RUN No. 2070-AdS
Pesticide Tolerance for Olmethoate
AGENCY: Environments! Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document proposes that
a tolerance be established for residues of
the insecticide diiuethoate in or on the
raw agricultural commodity Brussels
sprouts. The proposed regulation to
establish a ma amum permissible level
for residues of the insecticide in or on
the commodity was requested in a
petition submitted by the Interregional
Research Pro ject No.4 (IR-4).
DATES: Comments, identified by the
document control number (PP 0E3906/
P568 ), 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: Rzn. 1132. CM #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”
(CDI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in a ordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
A copy of the comment that does not
contain CDI 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 INFORMA11ON CONTACT: By
mail: Hoyt I .. Jamerson. Emergency
Response and Minor Use Section

-------
%1474
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 4. 1993 / NotIces
entomopathogen Beauvana bossiona,
Naturalis-L strain. in or on the following
raw agricultural commodities: Cotton
seed; peanuts: peanut forage peanut
hay; tomatoes; lettuce; cantaloupe; and
lettuce for control of boll weevil.
whiteflies and lealhoppers. This
document gives notice that Fermone
Corp. has amended the petition, (PP)
2G4157. to add the following raw
agricultural commodities: cabbage and
peppers for control of whitefiles and
leathoppers.
This temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance will permit
the marketing of the above raw
agricultural commodities when ttnated
in accordance with the provisions of
experimental use permit 53871—EUP—1,
which is being issued under the Federal
Insecticide. Fungicide, sod Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). as amended (Pub. L 95-
396. 92 Stat. 819; 7 U.S.C. 136).
The scientific data reported and 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 on the condition that the
pesticide be used in accordance with
the experimental use permit and with
the following provisions:
1. The total amount of the active
ingredient to be used roust not exceed
the quantity authorized by the
experimental use permit.
2. Fermone Corporation. Incorporated.
must immediately notify the EPA of any
findings from the experimental 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
in 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 if the experimental use permit
is revoked or if any experience with or
scientific data on this pesticide indicate
that such invocation 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
establishing exemptions from tolerance
requirements do not have a eig ificant
economic impact on a substantial
flhlmiw of small entitles. A certification
statement to this effect was published in
the Federal Ragist.rofMay 4. 1981(46
FR 24950).
AI LA .4tyi 21 USC. 346eQ).
Dated: July 24.1993.
Lawema E. r .lI en .
Acting Director. ilegi*stion Division, Office
of Pesticide P vgresu.
IFR Doc. 93—18350 Filed 8-3—93; 8:45 sal
aces es r
(FRL-4687-.3J
Proposed Settlement, Clean Air Act
Citizen $4 fl
AGBECY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: 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
following cases: Sierra Club v. Coxal M.
Browner, No. 93-0124 (D.C.D.C.) and
Sien -a Club et a!. v. Carol M. Browner,
No. 93-0125 (D.C.D.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 weU 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 June 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 of this
notice, the Agency will receive written
comments relating to the proposed
consent order from persons who were
not named as pa!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. Esq. at the abov, address and
must be submitted on or before
September 3. 1992.
Dated: July 28. 1993.
Gerald H. Y ’
Acting General Counsel.
(FR Doc. 93—1 1572 Filed 8—3—93; a:45 ani
LL1N8 COOS
(FRL-.4681—2 )
Proposed Modification of the NPOES
General Permit for 11w Western Portion
of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of
the Gulf of Mexico (GMG2S0000)
AGENCYt Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTiON: Notice of Proposed NPDES
General Permit Modification .
SUMMARY: EPA RegIon 6 today proposes
to modify the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
general permit far the Western Portion
of the Outer Continental Shelf of the
Gulf of Mexico (No. Q4C290000) for
discharges from misting and new
dischargere in the Othhoze Subcategory
of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point
Source Cqtegory (40 R part 435,
subparr ). 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 territorial sees 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.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
to: Regional Administrator Region 6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202—
2733.
FOR F1JWTI4ER INFORMATiON CCP4TACT Ms.
Ellen Ccldwell. Region 6, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1445
Ross Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202—2733.

-------
Fed.al RegIAer ! VoL 58, No. 148 I Wednesday, August 4. 1093 1 NotIces
41473
Telephone: (214) 855—77513. A draft
permit Including the proposed -
modifications and/ore fact sheet mor
fully explaining the proposal may be
obtained from Ms. CaldwslL In
addition, the Agency’s current
administrative record on the proposal I .
available for e vn4nNtlos at the Region’s
Dallas offices during normal working
hours after providing Ma. Caidwell 24
hours advance notice.
SUP9L!Mfl TARY I Ai1Cst Porsuant
to section 301(a) of the Clean Water Ad
“CWA”. 33 USC 1311(a), of
pollutants to waters of the (Jul
States, the territorial sees, end the
contiguous zone are unlawful . ,. ,t se
authorized by a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit issued by ‘A (or en approved
state) in accordance with CWA section
402.33 USC 1342. A Region 8 Issued
such a permit for western Gulf of
Mexico facilities in the Offshore
Suhcategwy of the Oil end Gas
Extraction Category on November 19.
1992 at 57 FR 54642. ‘A now proposes
venous modifications to that psrin and
solicits rnmment on them. Only
comments on the proposed
modifications are solicited.
Offshore Subcdegmy Geidelinas
When it Issued the . . .t permit,
EPA Region 6 was aware the Agency
Intended to publish Offshore
Subcategory Guidelines (Guidelines)
based on the Best Available Tecimology
Economically Achievable (BAT) early In
the term of th. permit. Rather than
delaying permit reissuance until
promulgation of the Guidelines, Raglan
8 based the permit’s BAT limitations on
its best professional ju’ gm ”t end
Included a reopener provision in the
permit allowing subsequent
modification of BAT effluent limitations
Lu the OCS permit that ire less stringent
than the new Guidelines. On March 4,
1993. EPA published the Guidelines at
58 FR 12453 and they are now effective.
In accordance with the Gaibt ftn . .
EPA now proposes to deoresue oil and
grease limits on produced waist,
prohibit the discharge of produced mud,
limit dlwluiyges of oil and greas. in well
treatment, completion and workov -
fluids to the same limits as exist for
produced water, allow a partial toxicity
test to measure compliAnrA with the
drilling fluid toxicity limit. and require
the use of the static sheen teat method
(or monitoring free oil La drilling fluids.
drill cuttings, and wall treatment,
completion, and workover fluids.
Industry Modi6cstloa Request
After the final permit was signed, oil
and gas Industry representative.
contaI4.d RegIon 6 contending that the
model used by EPA to orthosi
dilution valom, t4IX1. rendered
unduly sthngsnt dilution values ‘ .
bicaus. It did not accurately account for
various conditions under which some
Offshore facilities discharge or could
discharge produced water. They also
provided the Region with new dats’on
• produced water discharges___
demonstrating the misting permit’s
dlh’atlon factors might have unnecessary
adverse effects on a significant number
of Offshore oil and gee operator..
Alter emminatlon of the newly
availabl, data. EPA RegIon 8 believes
that ad) natassots In Iti application of
a)R).wca may be appropriate. Based on
changes in dispersion modeling and
changes to model Input perimeters for
the density gradient. current speed,
discharge pip. orientation, and distance
between discharge pipes and the em
floor. EPA Region 6 proposes to modify
the permit’. table of aitlcaI dilutions for
compliance testing of produced water.
Industry representative. have also
requested a permit prevision providing
an option to use diffusers to achieve
greater dilution when facilities are
unable to meet the toxicity limits at the
proposed cutlcal dilutions. The
specifics of such en option have not
been ind ded In the proposed permit
however. r nmanta are requested en
- how a diffuser option might be added to
the permit and the n . .-ty eta
diffuser option. E PA ’s praf d tkm
for allowing the use of diffusers Is to
require permittee. wishing to use a
diffuser to design it using the RMIX2
model with similar modifications and
Input parameters as used In developing
the prupo..d dilution value
modification. After installation of such
a diffuser, these psvmittee. would be
required to demonstrate no chronic
toxicity at the dilution modeled using
RMDC2. -
In connection with Its modification
request. th. oil and gas Industry
suggested that EPA should provid, a
shart phsse4n period for the modified
produced water toxicity limits to enable
operators requiring facility
Improvements for compliance time to -
mu. those improvements. EPA is
considering issuing either • general
idmlnistrstlve compliance order or a
number of individual administrative
compliance orders to cover such
facilities. Each facility requesting
coverage wider such an order would
have to demon ate it was violating the
produced water toxicity limit and
descilbe 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 on
this approsth
EPA also propo other relatively
, vthii 1 . rh. ui . to the . dst1ng permit’s
monitoring requirements In response to
th. modification request. If adopted,
those modifications will delete
monitoring requirements far gross alpha
redhiflnn and gross beta radiation.
largalyb.”.. of teat Interference
caused by high dissolved solids
concentrations In produced water.
Discharges of source water, source sand,
uncont l”..d bilge water, and
unconthl!thtmted freshwater will be
allowed without monitoring for free oil
when platforms are unmanned. Also.
miscellaneous dI 4 m.ges .at the sea floor
of blowout preventer fluids, muds,
cuttings, and cement will be allowed
during tinres of poor visibility without
requiring operators to conduct a static
sheen test which cannot be applied to
those discharges.
Informational Monitoring
• EPA Region 6 also proposes to delete
various permit monitoring, record
keeping. and reporting requirements
Intended solely for collecting data In
anticipation of developing future permit
Limitations on a best professional
judgeaant basis. They are volume
estimates dwell treatment, completion.
and wuikover fluids, deck drainage, and
drill cnttlngn flow estimates for sanitary
waste water; and oil content for muds
and cuttings. Publication of the Offshore
Guidelines eliminate, the need for
developing such permit limits.
The proposed produced water aitical
dilution tables and a summary of all
permit limitations and monitoring
requirements In the permit, including
the proposed change.. are in appendix
A of this Federal Register notice. As
indhmted above. additional infov’nation
Is available on request.
Other Legal Requirements
C i Spill Raquhem.nts
Section 311 of the CWA. “the Act”.
rohibits the discharge of oil and
ons materials in harmful
quantities. Discharges that are in
compliance with NPDES permits are
excluded from the provisions of section
311. However, the 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.
Endangered Species Act
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) end the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) have

-------
previously concwred In writing with an
EPA finding that Issuance of the OCS
permit would not adversely affect any
threatened or endangered species or Its
itical habitat. While the proposed
changes to the produced water toxicity
limits axe 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 stringent. Accordingly.
the Region OW finds that adoption of
the proposed changes is willl ly to
adversely affect any threatened or
endangered species or Its critical
habitat. The Region will request written
concurrence from NMFS and USFWS on
its finding of no adverse affect.
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
For discharges into waters located
seaward of the inner boundary of the
territorial seas. CWA sectlan 403
requires that NPDES permits consider
guidelines for determining potential
degradation of the marine environment.
These Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 R
part 125. subpart M) axe intended to
“prevent unreasonable degradation of
the marine environment and to
authoria imposition of effluent
limitations. Including a prohibition of
discharge. If necessary. to ensure this
goal” (45 FR 65942. October 3, 1960).
When the Western Gulf of Mexico
Outer Continental Shell general permit
was reissued (57 FR 54542 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 major
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 until 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 axe 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 stringent than the existing OCS
General Permit due to the new limits for
oil and greue in produced water, and
well treatment, completion and -
weikover fluids, the prohibition of
discharge of produced sand. and the
requirement that pernuttees use the
static sheen test method for monitoring
of free oil e ept deck drainage. The
existing permit was determined to be
consistent with local and state Coastal
Zone Management Plans ( v1P). 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
( ). The proposed modified permit
and consistency determinations will be
submitted to the State of Louisiana for
interagency review at the time of public
notice.
Marine Protection. Research. and
SanctUarJeS 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 MPRSA
establishes Marine Sanctuaries Program.
implemented by the National
OceanographiC and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). which requires
NOAA to designate ocean waters as
marine sanctuaries for the purpose of
preserving or restoring their -
conservation, recreational, ecological or
aesthetic values. The Flower Garden
Banks has been determined to be a
marine sanctuary and is within the area
covered under this permit. 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
in the area covered by this NPDES
general permit. no state waters are
affected by the discharges it authorizes.
Thus, the state water quality
certification provisions of CWA section
401 do not apply to the permit or
proposed modification.
£xecUtVe Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to section 8(b) of
that order. 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection required
by this permit has been approved by the
jJffice of Management and Budget
(0MB) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C.
3501 c i seq.. in submission made for the
NPDES 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 it
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 ase these burdens.
i gulatori 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 an economic impact
analysis showing they would directly
impact no small entities. See 58 FR
12492. Based on those findings. EPA
Regzofl 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 small entities.
Dated: July 26. 1993.
Myron 0. “ ‘fl . -
Director. tarManagemeuht Division. Region
6
41476
Federal Register! VoL 58. No. 148 i Wednesday. August 4. 1993 / Notices

-------
Fedenl Ragiutur! VoL 58. No. 148 F Wednesday. August 4. 1993 / Notices
4147?
APPENDIX k—TABLE I_(SHEET 10 5): PRoDUCED WATER CRmCAI. DILUTION (PERCEnT EFFLUENT) DEPTH
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCHARGE PIPE AND SEA FLOOR 0 TO 4 METERS
Olecheigs rate (bbW
Y)
,0 ”to
3”
T
oF
5 ”
tel”
,rter
FtoIl
.11 ”telF
‘ir
Oto 500 ........__.
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
501 to 1,000
0.45
0.40
0.40
•0 .40
0.40
0.40
0.08
1 .O O Ito2 ,000. . ... . . . ....
1.39
‘
1.00
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
0.16
2,001 to 3,000
1.66
.
I.39
1.32
,. 1.30
1.30
1.32
1.32
3,001 to4 ,000. -
1.97
‘ 1.60
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
4,001 to 5,000 ._
1.04
p1.77
1.55
1.55
1.55
155
1.55
5,001 to 6,000.
1.80
1.60
1.88
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
6.001 to 7,000
186
2.07
1.79
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.70
7,001 to 8,000 ._.__
1.81
2.20
1.89
1.70
1.79
1.78
1.78
8,001 to 9,000 ._.
1.77
2.32
1.99
1.81
1.01
1.81
1.81
9,001 to 10,000 ..._
1.73
2.43
2.08
1.86
1.86
1.88
1.86
10,001 to 15,000 ......
1.58
2.64
2.40
2.16
2.03
2.03
2.03
15.001 to 20,000 ... .
1.43
2.40
2.85
2.47
2.17
2.17
2.17
20,001 and above ....
1.34
2.30
2.13
2.75
2.42
2.29
2.29
TABLE 1.—(SHEET 2 OF 5): PRODUCED WATER CRmCAL DiumoN (PERCENT EFFLUENT) DEPTH DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DISCHARGE PIPE AND SEA FLOOR GREATER THAN 4 METERS TOG METERS
O lschwge rate (bbU

PIPe d ame 1er
0”to3’
3 ”toF
5b7 ”
)rtor
a.rteli
i ’11b1F
.16’
0 to 500 .._.__
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
501 to 1,000 ..______
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.15
3.15
0.15
0.05
1.001 to 2,000
0.42
0.37
0.37
. 0.37
0.37
0.37
0.10
Z OO Ito t00 0
0.80
0.68
0.65
0.85
0.66
0.65
.
0.15
3,001 to 4,000
1.40
1.15
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
0.19
4, 0 0 Ito5,000.
1.05
0.94
0.86
0.80
0.86
0.86
0.80
5,001 to 6,000.
1.15
1.02
0.93
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
6,001 to 7,000 .__
1.22
1.10
1.00
0.97
0.87
0.97
0.97
7.001 to 8,000
121
1.17
1.06
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
8.001 to 9,000 ..__.
9.001 to io,öoo
1.19
1.17
1.24
1.30
1.12
1.17
1.05
1.09
1.05
1.09
1.05
1.09
1.05
1.09
10.001 to 15.000 —
1.09
1.54
1.41
1.28
.
1.23
1.23
1.23
15,001 to 20,000 ...
1.02
1.15
1.59
1.45
1.33
1.33
1.33
20.001 and above ......
0.96
1.69
‘‘
1.78
1.50
1.4$
1.40
1.40
TABLE 1.—(SHEEr 3 OF 5): PRODUCED WWER CRmc .a.L DILUTION (PERCENT EFFLUENT) DEPTH DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DISCHARGE PIPE AND SEA FLOOR GREATER ThAN 8 METERS 108 METERS
DIsd’.args ..
Y)
PIP d meter
.oisr
.rte
r
.rte
7-
.7-Io6”
.6”te
ii ”
.11te16”
•
16”
0 to 500 .... ..
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
501 to 1,000 .._
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
1,001 to 2,000 . ....._
0,20
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.10
0.18
0.07
2.001 to 3.000
0.35
0.32
0.31
0.31
0,31
0.31
0.10
3.001 to 4,000 ...__
0.58
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.4$
0.4$
0.13
4,001 to 5,000
0.85
0.74
0.67
- 0.67
‘ 0.67
0.67
0.17
5.001 to 6,000 ...
128
1.08
0.95
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.20
6.001 to 7,000
0.78
0.71
0.68
0.65
0.66
0.65
0.65
7001 to 8,000 —-
0.83
0.70
0.70
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
8,001 to 9,000 ...
0.83
0.80
0.74
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
9.001 to 10,000 . _
0.89
0.84
0.78
0.74
0?74
0.74
0.74
10,001 to 15,000 ._,,_.
0.84
1.01
0.94
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.85
15.001 to 20,000 ._.
0.80
1.15
1.07
0.99
0.93
0.93
0.93
20,001 and above ._...
0.76
1.32
1.18
1.09
1.02
0.99
0.99

-------
41478 Federal RegiMer / Vol. 58. No . 148 I Wednesday. August 4. 1993 / Notices
TABI.E 1.—(SHEET 4 OF 5): PRoDucED WATER CRmc*1. DlwTIopl (PERCENT EFFLUENT) DEPTH DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DISCHARGE PIPE AND SEA FLOOR GREATER THAN 8 METERS TO 12 METERS
Discharge rate (bbIF
deij)
PiPe diameter
0to3
3’to5
5tor
Ttor
e”to1i.
11to16
16
o to 500 ......
501 to 1.000 ...............
1.001 to 2.000
2.001 to 3.000 ._ ._..
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 to 10.000 ..........
10.001 to 15,000 ....._.
15.001 to 20.000 ._.._.
20.001 arid above
0.04
0.07
0.11
0.14
0.17
0.33
0.45
0.61
0.80
1.06
0.56
0.63
0.61
0.58
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.31
0.41
0.55
0.72
0.94
0.52
0.63
0.72
0.80
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.29
0.38
0.50
0.66
0.85
0.50
0.60
0.68
0.75
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.18
0.29
0.38
0.49
0.63
0.80
0.48
0.57
0.85
. 0.72
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.29
0.38
0.49
0.63
0.80
0.48
0.56
0.62
0.68
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.29
0.38
0.49
0.63
0.80
0.48
0.56
0.62
0.66
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.48
0.56
0.62
0.66
TABLE I .—(SHEET 5 OF 5): PRODuCED WATER CRmc*i. DILLm0N (PERCENT EFFLUENT) DEPTH DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DISCHARGE PIPE AND SEA FLOOR GREATER THAN 12 METERS
Discharge rate (bW
day)
.0to3
atoS
5tor
.rtor
rto11
.11to16’
.ir
to 500 ._ ..
501 to 1,000 ....___.....
1.001 to 2.000._...._
2.001 to 3.000 ....._..
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 to 10,000 ..........
10,001 to 15000 ......
15.001 to 20.000 ........
20,001 and abov.
0.04
0.07
0.11
- 0.14
0.17
021
024
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.41
0.28
0.31
1.07
0.04
0.07
0.10
. 0.13
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.30
0.34
0.38
0.84
1.01
1.15
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.19
022
0.25
0.29
0.32
0.36
0.83
0.99
1.13
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.19
022
0.25
0.28
0.31
0.35
0.81
0.97
1.11
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.19
022
0.25
0.28
0.31
0.35
0.80
0.67
1.09
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.18
0.19
022
025
0.28
0.31
- 0.35
0.80
0.67
1.08
0.04
0.07
- 0.10
0.13
0.16
0.19
022
0.25
0.28
0.31
0.35
0.80
0.67
108
TABLE 2.—EFFLUENT LiMITATIONS, PR0HIBm0Ns AND MONrTORING,R€C JIREMENTS
Ot&ChW 9O
It OrOd pa-
nibmon
rerpi r eme
Measurement
frequency
Sample tyse/
method
Recorded
value(s)
Diilflng Fluid . . ..... ... Free CU ..... .. No free oIl Once week’ Static sheen Number of days
sheen ob-
served.
TOidelIY’ 96-lw LC5O 30,000 ppm daily mini. Once/month Grab ..... 96-hr LC5O.
r iLffi.
- Once/end of Grab .... 96-hr LC5O.
well 3 .
30.000 ppm monthly av. Once/month Grab . ... 96-hr LC5O.
stage minimum.
Discharge Rate 1,000 bwrelsdhour Once/hour’ Estimate ..- Max. hourly
rate.
Discharge Rats for con- (see Figure 1) Once/hour’ Measure Max. hourly
boiled discharge rate rate.
arsas .
Marraay and cedd*im ... No discharge of drilUng Once pflor to Absorption mg mwcurylkg
fluids to $II01I barite dflulng each SpscOo-photom- bante.
has been added. If well’. etry .......__ mg cadmlurTvkg
such bante contains basfla.
mersury In excess 01
1.0 mg kg or cadielum
to excees of 3.0 mglcg
(dry weight).

-------
Federal Register! Vol. 58. No. 148 1 Wedtiesday, August 4. 1993 I Notices
TA8LE 2.—EFFLUENT LJ 1ITAT1ONS, PROHIBITioNS AND M0NrT0RU1o REQUIREMENTS—ContinUed
‘p.
41479
Ct Based or Inverse
Emulsion OdlUng
Fluids.
ON Contanilnated DilIlki
Fluids.
Diesel CU .....
CuWnge —
using Oil Based or In-
verse Emulsion 0,91-
i ngFluide.
Cuelngs geneiatid
using C I Contans-
nszedOnUIngFIulde..
CuWngs generated
using ditwng Ikeds to
which DIesel Oil has
been addet
C ge —
using dililing b ids to
which MIneral Oil has
been ad
Rodwn 228 and 228
Bloaccwrulatlon”.
Flow (MGD) ..
No Discharge.
Freeo t
Oil & Grase
No —
Nodsc l%argecfdr l lUng
bids to wtódi diesel
ed he. been t
Mineral oil may be used
orlly as a carrier fluid
(baneporter fluid). k
bdcfty addiUve a, pill.
Nofreidil .....
30.000 ppm monthly av-
erage ns mum.
No discharge of cuttings
generated ueng dnil .
kig fluids to which bar.
Its Ms been ‘ dsd . If
can ne
inei ity In SF0 5 55 at
1.0 mg tg or cadmiran
in erroese c i 3.0 mgilcg
(dry weight).
No discharge.
No discharge.
o discharge.
Pilne ,aI oil may be used
only as a CaMer Ibid
Mnscorter fluid). b
bncity additive. or pill.
Nofreeos l ..._
42 ,ngfl daily nail.. 29
mg4 monthly average.
7.day average mm.
NOEC’ arid monthly
average mm. NOEC’.

Nofre.ofl .....
42 rvrg,I daily max.. 29
mgi monthly avg
Ral Depend-
ent”.
O mmth
Onceiday’ -. Static sheen
Oncemionti Grab’
Number of u y
sheen ob-
96-lit LCSO.
96-hr LCSO.
96-hr LC5O.
mg marcu,ydkg
barn..
mg cadnlumAg
bame.
Number of days
sheen cO-
served.
Daily max..
monthly aver-
age.
Lowest NOEC
for either of
the twosçe-
des.
pC t0ter.
Monthly Aver
age.
Number of days
sheen ob-
served.
DaIly ma e.,
monthly aver-
age.
Rig Sd and man-
Discharge toted discharged pa.
rerneter
No discharge.
Sample lypel
method
Recorded
value(s)
DnIIIng Cutings .... _..._.. Free oil
Toxidty’ 96-hr LCSO
Mercury and cadmium
30.000 ppm daily mird-
Static sheen
Grab -.
Grab
Grab .....
Absorption
OnceMeek’
On mnth
Oncelend of
well 3.
Oncemionth
Once prior is
drifling each
well’.
Deck Drainage
Produced Water ._ C I arid grease
Oscelday’ ...... V el sheen
Oncednonili Grab’
Rate —
ent”.
Produced Sand
Wall li’oabnent fluids ‘0, nempla.
don fluids 10. and wodrover
fluids’° (Includes packer bids).
Grab
Grab
Estimate

-------
41480
Feder.l Ra ter I Vol. SL No. 148 1 Wednesday, Aug t 4, 1993 / No1ices
TA8LE 2.—EFR.telT LIMITATiONS, PROlN8mOP AND NfTORlNG REQLsFe.,BJTS—Continued
Disdiarge
Re M
Itored discharged pa-
tsbmbfl
frequency
,
method
R 5 fded
value(s)
Sanitary waste’ 2 contimicuuly
manned by 10 or mole psi-
sans.
Sanitary waste” continuously
maimed by 9 or fewer persons
or lnterrnittentiy by any flimber.
Domestic waste”
Miscellaneous discharges: Dssa-
tization wtit discharge: blow’
aid pre-venter hid.
&giconteninalsd ballast wazei
wicontantinated bilge watsr
uncoi ioinatsd heabwat.v
mt4 sidings end cement at
seafloc uncorinminated is.-
waie baiter tsowd warms
waler and send. rooeaus
earth Sitar msdl& e us as-
ment obs .
Residual cNcdns” .......
Solids ... .. ... .
Solids .... .
Solids ...... ...._.
Free oil ... ._
.
1 mg I (n* eiaa) ....
NoF Ios t ingSolIds
No floating solids .. -
No losing adds or
tose.
No fres all .._..........
Oi niuuth
Onc&dey - ..
Oncelday
Oncelday -
Onc&wsek” ....
Grab ... ......
Observation ......
Observation ......
Observation”..
Visual sheen ....
Concentration.
Numberof days
eddsob-
served.
Number of days
solids ob-
saived.
Number of days
deserved.
Number of days
sheen ob-
served.
‘When diaJts ,ofng. ____
‘Suspended parDaia$e ph (SPP) eith £ ‘k , babia fellosing prwed test method. The sample shall be taken beneath 9 shale
shaken or If there are no rsfonw across the stislier then the sample imait be taken from a locabon that Is characteristic of the overall mud
system to be diethevged.
Sampl, shell be taken after Ste Anal log run Is completed and prior to huh disciasge.
4See Appendix A, Oletharge Rats Graph. _____
‘This information shall be recorded but not reportsd unless otherwise reqrastad by EPA.
‘Mialyses shall be conducted on sash new Macit of hens used.
‘When dischar ng arid facility Ii manned. Monitoring Med be on thed dudng times when observation of a visual sheen on the surface
of the receMng water Is possible In thi vicinity of the discharge.
‘May be based on the antlvnetic average of tour g,ab sample results In the 24 hr. ped.
eSeelable l,stçpend lxA. -
loNo dIscharge of priority pollutants except In trace amounts. Information on tie epeciilc theirical composition shall be recorded but not
reported unless requested by EPA.
“When discharging for muds, cuatrigs. end cement at the seafloor end blowout preventer fluid. All otter miscellaneous discharges: when
discharging. discharge is authorized only during times when visual Wisen observation Is possible. tetiess the static sheen method is used.
Uncontaminated seawater uncontaminated freshwater. source water and source sand, uricontarrisiated bige water, and uncontaminated ballast
water from platforms on automatic purge systems may be discharged without monitoring from pds.O.. . Mach are not manned.
“My facility which property operates and maintains a marine sanflation ca (hISO) mat complies with pollution control standards and
regulations under es 1lon 312 of the Mt shoil be deemed to be In compliance with p 5mM llav?aaons for sanitiy waste. The MSD shall be tested
ysaily for proper operation. and test reeulte maintained at the facillty.
“Nash method CN-66 OPO approved. Minimum of 1 mgI and maintained as close to this concentration as possible.
“The discharge of food waste Is prohIbited wIthin 12 nautical rTlIee from nearest land. Canmemated food waste able to pass through a25 mm
mesh screen (approximately I Inch) may be discharged irøe twi 12 “ .‘ teds. rs merest land.
“Monitoring shall be accomplished during daylight by visual observation of the ei,f of the receiving water In the vicinity of sanitary and
domestic waste outfalls. Observation. shall be made lollowaig either the momsip or reidday mads ai a taste of maicmum estimated discharge.
“Once ,ear for discharges from 0 bbYday to 499 bbl ay, oncslquener for discharges from 500 bbuday to 4,599 bbllciay, and onc&month for
discharges of 4.600 bwday end greatar.
“See Part l.8.4.(b) of tis Pemtit
IFR Dcc. 93—18570 FlIed 8-3-93; 8:45 am)
Slt.LarQ coot isei-w-P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Ocean Freight Forwarder License;
Revocatlona
Notice is hereby given that the
following w - . . freight forwarder
licenses have been revoked by the
Federal Maritime Comm ion pursuant
to section 19 of the Shipping Act of
1984 (46 LJS.C. app. 1718) and the
regulations of the mmigjo
per’ ining to the licensing of ocean
freight fo 1 w Iere. 46 CFR part 510.
license Number: 3485
Name: John P.. Soares & Co.
Address: 2227 So. Garneit, Ste. 109,
Tulsp. OK 74129
Date Revoked: June 25. 1993
Reason: Surrendered license
voluntarily.
License Number: 3284
Name: Sonco International Corporation
Address: 4920 S. Lewis, #110, Tulsa, OK
74105
Date Revoked: July 10. 1993
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
surety bond.
Bryeat L. YsnIrakie.
Director. Bureau of Tariffs. Certificcuon and
Licensing.
IFR Dcc. 93—18529 FrIed 8—3—93, 8 45 aml
su &en ! iris-or-u
Agreement(s) Filed; TransAtlantic
Agreement
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the Sling of the
following agreensent(s) purmiant 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!. 1 uDeen ,
Acring Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
IFR Doc. 93—8730 FIled 4—13—93; 8:45 am)
sees
(PP 20414WT$37; FRL 4577—6]
Flumetsulam; Establishment of
Temporary Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
StJ”MRY: EPA has established
temporary tolerances for residues of the
herbicide flumetsulam (DE-498). In or
on certain raw agricultural
commodities. These temporary
tolerances were requested by
DowElanco.
DATES: These temporary tolerances
expire February 25. 1995.
FOR RJRThER INFORMATION CONTACfl By
mail: Joanne Miller. Product Manager
(FM) 23. Registration Division
(H7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M St.. SW., Washington. DC 20460.
)ffice location and telephone number
Rm. 237, 0402, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway. Arlington. VA. 703—305—7850.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DowElanco, Quad IV, 9002 Purdue Rd.,
Indianapolis. IN 46268—1189, has
requested in pesticide petition (PPJ
2G4149. the establishment of temporary
tolerances for residues of the herbicide
N.(2,6.difiuorophenyl)-5-methyL1. 2.4-
tnazolo(1, 5aJ.pyrirnidine.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 accordance with the
provisions of the experimental use
permits 62719—EUP—23 and 62719.-.
EUP-24. which are being Issued under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide. and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). as amended
(Pub. L. 95—396. 92 Stat. 819; 7 U.S.C.
136).
The scientific data reported and other
relevant material were evaluated, and it
was determined that establishment of
the tern porary tolerances will protect
‘ e public health. Therefore, the
nporary tolerances have been
,,stabllshed 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
experimental use permits.
2. DowElanco must Immediately
notify the EPA of any findings from the
experimental use that have a bearing on
safety. The company must also kaep
records of production. distribution, and
performance and on request makeihe
records available to y 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
amounts 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 crlf 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. I.. 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 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 (48
FR 24950).
AuthoriIy 21 U.S.C 346a(j).
Dated: April 2. 1993.
Law,mm S. Cuilees,
Acting Director, Regisbation Division. Office
of Pesticide Programs.
(FR Doc. 93—8731 FIled 4-13—93; 8:45 aml
- ‘ sees
(FRL —4512 —9J
NPOES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity Located in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency, Region U.
ACTION: Notice of proposed NPDES
general permit modification .
SUMMARY: The Director, Water
Management Division. of the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Region U (the ‘Director”) has
prepared a draft permit modification
Incorporating changes in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permit (PRR000000)
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
reporting requirements established In
the general permit This notice requests
comments on proposed changes to
existing monitoring frequency and
reporting requirements, certain permit
formatlorganiration 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.
ADORESSES: The public should send an
original and one copy of their comments
addressing any aspect of the proposed
permit modifications tqjosé A. Rivera,
Regional Storm Water Coordinator.
Water Permits and Compliance Branch
(2WM-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 the Water
Management Staff of the EPA Region U
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. Rivera or
Anne K. Reynolds at the above address.
In addition, copies of the public record
are also available at the EPA Region U
Canbbean Field Office, Office 2A,
Podiatry Canter Building, 1413
Fernández Juncos Avenue, Santurce,
Puerto Rico. 00907 and may be
inspected and copied at that office
between 9 am. 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, 1992 and November 10.
1992 General Water Quality Certificates,
please contact the Environmental
Quality Board. WMer Quality Area.
Banco Nacional Plaza Building. 431
Ponce de L.eón Avenue, Hato Roy,
Puerto Rico. 00910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION cowTAcr For
further information on the proposed
NPDES general permit modification
contact the EPA’s Storm Water Hotlino
at (703) 821—4823 or Josó A. Rivera or
Anne K. Reynolds of EPA’s Now York
Office at (212) 264—2911.

-------
19428
Federal Reg ter / VoL 58. No. 70 / Wednesday, April 14, 1993 / Notices
8UP LEMENTARY 4FO MATION:
LBackground
IL Section 401 Certifications
iii. Reopener Cause
IV. Fact Sheet ior Proposed Permit
Modifications
V. Economic Impact
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Regulatoq Flexibility Act
L Background
On August 16. 1991.. draft NPDES
general permit for storm water
discharges assoaated with industrial
activity located In the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico was published in the
Federal Register (see 56 FR 40948). and
that notice served as a request for State
401 Certification (see 58 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 on. 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”
(GWQC) for storm water discharges
associated 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 part.
that all permittees of the general permit
conduct quarterly monitoring and report
such results quarterly.
On September 16, 1992. the Region
issued the final NPOES general permit
for storm water discharge. 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. September 23,
1997. The focus of this general permit
is the development and implementation
of Pollution Prevention Plans to
minimize the discharge of pollutants. In
order to incorporate the 401
Certification special conditions which
were included In the GWQC of
September 14, 1992. EPA included Part
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 GWQC’s Special
Condition Number 13. (For more details.
please refer to the Fact Sheet pertaining
to 401 Certification at (57 FR 44440) of
the September 23. 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.
Today’s 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
originates 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.
UI. Reopener Clause
Part VIILB of the general permit (see
57 FR 44456) established that permit
modifications be conducted according
to 40 ‘R 122.62, 122.63, 122.64 and
124.5. In accordance with 40 Q ’R
122.62(a)(3)(iii). 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 QR
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 in
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 (er Proposed Permit
Modifications
A. Basis for Today’s Action
Only those conditions of Part XLB.3
and 5 (State 401 Certification
Requirements for Puerto Rico) of the
general permit discussed in this section
are reopened. Parts XLB,1. 2, 4 and 8 are
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 R 124(c)(2)(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 will be highlighted in
“italics” in the Federal Register notice.
This Fact Sheet desaibes 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 GQWC
(i.e., 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 XI.B.5 of
the general permit. Fourth. EPA is
proposing to modify the permit to
include the EQB and EPA Canbbean
Field Office addresses. And fifth, EPA is
proposing to modify the permit to
correct Pollution Prevention Plans
deadlines established in Part XI.8.3 of
the general permit.
To facilitate the reader’s
understanding of today’s action. EPA is
providing the full texts of Special
Condition No. 13 from EQB’s onginal
September 14, 1992 GWQC and from the
revised November 10. 1992 GWQC. The
September 14, 1992 Special Condition
Ne. 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 Pert X1.B
requirements revised portions of Parts I.
III, IV, V. VI and VU of EPA’s baseline
general permit.) The text of the
September 14. 1992 Special Condition
13 which is found below has bean
annotated with references (italic) which

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 14. 1993 / Notices
19429
indicate the portions of E PA’s baseline
general permit which were revised by
this provision:
13. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements:
For all storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity severed by this
GWQC, quarterly monitoring shall be
performed. The parameters to be sampled are
the followlnW
IPoif VI.. ? and 3 (Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements)j
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 severed by the
final GP. but not specifically identified in the
final CP 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
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. (Part V7.B.31
Monitoring results obtained during the
previous three months must be submitted on
Discharge Monitoring Report Form(s)
postniaaked 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 lou than three months.
(Part VLD)
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 permittue shall attempt to
meet the sampling requirements specified in
this permit even if this requires sampling
after normal business hours. I Part V1.3 4
(Sample Type))
A minimum of forty-eight (48) hours
without measurable precipitation (greater
than 0.1 inch rainfall) shall precede the storm
eventlrunoff that is sampled. lNote—not
incorporated in Port VLB.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. (Part Vl.B.4 (Sample Type))
The permittee should attempt to meet the
above protocol and collect samples beginning
on the rirst day of the reporting period in
order to ensure compliance with the
specified sampling protocol and
requirements. IPa r t Vl.B.4 (Sample Type))
The following is the revised CWQC
Special Condition No. 13 from EQB’s
November 10, 1992 GWQC
13. The following terms and conditions
should be complied for all Storm Water
discharges associated with Industrial
activities covered by this GW
a. EQB retains the authority to request from
facilities covered by this GWQC copy of the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (the
Plan) certified bye professional, u requested
by Special Condition No. 7, when deemed
necessary.
b. If EQS request copy of said Plan, It will
be reviewed. In this case EQS 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 mai4rium of sixty (60) days to make
the necessary changes and submit a written
certification stating that the changi’s were
r eallsat
C. EQS reseives the tight to Inspect the
ImplementatIon of the Plans, on a case-by-
case basis.
d. For those Industries specifically
identified In the final C? applicable to Puerto
Rico. for which there are particular
monitoring requirements established in the
final GP, compliance with the final CP
conditions will be required.
e. For all other Industries not specifically
identified In the final GP applicable to Puerto
Rico. but subject to the permit requirements,
EQB may require monitoring ofell 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 GWQC 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 ware 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 XI.B.5.
which refer to parts V1.B.2 and 3
(volume estimates) arid part VI.B.1 (rain
gauge) of the general permit.
B. Proposed Changes Related to the
Revised GWQC
In order to implement the new
Special Conditions No. 13.a and b, EPA
proposes to incorporate the conditions
in current Part X1.B.3 of the general
permit. This proposed change to Part
XLB.3 would revise Parts IV.B.2 and 3
of the general permit by adding (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. EQB
has the authority to request from facilities
covered by this permit a copy of the Plan
certified by a profeulonol. as requested in
Partly, when deemed n.cessaiy.
3. The Director, as authorized
representative. may notify the permittee at
any time that the plan does not meet one or
more of the minimum requirements of this
Pail. 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 b written certification that the
requested change. have been made. In
addition, EQS may request a copy of the Plan
and may review it. EQS may notify the owner
of the Plan that it complies or does not
corn ply with one or more of the permit
conditions. After receiving a notification
from EQS requiring modifications to the
Plan, the pemuttee will have a maximum of
sixty (501 days to make the ne my
changes and submit a written certification to
EQS and the Regional Office stating thor the
changes were realized.
In order to implement Special
Condition No. 13.c. EPA proposes to
incorporate the condition in Part XI.B.7
in such that the general permit Part
VI1.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. Inspect ion 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 aedentlals and other
documents as may be required by law, to
1. Enter upon the permittea’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 aocess 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 EQS reserves the right to inspect the
implementation of the Pollution Prevention
Plans (see Port IV ), on a case by case basis
In order to implement Special
Condition No. 13.d and e, EPA proposes
that the current Part X1.B.5 of the
general permit be re-written and that
new language be added to revise Part
VI.B.i.b of the general permit. The first
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 approprldte
authority to implement permit
requirements. This section of the perm:t
will read as follows:

-------
19430
Fedesal Regi er / VoL 58, No. 70 / Wednesday. April 14. 1993 / Notices
b. The Director can provtde written notice
to y facility osherwise N um the
sampling requirements oI Parts VLB.2 (semi.
annual monitoring impds ii ) ci VLB.3
(annual monitoring Taquiremanta). that It
shall conduct the annual discharge sampling
required by Part VL&3.d (additional
facilitlea), or specify an aesnative
monitoring frequency or specify additional
parameem to be analyzed.. For all other
industries not specifically Identified In the
final CF applicable to Puerto Rico. but
subject to the permit requirements. EQB may
require monitoring of all those substance,
. 4ai. .v 4 n ’y after a case by case
deermmna 4 ’a. However, any EQB action to
establish such monitoring requirements shall
not b-coin . effective unless and until EPA
Region U provides written notice to the
facility In acwdanos with this para&apb.
In addition, in order to maintain the
requirements of the Speaal Condition
No. 14 (volume estimates) which are
included in the current Part XLB.5 of
the general permit, A Is proposang
new language for Part XLD.5 to revise
Pait V I 8.2 and VLB.3 (italic) of the
general permit. These sections of the
permit will read as follows:
2. Semi.Annual Monitoring Requirements.
During the period beginning on the effective
date and lasting through the expiration date
of this permit. permutes. with facilities
identified In Pails VL3 La through Imust
monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least ssmnl-ennually (2
times per year) except as provided In ‘/19.5
(sampling waiver). V1.B.8 (representative
discharge). and V!.C.1 (toxicity testing).
Permutes, with facilities identified In Parts
VLB.2.a through f (below) must repeat in
accordance with Part VID (report lngi 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 stone event
which generated the sampled runoff; the
duration be1 en the storm event sampled
and the end of the previous measurable
(greater than 01 inch rainfall) storm event.
For pervuftees identified in tf VTJ.2.a
through f an estimate of the total volume (in
gallons) of the discltoige sam pled shall be
provided. For peImittwe identified in Pert
V1.82.b, d. eand j an estisiet. of the imo
of the drainage area (In square frail and an
estimate of the rortoff ceef /L . . i of the
drainage area (e.g. low (under 40%). medium
(40% to 65% or high (above 6511 shall also
be provided:
3. Annual Monitoring R.qw.ements.
During the parmnd beginning on the effective
date arid lasting through th. expiration date
of this permit. permittees with facilities
Identified in Parts VL8. 3a through d. (below)
must monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least annually (1 tIme per
year) except as provided in ‘/1.8.5 (sampling
waiver), and VI.B.8 (representative
discharge). Permittess with facilities
identified In Parts V I 8.3.. through d. (below)
are not required to submit monitoring results.
tn lesa required In writing by the Director.
However. sixth panuitteas must retain
monitoring results In dancs with Part
VLE (retention of recerd4 In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permittee shall
novlde the date and duration (In borate) of
the storm event(s) sampledi r i t n II
measurements or Im mes (in Inches) of the
storm event which generated the sampled
nmoff the duration bti. 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 iampled and a rt
estimate of the size of rh. drainage area (in
squoie feet) and an estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the drainage wee (ng. low
(under 40%). medium (40% to 65%) or high
(above 6511;
EPA ii proposing to re.locatu the Special
Condition No. 16 (rein gauge) included in the
current Part XLB.5 of the general permit. Part
V1.B.9 is being anated to maintain the
condition and to avoid confusIon. This
proposed re.locatlon may be found in the
new proposed Part XLB.5. Comments are
only solicited for the relocation and not for
the requuements of the rain gauge special
condition. This section of the permit will
read as follows:
9. Rain Gauge:
a. All pennittees 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 peraritteas 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 howe). A copy of
these vec.ds shall be submitted to EQB with
copies to the Regional Office and EPA
Caribbean Field Office, in accordance with
Part VLD 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.
C. EPA ’s Proposals Not Related To The
Revised GWQC
1. EQE and EPA Caribbean Field Office
Addresses
EPA proposes to revise Patti IV and
VI.D 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 Past
XI.8.5. This section of the permit will
read as follows:
D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
1.d. Signed copies of discharge monitoring
reports required under Pasts Vl.D.1.a.
V1D.1.b. and VI.D.I.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 Slates EPA. Region 11. Water
Management Thvision. (2 WM-WPCJ. Slonr
Water Staff. 26 Federal Plaza. New York.
NY 10278.
Water quality Area. P.R. Environmental
quality Board. P.O. Box 11488. Santwce.
Puerto Rico 00910.
EPA Caribbean Field Office. Office 2A.
Podiatry Center Building. 1413 Ferrlndez
Juneos Avenue, Santutce. 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 EQB’s September 14. 1992 GWQC.
Among others, the Following conditions
from the September 14.1992 GWQC
were deleted from the revised GWQC
Special Condition No. 13:
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 saznplnig
after normal business howe.
A minimum of Forty eight (48) hours
without measurable precipitation (greater
than 0.1 inch rainfall) shall precede the storm
event/runoff that is sampled.
The perinittee must document the
conditions under which the storm water
samples were taken, how many manual grab
samples were taken fiat the composite
sample, and the date of sampling, and must
attach this documentation to the sampling
results.
The permute. 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 incorporated the above
conditions into the general permit at
Part XLB.5. which revised Part ‘11.8.4 of
the general permit. The following is the
sample type conditions (Part ‘11.8.4.
italic) as established in the general
permit (see 57 FR 44461):
4. Sample Type. Facilities should sample
the discharge during nomwi business hours
In the event that the discharge commences
during normal business hours, the penrn flee
shall attempt to meet the sampling
requirements specified in this permit even if
this requires sampling offer 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 m
greater than 0.1 inches in magnitude and that

-------
Federal Register I 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 cab 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 desciiptlon of why a grab sample
during the first thirty minutes was
impracticable. The composite sample shall
either be flow.weighted or time.weighted.
Composite sample. may be taken with a
continuous sampler or as a combination of.
minimum of three sample aliquots taken In
each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hour, of the
discharge, with each aliquot being separated
by a minimum period of fifteen minutes.
Crab samples only must be collected and
analyzed for the determination of pH.
cyanide, whole effluent toxicity. fecal
coliform. and oil and cease. The pennitree
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 the specified
sampling protocol and requirements.
EPA proposes to retain the above
sample type condition, but to change
the 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 then this one change, retaining
the conditions as shown above is
necessary to clarify 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 Runoff”. In 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.2.b
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 X1.B.3 revises Parts IV.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
NO! submittal (and updated as appropriate);
I. Within thirty (30) days of NOl submittal.
the pevmittee 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 VIl.G of this permit.
b. The plan for any facility whore
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 NOl submittal,
the pemuttee 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 Mfills the
signatory requirements in accordance with
Part VILC 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 XI.B.3. EPA revised Parts
IV .A1, IV.A.2. IV.A.3, and Part !V.C. of
the general permit. EPA is only
soliciting comments on proposed
revisions to Parts IV,A.2 and !V.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
community by reducing the frequency
of sampling and reporting.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA Region II has reviewed the
proposed requirements on regulated
facilities in this general permit under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
44 U.S.C. 3501 at seq. The Region did
not prepare an Information Collection
Request (ICR) document for today’s
proposed general permit modifications
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 Clean Water
Act.
VU. 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 entitles. No Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is required.
however, where the heed of the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

-------
19432
Federal Regl.ter/ VoL 58. No. 70 / Wednesday. April 14. 1993 / Notices
Today s proposed znodificatiooato the
general permit will mak. the general
pesmit moan fie,dbl end le
burdensome for permittees.
Accordingly. f heraby certify. pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). that these permit
modifications, when Issued, will not
have a significant 1mpat wi a
substiutluil number of small entitles.
AutharMy Qeen Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251
at seq.
Dated: March 31. 1993.
William J. MesepsoM.
AaingRegiorzlAdmin i snntrA
Appendix A—Proposed General Permit
M--iL-
CNPDES Permit Number PRR000000I
Authoriwtion to Diwharge Under the
Notional Pollutant Thschw e Elimination
System
in compliance with the provisions of the
Cean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C 1251
at 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 C-- . .nuweelth of
Puerto Rico are outhorired to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirement. set forth herein.
Operatms 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 11 of
this permit. Operator. of stoma water
discharges associated with i ndustrial 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 — modification shall become
effective on Effective Date of Permit
Modification ( PM).
This permit and the euthoriretiori to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 25. 1997.
Signed and Issued this _day of
. 1993 .
Richard L Caspe. P.E.
Director
Water Management D1visio
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region U
This signature Is the permit conditions
in Past, I through X and for any addit4i aI
condition. in Part Xl which apply to facilities
located in the Commoaweajth of Puerto Rico.
Pert XL Stat, Specific Conditions
• a a S a
S. Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico 401
Certification special permit conditions revise
the permit as fullowu
• a • S S
3. Part IV. Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plans
• • • • S
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Comp laaaca
1. Except as provided in paragraphs IV.A.3
( .I and gas operations). 4 (facilities denied
or r,)ected from participation In a oup
app lineflenL5 (special requirements) and S
(later dates) the plan fore s i mm water
discharge 1i’1ated 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 permitte.
shall submit to the EQS with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean Field
Office, a certification stating that the Plea
was dawioped In amezdance with the
requirements established in this permit. All
certifications, except those prepared by a
professional engrnees licensed in Puerto
Rico, shall besubraitted 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:
L No later than October 1. 1993. the
permutes shall submit to EQS 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 VU.G of this permit.
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 befdre thirty (30) days alter
NOl submittal (and updated as appropriat.h
L Within thirty (30) days of NOl submittal.
the pernuttee 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
Part 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
a. 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):
L Within thirty (301 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 tha ri 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 accorcance with
Part VILG of this permit.
3. The plan lot storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from an oil
and gas exploration, production. processing.
or trea ent operation or transmission
facility that is not required to submit a permit
application on or before October 1. 1992 in
otmordance with 40 R t22.26(c)(1)(Iii). tart
after October 1.1992 has a discharge of a
reportable quantity of oil ore hazardous
substance for which notification Is required
porsuant to either 40 R 110.8.40 O’R
117.21 or 40 C2’R 302.6. shall be prepared
and except a. 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 appropriate):
a. Within thIrty (30) day . of the first
knowledge of such release, the penalties
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
requiremeuta established iii this permit. The
certification should be signed by the person
who fulfills the signatory requirements in
accordance with Part Vl1.G of this permit.
• S S • S
B. Signature and Plan Revrew
• • S S a
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 starer sewer system, to the operator
of the municipal system. In addition. EQB
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 one or
more of the minimum reqairemerics of this
Part. Within 30 day . of such notification
from the Director (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized representairve,
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. EQS may request a copy of the Plan
arid may review it. EQS may notify the owner
of the Plan that It complies or does riot
comply with one or more of the permit
conditions. After receiving a notification
from EQS requiring modifications to the
Plan, the perinhitee will have a maximum of
sixty (60) 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.
• • a S a
C Keeping Plans Current
1. The permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design.
construction, operation, or maintenance.
which has a sigiuficant eff 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 sig ificant1y
minimizing pollutants from sources
identified under Part IV D 2 (description of
potential pollutant sources) of this permit. or
in otherwise achieving the general ob ectives
of controlling pollutants in storm water

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 70 / Wednesday, April 14, 1993 I Notices
19433
discharges associated with industrial activity.
\mendments to the plan may be reviewed by
‘A in the same manner u Part IV.B (above).
2. In addition to Part IV.C.1 (above), the
Plan should be reviewed at least once every
three (3) years to deteurune the need to
update the Plan:
a.ir no event occurs which requires the
modification of the Plan, the engineer sir
qualified professional who performs the
corresponding review must submit to EQD
with copies to the Regional Office and A
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. If events have occurred which inquire
the modification of the Plan, the engineer or
qualified professional who performs the
corresponding revision must submit to EQS
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 thi, permit.
shall submit to EQS with copies to the
Regional Office and EPA Caribbean Field
Office, a certification stating that the
modifications of the Plan have been
u:iplemented.
C. All certifications, except those prepared
bye professional engineer licensed In Puerto
Rico. shall be submitted with a sworn
statement attesting to the professional
qualifications of the individual who
teveloped the Plan.
a • a a a
5. Past VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
a a a a a
B. Monitoring Requirements.
1. Limitations on Moms onng Requirements.
• a a a a
b. The Director can provide written notice
tu any facility otherwise exempt b m the
sampling requirements of Parts ‘/1.3.2 (semi.
annual monitoring requirements) or V1&3
(annual monitoring requirements), that it
shall conduct the annual discharge sampling
requirea by Part VI.B.3.d (additional
facilit:eid. or specify an alternative
monitoring frequency or specify additional
parameters to be analyzed. For all other
industries not specifically identified in the
final GP applicable to Puerto Rico. but
suirpect to the permit requirements EQS may
require monitoring of all those substances
deemed necessary after a case by case
determination. However, any EQS action to
establish such monitoring requirements shall
not become effective uniess and until EPA
Region II provides written notice to the
facility in accordance with this paragraph.
a a • a a
2. Semi.Annua Morutonng Requirements.
During the period beginning on the effective
date and lastIng through the expiration date
of this permit. perinittees with facilities
idontified in Parts VI.B.2,a through f must
monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least semi.snnually (2
times per year) except as provided in VI.B.5
(sampling waiver). VLZ.6 (representative
discharge). and VI.C.i (toxicity testing).
Pennittees with facilities identified in Parts
VLB.2.a through I (below) must report in
erxordance with Part YLD (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.
For peunittees Identified in Part VI.B.2.s
through f. an estimate of the total volume (in
gallons) of the discharge sampled shall be
provided. For pennittees Identified In Part
VLS.2.b, d, e and I, 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 (wider 40%). medium
(40% 1065%) or high (above 65)) shall also
be provided;
3. Annual Monitoring Requirements.
During th. 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
Identified below at least annually (1 time per
year) except as provided in VI.3.5 (sampling
waiver), and ‘/1.3.6 (representative
discharge). Permiltees with facilities
identified In Parts ‘ / 13.3.. through d. (below)
are not required to submit monitoring results,
unles, 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 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% 1065%) or high (above 65)L
4. Sample Type. Facilities 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. 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
sampie is collected),, minimum of one grab
sample may be taken. For au 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 0.2 inch in mi ’gnitude and that
occurs at least 48 hours from the previously
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall)
storm event. The grab sample shall be takea
during the lint 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 desoription 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 kit the fint three hour, of the
discharge, with each aliquot being separated
by a minimum period of fifteen minutes.
Crab samples only must be collected and
analyzed for the determination of pH.
cyanide, whole effluent toxicity. fecal
coliform, and oil and g:ease. 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 .ampling 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 arnipliance with the specIfied
sampling protocol and requirements. -
a a a a a
9. 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’ persnittees where industrial activity
has begun after October 1. 1992. the ruin
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 end amount
of rainfall (inches In 24 hours). A copy of
these records shall be submitted to EQS with
copies to the Regional Office arid EPA
Caribbean Field Office, In accordance with
Pan Vl.D of this permit. The reports are due
the 28th day of January. April, July and
October. The rimt report may cover less than
three months and shall be attached to the
Discharge Monitonng Reports (DMRs) when
appropriate.
D Reporting’ Where to Submit
1.
a a a a
d. Signed copies of discharge monitoring
reports required under Parts V1.D.1.a,
V1.D.1.b. and V1.D.Lc, 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 (2WM-WPC), Storm
Water StalL 26 Federal Piaze, New York,
NY 10278.
Water Quality Area. P.R. Environmental
Quality Board. P.O. Box 11488. Santurce.
Puerto Rico 00910.

-------
19434
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 70 / Wednesday, April 14, 1993 / Notices
EPA Caribbean Field Office. Office ZA,
Podiatry Center BuildIng. 1413 Fernández
Juncos Avenue, Santurce. Puerto Rico
00907.
• • • • •
7. Part VI I . Standards Permit Conditions
• • S S S
Q. Izispecuon and Entiy. The perTnittee
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 eredentlals and other
documents as may be required by law, to:
1. Enter upon the pernuttee’s premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted or where records must
be kept under the conditions of this permit:
2. Have amass 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.
• S S S S
IFR Doc. 93-8468 Filed 4—13—93; 8.45 am i
S 1LUNO COOS M1540-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
Public information Collection
Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Reviee
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 horn 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 Neihardr, Office of
Management and Budget, room 3235
NEOB, Washington. DC 20503. (202)
395—4814.
0MB Number: 3060-0061.
Tide: 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
(Including small businesses).
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
on file with the Commission. The
operator of every operational cable
television system shall verify, correct
and/or 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 K. Searcy,
Secret at y.
(FR Doc. 93—8633 Filed 4—13—93; 8:45 aml
SIWNG COOS I71a.11-
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-871007A 1 93—102
Caldocnia Urn.
ted pasV er.
ship; Tiuck-
ee ,CA.
(Seeking a major change foe 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:
1. 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
of 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 rant of the
application would serve the public
interest, convenience and necessity.
A copy of the complete HDO 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 f. Stewart,
Chief, Mass Media Bureau.
(PR Doc. 93—8625 FIled 4—13—93; 8.45 aznl
55±110 COGS S7I5-OI-
Application for Consolidated Hearing
1. The Commission has before it the
following mutually exclusive
applications for a new FM Station:
A pbC&It . CitY File
and state ‘
MM
docket
A.RaymondW. BPH-811216MC
93-87
Canton: El
Rio, Cailfor-
na
8. Loran F. BPH-911216M0
Selznlck El
R Cahfor-
na
Issu e Heading and Applicants
1. Comparative, A.8
2. Ultimate, A,B
I,
A. Adam 0. BPK-920102MC
93-96
Goamean
Harold. KY.
B. Robeit G. BPH-920109MB
P i cki e e i me
Harold, KY.
Issue Heading and Applicants
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 Si FR 19347, May 29. 1986.

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 1993 / Notices
12035
Frequency of Collection: Every four
‘ean.
Send comments regarding the burden
stimate. or any other aspect of the
information collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden to:
Sandy Farmer, 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: Fe ruary 24. 1993.
Paul Lapaley,
D roctor. Regulator, Management Division.
FR Doc. 93—4774 Plied 3—1—93; 8:45 aml
BIWNG cxi
(FRL—4600-4J
Phosphoric Acid Production Waste
Dialogue Committee; Public Meeting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.
MUARY: 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
production of phosphoric acid.
DATES: The Committee meeting will be
held on March 18 and March 19, 1993
from 8:30 a.xn. to 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Doubletzee Hotel. 300 Army Navy
Drive, Crystal City. Arlington. Virginia
22202, (703) 892—4100.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Porsons 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,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC, 20460: phone (202)
260-6700. Persons needing further
information on the committee’s
rocedural and logistical matters should
‘I Deborah Dalton, Consensus and
pute Resolution Program. (202) 260—
‘495. or the Committees facilitator,
Creg Bourne, Southeast Negotiation
Network, Georgia Institute of
Technology. Atlanta, GA (404) 853-
9846.
Dated: February 25. 1993.
Deborah S. Dalton,
DerignaiedFederoi Official. Office of
ReguiatosyManogem.nt and Eveluoiior
Offic. of Policy. Planning and Evoluation.
IFR Doe. 93-4778 FIled 3—1—93; 8:45 ainl
mime coos
(FRL-4600-33
Revision of New York Static National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Program To luus General
P 1 r 1 1 1 8 5
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 II approved New York State’s
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 I C. Reynolds, Water Permits and
Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA Region II.
26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York
10278. phone 212—264—2911.
SUPPLEMEK ARY 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 monitoring.
and are more appropriately controlled
under a general permit than an
individual permit. EPA authorized New
York State to administer the NPDES
program on October 28, 1975. Their
program. as previously epprove . did
not include provisions for the issuance
of general permits. There are several
categories 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 ECL §S 70—
0117(6) and 70—0117(7) authorizes
NYSDEC to issue general permits under
the State Pollutant Discharge
Pi lminatlon 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
ofjollutants: (4) requIre the same
effluent limitations or operation
conditions; (5) require the same or
similar monitoring; and (6) will result in
vnin4ma ) adverse cumulative impacts.
Pursuant to ED. 5S 70—0117(6)(b) and
(7)(bJ, general permits can be issued for
the following categories of discharges
only after the NYSD makes a specific
determination that such discharges are
more eppropriately controlled under a
general permit than under an individual
permit (1) Ballast iliarharges; (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 subject to
EPA review and approval as provided
by 40 R 123.44. Public notice and the
opportunity to request a hearing is also
provided for each general permit
U. Discussion
On September 17. 1992 the State of
New York submitted a program
description for New York’s SPDES
General Permits Program and an
Amendment to the New York State
Department of Environmental Protection
(“DEC”)—United 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 submitted
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 adminL ter the general
permits program as required by 40 R
123.23(c). Based on New York’s
description and upon its experience in
administering an approved NPDES
program. EPA has concluded that the
State will have the necessary procedures
and resources to administer the general
permits program.
Under 40 C R 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 New York’s
assumption of general permit authority

-------
12030
Federal L41i. . . I VoL 58. No. 39 / Tini day, March 2, 1993 I Notices
is a non-substantial revision of Its II I. Federal Register Notice of Approval Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
NPDES program. EPA has generally of State NPDES Program or may have a significant Impact o
viewed approval of such authority as Modifications substantial number of small ent
non-substantial bemuse it does not alt Pursuant to sectIon 605(d) of the
Today’s Federal Register notice
the substantive obligations of any annoiinr the approval of New York’s Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601
discharger under the Slate program. but authority to Issue general permits.. The et seq.). I certify that this State General
merely simplifies the p dures by following Pezm ts Program wiU not have a
which permits are issued to a number of an up-to-date list o(the status of NPDES s niflcent impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
point sources. permitting authority throuajiout the Approval of New York’s NPDES
Moreover, under the approved State General Permits Program established oc
program. the State retains authority to iv. Review under Executive Order new substantive requirements nor does
135U6 Individual permits where 12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility it alter the regulatory control over any
appropriate, and any person ‘°Y Ad Industrial cetegory. Approval of the
request the State to Issue an Individual New York State Geuerai Permits
permit for a discharge eligible for The Office of Management and Budget
general permit coverage, has exempted this rule from the review merely provides a simplified
requirements of Executive Order 12291 administrative ,rocess.
pursuant to Section 8(b) of that Q d Dated February 3.1993.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. WIlliase J. Mmzynakl,
EPA is requlzed to prepare a Regulatory Acllflg RegronalAdathiisfrator.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
(1
s
-°L
m rn
A d

Appw e
e u
AiaDsrns ._
M u
.__. __ .. ___________
1011 9179
11 1 81 186
10119179
11181196
1011 79
lI O1d86
06 1251
iimi;
—
Coismdo
Coms o 5
DeI suii .__
CaMcn a_____________ .
05lW73
. 0 2 1 27 /75
091 6l?3
04101 / 74
0505178
Ot109 90
.__._._
05123199
0003181
O91Vi
0 •
‘ 0 (10 ’
‘23 1
.____ —
G.c g’a
o ez 6 174
I 1129174
irioeleo
0601179
02fiZi i
06112/83
291
- 30f
Ha
Ib ss
U anI
10123177
01101/7 5
00 79
1209178
.. _......
OtiO4 I
04182/
—
—_______________________
05110178
0928 174
09110178
0928186
OS f8I
0 6 112/
._ . ... _.....
Kans a s
._
Kenucky
Msfy t
Mie _an
Mfleso la
.—.—.— ---..... —.._
09130183
09106 (74
I W I if 73
05 130 (74
05 101 /74
10130 (74
0 5(10(74
09130183
11/l0
12 /0 9 178
12/09178
01/28 183
06 125179
06 (23/81
0G ’30183
05 130/85
06/07/83
07/16(79
05(13/82
0003/81
09130’
09130.
. ..
1211Sf
09 (271
12/1 2
04129
.__._._..._.______._

..
Ulsacwl
Maisans .
...
........
NaO uka
.._.______
06112174
06119(79
11 /02(79
0 6 1 31/78
0910714
.......
07720
07PZ7
Navuda
Now Je,
—_______________________ . ...___.
..._.__...
. _.__________________
04 (13 182
1 l75
10(19175
05(1317 5
0311 V74
0925173
09135178
05117194
06110(75
12(29177
0707(87
orivm
06135178
02131 175
1 1/14 (73
091602
02/04174
01/3075
04/13182
05113180
09(26/84
01 ( 22(90
01 /26 183
02 ( 7I
0030/78
05117194
O
0513606
07107/87
.______
. _.._..
0209182
06(10(82
11/26 (79
06(15181
04113192
. —-
06114/82
.__._
07/27/83
03(12181
.. —-
05117/84
0903182
0911603
07107187
i&a

04/14189
0913606
0910(82
12 ( 24/80
........_.. ..
04/13
lOftS
09/00
011231
05(171
09
0002!
06(171
0903
04(10
01I07
.. . -
...._—-
06120
09128
05110
12/19
09/24
Now YCIS
P40181 Ca l
No ei Oak
ONe
O
P.rm. .,$ .rst
R1iodsl
S Cat -
Teveusss
- —
-___ .
UWl —
Vanmas
VU m I ai s
Vkga
WW U)A -
Warn
....__________
._
....__ ._,..__
Wismravi ._
W ’o nvng .
r .
,..._..,._
..
—.-.————.—————- -..——
39
34
27
N ty41iv st Ft y AI.91Q P’o anu (Fadsm F Preve.anei*. G.na. PsmwM .24

-------
9404 Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 32 I Friday. February 19. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0157)
5503.46 R.pertlng.
Class I sludge management facilitiñ.
POTWs (as defined in 40 C R 501.2)
with a 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 S 503.47(b) through
§ 503.47(h) to the permitting authority
on February 19 of each year.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0157)
Appendix A to Part 503—Procedure to
Determine th Annual Whole Sludge
Application Rate tori Sewage Sludge
Section 503. 13(a)(4)(ll) requires that the
product of the concentration for each
pollutant listed In Table 4 of 5503.13 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 rate 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 in Table 4 of
§ 503.13 to be exceeded.
The relationship between the annual
pollutant loading rate (APLR) fore pollutant
and the annual whole sludge application rate
(AWSAR) for Ia sewage sludge is shown in
equatIon (1).
APLR=C icAWSAR4 .001 (1)
Where:
APLR=Annual pollutant loading rate in
kilograms per hectare per 365 day
period.
C=Pollutant concentration in i iilligranu.
per kilogram of total solids (dry weight
basis).
AWSAR=Annual whole sludge application
rate In mainc tons per hectars per 365
day period (dry weight basis).
0.001 A conversion factor.
To determine the AWSAR. equation (1) Is
rearranged into equation (2):
APLR
AWSAR
oo1
The procedure used to determine the
AWSAR for a sewage sludge is presented
below.
Procedure:
1. Analyze a sample of the sewage sludge
to determine the concentration for each of the
pollutants listed in Table 4 of 5503.13 in the
sewage sludge.
2. Using the pollutant concentrations from
Step 1 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 lithe
lowest AWSAR calculated In Step 2.
AppseHw B to Part 503—Pathogen
Treatment P r
A. Processe, to SIgnificantly Reduce
Pathogens (PSRP)
1. AerobIc digestion—Sewage sludge is
agitated with air or oxygen to maintain
aerobic conditions for a specific mean cell
residence time 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 basins.
The sewage sludge dries for a minimum of
three months. During two of the three
months, the ambient average daily
temperature is above rare degrees Celsius.
3. Anaerobic digestion—Sewage sludge I.
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 teniperatwe shall be
between 15 days at 35 toSS degrees Celsius
and 60 days at 20 degrees Celsius.
4. Cosnposting.—Us*ng 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 tempewwe in the compost
pile exceeds 55 degrees Celsius.
5. Lime stabIlization—Sufficient 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 Pathogens
(PFRP)
1. Composting—Uaing either the within.
vessel composting method or the static
aerated pile composing 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
,, , , 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. Hee at t—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.
5. Beta ray irradiation—Sewage sludge is
irradiated with beta rays from en accelerator
at dosages of at least 1.0 megarad at room
temperature (ca. 20 degrees Celsius).
8. Gamma ray Irradiation—Sewage sludge
is Irradiated with g m rays from certain
isotopes. such as Cobalt 60 and Cesium 137,
at room temperature (ca. 20 degrees Celsius).
7. PasteurizatIon—The temperature of the
sewage sludge Is maintained at 70 degrees
Celsius or higher for 30 minutes or longer.
IFR Doc. 93—2 Filed 2—18-93: 8:45 am)
III.LIIG 000( SiN-Si -N
ENViRONMENTAl. PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 501
(FRL-4515-7J
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Sewage Sludge
Permit RegulatIons; State Sludge
Management Program equlrem.nts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACT1ON: Final rule; technical
amendment.
SUMMARY: Under existing regulations
that establish sewage. sludge permitting
and State sewage sludge program
requirements. approximately 20.000
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.

-------
Federel Register / Vol. 58, No 32 / F )idav, February lOb 1993 I Rules and Regulations
9405
AOD °= Th. public Is located
at ‘A Headquarters. En m.ntal
Protection Agency, room 220 NE. 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
For a ss to the call (2021 280-.
6599 between 9a.m. and 330p.m. for
an appointment.
FOR FURThSR OIFORMA11ON C0NTACT
Pamela Permits Division (EN-.
336). Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street SW. Washington. DC
20460. (202) 260—6599.
SUPPUMOITARY I7I MA11ON
I. Background
A. Wafer Quality Act of 1987
9. As Sewage Sludge Management
C. of May 27. Proposed
Ruls
11. Dtacuasion of Toclay s Final Rule and
Response to
A. General
B. ApptIr hility
C. Permit Application Deadlines
0. TIme Penod for Compiling Application
Data
E. Compliance with the CWA and Pail 503
P State Programs and the Permitting
Authority ______
C. Technical Cjri g ,.d to Section 223.25
Ill. Regulatory DeveIo naent Pro
A. Executive Order 12291
a Paperwork Reduct3on Act
C. Regulatory FI.v.hlllty Act
Appendix A—Lw .f R. saah Sewage
Sludge r-
I. Background
Implementation of the Clean Water
Act (C VA} has increased the extent to
which wastowater is treated before
being discharged to surface waters. At
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs), implementatIon of secondary
treatment requirements under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program.
under section 402 of the CWA. has
improved effluent quality while
increasing the amount of sewage sludge
being generated.. Proper management of
this growing amount of sr. .eg . sludg. is
becoming increasingly important as
efforts to remove pollutants from
wasteweter have become more effective.
Several options axial far dealing with
these vast quantitiea of sewage sludge.
One such option La beneficial use. The
Agency considers w gS sludge a
valuable resource since it contains
nutrients and has physical properties
that make it useful as a fertilizer and
soil conditioner. Sewage sludge has
been used for its beneficial qualities on
agricultural lands, in forest for
landscaping projects . and to reclaim
strip.mined land. EPA will continue to
encourage audi practices.
Regulation of th. use or disposal of
sewage sludge is Important, however.
because improper us. or disposal em
adversely affect surface waler, ground
water, wetlands, and public health
through a variety of exposure pathways.
The multi-media nature of the risks and
exposure pathways reqyires a tightly
coordinated comprehensive approach
that protects public health and the
environment, helps ensure that solving
problems In one medium will not create
problems for another, and encourages
the beneficial use of sewage sludge.
A. Water (JualilyAd 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 revisions to the CWA reiterated
EPA s obligation to promulgate
standards for sewage sludge that protect
public health and the envuonment from
reasonably anticipated adverse effects of
pollutants in sewage sludge during its
use or disposal. Furthermore, the 1987
amendments required that all NPDES
permits issued to POTtVs and other
treatment works treating domestic
sewage contain conditions
Implementing sewage sludge standards,
unless such conditions are induded in
a permit issued under subtitle Cot 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 405U) sewage sludge permitting
program. The amendments also
provided that the Administrator may
Issue separate permits that implement
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 or
Stats 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
treatment works treating domestic
sewage. an well as any user or disposer.
must comply with the standards by the
statutory compliance deadlines whether
or not a permit incorporating the
standards has been issued to the
treatment works treating domestic
sewage.
B. EPA ’s Sewage Sludge Management
Pro gmm
hi response to the February 1987
amendments (0th. CWA. EPA: (1)
Reproposed regulations far State sludge
management programs (first proposed
on February 4.1986(51 FR 4458)): and
(2) proposed revisions to the NPO
program regulations to provide for
including sewag, sludge requirements
in NPDES permits. This was don. on
March 9.198853 PP. 7642). Final rules
were promulgated on May 2. 1989 (54
FR 18716). T . regulations establish
permit requirements and procedures, as
well as requirements for States wishing
to Implement approved sewage sludge
management programs as either pert 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 th. sewage sludge
permitting program is the development
of standards that protect public health
and the environment from reasonably
anticipated adverse effects of pollutants
in sewagesludge that is used or
disposed. On February 6,1989(54 FR
5746). EPA proposed standards for the
use or disposal of sewage sludge if the
sewage sludge is applied to the land.
distributed and marketed, placed In
sludge-only landfills (inonofllLsl or
surface disposal sites, or fired in a
sewage sludge incinerator. These
standards will be codified at 40 GR
part 503 and will be published in the
Federal Register on or near 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 lithe sewage sludge is
used or disposed in .coordanr.. with
part 503.
On November 9, 1990 (55 FR 47210).
EPA published a notice regarding the
availability of information and 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
‘ “ “ enta provided by scientific peer
review panels and public comments on
the proposed part 503 rule. As noted
above, the final part 503 regulation will
be published In the Federal Register on
or near the same date as today’s final
rule.
C. Discussion c/May 27. 1922. Proposed
Rule
Under th. currant regulations.
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) end other treatment work.,
treating domestic sewage are required to
submit permit applications within 120
days after the promulgation of standards
(40 R part 503) applicable to their
sewage sludge use or disposal

-------
9406 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 32 I Friday. February 19. 1993 I Rules and Regulations
practice(s). 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 fadlitate
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 flEet 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 NPDES permit
renewal process (i.e.. over the five year
permit cycle). Additionally. EPA
proposed to extend the time period
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 Finoi Rule and
Response to Comments
A. Cenemi
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 POTWs 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 germit 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
ne year (or two years if construction is
iquired) after “publication” of an
applicable sewage sludge use or
dicposal 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 bein 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 briefly below.
All treatment works treating domestic
sewage must apply for a pernut. A
treatment works treating domestic
sewage is defined In §S 122.2 arid 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 PO’fl Vs 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
authority (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 processor other wastes generated
at the site. It does not, however, apply
to sludges whither. hazardous wastes,
that are covered under subtitle C of
RCRA. While industrial treatment works
treating site-generated domestic wastes
con 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 today’s 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
sand 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
treatmenuc1t posal 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

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 32 / 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(b)(4)). EPA cannot envision a
situation where it would issue a permit
to a home gardener who uses sewage
sludge products as a fertilizer or soil
conditioner.
Another commenter was concerned
about how this rule effects those
facilities that send sewage sludge to
municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLFs). These landfills are regulated
under the part 258 regulations
promulgated jointly under R RA and
the CWA 156 FR 50978). Part 258
establishes minimum criteria for
MSWLFs. 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 MSWLFs wilt be contained
in a separate rulemaking.
This commenter also pointed out that
the CWA does not allow the issuance of
a RCRA Subtitle D 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 under the part 122. 123, or 501
permitting regulations. However, EPA
expects sewage sludge generators who
send their sewage sludge to MSWI.Fs to
have some sewage sludge requirements
in their NPDES permits. These facilities
must submit permit applications in
accordance with today’s final rule. Part
503 proposed to address requirements
for sewage sludge going to MSWI.Fs. but
the Agency decided that it was not
feasible to develop pollutant-specific
limits for 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
C%VA. EPA determined that the
requirements established in part 258
(a g.. liners and leachate systems) will
ensure that pollutants are not released
into the environment and that public
health 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 sent to State-permitted MSWLFS
(54 FR 5794). In other wards, each
treatment works treating domestic
sewage must ensure that the sewage
sludge it sends to a MSWLF for disposal
is not hazardous (52.38.20) and does not
violate the prohibition on disposal of
liquids in landfills (5258.28).
Furthermore, sewage sludge that is used
as cover for aMSWLF must be suitable
for that purpose (5258.21). Facilities
that sand 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(d)(1)(iiHA)). The preamble
discussion to the May 2. 1989. notice
(54 FR 18737), made it clear that all
POTWs covered by the part 503
regulation had to submit permit
applications within this 120-day period.
tinder §5 122.21(c)(2Hii) and
501. 15(d)(1)(iiHB), 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)(1)(ii)(CJ 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
POTWs arid 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 app lication inlumiation 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
promiul 6 ation of the permit
requirements that make this approach
less 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 p ut 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 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 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
monitoring, 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 past 503.
Permits, when issued, will also include
monitoring, record keeping. and

-------
9&’)8 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 32 / Friday. February 19. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
reporting requirements that. in
appropriate circumstances. may be more
comprehensive than part 503.
Other I n enters 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 CWA 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(fl(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 questions/chaltanges to be addressed
through the permit issuance and public
comment process rather than through an
enforcement action. Additionally, a
permit can provide a partial “permit as
a shield” defense for compliance with
the permit ( 122.25(a) (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 acceptance 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 parmittee’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 interim
program In the final role, 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
perinittee 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 placement 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 must
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
.&fter part 503 will facilitate compliance
with the statutory deadlines.
One commenter thought that it would
be unwise to delay the submittal of
permit applications ii it meant that the
development of “management plans”
would also be delayed. (Because the
proposed regulations did not discuss
“management plans,” we assume this
refers to “land application plans” under
§S 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
times 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 ifs
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 easier,-
In light of the discussion above, and
in response to comments received on
the proposed nile. 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 / Rules and Regulations
9409
pose the greatest risk to public health.
Several commenters objected to this
statement and requested to see
supporting data. This statement was
based upon the data developed for the
February 6, 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
202/260—6599. This document may also
be purchased through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) at
a cost of $43.00 plus shipping and
handling (NTIS #PB89.-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 commenters asked for
clarification 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 injection of sewage sludge
into the soil at a dedicated site on which
no crops are grown. Aithough EPA
appreciates the corr lexity of these
issues, the availabi v of site-specific
limits is determined 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 them. To set permitting
priorities and control the permit
application process. EPA has
determined that it is appropriate 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
data are discovered after the initial 180-
day period after part 503 is published,
then good cause may exist for
consideration 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. Unlika the
NPDES program, permits are 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
today’s 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
authority. 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 [ and 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)(2)(i)
and 50 1.15(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 rule.)
2. The Second Phase
Instead of requiring an immediate
submittal of a complete application
from sludge-only treatment 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 Dlrector
(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 desaiption of the sewage sludgs
use or disposal practices (including.

-------
9410 Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 32 / Friday. February 19. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
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 beg or similar
enclosure for application to the hind. 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.
Some treatment works treating
domestic sewage are not cw rently
subject to the existing NPDES program
for effluent discharges (i.e.. they are
sludge-only facilities). EPA will use this
second phase to aeate 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
§5 122.21(c)(2)(iii)(E) and
501.1 5(d)(1 )(iiUC)(5) that existing data
be submitted. EPA believes this
provision is adequate since the
proposed part 503 regulation had self-
implementing moniLoring and record
keepuig 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
n w data, which would be available
data required under
§5 122.21(c)(2)(iii)(E) and
501.15(dUl)(ii)(CJ(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” treatzneat works treating domestic
sewage. As noted above, this data will
serve to inventory the sludge-only
facilities as well as provide the
permitting authority 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)(1)(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
commenter 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 ii 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 carried 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. i!icineiated-in
a sewage sludge incinerator, placed in a
surface disposal site, or disposed in a
MSWLF. For example, if a 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 requited to
submit permit application Information
as well.)
A few commenters 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 conzmunity
EPA will continue its efforts to identify
and notify sludge-only perinittees of
their obligations. Realizing that sludge-
only facilities aie 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 olthe 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
(55 122.21(c)(2)(iii) and
501.15(d)(1)(ii)(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
standards 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 ‘R
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

-------
Federal Register F Vol. 58. No. 32 / Friday . February_19.1993/ Rules and Regulations
9411
administratively continued (or
extended). Today’s rule requires NPDES
permittee. (not required to have or
seoking site-specific limits) to submit
sewage sludge data at the time of their
next NPDES permit renewal
applications. NPDES permittees.
however. should have beets 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 the 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 S 122.21(c)(2)(iv).
Likewise, for any faalitlee 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 disaetlon to ensure that
adequate information is included in the
permit application process and to
expeditiously incorporate part 503
requirements into reissued permits.
One conunenter was concerned that
permit applications with sewage sludge
information would not be submitted for
up to 6 or 8 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 agrees that it
will not be possible to i s su. all permits
immediately given limited resourme.
EPA believes that sewage sludge
management remains a local concern
that should be handled at the 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 past 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’. ability to
enforce compliance with the standards
is not wholly dependent upon iss w
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)(2)(ii) and
501. i5(d)(lliui)(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. Today’s final rule has
the same focus. Because 120 days may
be insufficient to generate the necessary
information for site.spocific permits.
EPA proposed to extend the time period
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 commenter 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 during 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 clarification 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 i.e the
preamble which accompanies that rule.
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 burns) 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 S 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 after
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 requirements for when
permit applications have to be
submitted (under parts 122. 123. and
501) made by today’s rule, see Table I I—
1.
TA&E (1-1.—SUMMARY OF GENERAI.
CHANGES MADE BY TODAY’S Fuw. RUI.E
Old rsoiws. New ‘eou.-
F— ts 1.d
wv. (Cr I
— s
— tknte
NPOES psimit.
Non-NP OES
rsaacie..
— -‘I
S s
aes adps
Wdaiwgxn
w eda 120
days aft
psi,
Subm* u
5g. —
kl C .’m.2en
s4 5 120
days slier
pan sea
S ,bn 5 5
9 5
omaXn
w eel lee
days er
pan sea
1-t
s9s —
I om i eXn
wldI im
esys after
pan sea
— t
eon.?

-------
9412 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 1993 I Rules and Regulations
TABLE 11—1.—SUMMARY OF GENERAl.
CHANGES MADE BY TODAY’S FINAl.
RULE—Continued
Old ‘esil..
sa
Niw require.
menu
Fscil’ net rS
S ii .
Stbnlt Si ..
qured ld twv
age adgs
age idge
(or mqjasdn )
aOplSiXfl
appiicaxn
fls., 1 .&r ft n.
ni .Xn
ItAuhaDen
IaiP4POES per.
.101 1 120
et eli em.
mItsea
days after
pin 503
o’c u.
ci fleet
NPO€S per-
mft reluesi
.
Non.NPOES
ft
A l L t
Sidain s
Sidaill emiled
—
—
esnegs
rpJdoe.
appdaincn
etge 111r.
.
Il .., ....01%
in11120
days after
pit 503
—.
l o
melon .
11ysar
. after pail
503—
Sent
ApcflwS may requin 5e 0 c pOSetate Ikils
later tome showing ci good caus&
t The psmisang aietwity may requeSt that psnnft
appflmoo,w Os uibnluud sailer ten 01 lInes set
loan it mu eels. Pette Il4 a1l,. . . ate lam 180
days after 01 pe.. ..UI. autloilty metes sucen a
E. Compliance With the CWA and Part
503
Several commenters expressed
concerns over the part 503 compliance
deadlines (one year after 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 Programs and the Permitting
Authority
For consistency. EPA proposed to
include the above changes to the
permitting procedures into 40 CFR
123.25(a)(4) by cross-referencing 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
regulations as part of their programs.
EPA received no comments on the
proposed change and it is being adopted
asproposed.
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 mifingement 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 Ragionj
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. Similarly,
just 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 interim
sewage sludge programs. Once the part
503 regulations are final, the Interim
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
§ 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 NPDES permit renewal
application” instead of “with their next
NPDES permit renewal application.”
Several commenters requested
darification 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 mean 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(1)
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. Iii
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.
G. Technical Correction to5 123.25
On July 28. 1986. EPA promulgated
final regulations for application
requirements for facilities that discharge
only non.process wastewater. At 51 FR
26991. EPA redesignated S 122.21(h)—(o)
as (D—(p) and added a new 5 122.21(h).
Conforming changes were not made to
S 123.25(a)(4) which refers to relevant
portions of section 122. These technical
corrections are being made as part of
today’s rule.
Ill. 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 agenues. 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
criteria 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 / Rules and Regulations
9413
rulem 4 . These reguJati ens were
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) for review.
B. Paparrvork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this nile
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 et seq.
and axe 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 of 4.83 hours per
response, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching eidatlng 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. Induding
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. Regulatoiy 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. 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 misting 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 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
400 ’R 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 recordkeeping requirements,
Publicly owned treatment works,
Sewage disposal. Waste treatment and
disposal.
Deted November 25, 1992.
F. 1 ory Habltht II.
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out In the
preamble, parts 122. 123. and 501 of
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINinTnnED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELiMINATiON SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Autherity The Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C.
1251 ets.q.
2. Section 122.1 is amended by
adding an bMB control number to the
end of the section and by revising the
second sentence of paragraph (b)(4) to
read as follows:
Ilfl.1 Purpes.ands ops.
• S S S S
(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.
S • I I
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under 0MB controL number 2040-
0088.)
3. Section 122.21 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) (I), (IL).
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:
lfl.21 Application for, permit
(appilsabis to Stats progrems , .e. 123.25).
• S S S S
(c)
(2) Permits under section 405(J ) of
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)(3Mli) 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 dayf 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)U) 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) of this
section.
(iii) Any other existing “treatment
works treating domestic sewage” not
addressed under paragraphs (cl(2) (1) or
(ii) of this section must submit the
information listed in paragraphs
(c)(2XIII) (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. SLate, private.
public or other entity
(C) A desaiption 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
orgiven away In a bag or similar
enclosure for application to the land, if
different from the “treatment works
treating domestic sewage”);
(D) Annual amount ol sewage sludge
generated, treated, used or disposed (dry
we ght 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)(21
(I), (ii), or (iii) of this section, the

-------
9414 Federal Register / Vol . 58. No. 32 I Friday, February 19. 1993 / Rules and_Regulations
Director may require 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
toxc pollutants in sewage sludge.
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
4. The authority citation for part 123
continues to read as follows:
Authorfty Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
5. Section 123.25 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
§123.25 RequIrements for psemftthig.
(a) ‘
(4) § 122.21 (a)—(b), (c)(2). (e)—(k), and
(m)—(p)——(Applicatlon for a permit):
PART 501—STATE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
6. The authority 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:
§501.15 R.qulr.m.nts for permitting.
S S • U U
(d)
(1)
(ii) (A) Any existing “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” required to
have (or requesting) site-specific
pollutant limits as provided under 40
GR 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 due.
(C) Any other existing “treatment
works treating domestic sewage” not
addressed under paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)
(A) or (B) of this section must submit
the information listed in paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii)(C)(fl-(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 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 entity,
(3) A desaiption 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 recant 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 permit is
necessary to protect public health and
the environment from any potential
adverse effects that may occur from
toxc pollutants in sewage sludge.
Editorial Notr This appendix will nQt
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Appendix A—Ust of Regional Sewage
Sludge Contacts
Region I
(Maine, New Hampshire. Vermont.
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island)
Thelma Hamilton. Municipal Evaluation
Section (WMCJ, Water Management Division,
U.S. EPA—Region I. WK 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 11.28 Federal
Plaza. room 837, New York, NY 10278.
Phone: (212) 264—1683.
Region 3
(Delaware. Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia. Maryland, Pennsylvania)
Ann Carkhuff, Permits Enforcement
Branch. Water Management Division
(3WM55), U.S. EPA—Region 111,341
Chestnut Street. Philadelphia, PA 19107,
Phone: (215) 597-9406.
Region 4
(Alabama. florida, Ceorgia. Kentucky.
Mississippi. Tennessee. North Carolina.
South Carolina)
Vinci Miller, Municipal Facilities Branch.
Water Management Division. U.S. EPA—
Region IV. 345 Courtland Street. Atlanta. CA
30365. Phone: (404) 347—2391.
Region 5
(Indiana. Illinois. Michigan, Wisconsin,
Ohio, Minnesota)
John Colletti. Water Quality Branch. Water
Division (5WQP—16J). U.S. EPA—Region V.
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago. IL.
60604—3590. Phone: (312) 886—8106.
Region 6
(Arkansas, Lnuisiana, New Mexico.
Oklahoma, Texas)
Stephanie Kordzl. Water Management
Division (6-.WPM), U.S. EPA—Region VI,
1445 Roe. 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 VU, 726 Minnesota Avenue. Kansas
City, KS 66101. Phone: (913) 551—7594.
Region 8
(Wyoming, Utah. North Dakota. South
Dakota, Colorado, Montana)
Bob Brobet, NPDES Branch (8WM—C).
Water Management Division. U.S. EPA—
Region VIII, 999—18th Street. Denver Place—
suite 500. Denver, 80202—2405. Phone
(303) 293—1627.
Region 9
(California, Nevada. Arizona, Haweii. Guam.
American Samoa. North Mariana Islands.
Pacific Trust Temtories)
Lauren Fondahl. Pretreabnent Section (W-
5—2), Water Management Division, U.S
EPA—Region l x. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco. CA 94105. PhoneS (415) 744—190Y
Region £0
(Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Alaska)
Technology/Standards Questions:
Dick Hetberington, 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 Register 1 Vol. 58, No. 32 / Friday, Februaiy 19, 1993 / Rules and RegulatIons 9415
Lauza Felten. Water Pe lta Section (WD..
134). Wa Manag ent Division. U.S.
EPA—Region X. 1200 6th Avenue. Seattle,
WA 98101. Phone: (206 553—184?.
(FR Dec. 93-3 FlIed 2-18-43; 8:45 am)
COOS MN4S

-------
Fedami Raglsiar / VoL 58, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 1993 1 Notices
7889
Western Gas interstate Co. Filing
February 4,1993.
Take notice that on February 1.1993,
Western Gas Interstate Company
( ‘Western’), pursuant to the
Commission’s Order of D.cember 31.
1992 tendered for filing proposed
changes to Its FERC Gas Tariff to be
effective no later than May 1,3993.
Western states that It filed these tariff
sheets In compIf.Tw. with the
Commii aion’s Order that only currently
effective services be Included, while
services and coats which are odated
with Its restructuring proceeding be
excluded. -
Western has filed tariff sheets revising
its currently effective tariff, new rates
ref lacting a cost of service that amludes
restructuring costs, and a revised
• Statement N. Western has also Included
a cost study demonstrating the Impact
on each customer of the switch to SPY.
Any person desiring to protest said
filing should file a protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commb .a on,
825 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington. DC 20426, In aocordance
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 cxrnsidered by the
Commimian in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are
on le with the CrnniyiI iiion and are
available for public Inspection.
Linweod A. W u,. Jr.,
Acting Seaetwy. . -
IFR Doc. 93—3159 Plied 2-4—O3 8:45 earl
Western Natural Oso and Transmission
Corp.: Order Granting Blanimi
Authodzetion to Import and Export
Natural Gas from and to Canada
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
AC1ION: Notice of an order.
su aer The Office of Fossil Energy of
the Department of Thergy gives notice
that It has Issued an order granting
Western Natural Gas and Transmission
Corporation blanket authot1ratlon to
Import from Canada up toe “ vimum
of 40 Bcf of natural gas and to export to
Canada up to a , ia Imum of 20 Bcf of
natural gas over a two-year term
beginning on the data of first Import or
export. -
A copy of this order Is avallabi. for
Inspection end copying to the Office of
Fuels Programs Do..kat R 3F-056,
Fonestal BuildIng. 1000 Indepci ”.” ’
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
(202) 586-0478. The docket room Is
open between the howe of B a.m. end
4:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday
w pt Federal holidays. -
In Wuhlngtan. DC, Pebiary 4.
1993.
C1 id P. Taw,io. -
Director, OffIos of NaOgel Ger Ofi lee of P Je1S
flu mm , Office of7anilEna
IPR Dec. 93—3172 PEed 2—0-93; 045 emI
sa a cooe am ii a ’
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
Revision of the Ohio National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
Program To Authoiha tim lasuancs of
G.nsralPsnnfts
AGLNCY. U.S. Envlivnmental Protection
Agency.
ACI1OIc Notice of approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
1 1” tlon System General Permit -
PrugramoftheStateofOhlo -
1u ART: On August 17. 1992, the
Reülonal Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). Region 5. approved the State of
Ohio’s National Pollutant Discharge
Pilnibtaion System (NPDES) General
Permit Program. On July 2. 199Z the
Ohio Environmental Prote’ 4 ” 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.
authQrizas the State of Ohio to Issue
general permits In lieu of Individual
-‘ NPDES permits. Based on Its review of
Ohio’s legal authority, U.S. EPA
determined that no statutory or
regulatory changes were nicea ry far
the State to a 1 enintster a general permit
program. U.S. EPA has thus determined
Ohio’s program modification to be non-
substantial. -
FOS RJRTHER I4FO IA1ION 00NTACY Matt
Gluckman, US. Environmental
Protection Agency. Region 5 (WQP-16J).
77 West Jackson Boulevard. icago.
Illinois 60604—3507, (312) 886-6089.
PPLD1O(TARY RUA1ION: -.
Lllackgmuad -
U.S. EPA regulations at 40 (] ‘R 122.28
provide for the Issuance of general
permits to regulate the discharge of
wastewater which results from
_______ similar operatharl. are of
the same type wastes , require the same
effluent liml” 4” or operating
conditions, requir. similar monitoring
and are mom appropriately tn .lld
und a general permit rath than by
Individual permits.
Ohio was authorized to administer the
NPDES program on March ii, 1974. As
previously ap 1 auved , the State’s
program did not Include provisions for
the Imuanos of general permits. A
number of categories o(dlscharges can
be appropriately regulated by general
permits. For these reasons , the Ohio
EPA requested a revision of the State’.
NPDES prugram to provide for the
Issuance of general permits. Storm water
discharges 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 G’R 123.44. PublIc
notice and opportunity to request a
hearing Is also provided far each general
permit. . -
U.D l scou lon -. -
The State of Ohio submitted In
support of Its request. copies of the
relevant statutes and regulations far
Implementing the program. The Stato
baa also submitted a statement dated
July 22, 1992. by the Attorney General
certifying. with appropriate citations to
the statutes end regulations that the
State will have adequate legal authority
to ailmlnicter the general permit
program as required by4O R
123.23(c). In addition, the State
submitted a program deealptlon
supplementing the original application
for the NPUES program authority to
adin4n4ater th. general permit program.
including the authority to perform each
of the activities set forth In 40 ( R
123.4-4. The State has also submitted an
Amendment to the Memorandum of
Agreement between the State of Ohio
EPA and U.S. EPA, Region 5 spedfylng
the procedures through which general
permits will be Issued and ai mmnIsteyed
by the Stats. Based upon Ohio’s
program desaiption and upon Its
experience In ad nInIaterIng an
approved NPDES program, U.S. EPA has
concluded that the State will have the
nai aary procedures and resources to
administer the general permit program.
UI. Federal Register Notice of Approval
of Stat. NPDES Progranec or
M fice
Today’s Federal Register notice
announces the approval of Ohio’s
authority to Issue general permits.
Office of Fossil Energy

-------
7890
Fedes. ] Register I Vol. 58. No. 26 I Wednesday. February 10. 1993 / Notices
I V. Review Under £aeatiL . Order
12291 and the Regulatory FIexib ’ty
Ad
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requimments a! Executive Order 12291
pursuant to sectIon 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Fle dblllty Ad.
U.S. EPA Is required to prepare a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for all
rules which may have a significant
impact on a substantial number of smail ,
entitles. 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
signifirant Impact en a substantial
number of email 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. Ulirich,
ActLngRegion&Adnzthisbu tes
(FR D cc. 93—3155 FIled 2-443; 8:45 sml
MJJ OOCI . £
(0PP0651; F 41a84J.
Lawn Cars PestiCidS Advisory
Comn s-
AODICY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
suawRy?Undey 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 - .
Cnmmlttee meeting on February 25-28,,
1993. The purpose of this meeting. a
follow-up to one held on May 12—13,:
1992. late help EPA gain further ‘ n’Igh ’
on lawn care pesticide Issue.. Topica for
discussion are slated to Includes
Posting, notification and regietrle.
EPA’s advestlslrrg guldanosststo
Inspections during FY—92u ”.Wts
recant EPA workshops on ialntial
pod-application exposur. and lawn care
benefits current congressional activity;
and the need for future Advisory
Committee meetings. The Advisory
Committee Is composed eta b Isnt ’.d
group of participants from the lawn and
garden cars service Industry, pesticide
manu ururs and formulators, -
environmental and consumer advocates,
congressional staff. and public sector —
representatives Including State health
and pesticide regulatory officials, and.
other Federal Government officials. The
ernphas lsw lllbeo n both sharing
Information and experience, as well as
exploring for possible Advisory
Committee res emmendatlons.
n tu: The meeting will be held on
February 23.1993 kern 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m., and on February 28.1993 from
8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
AoonEssEs The meeting will be held at
Embassy Suites Hotel. 1900 DIagonal
Road. Alexandria, VA (703) 684-5900.
A RIRTHER II IA7ICN C0NTAC1 Dr.
Mlrhaal Firestone. Office of Prevention.
Pesticides. and Toxic Substances. 401 M
Street, SW., Washington. DC 20480,
(202) 280—2897. SInce space Is limited.
those wishing to attend as observers
should cantactMrs. Marjorie
FehrenI h at (703) 305—5017.
Dateth February 3.1993.
Victor J. 1
AclingAszlstanlAdmirdsfrator for -
Thrientlon, Pesticides and Tozic Substweme.
IFR D cc. 93—3062 FIled 24-03; 8:45 am)
sets ’s coos a n r
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSiON
Field Testing of the Proposed LBS
... : ‘ Febuary3. 1993.’ - .
•;. The Commisilon will be field testing
proposed Emergency Broadcast System
(LBS) *imthnlcsl (universal and optional)
parameters over the next several
months. The proposed standards are
outlined In the FCC Notice of Proposed
Rule Making/Further Notice of Proposed’
Rule Making. FO Docket 9l-301 and
91—171. paragraphs 42 through 71. The
NPRMIFNPRM was adopted by the
Com”iI.’ian on September 17.1992 and
released on October 8, 1992.
The tests 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
several tests be conducted with at least
one test In the east and one in the west
of the U.S.
In order to assure representation from
all of the telecommunications
Industry, we Invite equipment
manufacturers, cable, broadcast stations
and other interested parties to
parlldpate in these tests.
The results of the field tests will be
made a part of the official docket record
In the ‘rule in kIqg proceeding. We
envision that the final equipment
standazds’would be reflective of the
entire Comm4 4oa record developed.
Those who are interested in
participating In the tests should contact
the EBS Staff at (202) 632—3906.
p dsr J C fr.tI, . , .i
Dams 5. S.aray,
Suk vtwjr .
(PR Dec. 93—3097 FIled 2-4—03: 8:45 am)
coos
Applications for Consolidated Hearing
1. The Commission has before It the
following mutually exclusive
applications for new FM stations:
‘ ,
FIsNo
d
Mc.
L
A. Ibws i Con ,.
eP*I1 100SME
92—316
cam.
E o
L&
e. ss r. o *
e r.-ai tO1 MA
Vi Conuw’ . LP.
8dor .I&
• he. ast
1. Cou s MS
2. Umees, Ma
I. -
A. aid B.’ ’ - O 511—O1 iO M 92-317
Co M Ik
s.SPeianA.May
BPH-IlIOOrMO
.
M *IA.
•
eeus ona a
I. Car es mP . B
2.ubseaA.a
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
heading at 31 FR 19.347. May 29. 1988.
The letter shown before each applicant’s
name, above, Is used above to signify
whether the Issue In question applies to
that particular applicant.
3.0 there are any non-standardized
Issues In this proceeding. the full text of
the Issue and the applicants to which It
applies are set forth in an Appendix to
this Notice. A copy of the comolate
HDO in this proceedIng is avañable for
Inspection and copying during normal
busines, hours In the FCC Dockets
Branch (Room 230), 1919 M Street, NW..
Wn h1ngton. DC. The complete text may
also be purchased from the
CommLi*io ’s duplicating contractors.
Downtown Copy Center, 1114 21st

-------
Monday
February 8, 1993
Partli
Environmental
Protection Agency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permit and Reporting
Requirements for Discharges From
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations;
e
I
I ___
Notice

-------
7610
Federal Register! VoL 58, No. 24 I Monday, Februasy e, 1993 / Natlces
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
- AGENCY
(FRL-4552-IJ
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systesn General Permit and
Reporting Requirements for
Discharges From Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Region 6 public notice of the
final permitting decision. General
NPDES permits for dlsi 4 iargee from
confined animal feeding operations .
SUMMARY 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 NPOES permit program. 40 C3 R part
122. appendIx B lists the alteria for
determining a Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation (CAFOs) (S 122.23).
40 CFR part 412 establishes the effluent
limitation guidelines for Feedlots
pursuant to sections 306 (b) and (c) of
the Clean Water Act
Thfs is to give notice that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
RegIon 6. has made a final permitting
decision and will Issue the following
Permits under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. The
permits will become effective 30 days
after the date of this Public Notice. Any
substantial rh nges from the Draft
Permit are cited.
This notice of the issuance ofseparate
general permits for rirnr ntrated *ni,nstl
feeding operations Lu four States
(Louisiana. New Mexico, flkhm}nina ,
and Texas) without auIhnr ,d NPDES
State prograzns on Indian lands in New
Merdco and Oklahoma. Separate general
permits are being noticed for each State.
DATES: The permit will become effective
on March 10, 1993.
ADORESSES: The Issuance is based on a
final staff review of the aElmlnlstratlve
record and comments received. A
Response to Comments is available by
writing to: Ellen Caidwell. Permits
Branch of Water Division (6W—PS). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 8. 1445 Ross Ave.. suite 1200.
Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 655—7190.
The public record is located at EPA
Region 6. and is available upon written
request. Requests for copies of the
public record should be addressed to
Ellen Caidwell at the address above. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. Further information including
the administrative record may be
viewe4 at the above address between 8
a.m. and t30 p.m.. Monday through
R FURTHER IIF0 ON CONTACT
Ellen CaIdwell, (214) 655—7190.
SUP .EMENTMY VlFURMA11
Contents of this Preamble
Part L Qanges to the Draft P It.
Part IL Responsfreneu SLmI!I .ary
Part Ill. Economic Impact
Part IV. Effect of Additional Federal
Regulations
A. National Environmental Policy Ad
B. Executive Order 12291
C. P j .uwu.L Reduction
D. Regulatory Flexibility Ad
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—.
Region 6. Public Notice of the Final
PermaWng Decision.
Part L (Szenges to the Draft Permit
Based on information received during
the public comment period the Agency
had made minor rilaliges 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 3.1. Existing
Facilities and Section D.. owners or
up istui . of concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFO). en defined
in 40 Q’R 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 Past I, Section B.
xpand1ng Facilities, facilities
expanding operations to more than the
nber of a,thnala specified in 40 C ’R
part 122 appendix 3(a) will be required
to submit a new NO! prior to
construction of the expansion.
3. To comply with statutory
requirements in 40 C7R 122.49: Part I of
the general permit. Section C.
Limitations on Coverage has been
changed to limit from permit coverage:
CAFOs which adversely affect a listed
or proposed to be listed endangered or
threatened species or Its critical hahitat:
CAFOs which adversely affect
properties listed or eligible for listing In
the National Register of Historic Places.
4. Item 4. of Part I. Section C. has been
changed to limit from coverage CAFOs
that discharge all their runoff and waste
water to a publicly owned sanitary
sewer 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 C?R 122.2. This regulatory
definition applies for every reference to
waters of the U.S. in this general permit.
6. Part ID. Section B. has been
clanfied to state more clearly that when
provisions In an approved Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) plan are
substituted for a applicable Beet
Management Practices (BMP) or
portions of the Pollution Prevention
Plan (PPP), the PPP must refer to the
appropriate section of the SCS plan and
acopy 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 ID. Section
B. to Part ID, Section B.2.t(2)(JJ. These
requirements have been changed to
require the permittee 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
nutrient sample analysis from that year.
9. Requirements for Retention
Capacity Calculations. Retention
Facility flinbankinents. Retention
Facility Dewatering. and permanent
markers have been moved from Part III.
Section B.1. to Past lU, Section B.2.f.(2)
(B), (C). (D). and (E) respectively. Slight
changes have been made in these items
for clarification.
10. The requirement that facilities
shall not expand operations, either in
size or numbers of animals, prior to
amending or enlarging the waste
hai i4llng procedures and structures to
accommodate any additional wastes that
wifl be generated by the expanded
operations has been added to Part II].
Section B.1.b.
11. Part ID, Section B.d. has been
modifi!4 that new facilities shall not be
bu1hi i water of the U.S.
12. Part III, 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 ID, Section B.g. has been
modified that facilities shall not locate
waste water retention facilities, holding
pens or wasta/wastewater disposal sites
closer to water wells than specified by
State requirements.
14. Part ID. Section B.i. has been
modified that waste handling.
treatment, and management chall not
result in the contamination or drinking
water.
15. Part III, Section 3.1. has been
modified to requite the proper disposal
time of dead animals to be three (3) dav
Instead of 24 hours.
16. Items n. and o. of Part ID. Sectio
B. have been moved from the Pollution
Prevention Plans.

-------
Federal Register I Vol 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 I Notices
7811
17. Part ID, Section B.2.a has been
changed to clarify that the Pollution
Prevention Plan may refer to the Soil
Conservation Servum plan when the
SCS plan documentation contains
equivalent requirements for the facility.
18. The schedule for completion of
Pollution Prevention Plans has been
modified in Part ID, Section B.2.b to
separate large facilities, medium
facilities, and small facilities with
different time requirements for
completion.
19. The time requirement for changes
Ln a Pollution Prevention Plan which
does not meet i th 4mum requirements
alter notification by the Director has
been changed from 3oto9Odays In Part
III, Section B.2.d.
20. Part Ill. Section 3.2.L(ZXF) 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,
Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements, that requires Information
from the nearest available weather
station concerning precipitation events.
21. Under Part Dl. Section
B.2.f.(ZIIH)(a), documentation of no
hydrologic connection has been
simplified and condensed; no longer
requiring depth to ground water,
thickness and lithology of the
uppermost aquifer, and a piezometric
map. This item now allows for
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
construction in Part ID, Section
B.2.f.12)(H )(b).
23. The requirement for liner
inspection has been removed from Part
ID, Section B.2.f42)(H)(c).
24. Part ID. Section B.2.f.(2XH)(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
shall be kept with the Pollution
Psevention Plan. The permittee shall
have a Soil Conservation Service
ensineer, 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 DI, Section
B 2.f.(2)(Kllc).
26. Part III. Section B.2.f.tZ)(H)(c) has
.een changed to only require the
installation of a leak detection system or
monitoring wells when notified by the
Director that the potential a dMs for the
aintamin tIon of surface waters or
drinking water. Documentation of
compliance with the noUficatioi and all
sa rnplingdata must be keptw lth the
Pollution Prevention Plan.
27. “It shall be considered ‘Proper
Operation and Maint nanre’ for a
fadlity which baa been properly
operated and that Is In danger of
J ” 4 ”ent overflow due to chronic or
eatastrophic rainfall, to diachirge waste
waters to land application sites hi
filtering prior to discharging to waters of
the U.S.” has been added as Part ID,
Section B.2.L(2XIXe).
28. “The operator shall notify the
appropriate fish and wildlife agency In
the event of any significant fish.
wlldIIh ’, 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 Pert III, Section B.2.L(2RTXh)
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 ofthe U.S., application rates may
exceed nutrient omp 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 III, Section B.2.f.(2)(I)(h).
30. Part ID, Section B.2.f.(2)(J)
requires: (1) A desciiption of waste
handling procedures and equipment
availability (2) the calculations and
assumptions used for deternalning land
application rates; and (3) any nutrient
analysis data if laboratory analysis La
done to be Included In the Pollution
Prevention Plan if manure 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 berms or other
structures; Part ID. Section B.2.f.(2liJlla).
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 musts for runoff to reach a
water of the U.S., application rates may
exceed nutrient aop uptake rates as
provided in an approved state progxem.
No land application under this section
shall cause or contribute to a violation
of water quality standards”, has been
added as. Pert Ill. Section B.2.f.(2llJXi).
33. The item an good housekeeping
requirements has been removed from
Part DI. Section 3.2. PollutIon
Prevention Plan requirements.
34. The requirements for the
evaluation of Recommended
Management Practice. listed in
Appendix A has been removed Part ID.
SectIon 3.2. 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 AJ.
38. Analysis requirements for total
phosphorus, total Icjeldahl 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 Hazerdous Substance
Liability have been removed from Part
V.
39. Definitions for Agronornic rates,
Best Available Technology, Best
Conventional Technology. Hydrologic
connection, and Qualified groundwater
scientist have been added to. and the
definition for Bypass h45 been removed
from Part VU.
40. The definition icr Concentrated
animal feeding operation has been
clarified in Part VII.
Part IL Responsiveness Si na ry
Many issues, questions end comments
were submitted to the Agency during
the public I nmTnent period. Below is a
summary of the issues raised and the
Agency’s responses.
A. Corrections arid General Permitting
Issues
1. Several commenters requested
cora ions of language in the fact sheet
published with the proposed permit. A
fact sheet Is published to explain the
permitting decisions used to develop a
proposed permit. A responsiveness
summary or a response to comments
accompanies the final permit and serves
as the explanation of the permitting
decisions made in response to the
comments received. Because the fact
sheet will not be published again,
correctisna to it will not be n cwy.
Where the comments illustrate
confusion or misunderstanding of issues
or terms explained in the fact sheet,
they will be addressed in the
responsiveness snInm iy under the
appropriate subject heading.

-------
12
Fedmil l al/ VoL . No. 24 I M’ dq. February 8, 1913 1 N’ ’
2. Almost ail onmmant6msuquested
ans In writing to Lb. q ’ - 4 ons .
comments, end Ism ,uuI which they
submitted. Unfastheetaly many
comments ware r v.d with neintum
address. It Is the a h in&.*,. f
responsibility of EP to provid.4
responsiveness “ ‘y to all persons
that provided c” ts during the
public hearing process or public
c ” aat pesiod (40 C R 124.17 . EPA
reçststhetitwiilnatbeah la tosend
a respons. to o” ota to those
commenters that nag1 ed to provide
the Ageog with a return eddxeu
however, the publication of this
responsiveness summary will serve to
Inform those persons of the Agencys
dedsions.
3. Many of the comments received
express concern that the only reason
that Region 6 is issuing the p rwit is in
respons. to spadal Interest groups
opposed to the dairy Industry in Texas.
The onnrmentem are concerned that
EPA will be swayed In its dtlk%
dethrone by portiom of reports which
were taken out of context to reflect a
worst case scenario. These persons
requested that Region 6 not rush its
effoita for the Region to ass all available
sources of Information to developt
reasonable general permit A few
persons questioned whether Region 0
would really listen and consider the
testimony and comments made at the
public hearings which were held In
each state.
EPA reviews all documents referred to
In comments which are iihmitf
during the comment period. EPA weighs
all saentlflc and factual Information,
end ber co”” ”ts whether submitted
In writing during the Cr!fnm nt period.
or as testimony during th. public
hearing 1 u as required in 40 R
124.11 and 124.12.
4. Many pemons pointed out that
farmers are natural conservationists, and
as such are natural environmentalists.
Some persona opposed the permts
becouse they believed that a rmhure
was being blamed for ‘natarally
occu±ng circumstances”. Many
pm trn wem conwnad with the
perception of agrimilture ass source of
pollution that would ampany the
issusnce of this permit Them
comm t suggest that the privet.
dtirena which u iuIB these facilities
are with what is Proper
Operation and Management” of a CAFO
than EPA. anti that they con make buttir
determinations about the protection of
the natural ranoesces of the land and
water.
While EPA agrees with the
commenters that most farmers are good
natural conservationists. it Is apparent
from the growing body of lufaimatien
that waler quality problems erdat which
are attrihsi*ableto animal W S
‘ ‘‘ ‘‘ - P—.iiz’ far this may vary,
however. It I. ‘A’I respoosilalityto
regulate all point emrrrmofp ’II” 5 4 o.
under the authority of the Clean Water
Act These f HH . are included In the
definition of a perot source in part 502
of the Act. Region 8 believes that the
requirements reflected In the final
general p rvrnf do coincide with the
good m neg,nsnt pra4 ttriRs already
established In the agricultural
community. end will net uvv too
burdensome for those operators which
have established good environmental
practices.
5. The Region received severs!
comments expressing the need for a
permit to be available for unpermitted
CAFOS to be compliant with the Clean
Water Act. CAFOs in RegIon 8 may be
discharging in violation of the Clean
Water Act. l an 6 belIeves that the
first step In Improving water quality and
Clean Water Act compliance is to
provide a pv utUng vehicle which will
be protective for the environment and
cost effective for the operators of
CAFOs.
6. Whil, many commenters and
producer gr s endorse the Region’s
use of a general permit, some
commenters question the need fore
permitting program in Region 8 states.
Many persons questioned if any water
quality problems erdat In Region 6
which are associated with animal
wastes or CAFOs. Many commenters
suggested that EPA exhaust all state
delegation activities before issuing a
general permit These commenters
stated that they believed it would cmme
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
stales a niini tered by this Region Is
past due. EPA Region 6 curries the
burden of a large permitting program
and m imI prioritina 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
In many watersheds a oss the nation.
In Region 6 the water quality
Inventories which are complied by the
state water quality agendas show a
significant number of water bodies
which are being impaired by the
contribution of animal wastes. In Taxes
there are at least four segments of state
river basins which are not meeting the
standards set by the state. Of the water
bodies which are listed as impaired in
OW’1 ’ve the wstsm Impaired by
CAFOs totalS lakeasgimm. r. out of 21,
and to river segments out of 42. In
addition, O ’ has dori11t Md
several fish hills ‘4- wIthCAFO
runoff. flklahmu enlløt4 . more specific
Informatlosa on CAFO emodated water
quality problems which may explain the
higher numbers. Several segments of the
Lake Pontchartrain Basin in Loiiigisn*
are impaired by CAPOs. U well as o
other river b ’ in that stats. New
Mexico, which has fewer surface waters,
has more documentation on
groundwater cent i . ti,in problems.
however. CAFO Impairment of the
Pecos River Basin Is being tracked by
the stale.
EPA agrees with the commentara
InrHn ce toward the delegation of the
NPDES program authority to the States
of Region 8. SectIon 402(b) of the Act
allows states to request authority to
abnini ter the ?WBES program in lieu
of the EPA. This means that States must
Interpret and apply national standards
through day-to-day program actions and
mount a vigorous program of
compI w . and enforcement. To
assume delegation a formal prngram
pwkaga con2i ting of a Memorandum of
Agreement, a Program Desa’iptton. the
Attorney General’s Statement and a
letter from the Governor must be
submitted to the Region. The Region
must carefully review the pitkagm for
statutory completeness. Curvendy there
are 39 5tAt f which have been
authorized the NPDES program. Of the
39 states, the one State in Region 8 to
have been authorized is the State of
Arkansas. At the present time, EPA has
not received an spprovable program
from anli.ef the rnmAinfng four states.
Louisiana. Texas. Oklahoma, and New
Mexico. Region 8 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
permiH4ng program, the pennittee will
be responsible for compIisne with both
State and Federal requirements. States
which administer the NPDES program
must control CAFOs with the same
degree of stringency and La a manner
consistent with the federal regulations.
7. Several of th. comments received
suggested that this permit was more
stringent than the federal regulations. A
few persona questioned why the four
States In Region 8 would be subject to
the general permit and not the other
States in the nation. Region 6 has
developed a general permit which
reflects the federal pr am
requirements which exist now. These
requirements include a technology
standard which was implemented in

-------
Fadesil Register / Vol. 58, No. 24 / Monday , Pebruaiy8, 1993 I Notices
7613
174, and the minimum technology
andard for storm water permits (a
ilulion Prvimtlon Plan) which wes :
cablished in 1991. The permit also
includes Beet Management Practices
which the Agency believes ale
necessary to protect water quality from
improper management of im I wastes.
EPA would H o remlndthepub l ic
that a federally administered permit
must Include compIIani with some
federal programs which are not required
of state adminictered permits (e.g. the
requirement of an environmental review
and possible Environmental Impact
Statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act).
Additionally, Regions Is only
authorized to permit facilities In Texas.
Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mmico.
Region 6 oversees the program
ariminittered by Arkansas.
8. Many coinmentere from Okliihoma
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
commenters and producer groups
questioned why EPA would have the
need to regulate facilities which were
already sufficisutly regulated under
existing state programs. Many
mmenters stated that the permit was
re stringent than the state
Luuements. These commenters further
quested that EPA simply adopt the
e dsting 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 £inin 1 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 “
feedia operations as a point source.
Section 301 of the Act clearly states
that EPA cannot be less stringent than
currently defined In the national
technology standards. however, It
should be noted that any more stringent
state treatment standards are required to
be included In NPDES pern iitsby 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
-‘ricultural agencies request that EPA
the information and services
liable through the USDA Soil
.rservation Service and state
Agriculture Departments and Extension
Services in the development of the
permit. Many persons exp 1 ....d the
opinion that the states had developed
sound water quality management
prcgrsms and that Region B should use
them. Additionally, some r entem
suggested that EPA should consult with
the varying state agencies before
proposing any new programs In that
state.
Duth g the comn ent period and In the
process of final decision m.king , EPA
has censultid with both the regulated
community end agricultural agendas In
all the States. In addition EPA has
consulted the expertise of the USDA
Soil Conservation Service end the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife.
10. Several rnminents 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 shout EPA’s ability to
provide a general permit which would.
take Into acoount the diversity of locele
geography, and rIInu tic conditions that
exist in Region 6. Some concerned
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 recprlremants for each of the
four states. However, where more
sthngent. tate standards exist and are
needed to protect water quality In that
state, specific state language or
requirements have been Included In the
general permit. Region 6 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
environmental 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 (ew 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 commentars 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 agendas 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 co sldarab1e effort through
wwbhopslpubllc hearings and this
responsiveness summary that the
regulated public understand the permit
conditions. Regions believes that the
regulated public will understand and
comply with the terms of this general
permit.
12. Many owner/operators and
produow groups requested that the
permit be re-proposed as draft or
submitted to the CAFO industry to
review prior to final Issuance. When
EPA substantial changes to the
permit requirements, the Agency may
elect to provide an additional public
comment period on the changes. EPA
has made only minor changes to the
draft permit Raglan B has attempted to
make both the format and the language
of the permit dearer. The requirements
of “no dIschai e”, Best Management
Practices and the documentation of a
Pollution Plan remain the same. EPA
will not be re-proposing a draft permit.
The permit will become final 30 days
afterthedate 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 6 determine Its Inspection
priorities.
- 14. Many comments were received
expressing that mazy of the
water quality problems associated with
n4mAI feedjng 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 dft’- ” expressed the
opinion that the Bosque River Basin
watershed was over populated by dairy
and cattle operations: and that this
concentrations 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 end
ground water resources.
EPA agrees that, of the watersheds
which are Impaired by n nil wastes,
the majority of the operations In those

-------
7614
Federal Register I VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 / Notices
watersheds are not specifically listed as
point sources in 40 CFR 122.23. This
may indicate that non-point source
facilities are significant conuibutors to
water quality impairments. However
small facilities can be denguated as a
“point source’ by the Director after a
site assessment has been done, and can
be regulated using this permit or
another oermitting, action.
EPA 6oes not beileve that the Bosque
River watershed is unique in Region 6.
There are several watersheds in Region
6 whIch are heavily populated by
imimiul feeding operations and which
have impairedwaterquality. 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
animal 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 does not preclude the
Director from requiring facilities on the
Basque watershed to apply for an
individual permit. Region 6 Is also
concerned about the waste
contributions of the non-point sources
on regional watersheds. For this reason
Region 6ls an active participant of the
national workgroup to study EPA’s
activities and its regulation of CAms.
15. Many commenters questioned
why Region 6 has “linked” the Storm
Water NPDES program with
Concentrated nIm l Feeding
Operations (CAFOs). Several operators
and producer associations believe that
CAFOs are exempt from the Storm
Water Program becaus. their Standard
Industrial .‘flcation (SIC) code is
0211. Several cnmmenters 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 16. 1990 (55 FR
47990) require specific industrie, to
apply for NPDES permits which cover
storm water discharges. The final
regulation listed 14 categories of
industries which have “storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity” which require permitting.
Category I of the storm water
regulations Included all facilities which
have National Effluent Guidelines.
Feedlots (facilities with concentrations
of 1000 *nimal units or more) have
National Effluent Guidelines listed at 40
GR 412. These facilities were required
to apply for their storm water related
discharges on or before October 1, 1992
orgaincoverageunderapennitwhicb
has been issued to cover storm water
discharge requirements. EPA has
included the technology requirements
published for storm water dlrharges In
the general permit for CAm.. This
general permit includes permitting
requirements based on the effluent
guidelines for process waters (all
produced waters and runoff from the
areas of animal confinement) and
Pollution Prevention Plan to address
requirements for all storm water related
dicdtarges. This general permit satisfies
all permitting requirements for the
feedlot industry and CAFOs.
16. Several comments received
requested a definition of storm water
runoff. Storm water runoff include.
runoff caused by rRlflf*ll , 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 commenters who
understood the cuvw.ge and technology
requirements of the storm water
program were concerned that the storm
water permitting strategy u 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 slated that
the original cost of construction was
estimated at 324.000-28.000, and that
the cost of constructing the sante
structures today are much higher
(estimated at 3100.000). 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 recordkeeping
requirements would be a serious burden
on the family owned facilities. Severe!
cnmnlentere 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% Incteas. in employment while all
other Industries have dropped. These
commenters state that agribusiness
supports many employee. and related
businesses, and an economic impac on
the dairy industry will have an
economic impact on the national
economy. Commenters asked If the
Agency had taken Into account 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 of
doing business would drive up costs
and have a detrimental effect on the
nations economy.
Challenge, to the requirements
established In effluent guideline, must
be made when the guidelines are
publicly noticed. In Issuing a permittan
action, EPA is under no obligation to
defend either the technology or the
economic analysis done in establishing
an misting effluent guideline or new
source performance standard. Howeve’,
Region 6 has provided Information in
this responsiveness summary which
compal5s the current status of the
economic impact to the economic
analysis which was published with the
guidelines. Region 6 has also made an
attempt to include the impact of the
required Best Management Practices and
Pollution Prevention Plan. The July 22.
1992 draft notice summarized EPAs
belief that this permit would be more
economically beneficial to the regulated
community than the Individual
application process.
The CJean 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 ii was
established that the waste products
generated by concentrated animal
feeding operations were reusable
resources and need not be discharged
into waters of the U.S. The original
economic analysis for construction of
the basic technology was done wbe the
BAT requirements for the national

-------
Federal lagiater / Vol. 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 / Notices
7615
effluent guidelInes (40 R pafl 412)
were publi.iwid in February of 1974.
Several covr Tlm1terI indicated that the.
original economic analysis was no
longer realistic to determine economic
impacts on Concentrated Anlm.I
Feeding Operations. In addition, several
commenters felt that the - of these
draft requirements would be so
burdensome as to force them to
discontinue their operations. Several
commenters felt that the economic
Impact of discontinuing these
operations would be even more severe
for the communities in which they
operate. In response, the Agency
performed updated cost (using
November 1992 dollar values) for the
Improvements required for various
concentrated Rnimal feeding operations.
using installation and cost information
provided by the Soil Ctmesrvation
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 these cost
estimates, with a range of approximate
values, from basic, minimum
requirements to full Installation of all
best available technology, for various
iperatlons.
TABLE 1—APPROXIMATE COST ESTiMATES
FOR WASTE STORAGE POP DS, DIvER-
SiONS AND MONTTORING
T r
C s
Dalty ......__
Be& . -
Swine
Pouflvy..
2001usd—.
s xa
300 hesd-
$40,000.
750 heed.—
$40 0.
9.000 iOi—
385.000.
700 l ius6—
see ma
1.000 heed -
$70,000.
2.500 heed—
$8 X 0 .
100.000 b —
3I65. .
The cost estimates developed when
the original regulations were
promulgated in 1974 were
approximately $24,000 to 528.000 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 for construction of this type of
waste management facility. inaeased to
approximately 598.000. The cost
estimates shown in Table I were
developed from cuivent cost Information
1992 dollars) for these types of
icilities. This comparison clearly
nows that the cost estimates are well
within the original estimates for the
nstallatlon of the required technology.
Information has been received from
other environmental
cu1iseutly engaged in providing these
services, on the costs aaso’ d with
Improvements based on the
requirements of the draft regulations.
This Information indicates that these
cost estimates are within the rang, of
r as ”.M. end realistic costs for these
• types of available technology. One-
report prepared by an Individual had
cogts for specific Items that we.. up to
ten times the currant costs for these
available service., and had many Items
listed In their costs .etlmates (e.g. on
site dewatering equlpvn nt.. application
prepared by an engineer, plastic coven
for manure piles, etcj that are not
required under the requirement. of this
final permit. Even with all of these estra
unneosmary costs added Into the
estimate, the economic Impact was an
inorease of less than 4 percent over
current costs under existing state
regulations.
EPA provides economic analyses in
establishing a requirement of a new
technology. EPA Is not required to
provide an economic analysi, for the
best management practices (BMP’.) or
recordkeeping included In permits to
insure the compliance with effluent
limitations and a record of that
compliance. However, Region 8
reccgniees that the cost of compliance
with the management practices and
recordkeeplng requirements of the
permit constitute an additional cost to
the permittee. Region 6 has made a
sincere iffort to reduce the burden of
these requirements by reducing and/or
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 th facility (existing maps or
U.S.G.S. maps may be used), a list of the
potential pollutant sources. size of
retention capacity and site specific
factors, construction specifications,
information on direct hydrologic
connections, land application 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
inaease. depending on the amount of
work involved. However, these
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
reomdkaeplng can be prepared by the
operator at little expense. Much of this
Information is already required by state
specific programs. and therefore the
pollution prevention plan is a VRhli le to
compile the pertinent Information arid
determine the additional measures that
will be required to reach compliance
with this final permit. There is no
requirement that a Professional Piigineer
prepare the pollution prevention plan. It
may be prepared by a representative of
the Soil Conservation Service, an
Vnglneer or other environmental
professional, or,In many ‘ . the
facility operator himselL The pollution
prevention plan 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
hImaelf thus reducing the cost even
further. The recordkeeplng 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
professionals should not be required to
provide this Information. Several
comm nters Indicated that no other
state or region bad requirement. as strict
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 p 1 an 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.
“I.ive.tock and Poultry Waste
Management: Problems and Solutions.”
prepared for the Office of Policy,
PI nning and Evaluation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, in
May 1991. summaries of several state
programs indicate that Ohio. Oregon
and Florida all have programs that
reflect more stringent requirements.
Additional states, such as California and
Kansas , also have requirements as strict
or stricter than the Agency’s
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 industries were
established as regulation. almost 20
years ago. Those facilities which remain

-------
7616
Federal Register! Vol. 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 / Notices
unpermitted and without the retention
capacity to retain the 25 year. 24 hour
storm event haytbeenin vtolatfgm nf
federal law since 1 6 or forth. life of
their business, which ever came later.
Thea. facilities which hay, been
noucompLant wfth 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 comnienters expressed
concerns over how this permit conforms
with the Paperwork Reduction Act and
the Regulatory Flexibility Act Some
f nnmenters questioned bow the Agency
could state that this permit would be
less paperwork and how it would aeste
an economic benefit for the regulated
community. In addition, several
commentere 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 meet 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
cl lmin*tion System (NPDES) permit.
Permits are required for these facilities
under the Clean Water Act of 1972, and
the two vehicies available for permitting
era this General Permit and an
Individual permit Individual permitting
is very tlme .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 1978 (40 (YR
part 122, appendIx B) addresses
medium and large operatIons (300
slaughter cattle. 200 dairy cattle. 750
swine. 150 horses, 3000 sheep or lambs,
18.000 turkeys, 9000 laying hen. or
broilers, 1500 ducks, or 300 anImal
units, or more). Therefore, this permit
excludes small businesses with
operations of lees than these numbers of
animals, unless specifically designated
by the Director. The Director would
evaluate these fectora 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 Genemi
Pennit—Coverege and Eligibility
1. From the comments received It I.
apparent that many persona may be
confused ebout the definition of a
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
as a point source of pollutants requinng
an NPDES permit. Some comments
questioned if pasture areas were subject
to regulation.
The regulatory definition found at 40
(YR 122.23 and part 122 appendix B
encompasses all , mim l operations
which )iave industrial characteristics.
The definition “concentrated animal
feeding operation” indudee 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 aops or forage aops 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
Verde” court decision, arid how that
relates to the exemption from NPDES
requirements for those facilities which
do not discharge. Some persons 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
coinmenters believed that the retention
capacity design to contain the 25 year.
24 hour storm event excluded a facility
from NPDES permitting requirements.
It Is not within the scope of EPA’s
authority to determine the significance
ofthecourtsrullnglntheAlta Verde
case. In the 4Jta Verde case the courts
ruled that a retention structure whwh
was built to retain all runoff from the 25
year. 24 hour storm event was not
exempted from oI aining en NPDES
permit, and that all discharges from
such a facility would be considered in
violation unless in compliance with an
NPI)ES permit. Ragitm 8 believes the
Alto Verde case corroborates the
explanation given by Region 6 in the
preamble of the proposed permit
published July 22, 1992 (57 FR 32 75).
Where a facility has built a retention
system which has the capacity to retain
the 25 year. 24 hour storm event, and
the facility maintains that capacity
properly, any discharges due to the
o xurrence of extreme rainfall evezls
will not be a violation of the Clean
Water Act if those discharges are in
compliance with an NPDES permit. The
regulations at 40 (YR part 122 appen dix
O state that if a facility discharges wily
intheeventofthe25year ,24hour -
storm event, then the facility is not
considered to be a point source
discharger. This means the only -
discharges which can be discharged
without violating the CWA are those in
compliance with an NPDES permit. or
as a result of the statistical event which
happens only about once every 25 years.
The Court in Aita Verde ruled that the
design capacity of the retention
structure is irrelevant in deter i’zg
Clean W ter Act jurisdiction. It is not
possibtiior a facility to predict with
certainty the design capacity needed to
retain the volume from largest secession
of chronic rainfall events that may ow r
between 25 year. 24 hour events
(approximately a 25 year period).
4. Many persons requested
clarification on whether the defioiticn
Includes stockyards facilities. These
commenters contend that these
operations do not generate much wistes
and that the requirements in the permit
would put an economic hardship ca
these businesses. Several comme iers
requested that EPA add the word
“consecutive” to the reference to 45
days in the definition. One cor irnerner
requested that the definition be chaz god
to indude facilities on which animals
were fed and maintained for 29 dabs cut
of a 12 month period.
The definition requires EPA to
regulate facilities through NPDES
permitting if animals are on the aciIitv
for 45 days or more out of a 12 month
period. Region 6 believes strongly thst

-------
Federal Register! VoL 58. No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 I Notices
761’
is dearly the Intent of the regulation
include feedyarda end stock yards
‘ ich have a4 • maintained and fed.
45 daysa year atthe facilities. IL ls
irrelevant whether they are the same’,
aniruals for the 45 day duration, or
whether ft Is a consecutIve 45 days. It
is beyond the scope of Region Os
authority to amend a promulgated
regulation.
5. Many persons and producer groups
requested clarification 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 no
discharge at all to waters of the U.S. aie
not point sources under the regulatory
definition (40 CFR 122.23 and 122
eppendix B) and are not required to
obtain NPDES permits. This describes,
poultry houses which are exclusiv y
mder roof, which have no liquid r
fluid wastewaters, 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 sowue. I.e., have a
irocess water dict ’hi. ga, must have an
PDES permit This includes those
:ilities which stockpile or land -
.spose 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 crude liquid
manure handling system and are
considered to be point source
dischargers if the number of Aninu lg
confined at the facility meets the
regulatory definition of concentrated
animal feeding operations.
6. Many persons 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 agencies expressed
concern that EPA would not have a
record of the peirnittees 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.
Region B agrees that a Notice of Intent
is an appropriate tool in confirming
which facilities are covered by the terms
and conditions of the general permit
Region 6 is Including a NO! formnas
appendix B of the general permit. EPA
• ‘elieves this will enhance the Region’s
‘ility to track and enforce the terms of
a general permit
7. Many persons requested that
facilities which have applied to Region
6 for an NPDES permit prior to the
Issuanc, of the general permit be
granted coverage under the permit when
•It Is Issued. And, that the coverage
extend retroactively back to the date4he
application was submitted.
In aocordance 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 off an NPDES permit Into the
pastend Is not able to cover facilities
from’the time of application. The Clean
Water Act requires that any discharge be
in aocordance with an NPDES permit
Thisis why a permitapplimation late
be filed 180 days prior to discharging
into waters of the U.S.
8. Many comments expressed concern
that pethiit coverage was only for a five
yeaf’term. 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(bRl)(B) requires
that permits under NPDES be Issued for
a fixed term not to exceed five (5) years.
Federal regulations found at 40 Q ’R
122.46(a) dearly state that NPDES
permits are effective for a fixed term not
to exceed 5 years. EPA can require that
a permit be renewed more .quently,
but cannbt extend the duration beyond
the 5 years. All NPDES permittee,.
which Include many dlfterent categories
of Industries, have addressed the
budgetary concerns of meeting permit
limitations which may i 4 nge 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 commenters 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
pennlthng requ1r ments to Insure
Impacts to endangered and threatened
species ware addressed. RegIon 8
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 rnn ments 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. be allowed as a manpgement
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 mani gement 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 (NEPAl; and terms used in
the coverage portion of the general
permit to describe the requirement of an
environmental review prior to coverage
for new facilities with Performance
Standards for New Pollutant Sources (40
Cl R Part 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 permit’s
definition section to gIve a regulatory
definition of the proces. 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 toclarifythe terms as used by
EPA.
An environmental review Is defined at
40 ‘R 6.101(c) as the process whereby
an evaluation of the environmental
information provided by the permit
ap,plicant Is undertaken by EPA to
idenify and evaluate the related
S

-------
7O1
F.dciul P i - / Vol. 51, ? 24 1 Mniulay, ?d rnery $ 19 1 Nø’--
envüvnmantal to d ’ If
t . will b.sa g 41 ’l Impuct to the
environment from the a d1Ity. Tb.
AIaveqnfredby lawto hiii this
environmental review — to ( ali
any permit to a he llty with N e Source
PwkrmenceS der Th derds
have been through the hemy
process and apply to any dlity
constructed after the standard became a
regnl hlon. 1 Agency Is pnthilIted
from permitting any discharg, with new
source standards unless th. review ban
been dcc. and a fi d1ng has bean med..
The terme eevhnameatai esr ’ent
and anvironaar I evaluation are
de n d t 40 CFR8.105(d)
public document. for which A Is
responsible and are prepared to provide
.uffi ent data and analysis to determine
whether an Ezrvimjamenbil Impact
Statement (EIS) or Finding of No
Sign4lccnt Impact (FNSI ci PONSI) Is
required. When the anvfrcomantal
review Indicates diet these are no
dgT iA nt Imp. . an*4.4p*ed ci when
the project is altered to . IIm4n e any
gniAcant adver.. Impacts, a FNSI shall
be Issued and made availabl, to the
public. The ET4SI shall list any
measures n ary to make
the recommended akernative
envtzo taUy aomptabl .. The public
Is allowed to comment on the Agency.
finding, and to provide inb dan
either auppsxtlag the PNSI orb the
contrary during the permit public
comment period.
The Agency, hew. ,., may determine
that It must prepare a Nodc.4lnleot
and Eavw zin1aj ,M1 Impact StatemwiL
This e esl .deu ibedat40G ’R
8.105(e). When the esivlrcnnzeut.l
review Indicate, that a ulgeificent
Impact may occur and . ignifir I.a
adverse impacts cannot be ll’rnn.t.d
by vnaklng change. in the prqject. a
notice of intent to prepare an SIS uball
be published In the Federal ‘ egIsu .
Draft and final EIS shall be prepared
and disseminated. The final EIS shall
list any mitigation m r,s nec y
to make the alternative environmentally
M C ePtIbl . .
EI’A would like to r ag1n operators
that the dedsioni d l above imsat
‘go to Public Notice a miwlmurn of 30
days prior to a final d.etsi being
wade. The entire process can take
several months to complete. An
Environmental asaeeccent and review
should be initiated by the permittee’
several months In advance of
cnn w9lng a new .lity or expansion
of a fadlity to over 100 anImal units
(part a. of the regulatory definition at 40
C ’R part 122 appendIx B or, paste. of
the regulatory definition that Is
Included In Pert VU. of this permit).
12. y pamima co tad en the
need an Revii ntal Impact
S4a’ he dli hwg.s from CAfl i.
Some çi th. need far
an Eavbenmerdil Imp S -’ ’t
(ES) isdIcathigl the of en
would places -!W 1Ia: bwdiu
on the repIm.d ) y p
.xprw.ed that the
burden would discourag. new
bn.in or of . thig
Th.Ag uccy lsrequl redby lawto
prepare en KIS where It finds that
. gr t environmental Impacts may
an a meult of th. new facility. hi
this s, all C&POe with 1000 a i i al
unite cimncse(part a. of the regulatory
definition that Is included In Pest VU. of
this p r’nit ) that have been constructed
since Pabxn.,y of 1974 em afdered to
be “new which hay, new
source perhem.nce standards. The EPA
Is mandated tnT ’ig Ihs. In accordance
with the 1IflthJW4ty provided to It by
Congress end is net anthotired to
J . . . . . .vent the law regardles, of It.
e c Impact.
13. Some contm s eirpromed
with the Finding Of No
$1gn4fir nt Impes which was piihH.h.d
with the proposed general permit . Some
of thee. — “ cited water quality
reports f . the Erath and Besqn County
area& The .ntera believed that
due to the i i ,ltrmicc oICAP In
this the qu lI4y impacts hues
discharges from the , .J ..In.rt
UCtUa would coestitide
— and that CAFOS an the Bosque
River Besin watershed should be
evaluated in en Env nental Impact
Statement. Several letters expressed the
opinion that EPA had not sufficiently
e,.Inasad the potnnri l imp s in this
watershed, and had mad. judgments
based on Inseffidout study of the
wu wst quality pmhl i ’ . In the
area. In addition, these commmnia,,
stated the opinion that EPA ’s use of a
general p ””ilt to regulate all CAP
warn fnappivpu4ets. Thee. commentere
believ, that Erath County. Texas should
be excluded front the general permit It
was the stated opinion of them
commentate that EPA had not
adequately addressed water quality,
drinking wst aquifars, closure of
facilities, and odor controL
While EPA a ees with mentsrs
that wastes have had an impact
on this watershed (see ans A. 14.),
RegIon S believes that the Finding of No
SIgnificant Impact Is appropriate far tire
facilities which are already in operation
and which will be compliant with the
permit requirements. The permit
requirements as, considered to mitigate
for any water quality impacts since the
p L-- denderds e
d.—’-- 5 .J to L .. ... an ntaliy
safe Al mrhmir and the “—‘ limit ’ o*
noiJti.kiirga take .wuIt the sts
wa q” 1 ’y st wth he the recaivk
In preparing the proposed permit, a
list of possible iarpeiiz from CAPO
facilities wan . mp bid from vanous
uources to determine the potential
envizonmen Impacts hunt
con ulzntud nni,neI feeding and
m.ITef nce op ..tIon activities.
Among these lmpwts arm (1) Surface
quality impact. from discharges
and the haii.vIHiig of the w es
generated at the site; (2) groundwater
impacts ce” d by seepage from the
ot.ntlon lagoon. and over-application
of tbewaatu to land: (3) endangerment
to public health by the con min*dcn of
drinking water by the animal wastes
which as, generated at thee. (adUtiea
(4) public health nuisance cenead by
odors and the reeuhlng attraction of
ITI. $ . to the wee; (5) adves.. effacts to
endangered spades and other wildlife
by the location or by the land
application, disposal, or management of
the animal wantan and (8) su quality
impacts from tire wutt budan of
m keI . and other gases which em
aseodated with the management and
storage dathi.I wantes.
These Imp.Ua were evaluated In the
development ph e . of writing the drafi
general pemsit The eral permit
proposed in July i ‘hi.iiad mmy
requir ta to mitigate or trol the
envim’n” I Impacts associated with
CAFOs. Ba ..d on the Infrwmaticn
mentioned above, the Agency evaluated
agricultural Information, state water
quality Inventories and nt. . and
natmnedlnhmnation on water quality
problems aaso . ’4’ed with Inim.l waste
management. ft wee the finding of the
Environinenial ServIces I vigion at
RegIon 6, thatthe conditions of the
permit end tire effluent guidelines
provided adequate resprirentests to
control, or all sigeiflrrnr
Impacts front Coocuetrated Animal
Feeding Operations which wure already
constructed and opemthig.
It is the ffndlng of Region S that the
most frequent water quality and
environmental Impacts are thoue
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 environmental amemment indi t.as
that vatflow. from the wastewater
cont iinments om be u .t .uIIed by
frequent removal of cniw..ntrsted
wastewaters and diversion of rain
waters. Also, discharges from properly

-------
Federal Register I VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday , February 8, 1993 / Notlcei
7819
operated facilities contain significantly
less pollutants than a facility which has
been improperly operated and wastØs
have been allowed to accumulate In the
retention structure. Region 6 believes
that it is the accumulation of wastes
which would result In a more
concentrated az d frequent discharge
that cause envlxgnmentsj
damage. The proposed permit Includes
the necessary mitigation recordkeeping
and monitoring to determine lithe
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 CAFOs (see answer D.23. 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 81s aware that the.. fadu1t1e
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 end
pollution prevention will be protective
of State water quality standards. If
facilities covered by this general-permit
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 commentm’ requested that
EPA place strict siting requirements in
the permit which would Aliminate all
CAFOs in the Region.
EPA does not have the authority to
equiie a six mile separation from all
private residences and public building.
and areas, nor does the Clean Water Act
provide the authority to EPA to
eIImin.te business. The authority under
which EPA operates. ii limited to the
• regulation of discharges of pollutants to
surface waters of the U.S.
15. Many comments were received
requesting EPA define such terms as
“alternative general permit” “Individual
permit” pnd “this general permit”
• which reused InPartUi of the
general permit. These terms were in the
)roposed general permit preamble, fact
éheet, and permit. The section of the
permit contslulng the bulk of these
terms has been restructured for
clarification. EPA regrets any confusion
about the regulatorylanguage in this
part of the general permit. Where ever
the terra ‘this permit’ appears It means
this general permit which was proposed
on July 22, 1992. General permit isa
term which desmibes 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 this provision means
that A 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
waterquailty concerns, EPA believes
that this general permit does not
provide adequate requirements. EPA
can require the facility to apply for an
individual permit, or a different general
permit. An application for an Individual
permit requires site specific Information
so that s.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, end
then comply with the other general
permit.
C Comments on Fan Ilof the GenemJ
Permit—Effluent limitations
1. Many comments received requested
Information on the technical
Information used to develop the Effluent
Guideline, for feedlots, and the basis for
th. application of these guideline, to
concentrated Animal feeding operations.
The Information requested is contained
In the Development Document for
EffluentLimitations and New Source
Perforiminre Standajds—Feedlot Point
Source Category. Published January
1974. This document Is no longer for
sale through the U.S. Government
Printing Office, but can be reviewed at
a Government Repository Library. Most
large city libraries, State libraries, and
University libraries provide an area for
government documents, and as such are
Government Repository libraries. In
preparatlonof a permit for feedlots EPA
must, at minimum Include the
technology requirements established In
the effluent guidelines. The effluent
guidelines apply to all CAFOs of 1000
anim Al units or more (feedlots). Region
6. 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 could’be placed In. gen ral
permit which would be protective of
water quality. Therefore, EPA has
applied the effluent guideline
technology to all facilities covered
under the general permit While this
may appear to some persons to be
placing. more stringent requirement on
the facilities which have less than 1000
animal units, these amallar 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
1000 anImal units which are subject to
Cl 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 toxic pollutants and
pollutants which are not classified as
toxic 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 desmibed En 40
C ’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 was pwater , and runoff from a25
year, 24 hour storm event, and the
proper operation and maintenance of
the retention capacity. BCr, Best
Practicable Control Technology applies
to the control of conventional
pollutants. The limitations established

-------
7820
fesiural Ragf.tar / Vol. 58, Na. 24 I Mandoy, February 8, 1993/ Nodces
In 40 ft 412.22 ‘ “e the quality sad
quantity of pollutants or pollutant
properties, which inayb. discharged by
a point source (CAm) mrb ed to ho
stous of this subysrt after
application of BCI”. The BAT
requirement of “no discharge” meets oil
BCT standards for the control of
conventional pollutants. EPA ha.
Included a definition of these terms In
the definition section of the general
permit (pert V1
3. Several were received
requesting 1 tI*RnltIon do 25-year, 24-
hour st i event. This term Is defined
In part VU of this final permit. 25-year.
24-hour storm event Is defined as 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 1 ,.lnfnII
probability Information developed
therefrom. This means that this storm
event has a prob hflity of o urnng
once every 25 years and Includes the
maximum precipitation oocurring over a
24 hour period.
4. Several parsons requested that EPA
define “chronic” or “catastrophic”
r 4vJ .fl events. The terms chronic and
catastrophic bifnI1 In the
effluent guideline, requirement at 40
CFR part 412.
These refer to urvurut . which may
result in an overflow of the required
retention structure. Cat .mffiiphic rainfall
conditions would mean any single v t
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 , .h un4r .j &Imag, .
Chronic r ’uiif Il would be that series of
wet weather conditions which would
not provide opportunity fur dswaterlng
and which total the val of the 25
year. 24 bow storm event.
5. Several concerned d ” ' were
confused about the required technology
established in the National Effluent
Guidelines, it Is the understanding of
these r ,I4,.n that properly sized
facilities should discharge only In the
event of the 25 year. 4 hour storm
event. The effluent g ld . 4na . establish
a requirement of “no discharge of
promea waste water pollutants from the
facility”. However, the gtid.Hn .
provideeforno llmltatioatobe placed
on overflows from retention uctures
which are properly constructed and
operated to maintain the capacity of the
25 year. 24 hour storm event If chronic
orca oph1c r I f II cause an
overflow from * facility “ ‘Irki has bean
operated to the required
volume capacity, then that overflow Is
In complisace with “ a”—’ guidelines
and this permit.
A facility which only discharges in
the ca of the .ctual 25 year. 24 hour
storm event is emiuded from the
d . n4Hon of r ,w 1rated . nlin .l
feeding operation (40 R 122.23 and
part 122 appendIx B) and I ., therefore.
not considered. point source disch.iger
subject to NPDES permit requirements
under the Act.
8. Several n lma! t&$ wer
concerned that the Natinnal Effluent
Standards far CAbS were mare
stringent than the State Standards. The
Clean Water Ad requires that Status set
water quality standard.. Where these
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 , t .Hnn .l choology
standard In the development of 1 WDES
permits. (Also see engw A.4-6.)
7. Several comments-received
- requested ait. nitInn of”all process
waste water”. Process waste water refers
to any process generated waste water
and any precipitation which comes Into
contact with any manors, litter, or
bedding, or any other raw material or
InMn edIa1e or final material or product
used In or resulting from the production
of iinimiil or poultry or direct products
(e.g.. milk, eggs). Process generated
waste water is defined as water directly
or Indirectly used In the operation of a
CAFO for any or all of the following
including but not limited to: Spillage or
overflow from n4mmI or poujtry
watering systems; washing, c1e rnbig , or
pens, hems, m num pits, or
other feedjot fwilltles; direct contact
swimming, .1 ing , or spray cooling of
nIm k and dust controL This
definition Is Included in the definition
section of the CAFO general permit, part
va
8. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
submitted c ments expressing
concern that plays lakes are being used
as . nlm .I waste retention ponds at
many CAbs In the western U.S. to the
detriment of migratory birds which use
the same playss for loafing. feeding. and
breeding. Many other courmentere also
questioned the use of playa lakes as
retention structures for CAbs,
eesentlally contending they are waters
of the U.S. to which the permit should
prohibit dL hR,g 0 Other cammentars
disagreed, however, noting that cleaning
out a plays lake and building a new
retention structure at the same facility.
would be very costly and probably
would not provide any environmental
benefit. One commenter stated the use
of. plays lake I. mor. environmentally
sound b r.ai.e thay are naturally lined
with itilik . and day which protects
ground water.
There lsaerittoeachofthese
concerns. Many email play. lakes have
historically been used as retention units
by CAPOs with varying degree of
environmental effett Some have been
rendered unfit for some of the uses
which uncontaminated lakes en joy.
Conversely, some may have been
Improved, I.e., 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
hay, both adverse and beneficial effects
on wildlife. In
moreover, constructing an artificial
retention pond to i.iIImin .M the use of
the play. for wastewater retention might
Impose a severe economic burden on a
CAb operator without any significant
environmental bn ” t Wildlife
currently attr ”cted to the playa because
of the wastewater it contains might well
begin frequenting the artificial retention
pond.
Moreover, there are difflr ,II
juris i41onal issues associated with
plays lakes which EPA Region 8 cannot.
U a practical “ '“ ‘ , resolve In I ”ulng
these general permits. In a xardanco
with EPA’s regulatory definition of
“waters of the U.S. at 40 CFR 12 e
playa lake isa water of the U.S. If its
“use, degradation or destruction could
affect Interstate or foreign commerce
• .‘ There are various types of
commerce which may be affected by the
degradation of many play. 1 .k . 1 but
EPA has to date asserted jurisdiction
over thea only on a case-by-case basis.
generally In the context of enforcement
actions. ft is fair to My, however, that
EPA RegIon 6 generally regards playa
lakes supporting significant migratory
bird use to the waters of the US.
40 R 122.2. however, also excludes
“waste treaOnent systems” from its
definition of “waters of the U.&’
Although a postion of that regulation
prohIbits the use of naturally oomuring
waters from the embit of the waste
treatment system exclusion, that same
portion ha. been stayed since July 1980,
when EPA IfldtrriMd It would
“promptly” r r , n .’der issues associated
with the prohibition. See 45 FR 48680.
Aamrdlngly. a specific play. may be a
waste treatment system aver which EPA
does not assert jurisdiction even though
It would otherwis. be a water of the
U.S. Until the Aon uJpates _
regulatory clarification. dot in ng
iEi 1 rrs E laya isa
water of the U.S. or a waste treatment
system Is another case-by-case process.

-------
Feda2 I gist. 1 VoL 58. No. 24 p Mnnday. February 8, 1903 1’ NotIces
7821
Moreover. because y plays.
hydrologically isolated from other
watheU.S..aanequanon hwa.
eute tmetment system. there are many
cases in which the jurlsdldhmal I s sue I.
a close one.
Because diachargers are responsible
for compliance with CWA cudlon 301(a)
regardless of whether or not A has
made a prior on the
jurisdictional Øafi . of a particular
receiving water. D L may i fty
bring an enfnrcement 4nr for
nnsuthorirnd ili l 4 u.Tgas to a water body
the discharger regarded as Its wade
treatment syst Although seth ce
must. be detar”i d Individually, A
Region 6may consider th. following
non-exclusive factors In deciding
whether specific piayas are treatment
systems or waters of the U.S.:
a. Hydrologic separutlon. At a
minimum, all waste treatment systems
must segregate wutewater from other
waters of the U.S.. allowing the operator
to maintain dnininien over the waste
prior to Its discharge to waters of the
U.S. In the case of plays. which ar,
naturally sv i uted from other waters,
capacity of the plsya thus becomes an
important consideration. Using morn
play. than reasonably necessary for
treating or ret*h ing anticipated
‘olumes of wastewater indicates the
,erator has not attempted to s gate
.a wastawater from other waters of the
U.S.. e.g.. through u izz tructhm of a
watertight berm a osa the pisys.
b. Public access and multiple
dischazgrrs. A surface water used or
susceptible to use by various parties Is
rarely a waste treatment system because
such use may interfere withorbe
incompatible with Its use as a waste
treatment system. Accordingly. a playa
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 noted that discharges are a
type of use. Because one wastestream
may interfere with another’s U ” ”t,
a playa receiving more than one entity’s
discharge is probably no entity’s waste
treatment system. huts water of the U.S.
This might not apply to the case of two
CAFOs with the same operations and
wastes discharging to the same plays.
c. Physical modifications. Physical
alteration of a natural play. to improve
its ability to function as a waste
treatment systam provides an Indication
of waste treatment system status. As a
corollary of sorts to the first factor listed
we, for instance, inaeaslng the
icity ole plays to accommodate
te treatment needs Is a strong
indication that the resulting surface
wa body isa wast ti—’ --—’$ sy ,
note water of the U.S.
d. Other isuste ben#I , t up.. ’ The
existenc , of a proven. prr 4 r,L . and
psefemb). alternative tr t method
for the wade stream at lame militate.
against a finding that a sur e wa
body lea waste treatment system.
Disposal via deep injection uell, for
example. Is a proven method emnmoaly
• u by ou hoie oil and gas operators
for complying with EPA effluent
guidelines applicable to wodw d
water, Hence. EPA would be TIIl1 Iy to
flndaplaya la ewes anoil and gas
operator’s waste treatment systats . In
the case of a CAPO, however, svr
retention b.an . may sometimes be.the
only treatment/disposal option -
available.
a. Consistency with stat e low. S’
states have adopted laws reshirl4aig
prohibiting the use of naturally
occurring waters as waste tms nt
systems. If finding a water body tea
waste treatment system is Inconsistent
withsuthlaws.EPARsg ieu Owill
consider It a water of the U.S. A state
law or dmision to allow use of a natural
waler body sea waste treatment syst
is not, however,. determinative Lictu&
In an EPA decision on the semi
L Individual Section 404 permit. U the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
issued a permit for the discharge of
dredged ar flfl material to.playa lake
incidental tea plays’s use sea wade
treatment system. EPA Region 8 will
probably consider it a waste tr—.tin--- ’
system. The e,dstence of a nationwide
or general permit authorizing such work
in a plays, however, will be given little
if any weight because neither EPA nor
state water qijality agencies have an
opportunity to consider individual
waterbodies in connection with the
Issuance of such a permit.
EPA reit lates that these factors are
neither exclusive nor regulatory they
are simply examples of the sort of
factors EPA will probably apply In
making Individual determin Hrmt
Their Bpolicatlon in the context of an
a mi ,thtrative or judicial ñfu uth
tio may thus be thallanged In that.
inforcement action, In an e ost to place
iithIttees on notice that discharges to
plays. may be comidered discharges te
waters of the US., however. EPA has
amended the proposed permits’
references to “waters of the U.S.” by
adding exemplary language regarding
rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and
play. lakes
Even Ifs specific play. is dearly a
waste treatment system, the op lw . of
that system should make every effort to
avoid damage to wildlife resources.
such as migratory birds. Many migratory
birds . . .4atisil by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and/ar the Endangered
Species Act may frequent sur water
bodies, regardless ci their jurisdictional
status under the (2e.n Water Act.
Harming such protected birds by
operating a treatment system may
subject the operator to significant
iminal liability under those laws.
D. ( n . .ment, an Part Wof the Genemi
Pemdt—Special Conditions,
Monogamant Pm,#iv,pi. and Other Non.
Numeric limitations
1. Many p erson . were concerned with
the phrase “other than discharges
associated with proper operation and
maintenance of the CAFO” in Pert ‘.A.
Prohibitions. Several comments stated
that pesticides should be considered as
proper O&M . end that the dilution of
past1 dea 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 om only be applied to the
wastes associated with the operation
and maintenance of a concentrated
‘ .4” .aI feeding operation. The disposal
of other wades In the ponds would be
a violation of the regulatory
requirement The authority for this
requirement Is established In 40 GR
122.45(h). Th. disposal of “off spec”
milkis apart of the operation and
maintenance of a dairy thcility. Also, the
use of pesticides, cleansers,
disinfectant. em common and often
to the operation of any animal
feeding operation. Region 6 cautions
operators to use pesticides judiciously
and In accordance with label
requirements. Where appropriate the
operator should limit the use of
pestlddas.and use those whkh are
more readily degraded. This could limit
pesticide Impacts on the environment
and limit the need to do expensive
pesticide testing lithe retention
structure should need to discharge.
RegIon 8 does not believe that the
dilution of pesticides in the retention
structures will render them harmless.
Many pesticides are very toxic to fish
and wildlife in the parts per trillion
range and do not break down readily.
Two examples of activities and wastes
which are excluded by this provision
are as followsi 1. The Introduction of
bumNn westawatars Into the retention
structure. The discharge and/or land
application of materials that are
potentially contimin ted with human
pathogens are covered by regulatory
requirements In sectIon 405 of the Clean
Water Act. 3. The act of any opera t or to

-------
7822
Federal Raajst / VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 / Notices
a capl any d westa (waste not
generated at the CAN) to be Introduced
into the retention structure.
2. Several parsons & ,i , ai ted on the
requirement to structurally restrict
uncontaminated waters which may run
on to the facility. Also many persons
question the requirement for the
facilities to be protected from flood if
located in a floodplain. The Agency
believes that unrestricted flow through
the lacility 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 tH r hiige
requirement for facilities which are
located in floodplains. This provision
applies to all waste management areas
except the land application of wastes as
an agricultural practice. Properly
applied, , niin I 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 wells. Many
f menters requested EPA reword the
requirement to clarify their intent.
Several States requested that the
distances reflect State health
dei,artnient standards.
EPA ha. clarified the Best
Management Practice referring to the
prosimity of waste “ “ngement
facilities to water wells. mart IILB.1.g.)
It Is EPA’s responsibility to include any
State requirement which would be more
protective of public health in permitting
actions. EPA agrees with State. that
these should be In accordance with the
specific distanc” dted In the State’s
health codes, therefore, the bed
management practices restricting the
placement of retention and waste
handling facilities near public and
private water walls has been changed to
refer to the State’s requirements. -
4. Many persons and pzodu groups,
especially groups from Slates outside
Region 6, question EPA’s authority to
protect ground watm In an NPDES
permit. Clean Water Ad specifically
refers 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
moors to protect groimd
water, ors y reer o ames
ümr, wbicn are he
protected iii an approved Water Quality
Management Plan. EPA Is fully within
Its authority to protect ground water
quality. EPA is authorized section
301 of the cr in u a any more
—
, 8 I g.mt stats treatment standard or
requirement Region 6 has not Included
reçuremects to specifically protect
ground water quality. The permit does,
however, protect the sources of surface
water from the le g ’ 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
previsions which relate to the
protection of public health from the
onnt v,iIilation of drinking water as
reflected hi State Standards.
Far clarification all mention of ground
water protection has been removed from
the general permit.
5. Many commenters objected to the
requirement of reccrdkeeplng in the
general permit Many people stated that
It was too burdensome and that
paperwork would not protect the
environment. Several persons and
producer group. supported some of the
required recordkeeping. Specifically,
logs of water levels, structural Integrity
Inspections, and logs 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 reairdkeeplng
requirements be ehrnln*ted and be
replaced by annual or semi-annual
inspections by EPA. Several
Commentera believed that the inclusion
of B? Ws and the requirements In the
Pollution Prevention Plan were beyond
the scope of EPA’. authority.
EPA has simplified and clarified the
recordkeeping 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 6 does not
believe that the n . dkeeping required
to document all pesticide usage Is
ne.. ry to protect water quality. The
permit requires that the permittee us,
pesticides in ecoordance with label
requirements. In this was 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 6 regulates and permits close
to 100.000 perinittoes. 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
burden of their complI*nr,
recordkeeping. EPA does not agree the’
this Is an appropriate use of tax dolli’
The Clean Water Act gives EPA bft
authority to develop permit conditions
necessAry to meet effluent guidelines
and water quality standards.
Specifically, sections 401(a) (1) and (2)
of the Act give EPA authority to
presaibe conditions for permits to
assure compliance with applicable
regulations. Further, EPA has the
authority to p Best Management
Practices (B?vWs) as permit conditions to
ensure that technology-based effluent
limitations are properly implemented in
permits. Additionally, it Is EPA’s best
professional Judgement that the BMP,
and pollution prevention requirements
are needed in the permit to protect for
water quality.
Traaiig EPA’s statutory and
regulatory authority to control
wastewater discharges from CAFOs,
federal regulations found at 40 GR
122.44 state that NPDES permits must
Include technology-based effluent
limitations based on limitations
promulgated under sectIon 301 of the
Clean Water Act. Effluent limitations
have been imposed on CAFOs by federal
regulations found at 40 R part 412.
The regulations at 40 GR 122.44(k)
state NPDES permit shall Include Best
Management Practice, to control or
abate the discharge of pollutants wh&
numeric effluent limitations are
Infeasible or theseprectlces are
reasonably necessary to achieve effluent
limitations and standards or to carry out
the intent of the Clean Water Act. The
regulations desaibed for CAFOs at 40
Q R part 412 are not expressed as
num s limitations, and are clearly
effihent limitations which can be
implemented by the use of BMPs. EPA
therefore believes that It baa authority to
require BMPs as a condition of the
general CAFO permit and believes
aMP, to be the appropriate vehicle for
the protection of water quality.
6. Many comments were received
requesting a compliance 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 flLB.2.a. of the final
permit.
7. Many comments received requested
that the permit allow Soil Conservation
Service waste management plans
to replace the pollution prevention
documentation. Other commenters
request that documentation of
compliance with the waste management

-------
F — t Lgjii’. I VoL 58. No. 24 i Monday., Pàruary 8. 1993 i PJot
7623
nmnMJ” 1 w, .andlineu
ieterminationafromtb.S be
nsfdeied cesepli t .
pollution j vsution ivi.-J.
Thu proposed p nit
language which allowed d . - .m t4ni
under SCS pl to siab3tlbth. for parts
of the pollution prevention. pian. The
Agency h amended *5
include more specific language (in Part
m.B.2.) concerning the substitution of
ScS documeutatlan/declslon. far ths
)OT 1t reçthementa,
8. A few commeuters questioned who
would be considered “qualified
personner for purposes of development
of a Pollution Prevention Plan and
responsibility for aiiz plianca with the
provicmn and recordkeeping. The
owner or operator of the fai4Iity is
responsible for designating this task to
an employee, or & It themselves. U
the task Is designated to a person other
than the permittee. ft Is the pwwiLIeea
responsibility to detminine the
qualifications of the employer to
understand and comply with the
requirements. This person must be
named in the plan.
g.A few persons objected to the
requirement that all sampling data be
pt on site. Sampflngdata ispart of the
rinit compliance record of the and
st be kept at the facility. EPA does
.ot believe this places any burden. on
the permittee and allows EPA to
evaluate permit compliance.
10. Most r mmenters were concerned
with the requnemant to have all of the
necessary dewatering equipment “on
site’. The equiplTinot 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 requirement to have the
equipment on site would be
unnern aarily burdensome to small
operations and is not net wPy to
proper operation and maintenance. The
permit language has been changed to
reflect the availability of the equipment.
However, the permit now requires that
the parmittee document the availability -
of the equipment in the Poilutlon.
Prevention Plan.
11. Several persons andState agenr es
commented that the Information from
the nearest weather station might not
accurately reflect the rninfall at the
facility. These comments suggest that a
rain gauge should be kept on site and
r ’i nfn11 from any measurable event
icorded and kept with the pollution
‘ention plan. EPA agrees with the
.nment and has included the
requirement in the final permit.
12. Afus. ( . . .nl Itasa gibed the
reçrlremutt for erosion . nM o2
necwe ’y. Thies aimmemises believed
this requirement would not result In
fwthee envfreumental pr action. ‘
Increseed sediment entering the —
structures r ’niiIa4 ___
capudty and could result in
noncowpli*nfn with theno dlr 1 ’ge
requIrement 1
13., Several comments sequested that
existing fadilitl.s be “grmndfatbered” or
exempted from structural requizem a Ia.
linera,end structino.sp— ifir tbm.
EPA agrees with cn 1m tara that
struotux s which mist and kiI 1t good
malnt nr and structural Integr ity
should be eserapt from the construction
specifications. It is not EPA’ , that
these facilities be reconstructed.
However, documentation of appropriate
retention capacity and liner aaa *mant
will be required by all facilities in
accordance with the terms of the permit.
T4. Some comments requested that
the requirement for gram or tl p to
stabilize the walls of the retention
structures, be changed to allow for other
means of stabthmtloir. The comments
stated that In verycold or dry
conditlonagrasa would not survive and
riprap was a very expensive Iltn u 5tIV
The comnienters stated that other
method, could be used to prevent
deterioratton end that the Agsnc
should allow for this fle dbflity.
The Agency agrees with this position
and has simply required that the
uctures be stabilized against erosion
and deterioration.
15. Several comments note that the
design. capacity must take Into ,ryti, t
the volume of wet mnnnr , and suggests
that this isttxbroad a ev” ” The
commentsi suggest that this be
changed to the volume of manum which
will enter tb pontLit lathe Agencys
intent that only the volume of mn e
which will would reasonably be
expected to enter the retention. structure
would hav, to be accounted for. The
language In the final permit has been
changed to reflect only the manure to be
retained in the structure.
16 Many comments questioned the
requirement of liners to protect from
hydrologic connection. Many
commenters believed that this
requirement was to protect ground
water. Qyetmost of EPA Region fr
y tr flow Ltsustainad
5 hout much of theyear by ground
water tnflnw . As a result.
which leak front con*nintnent structures
to the grsamd water will typically move
underground toward local streams and
rivers where they will be discharged
and affect water quality. EPA has
included a liner requirement
specifically whese thes. Is potentIal for
pond Lisbig.it. “ psi , surface water&.
Region B strongly believes this Is
consistent with the effluent guldnlhtn
reqithement of. ‘ear discharge”
te’ 4 tnEdngy . It is EPA’s position that a
tlitrhn, 8 through the bottom of the
retention uctureconstitutese
violation of the required technology
requirement If significant pollutants
from that discherge reach a swfac
water. Also, sswanewer D.4.
17. SeveraL cti nm nt . received
requested clarification of hydrologic
connection. and how this could he
do 1m Itmd. Hydrologic connection
refers to the Interf low and avi4tnn n
between surface water and ground
wster In the of this permit. the
Intent of the reduction of hydrologic
connection Ia to reduce ground water as
aflow path whlchwould result In the
transfer of pollutant materials from
IJ() con t n nI uctures to smface
waters. This definition has been
included In the ddlniifrwt section of the
CAFO general permit. Part VU. The
conditions In the general permit have
been simplified to allow. profnminn .l
determination that hydrological
connection dose - . oom to th. degree
that surface water contnminntiom would
result.
18. Many comments requested that
the “liner requirement’ apply only to
new f Ht4an The commenlers state
that these facilities have a “biological
seal” which prevents leakage. These
persons note studies by Texas A&M
which show facilities which are
properly mniTltnined seldom leak. EPA
agree. that the process of plugging end
gleisation may provide appropriate
5 n.lf g of a pond under certain
conditions, however, the permit.
requires the perruitte. to have - specific
,lrw imnntation an site that a liner is not
necessary.
19. Many rTlmrnentms request that the
hydraulic conchactivity and thichnees
requirements U.x1O , and 1.5 foot) in
the permit language change to be
consistent with the Soil Conservation
Service technical standards for liner
construction. EPA agrees with the
commnntezs that the technical
determinations mad. by the SCS oz by
another professional using SCS
Terlanirni Notes 716 and 73.7 (or the
cuneot equivalent technical criteria)
would protect for hydrologic
connection.. These determ in*t ions take
Into accouqt the sate specific variables.
Additionally, a professional will not
design the facility in structurally
unstable area or on unstable soil..
Where site specific conditions are not
assessed by a professional. EPA believes
that the mor. conservative requirement

-------
7624
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 / Notices
of 1.5 feet of material compacted to
lxi Cr’ hydraulic conductivity (or its
eqwvalent in an alternate material) is
appropriate.
20. Many cnIn .ents were made on
the liner maintenance requirements of
liner inspection and monitoring wells.
The commentera included many State
and Federal agricultural agencies as
well as Stats water quality
professionals. The Agency has
reevaluated it3 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 linen. This requirement
has been removed from the final permit.
EPA also agrees with the water quality
professionals that the lndisaiminate
drilling of monitoring walls for every
facility could result In the
contamination of ground water and
drinking water aquifers. EPA also
recognizes the States’ concern that
speafic facilities may have the potential
to Leak and contaminate State waters.
The final 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 commenters were
concerned with the rnhlrept of
agronomic rates, and the requirement
that manures and wastewaters must be
land applied at rates which consider the
nutrient aop uptake. Many comments
suggest that the land application be
limited to available nitrogen. Many
commenters requested a definition of
“agronomic rates’. Several persons
noted the “slow release” nature of
manure and requested that we take this
into account. EPA agree. with the
cominentera that plant needs define
agronossic rates. It Is not EPA’. 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 agricultural practices
include 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 commentera 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 commanter asked If weigh
tickets would be required with the log
at manure hauled away. EPA agrees
that, properly used, manure Is a more
environmentally favorable fertilizer
source than chemical fertilirers.
However, It has been the finding that
the Improper or aver 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, this
Information will be made available to
the hauler. EPA will not requite 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 parsons believed th, restricted
the ability of the operator to compost
the manures to be used on the field.
Region 6 believes that these
requirements are consistent with the no
discharge requirement of the national
standard. Significant amounts of
manure, placed in fioodplains and near
water courses, could be dI.rh rged
during rainfali or high water events. The
permit requires the permittee protect
against such occwrences. Region 8 does
not believe this will substantially impair
the permittees ability to compost wastes
at the facility. The permittee can
compost manures in locations away
from water courses and transport the
coinposted manure to the held when it
is to be land applied.
24. Many concerned persons
ciiticized EPA for not induding
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 8
believes that the requirements in the
permit do require the best minagement
of the waste products from such
facilities, and therefore, will reduce to
the maximum extent possible problems
which result In excessive odors.
25. Several comnienters believed the
permit should include requirements for
“closure’ 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 ihould be awm
that CAPO facilities with aver 1000
in,nal units are considered to “have
storm water discharges associated with
Industry activity”. In accordance with
regulations published in the Federal
Register on November 18, 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 materials
are removed.
£ Comments on Pail IV of the Generci
Permit—Monitonng and Reporting
Requirements
A range of comments were received
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 information
or stated opinions on which parameters
should be analyzad, but most
cominenters questioned the need to test
for fecal coliform bacteria. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service suggested the
discharges be analyzed for metals.
pesticide, hormone and antibiotic
contamination. The Service also
requested that permittees be required tu
do instream studies to determine if
these contaminants 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 arid information
water quality experts Indicates that
chronic eutrophication in watersheds s
related to the improper or over
application of wastes and not to the
disthnrge from a properly operated
facility. For this reason, Region 6 has
included only those chemical
parameters which am likely to produce
acute effects as the result 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 BOD, TSS.
ammonia niLrO en, fecal coliforna
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 desciabed in 40 GR
122.48. EPA shall specify reporting
requirements in.perznits which are
based upon the Impact of the regult
activity. Fecal coliforms. exceted in
mammalian feces. are dearly a

-------
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 I Notices
7625
parameter pertinent and applicable to
the “acthrlty” of a confined *n i, a1
feeding operation.
EPA baa Included many of the perthlt
requirements suggested 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
di’ charges. However, the data which the
Service has coUected am specific to
geographic area and relate to pond
sediments (mostly front 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 rainfnll conditions. EPA
is unaware of any approved method to
test for hormones or antiblotice In
wastewators. Region 6 believes further
data could be gathered In thenextflve
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 analyra the
sam pestIddes which may be In
F. Comments on Part V of the General
Permit—Standarti Permit Requirements
Many persons remarked that several
requirements in this part of the permit
related to industrial dlschargers and do
not relate to CAFOs, and these Items
should be deleted from the final permit
to avoid cohfuslon. The Agency agrees
with the commenters that much of the
standard permitting language is directed
at activities not found at a CAFO.
Therefore, Region 8 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 IV. Items
regarding Toxic Pollutants and Oil and
Hazardous Substance Ti hihty have
been removed from Part V.
G. Comments on Part VI of the General
Permit—Reopener Clause
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
iecessary to notify the perinittee of all
administrative activities which are
undertaken when permits are reopened,
only the r on the permit may be
reopened. Therefore this will not be
included in the final permit.
If. Comments on Part VII of the General
Permit—Definitions
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 res ousiveness summary iii 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
generui permit. These an “Agronomic
Rates”, “Beet Available Technology”
(BAT), “Best Conventional Technology”
(BC’fl, “Hydrologic ‘n ect1nn” ,
“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
L Comments on theAppendices of the
General Permit
Most of the persons commenting on
the general permit were opposed to the
“Recommended Best Management
Practices”, manure nutrient
Information, and op nutrient
Information that was published with the
propos d permit Many persons
believed that more user-Mendly and up-
to-date information was available
through State and Federal agencies
which work with the agricultural
community.
EPA agrees with the conimentere and
has renioved such information from the
final permit. The Agency has replaced it
with listings of Information sources and
agencies to assist operators in the proper
operatlog and mRn gement of CAFO
facilities, and a listing of publications
which were submitted by State and
Federal agencies.
Part III. Economic Impact
EPA believes that this general permit
will be economically beneficial to the
regulated community, In that 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.
An economic analysis was done when
the BAT requirements for the national
effluent guIdelines (40 C R part 412)
were published. Region 8 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 5umn iuy to show the
applicability of the 1074 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 steam, through the use of
biological or equivalent treatment
systems, those smaller facilities may
apply for Individual permit coverage.
Put IV. ipI’- With Other
Federal Regu latIons
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
Pi1rn4yi*tio System (NPDES) New
Source Program, the EPA has conducted
a general environmental review of the
followln action:
1. Actmon. Issuance of Geperal NPDES
Permit for New Source Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAPO),
defined In 40 0’R pail 122 appendix B
and 40 (PR part 412, and located In all
parts of the State. The discharge of
process waatewater 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. Envzmnmentoi Effects Generally
Associated with CAFOs. A summary of
the potential Impacts from CAPOs 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

-------
7928
Federal RigiSur I Vol. 58, Na. 241 Monday. F xuaiy 1993/ No
en Environmental lmp. S’
(US) Is not required. This P wifng of No
SlgriRiis1v* Impact (FNSI 1 C&fT3
facilities In place an4 o sUb.
time of Issuance of the P—, iP
Applicants tot CPSO ii4IIHes propoj.d
aher the issuance of th . Genera] Permit
shall subi it an svpropxlate U and
undergo eninrowusmal fVLIW prior to
the start oIconstrwiion C 1mm nts
regarding this decision not to prepare an
EIS are discussed in the stt J ad
Respovenass Summ y.
New CAFO subject to N nit
Effluent Guidelines (40 ( R Part 412)
will be required to complete an
Environmental Review with the Agency
prior to coverage under the permit. New
facilities are any CAPD not in operation
as of the issuance date of the., general
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 Cal the permit .
The permitise must have docwnentatf on
of “No Signi ”t Impact” or a
completed Environmental Impact
SP I. v t in accordance with in
environmental review amducted by the
Ageacy. as a amd*tlon of coverage
“ “ the permit This dccumenik$n
be retained on sits.
B. Endwigered Species Act
The final permits published today
will authorize no discharge other than
upsets and bypasses, which are -
relatively infrequent occunencee.
Accordingly, A Region 6 determines
that Issuance of these permits is
irnhk*lyto etlvw.ily affect any listed
threatened or endangered spenies or
deslg ated aithul habitat. EPA Region
6 hen , thm *ted copies of thee. permits
to the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service . EPA
RegIon 6 consulted the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service regarding this
determination. EPA hen adèessed all of
U.S. Flab a Wildlife Service on’w—u..-
Part I of this document outlln changes
which were made to th, final p-
The Responsivene. Sinim y in Part 11
explains the Agmey. final permitting
declaim with respect to the mcns
raised by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
C. Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of E ’tiv. 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
— p u the Paperuvth
Reduction Mt. 44 U.S.C. 3501 it seq.
The Information colle on requirements
of this permit hav, already been
spp., atl by the Office of Management
and Budget In submimmons wade for the
— pregrem under
provisions of the Clean WalarAd.
H. Regulafrmnyflexibil4Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C 801 etq.,EPAlirequlzed to
prepare a Regulatory
Analysis to .a the impact of ruim en
small onftft. N. Regulatory Pt ty
Analysis 1. c& 1 .iii,d . however, wham
the heed of the ag wy onfifi. that the
rul. will not hairs a thg.iiffr
economic Impact on a substantial
number of . . , , lI entitles.
Today’s general permit would
generally make the NPDES regulations
more fimible and less burdensome for
peimittees. This permit does not apply
to small animal feeding operations
unless specifically designated by the
pursuant to S U.S.C. 605(b). that thee.
amen . 4 vn I ts, If promulgated, and that
these general permits, when Issued. will
not have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Aatherlty Clean Water Act, 33 LL&C. 1251
itesq .
Date& Janony 5, 1 .
LI Wyi ..s ,
Re n&Adm i n .
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
PHmiii tIon System far Storm Water
Discharges From Carwentrated
F..dlng Operations in the State of
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C 1251 it
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Actof 1987, Public Law 100-4. the
NA _ c tI .
Owners and operators of C,.m!d.ntreted
M4m 1 Feeding Operations except
the.. sites excluded from coverage in
Part! of this permit. are authorized to
discharge In danca with effliwat
limitations, monitoring requizemsits.
and other provisions set forth herein.
A copy of thi, general permit wont be
kept at the site of the concentrated
nut vnnk feeding operations.
This permit will become effective on
March 10, 1993.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge under the National Pollutant
Discharge ilminMlon System shall
expire at midnight, on March 10, 1998.
S ed this fifth day of January. 1993.
MyresO. “—‘-LU..
W MancgomntDfrecZor.R .gioa &
Authe.fzetion to Discharge Under the
NaH l Pollutant Discbp
System (si Stairs Waler
Discharges From Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation. in the State of New
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Waler Act. 33 U.S.C 2251 it
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, Public Law 200-4. the
“Act”.
Owners and operators of Concentrated
An4m 1 Feeding Operations except
those sites excluded from coverag, in
Part I of this permit. ar . authorized to
discharge in rdn, ,ra with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements.
and other pauvisions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the sit. of the conwutnited -
animal feeding vp rulIon&
This permit will become effective on
March 10, 1993.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge under the National Pollutant
Discharge gilminafinyL System shall
expire at wfrlnlg t. on March 10, 1998
Signed this fifth day of January. 1993.
MyomO. ‘— ua?L,
WoterMniin 0 .. .eDü or.Ragion 6.
AUtheI4IatM. to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharg,
Elimination System for Storm Water
Discharge. From Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations in the State of
Okiabithie
ICener al Pemult No. Ot 0I0000$
In complienc. with the previsions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 it
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. PublIc Law 100-4. the
“Act
Owners and operators o(Ccacontrated
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.
and other provisions set forth harem.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at th. site of the concentrated
nnii,,nl feeding operations.
This permit will become effective on
March tO, 1993.
This permit and the authorization tr
discharg. under the National Pollutar
Discharge FII ,iiinnp(nn System shall
expire at midnight, on March 10. 1998.

-------
Federal Register! VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 / Notices
7627
Signed this Mb day of January, 1993.
Myron 0. Knudsen, P.L,
Water Management Director, Regions.
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Flimination System for Storm Water
Discharges From Cmicentruted lnimal
Feeding Operations in the State of
Texas.
IGenerol Permit No.: TXGOI0000I
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251 at
seq.. as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, Public Law 100—4, the
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,
and other provisions set forth herein.
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 lIminption System shall
expire at midnight, on March 10, 1998.
Signed this fifth day of January, 1993.
dyren 0. r.I.en , FE.,
Water Management Director. Region 6.
NPDES General Permit for Discharges
From Concentrated Animal Feeding
O ons
Table of Cententi
Pert L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area.
8. Coverage and Eligibility.
C. Limitations on Coverage.
D. Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit
E. Notification Raquiruments.
F. Permit Expiration.
Pert 0. Effluent Limitations
A. Discharge Limitations For All Categories
Of CAPOS Other Than Ducks Faduitlas
Established Prior to 1974.
B. Releases in Excess of the 25 year. 24-hour
Storm Event
Put fit. Special Conditions, M ”eg nt
Practices, and Other Non Numertc
Limitations.
A. Prohibition on UnauthQrlzed Subs nr 4
B. Proper Operation and Malntsnasc.
Raquirements.
Part IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Discharge Notification.
Written Notification.
Penalties for Falsification of Reports.
Retention of Records.
E. Availability of Reports. -
F. Planned f i nge
C. Duty to Provide Information.
H. Other Information.
L Signatory Requirements.
Part V. Standard Permit Requirements.
A. Duty to Comply.
B. Inspection and Entry.
C. Toxic Pollutants.
D. Penalties for Violation of Permit
Conditions.
K. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit.
F Need toRah or Reduce Activitynot a
‘ Defense.
G Duty to Mitigate.
H. Proper Operation and Malnte”.’w-
L Penalties for Falsification of Monitoring
Systems and Reports.
J. Property Rights.
K. Severability..
L State Laws.
t ,t Permit Actions.
Part VI. Reopener Clause
Part VIL Definitions
Part L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Pennit Area
The permit covers all areas
aniiai tered by RegIon 6 In the States
of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma
and Texas.
B. Coverage and Eligibility
Unless excluded from coverage in
accordance with paragraph C or D
below, owners or operators of Rnirr,al
feeding bperatlons that are defined In 40
part 122 appendIx B as
concentrated animal feeding operations,
and are subject to the requirements 40
0R 122.23 axe eligible for coverage
under this permit.
1. Existing Facilities. Owners or
operators of existing Concentrated
- Animal Feeding Operations (CAPOs) are
authorized under the terms and
conditions of this permit upon the
submittaj ,pf a Notice of Intent (NOT)’ to
gain coverage under this permit.
Parminees 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 Applications. Upon the
submittal of a Notice of Intent’ all
facilities which have expired permits
and have reeppiled in aecordance with
40 O R 122.21(d): and all facilities
which have su mltted applications in
accorl inrn with 40 R 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 G
122.28(b)(3)(u1).
3. New Facilities. Owners or operators
of new Concentrated Antm*l Feeding
‘lbs Notice .1 taunt Poem Is Includ.d In this
permit asappesdix B.
Operations (CAFOs) are authorized
under the terms and conditions of this
permit upon the submittal of a Notice of
Intent’ to gain coverage under this
permit. The owner or operator of a new
CAFOs must submit a Notice of Intent
five (5) busineaa days prior to any
discharge from the Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation. Permittees must
retain on site a copy of the permit and
the pollution prevention plan as
required by this permit Additional
requirements for new facilities axe as
fellows:
a. Requirements for New CAFOs with
more than the number of Rnimnk
specified In 40 R part 122 appendix
B(s) 2 definition 7.a. of this permit).
New Concentrated AnIm*l Feeding
Operation facilities 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 Pens (8E-FF), U.S. EPA Region
6, 1445 Ross 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. Expanding Facilities.’ Facilities
intending to expand operations to more
than the number of animals specified in
40 R part 122 appendix B(s) (or
definition l.a. of this permit) will be
subject to 40 R part 412 and will he
required, prior to construction of the
expansion, to submit a 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
accor 4 Inra with an environment 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
5. Other Animal Feeding Operations.
All other nImol feeding operation are
encouraged to comply with the terms
and conditions of this permit
‘The xo,Islse. In Part LB.3.&4. are requliemseb
of Pedemi p,eçama under lb. tJ. .4 i*l
Envtronmemtul Policy Ad of 1560 and wIll o(
apply to an h Uft mc i authority t o e the
P4PD , , bar hees .wrnud by the .56 .
mcy.

-------
7828
Federal legisfer (Vol. 5 , No. 24/ Mimday, February 8.1903/ No’ 4 ’ á
C 7Jm..Hni . . on Co rrg.
The following — frem
Concentited Feeding
Operations (CAFI ) em not ed by
tbIap. lt
1. Connentiated 4(Ilb!IJ .l P 55 ijflg
Operation. that the Db has
datermined to beer may rmii.Ii .ahiy be
expected to be contributing to a
violation of a water quality V cIard ,
and which have been notified by the
Director to file for an Individual or
akemative general permit In a denc,
with part LD (below) of this permit.
2. Concentrated n4m .t Feeding
Operations which adv .Jy *ff 1
Listed or proposed to be listed
endangered or threatened spedea or Us
ificei habitat.
3. Cnik .m vuted M4mi.I Feeling
Operations which adir ly affects
properties listed or eligible for Listing in
the National Register of Historic P$ii
4. Concentrated M,4m. Feeding
Operations that discharge all their
runoff and wastewatar toe publicly
owned sanitary sewer system which
discharges In adance with an
NPDES permit.
5. Concautrated Ditch feeding
operations estalth.hed prior to 1974.
fl Requinng an lndividualPemiitor an
Alternative 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
ailaniative NPDES general permit as
provided in 40 (PR 12 28 (b)(2X9, The
Director will notify the owner or
operator in writing that a permit
application is requited. If an owner or
operator fails to submit In a timely
manner an Individual NPDES permit
application required by the Director,
then the applicability of the general
permit to the Individual NPDES
permittee is antnzn Ifra I t y tsrm4n tad at
the end of the day apealfied far
application submittal.
2. Any ow or operator authn’4’ed
by this permit may requert to be
excluded front the onrerag. of this
permit by applying for en lndivirbral
permit provided In 40 (PR
122.28(b)(2)( il l) 1 The owner or operator
shall submit an individual application
(Form I and Form 2B) to the Director
with i *nm supporting the request.
3. When an individual NPDES permit
as 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 punlt or en th, date of
approval for wvwage wider th.
alternative general permit . When an
Individual NPEES p m1t Is denied to
en owner or operator otherwise ai.I j,a
to this permit, or ts . .... or operator
Is denied for coverage under an
alternative NPCES geoeiil permit, the
permittee Is automatically reinstated
under thIs permit on the date of such
dmial . unless otherwise specified by
the Director.
£ Nolifru&in Requirements
2. Owners or operators of facilities
authorized by this permit shall nhniit
a Notice of Intent (NO!) tObe uvv,vd
to the Director. The form far the Notice
of Intent for this permit I. In appendix
B of this permit. Hotiflcetf one must be
made withIn 90 days of Issuance of this
permit or upon completion of new
facllity.The Notice of intent Form (or
photocopy thereofl shall be signed by
the owner or other signatory authority
in acoordance with Past VU. (Signatory
Requirements), and a copy shall be
retained on site In aocordance with Part
VU). (Retention of Records) of this
permit. The address for Notice of Intent
submission to EPA ier
U.S. A RegIon 6,
6W—8A General Permits. -
P.O. Box 50625,
r ss Tsxu 75270.
2. A copy of the Notice of intent must
also be sent to the state agency where
the Cnnrsin iated rnmil Feeding
Operation Is locatedi
Loulsians: Gary Aydell. Admtnis*retor,
Water Poliutio Control Division,
Stat, of Lew ”.” Dept. of
Envfron taj Quality, P.O. Box
82215, Baton Rouge. LA. 70884-2225
Texas: Texas Water CommI *ion,
Agriculture Department, P.O. Box
13087, “- ‘tin . TX. 78721—3087
Okiahomar Slate aIflW liniii&
Department of Agriculture, 2800 N.
lJnri j Blvd., flfrmnhoma Oty, OX.
73105—4298
New Metaco: (2iief, Water Quality
Bureau, New Mexico Environmental
Department. 1190 St. Francis Blvd.,
P.O. Box 26110, Santa Fe, NM. 87502
F. Permit E pfrmion
Coverage under this permit wilt
expire five (5) years from the date of
issuanc ,. The conditions of an expired
permit cimtlnues in force until the
effective date of a new permit (40
122.6).
Put fl , 98he I1. i 5..4 . , . -
A: Dlscharge-Limitmlon , ForAll
Catagm-iu f her The, Thick Foalities
RcfaJlt,Iia ,3 J974
iTh. following limftathms hN .k
thequant1tyarp na l Ityofpo llutantsa ,
pollutant prepertiss which may be
discharged by a Cooceulmtsd Malmal -
Feeding Operation In compliance with
this permit after application of the best
available technology economically
achievable or new samoa performance
standards: There shall be no diwhArge
of process waste water pollutants to
waters of the U.& (Including fakes,
rivers, streams, w eilAnil . and plays
lakes as defined In 40 (PR 122.23 except
In acoorda with Part ILB of this
permit.
2. Llmiantlons e. a}ili.hed (or
concentrated duck feeding operations
which began operations after the
1 f .h f w Sourca
Perfbr,nanca Standards In 1974 are
subject to the new source porfor’uance
standarth There shall be no discharg, of
process waste water pollutants to waters
of the U.S. (including streams, tivers,
lakes, wetlands, and playa lakes as
defined In 40 (PR 122.2) e pt or
specified In Part ILB. of this permiL
B. Releases in &cess of the 25 24—
hr Storm Event
Process waste polhztants in the
overflow may be discharged to waters of
the ILS. whenever rainfall events, either
chronic or catastrophic, cause an
overflow of process waste water from a
facility designed, constructed and
operated to t.ain all process
orated waste waters plus the runoff
-year, 24-hour r fn fl event
for the location of th. point source.
Ther, shall be no effluent limitations an
dledaargee from detention structures
constructed and maintained to taIn
the 25 year, 24 hour eiuiuj event If the
discharge is the result eta r rnfidIevernt
which exceeds the design capacity and
proper maintenance. Retention
structures shall -tiu all p .
wasteweims plus the 22 yesr. 24 hour
storm event
Part m. Special Conditions,
Management Practices, and Other Non-
Numeric Limitations
A. Pr& ii ’irn an Uncut henzed
Subs f e nces
All discharges to cnntaizrn!ent
structures shall be composed entirely of
wastewetera freon the proper operation
and maintenance of a Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation and the
precipitation from the *nim .1 Fn ding
operation areas. The disposal of any

-------
Federal Register I VoL 58, No.241 Mrwday, Felruary 9. 1993 / Notices
7029
materials (other than diacherges
associated with proper operation and
maintenance of the CAFO) Into the
con’ ” ent structures are prc&ilbit4
by this permit.
3. Pro per Operation and Maintenance
Require ments
The facilities covered by this permit
are required to document the attainment
of Best Available Technology (BAT) and
Best Conventional Technology (BCfl,
and all Best Management Practices
(BMPs) used to comply with the effluent
limitations in this permit Such
documentation shall be Included In the
Pollution Prvventf an Plan (PPP)
outlined in Part IILB.2. 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 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). may be
substituted for the Beet Management
Practices and Pollution Prevention Plan
requirements in this Part of the permit
Where pr sionsi” , h . Soil
Conservation Service plan are
substituted for applicable Beet
Management Practices or portions of the
eollution Prevention Plan, the Pollution
evention Plan must refer to the
,propriate section of the Soil
.onservation Service plan. If the
pollution prevention plan contains
reference to the Soil Conservation
Service plan. a copy of the Soil
Conservation Service plan must be kept
on site.
1. Best Management Practices. The
following Best Management Practices
(B s) shall be utilized by concentrated
animal feeding operations owners!
operators, as appropriate, based upon
masting physical and economic
conditions, opportunities and
constraints. Where the provisions in a
Soil Crmcervation Service plan are
equivalent or more protective the
permittee may refer to the Sail
Conservation Service plan as
documentation of compIi nra with the
Best Management Practices required by
this permit.
s. Control facilities must be designed.
constructed, and operated to contain all
procoss generated wastewaters and the
coat junin*ted runoff from a 25-year. 24-
hnnr rainfall event for the Location of
tlke point source. Calculatiousmay also
, ,lr hde allowances for suz
eessntion Infiltration, and other site
.fic factors. Waste control facilities
it be constructed, maintained and
.a aged so as to retain all
,, ,tnminated rainfall runoff from open
lets and associated areas. pi
generated wastewater, and all other
wastes which will enterer be stored In
the retention structure.
b..Facllities shall not expand
operations, either in size or number, of
animal ; prior to amending or enlarging
the waste handling procedures and
structures to ILT iamn odata any
additional wastes that will be generated
by the expgnded qpezatlous.
C. Opea lots and aair cIated wastes
shall be isolated from outside marface
dr ioage by ditches, dikes, beims,
tertuces or other such structures
dnalgnad to carry peek flows expected at
times when the 25 year, 24-hr. rainfall
event occurs.
d.Newfacilitiesshallnotbebu lltln
a water of the U.S. (including streams,
rivera. lakes, wetlands, and plays lakes
as defined In 40 122.2).
e. No waters of the U.S. shall come
into direct contact with the anim 1u
confined on the Concentrated # im I
Feeding Operation. Fences may be used
to restrict such access.
f. Wastewater retention facilities or
holding pens may not be located In the
100-year flood plain unless the facility
Is protected from Inundation and
( lamage that may occur during that flood
event.
g.Theresbalibenowaterquality
Impairment to public and neighboring
private 4rinklng water wells due to
waste hjt. dling at the permitted facility.
Facility wastawetar retention facilities,
holding pens or wastefwastewater
disposal sites shall not be located closer
to public or private water wells than the
distancee specified by State regulations
or health codes or State issued permits
for that facility.
h. Wastaltandling. treatment, and
management shall not result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
the a’itical,habitat of endangered or
threatened species, or contribute to the
taking of endangered or threatened
species of plant, fish or wildlife.
I. Waste handling, treatment, and
management shall not aeate an
environmental ore public health
hazard; shall not result in the
cont ininntioa of thinking water; shall
conform with State guidelines and/or
regulations for the protection of surface
water quality.
). Solids, sludges. manure, or other
pollutants removed in the course of
treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be disposed 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 contaminated
waters into waters of the United States
AU wsMe from dipping vats, peat and
parasite trol units, and ether
lltles utilized for the application of
potentially hazardous or tonic chemicals
shall be handled and disposed of In a
manner such as to prevent any
mgnifir iit pollutants from entering the
waters of the United States.
L Dead animal , shall be properly
disposed of within three (3) days unless
otherwise provided for by the Director.
ftnlmak shall be disposed of In a
manner to prevent contamination of
mirfacaweter,oftheUnitedfltatesor
oreate a public health hazard.
m. Cofletilon, 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 sernndary to the proper disposal of
waste and wastowater.
a. Appropriate measures necessary to
prevent spills and to clean up spiiis of
any tonic pollutant shall be
Where potential spills can occur
materials handling procedures and
storage shall be specified. Procedures
for cleaning up spills shall be identified
and the nsnmary equipment to
Implement a cleanup shall be available
to personneL
e. Special requirements for discharges
through municipal separate storm iewer
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. 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
rH chaige of the municipal separate
storm sewer system that receives the
CAFO facility’s discharge, provided the
operator of the CAPO has been notified
of such conditions.
2. Poilution Prevention Plans. A
pollution prevention plan shall be
developed for each facility covered by
this permit. Pollution prevention plans
ehall e prepared in accordance with
good exigineraring practices and should
include measures necessary to limit
pollutants in runoff The plan shall
descaibe and ensure the Implementation
of practices which aie to be used to
assure co nplianc. with the limitations
end conditions of this permit The plan
shall Identify a specific Individual(s) at
the facility who Is asp .sible for
developing the Implementation.
maintenance, and revision of the
pollution prevention plan. The activities
e

-------
7630
Fed&aL Register F VoL 58, No. 24- I Monday. February 8, 1993 / Notlost ’
and responsibilities of the pollution
prevention personnel should address all
aspects of the facility’s pollution
preventi on plan.
a. Where a Soil Conservation Service
plan 3 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 the
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 aiteria
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 1(21(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
application rate calculations in sections
1(2) (H) and (1).
b. Unless otherwise directed by the
peirnithng authortty Large facilities
(those with 1000 araimiil units or more)
shall have on site and implement a
Pollution Prevention Plan or its
equivalent within 385 days (1 year) of
the issuance date of this permit
Medium famlities (those with less than
1000 oni, l 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 date of this permit Small
facilities (those under 300 omrnjal 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
three (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 covered 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 sits
In aixorI encn with part NJ ). (Retention
‘S Wu Mana t Plans whlcb have bean
prepared .In January 1. 1955 aro nilded by
the Soil Consvwion S.wl to eontaân ad uat.
anag anL pr i. To Insure the prot.cUoa of
w1t qualLty. th Soil Cscaveaaa S.vlcs bar
d i i load tha S plans prepared prior to 19 59
m iii be ,answed with ths Soil Conarevedon
Sarvic. or wuto reao ant buiwe
n— ’ — 1995. SCS has d.anaslnsd thai .11 plani
áouid be ,e,1,wsd erwy Bye(s) ywe to Insure
pmp wana9anant at waat.
of Records) of this permit The plan
shall be updated as appropriate.
d. lithe 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 change. to the plan within
90 days after such notification unless
otherwise provided by the Director.
e. The permittee shall amend the plan
prior to any 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 pollution prevention plan proves to
be ineffective in achieving the general
objectives of controlling pollutants in
dlccharges from Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations. Amendments to the
plan may be reviewed by the Director or
authorized representative.
f. The plan shall include, at a
minimum, the following items:
(1) Descaption of Potentioi Pollutant
Sources. Each plan shall provide a
descuption 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 drainage
area of the concentrated animal feeding
area: each ex sting 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.
(Cl All existing sampling data.
(2) Waste Management Controls. The
Pollution Prevention Plan for each
facility shall include a desoription of
management controls approprrate for-
the facility, and the permittee must
implement such controls. The
appropriateness and priorities of any
controls shall reflect the Identified
sources of pollutants at the facility.
(A) Th. plan shall Include the
location and a desaiption of existing
structural and non-structural controls.
Structural controls shall be Inspected at
least four times per year for structural
Integrity and msint°nanc° 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:
(I) The runoff volume from open lot
surfaces plus
(ii) The runoff volume from areas
between open lot surfaces and the
retention facilities plus
(Iii) 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 amount
specified in the State Water Quality
Management Plan Including: (i) Volume
of wet manure that will enter pond plu.r
(2) volume of water used for rnanure/
waste removal plu.s (3) volume of
cleanup/washwater plus: (4) other water
such as drinking water that enters the
retention facilities.
Where ropnate, site specific
infor :a should be used to
deterr: etention capacity and land
applics n rates. All site specific
informi on used must be documented
in the Pollution Prevention Plan.
(C) Retention Facility Einbanlanents.
The plan shall Include a desciption of
the design standards for the retention
facility embaniments. The following
minimum design standards are required ‘
for construction and/or modification of
a retention facihlty 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 sIx inches thick and compacted at
optimum moisture content Site specific
variation In embankment consUucthrn
must be accompanied by compaction
testing, certification by a Professional
Engineer, or be In a rdance 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.
(D) Retention Facility Dewatering. The
plan must Include a schedule for liquid

-------
FerL.I Reg*star I VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 1993 1 Notir
7631
warn. removaL A dat, log fiwHa *4ng
weekly Inspection of wstswatey level
In retention facility. Inl 4 .Ihrg ep i 4 fi
measurement of wastewat level will
bekapt with the plan. 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 lagome for storage and
treatment of storm water, manure and
process generated wastewater, Including
flush water waste handling systems,
shall maintain In their wasieweter
retention facility sufficient freeboard to
contain rainfall and t inf ,ill runoff from
a 25-year rainfall event. The operator
shall restore freeboard for a 25-year
rainfall event after any r 1 lI event or
accumulation of wastes or process
generated westewater which reduces
such freeboard, weather permitting.
Equipment capable of dewatering the
wastewater retention structures of waste
and/or wastewater shall be available
whenever needed to restore the
freeboard required to accommodate the
rainfall and runoff resuLting from the 25-
year rainfall event
(E) A permanent marker (measuring
device) shall be maintained in the
wastowater retention llties to show
the volume required for a 25-year
rainfall event within the cont i? mont
ponds. The marker shall be visible from
the top of the levee.
(F) A rain gauge shall be kept on site
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 wutewater -
retention facility shall Insure that all
construction and design is in
accordance with good engineering
practices. Where site specific variations
are warranted, the permittee must
document these variations and their
appropriateness to the plan. Existing
facilities which have been properly
maintained and show no signs of
structural breakage will be considered to
be properly Constructed. Structures built
in accordance with site specific Soil
Conservation Service plans and
specifications 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 pian (numbers of
animals, runoff area, wutes generated.
‘c.). All retention structure deaf gu and
nstrectlon shall, at a mi ittI um. be In
cardance with the ‘ hnica1 standards
.ieveloped by the USDA Soil
Conservation Service. The permittee
must us thou. standards that we
current at the time of ruct1cm.
(10 IJn.rRequireriwnt. The permmftea
shall include In the plaii. site sped&
documentatlon that no dg i1 cnn1
hydrologic 0 niin 1 rH 0 . 4 ti between
the contained wastewater and surface
water, of the United States. Where the
permlttae ounnot doii,..snt that no
slpiflce*t hydrologic ‘r’
.through.ground water mists, the ponds.
lagoons and bii.4 e of th. retention
facilities must hay, a liner which will
prevent the potential contamination of
surface waters.
(i) Documentation of ? Liner
Requirement.. The pezmitt can
dov .tm t lack of hydrologic ‘ “ ou
by althen (1) D ’ wn ’itIng that there
will be no dgT1(fir nt Liakage from the
retention structure; or (2) dct i na tIng
that any l *k ge from the retention
structure would not migrate to surface
waters. This documentation should be
- certified by a Professional Fngrneer Cr
qualified groundwater scientist and
must include Information on the
hydraulic conductivity and thickeess of
the natural materials underlying and
forming the walls of the conI lnment
structure up to the wetted perimeter.
For documentation of no significant
leakage, in-situ materials must, at a
mii mnm, meet the minimum criteria
for hydraulic conductivity and
thickness described below.
Documentation that leakage will not
migrate to a surface water must include
maps showing ground water flow paths,
or thatthe leakage enters a confined
environment A written determination
by an S.CS engineer, a Professional
Engineer, or qualified groundwater
scientist tl t a liner is not needed to
prevent Leakage of significant amounts
of pollutants Into surface waters via
percheder ground waters will be
considered documentation that no
significant hydrologic connection mists.
111) liner Constru ction. Site-specific
conditions should be considered In the
design and construction of liners. Soil
Conservation Service liner requirements
or liners crmcDucted and maintained In
accordance with Soil CnI rvatIon
Service design specifications In
Technical Nate 710 (or Its current
equivalent) shall be considered to
prevent hydrologic connection which
could result In the cunt nini.tion of
surface waters. Liners for retention
structures should be constructed in
- accordance with good engineering
practices. Where no site-specific
assessment has been dons by a Soil
Conservation Service. Professional
Engineer, or qualified groundwater
scientist the liner shall be constructed to
have hydraulic amductivitian no greater
than ixir 7 em/eec. with a thlrb, of
1.5 feat or greetar or Its equivalency In
other materials.
(LU) Liner Maintenwum. Where a liner
La 4i **lliiij to j ivvviit hydrologic
conneri4on th. perurittee 5t m*4 tMhi
the liner to Inhibit Infiltration of
waatewatars. Liners shall be putuicted
from by or other
pr actIvs device.. No trees shall be
allowed to grow within the potential
dI tani . of the root ems. Any
mechanical or structural damage to the
liner will be evaluated by a Soil
Conservation Service engineer.
PrOfeermonal Engineer, or qualified
groundwater scientist within 30 days of
the Domimentallon of liner
maintenance shall be kept with the
Pollution Prevention Plan. The
permittee shall hay, 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 state or the Director that the
potential for the couit ,nI iat1on of
surface waters or drinking water, the
permittee shall Install a leak detection
system or monitoring wells In
aemrdancu with that notice.
Documentation of compliance 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 foythree
years with the pollution 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.
(I) Wastewaterfiemovoi and Land
Applicotion. 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, as well as, all factors used
In determining land application rates,
acreage, and crops. Laud application
rates must take into a unt the nutrient
contribution of any land applied
manures. If land application Is utilized
for disposal of wastewater. the following
requirements shall apply
(U The discharge or drainage of
Irrigated wastewaler is prohibited where
It will result in a discharge to water of
the US.
(ii) When liTigation disposal of
wastew4ler Is used, facilities shall net
exceed the nutrient uptake of the crop
co. g . or planned crop planting with
any Land application of wastewater and!
or manure. Land application rates of
wastawaters should be based on the
available nitrogen content. however,

-------
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 for 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 rAinf ill events (unles&to filter
wastewaters from retention structures
which are going to overflow directly to
a water of the U.S.).
(lv) liTigation practices shall be
m rni .ged so as to reduce or mlnimi,a
pending or puddling of wastewater on
the site, cou A ,ninatlon 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
facility 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 inigatlon
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 area shall be available for
removal of such waste and wastewater
as required to maintain the retention
capacity of the facility for compliance
with this permit
(viii) 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 orcause harm to
migratory birds. The operator shall
notify the appropriate fish and wildlife
agency in the event of any significant
fish, wildlile, or migratory bird!
iithngered species kill or die-off on or
near retention ponds or In field. where
waste has been applied, and which
could reasonably have resulted from
waste management at the facility.
( Ix) Where Land application sites me
Isolated from surface waters and no
potential eidsta for runoff to reach a
water of U.S., iippUcttto zstei 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.
(I) Manure and Pond Solids Handling
and Land Application. Storage and land
application of manure shall not cause a
discharge of significant pollutants to
waters of the United States or cause a
waterqualityviolatlonlnwateraof the
United States. At all times, sufficient
volume shall be maintained within the
control facility to accommodate manure,
other solids, wastewatars and rain
waters (runoff) from the concentrated
inlmiil feeding areas.
(I) Where the erm1ttee decides to
land apply manures and pond solids
that plan shall Include: (1) a desciption
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. 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
cop uptake and provide controls for
runoff and erosion as appropriate for
site conditions,
(Ii) If the waste (manure) Is sold or
given to other persons for disposal, the
perinittee must maintain a log o date
of removal from the feedlot; name of
hau1er and amount, In wet tons, dry
ions 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
premittee must make available to the
hauler any nutrient sample analysis
from that year.
(Ill) 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.
(c) 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.off) of waste from
the application site Is prohibited.
Timing and rate of applications to shall
be response to cop needs, assuming
usual nutrient losses, expected
precipitation and soil conditions.
Ce) Dispolal 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 In 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.
U) 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
particle.. 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 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.
(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 prev ñtative
maintenance was done. A preventive
maintenance program shall involve
inspection and maintenance of all
runoff management devices (cleaning
separators catch basins) as well as
Inspectin 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 Training. Where
employees are 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 Register / Vol 58, No. 24 I 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 appropriate such as land
application of wastes, proper operation
and maintenance of the lIty, good
housekeeping and material m*n gement
practices, necessary recordke.ping
requirements, and spill response and
clean up. The permitlee Is responsible
for deter”4ning the appiupdate training
frequency for different levels of
personnel and the pollution prevention
plan shall identify periodic dates for
such training.
(6) Inspection and Recoivikieping.
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
recordkeeping.
(A) Record keeping arid internal
Repoiting Procedures. Incidents 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 Truinfenance
activities shall be documented and -
recorded. These records must be kept on
site for a mii ITnum of three years.
(B) Visual Inspections. Th. 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.
(CJ 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 descilptlon 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.
Ramrds of Inspections shall be
maintained fora period of three years.
3. OtherLegalRequbements.No
onditlon of this permit shall release the
ierssittee from any responsibility or
requirements under other statutes or
regulations, Federal, Stat. or local.
PartlY. Monitoring and Reporting
Requhimsats
A. Discharge Notification
If, forany reason, there Is adlechaige
to a water of the U.S.. the permfttee Is
required to make verbal notification to
at (214) 655—6593. and to notify the
Director and the State In writing within
14 workIng days of the discharge from
the retention facility. In addition the
.permlttee shall document the following
Information to the pollution p vvudofl
plan wIthin 14 days of becoming aware
of such discharge:
1. A deecnIptlOn and came of the
discharge, Including a desoription of the
flow path to the receiving water body.
Also, an estimation of the flow and
volume dL.rhuvged.
2. 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.
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
permitting authority: Large facilities
(those wIth 1000 anImal units or more)
shall sample and analyze all discharges
from retention facilities. Medium
fadiltibs (those with less than 1000
animal unitabut with 300 ormore) shall
sample and analyze all discharges, but
at a maximum required frequency of
oncelyear. Small facilities (those under
300 nimuI units which have been
designated by the Director as a point
souzceI shall sample and analyze all
discharges, but at a maximum required
frequency of once per permit term.
Sample analysis shall be documented to
the Pollution Prevention Plan.
5. Samples shall r n*Ict of ab
samples taken from the over-flow or
discharges from the retention structure.
A mlnh,tum of one sample shall be
taken from the initial discharge (within
30 minutes). The sample shall be taken
end analyzed in accordance with A
approved methods for water analysis
listed In 40 (YR part 136. Measurements
taken for the purpose of monitoring
shall be representative of the monitored
discharge.
6. Sample analysis of the discharge
must, at a in mum. include the
fOUOWIDW Focal Coliform bacteria; 5.
day Biosheinical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5); Total Suspended Solids (TSS);
ammonia nitrogen: and any pesticide
which the operator has reason to believe
could be in the discharge.
7. Sampling Waiver. In lieu of
dIscharge sampling data the permittee
must document desmiptlon of why
discharge samples could not be
collected when the dIrh ,ger is unable
to collect samples due to climatic
conditions which prohibit the collection
of samples including weather
conditions that aeate dangerous
conditions for personnel (such as local
flooding, high winds, hurricane,
tornadoes, electrical storms, etc.). Once
dangerous conditions have passed, the
perrnfttee shall collect a sample born
the retention structure pond or lagoon.
The sample shall be analyzed in
rdance with Part W.A.6. & 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
Penalties for Folsification of Reports
The Act provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any
record or other document submitted or
required to be maintained under this
permit. including reports of compliance
or noncompliance shall, upon
conviction be punished by a fine of not
more than 510.000 per violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than six
months per violation, or by both.
D. 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
extended by request of the Director at
any time. -
& Availability of Reports
In addition to data determined to be
confidential under 40 (YR 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 further notice. As required by
the Act, however. Notices of Intent.
permits. the eflluent data shall not be
considered confidential and any eisiim
of confidentiality for this information
will be denied.
F. Planned Changes
The p&rmfttee shall document to the
Pollution Pr,, tIon Plan as soon as
possible, any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted
facility. The perinitte. must Insure that
any change or facility expansion will

-------
7 4
FaJ .l Rag I Vol. . No. 24/ Monday. Fel uaiy 8, i99 / No’4t
not result In a discharge In , iolatlnn of
this permit.
G. Doiyto Provide Infonnation
The nlttee shall furnish to the
Director, withIn a rea ishl , din., any
Infinination which the Director may
ieqn at to determine compliance with
this permit. The perniittee shall ala.
iiiii.ht the Director, upon requeat.
cepain of records required to be kept by
this permit.
IL Other Information
When the permitte. b ”° , aware
that he failed to submit any relevant
facts or submitted Incorrect Information
in the Notice of Intent or in any other
n to theDirector. he shall promptly
submit such facts or information.
L Signator,rRequfrrments
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 opezator/
manager where the authority to sign
documents has been assigned or
delegated to the operntarlnanager.
a. For facilities owned by a
corporation: by a ra pu sible corporate
officer. For the purpose of this permit,
a responsible corporate officer means
a president asciutary. tteasnmr. or vice
president of the corporation in charge of
a prindpal boniness function, or any
other person who puifiuia.is i n liie
policy- or decision-making functione for
the corporation.
b. For a Facilities owned by a
parthership or sole proprietorshlp by a
general partheror the proprietor.
respectively.
c.Forfoczl lt leeawnedbya
municipality, State. Federal. or other
public agency: by either a priraipal
executive officer or r rnkIng elected
Off;rlR l
2. All reports required by the permit
and other Information reqonsted by the
Director shall be signed by a
desaibed above orby a duly authermned
repment ’w of that per . A p .
Is duly au*kn, d only if
the authorization La made In writing by
a person dueaiho above, and the
authorization spectfles either en
Individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation.
3. Caitificrztion. Any person gmng a
document under this section shall make
the following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
iI , .rum.nt end eli at ests yr. prepared
under my direction er ’. .61 ... . In
withs . I.w des1 sed to newv
that qualified , ---- I p. ...,..I , gathered
and sv.bot.d liuu .iim n imd.
Based on my teqithyof the . —-. or pen ”
who rnAfl gll the system, or those persona
directly responsible for gathering the
In nnation, the In msdon .u tted Is, to
the be. of my knowladgaind bslisL une.
w .,,.M , and p]ate. I on a s that there
ma eIrIR t tles for submittiag f iles
Information. Including the po .Thilh!y of fine
and tmprtomment for knowing vtolattans.
Part V.. SlaaI d Requirsenesto
A. DutytoCornply
The peimittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Act and Is rounds for
enforcement ectlon for lose of
authorization to discharge under this
general permit or fur denial of a permit
renewal application.
B. Inspection and Entry
The permittee eh.ll allow the
Director, or an authorized repreeentatlve
of EPA Including the Stat., upon the
preeantatlon cfaedantials end other
documents as may be required by law,
to:
1. Enter upon the permittee’s
premise. where a regulated Jity or’
activity is locetod or arnthrcterl, or
where records roust be kept wvI the
conditions of this permit
2. Have ør ea to and copy . at
reasonable any that mrnt
be kept underthaconditions of this
p jt
3. inspect at r anable times soy
facilities. eqrnpmu .ut (Including
monitoring and control equipmentl.
practices, or operations regulated or
required nuder this permit and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, fiw the purpose of Meuting permit
complia or U otherwise authorized
by the Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
C. Toxic Pollutants
peimittes shall pIy with
effluent standards of prohibitions
estsi liuh d under a ion 307(a) of the
Act w tosic pollutants within the time
provided In the regulations that
establish these standards or
priihlh t4aes, oven if the permit has not
yet been , ,w .4ifiAd to Inanporet. the
requirement
0. Penalties for Violation of Permit
Conditions
The Act provides that any peman who
violates a permit ditiun
impis .’.enthrg nections 302. 302. 306.
307,306. 31 , or 405 of the Act Is
subject to cclvii penalty not to
$25,000 per day for h violation. Any
person wh, willfully or negligently
violates permit wltd4ms
Imp’— ’—-fl’l sectIons 301,302.308.
307,308, 3t8, or 405 of the Act, or say
permit condition or limu1iuth n is subject
to a fine of not less then $2,500, nor
morn than S .000 per day of violation.
or by imp” ” nt r not more than
one year. or both.
B. Continuation of the Expired General
An expired general permit continues
In force and eBect m i i i a new general
permit is issued.
P NeedbHaItarReduceAciivityNot
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.
C. Duly to Mitigate
The permitine il teke all
reasni ble psto mI’iini4 or prevent
any discharge in violaikic of this permit
which has a re uuabLe likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
IL Proper Operation and Maintenance
The pev . e shall at all dine.
properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtevrnnres)
which are 1n tafled or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit. Proper
operation arid maintenance Includes the
operation of ba . .i uy or mudliary
facilities or similar 5y,in s only when
necessary to achieve compliance with
the condiliêis olthe permit.
I. Penoities for Falsijication o.f
Monitoring Systems and Reports
The Act provides that any perom who
falsifies. ta.aq with, or knowitinfy
renders i ”nte any inmitoring
device or method required to be
maintained under this permit shalL
upon conviction, be punished by fines
and Imprisonment dasaibed In Pert
V.D. (Penalties lot ViolaUoa of Permit
Conditions) of this parinit
J. Property Rights
‘I m isr. m alibis permit does nor
convey and property rights of any soil.
or any exclusive privileges. nor does it
euthorize any injusy to privat, property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any Infringement of Federal, State or
local laws or regulations.
£ Severability
The provisions of this p,nwi ( ma
severable, arid If any provision of this

-------
Feder,] Register / Vol. 58. No. 24 1 Monday, February 8, 1993 / Notices
7635
permit. or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
drcumslance, Is held invalid, the •
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this permit. shall oct be affected
thereby.
L State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the inst itution of
any legal action or relieve the perozinee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant teeny
applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of
the Act.
M. Permit Actions
This 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 noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition
Part VI. Reopener Cause
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 sthngant
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.
Part ‘ 11. Definition.
25- Yecr 24-Hour i wnfcll Ei ent means
tAc maidmum 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 slate rainfall
probability information developed
therefom.
Agmnozmc iiotes means the land
appL-cation of anunai wastes at rates of
application which provide the cop or
forage ‘owth with needed nutrients for
optimum health and growth.
.knimal feeding operation means a lot
or !acili!y (other than an aquatic animal
production facility) where animals have
been. are, or will be stabled or cor.fined
and fed or maintained for a total of 45
days or more in any 12-month period,
and the animal confinement areas do
ot sustain cops, vegetation, forage
rowth, or post-harvest residues in the
:ormsl growing season. Two or more
annual feeding operaticns under
:cznmon ownership a.-e a single animal
feeding operetlon 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 feeJing
operation calculated by adding the
following numbers: The number of
slaughter and feeder cattle and dairy
beifers multiplied by 1.0, plus the
number of mature dairy cattle -
multiplied by 1.4, plus the number of
twine weighing over 55 pounds
mulplplied by 0.4, plus the number of
sheep multiplied by 0.1, plus the
number of horses multiplied by 2.0.
1000 imiil units will refer to oup a.
in definition number 8.300 Animel
units (but less than 1000) will refer to
group b. In definiflon number 8.
Best Available Technology (“BAr’)
means the best available technology
which is economically achievable
established under 301(b) and 402 of the
Act. The criteria and standards for
imposing technology-based treatment
requirements are listed in 40 O?R 125.3.
Best Conventional Technology
(“5Cr”) means the best conventional
poll tant control technology which is
economically achievable established
under 301(b) and 402 of the Act. The
criteria and standards for imposing
technology-based treatment
requireprents are listed in 40 G’R 125.3.
Best Management Practices ( “& f Ps”)
means schedules of activities,
prohibition’s of practices, maintenance
procedures. and other management
practices to prevent or’ reduce the
pollution of “waters of the United
States” , Best Management Practices also
include treatment requirements,
operating p ’ccedures, and practices to
control site runoff, spillage or leaks.
sludge or waste disposal, or drainage
from raw’snaterial storage.
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation means an “animal feeding
operation” which meets the a’iter.a in
40 (7R 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:
e. New and existing operations wh ch
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. 1,000 slaughter or feeco’ cattle:
2. 700 mature dairy cattle Iwliethe , milkers
or d i v cows):
3. 2.500 swine eighmg over 55 pour .cs;
4 500 horses;
5. 10,000 sheep or lambs,
6. 55,000 rirkeys;
7,100,000 layIng hens or broilers when the
facility has unlimited continuou, flow
watasing systems:
0. 30.000 laying hens or broilers when
facility has liquid manure handling system;
9.5,000 ducks or
10. 1,000 . nhnhi units from a combinaticn
of slaughter’ steers and heifer,, mature dairy
cattle, swine over 55 pounds end sheep;
b. New and existing operation. which
i 4 ip -Jwp pollutants into navigable
waters either through a man-made ditch,
fiuAhb g system, or other similar man-
made device, or directly into waters of
the United States, and which stable or
‘ ‘ “e and feed or maintain for a total
of 45 days or more In any 12.month
period more than the numbers or types
of animnk in the following categories:
1.300 slaughter or feeder cattle:
2.200 mature dairy cattle (whether milkers
or dry cows);
3.750 swine weighing over 55 pounds;
4. 150 horses:
-5. 3,000 sheep or lambs;
6. 16.000 turkeys;
7.30.000 laying hens or broilers when the
fadlity has unlimited continuous flow
watering , s;
8.9,000 laying hens or broilers when the
facility has a liquid manure handling svsIe ;
9.1,500 ducks:or
10,300 AnimAl mits (from. combination
of slaughter steers and heifer,, mature dairy
cattle, swine over 55 pounds and sheep).
Provided, however, that no animal
feeding operation is a concentrated
animal feeding operation as defined
above if such animal feeding operation
discharges only in the event of a 25.
year, 24-hour storm event.
Control Facility means any systern
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.
Environmental Review means the
process whereby an evaluation of the
environmental information provided ty
the permit applicant is underiakthr by
EPA to identify and evaluate the related
environmental impacts to determine if
there will be a significant impact to the
anvironment from the new fac lily (40
G’R 6,101(c)).
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 pouut-y
are fed at the place of confinement and
a-op or forage growth or production is
not sustained in the area of
confinement, and is subject 1o40 CFR
part 412.
Groundwater means any subsu.-face
waters.
Hydrologic Connection means the
interfiow and exchange between suiface

-------
F.d.i 1a I VoL 58. No. 24 / M ay, Fe tazy I, 19 3 I No1
-bnpoundsnentsand w .r
through an underground ono doror
groundwater. In the conteat of this
permit. the reduction of bythologic
connection Is to reduco the groundwater
flow contact resulting In the tr ’uf ’ of
pollutant rnatenals from Concontrated
ArthmiI Fa.iding Operation i inmant
structures Into surface waters.
Lond Application means the removal
of wastewatel’ end solids from a
amtrol fadlity end distribution to. or
incorporation into, the soil mantis
primarily for disposal purposes.
Liner means any barrier In the form of
a layer, mesnbren. or blanket. Installed
to prevent a significent h, dr 1ogic
connection between liquià contained
In retention strectmea end waters of the
United States.
P, Wontewat means any
process generated wastewater directly or
Indirectly used In the operation of a
feediot (such as spillage or overflow
from animal or poultry watering
systems; washing, cleaning. or flushing
pens. hams. manure pita. direct i fmt*rt
swimming, washing, or spray ‘ noling of
animals. end dust control3 and any
prompitation 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 ani nati
or poultry or direct product. e.g.. milk.
69 3 etenLkm Facility or R anLfon
Structures fi col action di r4
conduits and swales for the coIIw i1nn of
runoff and wastewater. and all beein-t .
ponds and lagoons used to store wastas.
wastewatars and manures.
Severe Property Damage means
suk ’. iiiiI..l phyarral ili .mi . to property.
damege to the treatment 1ifi .. which
ceuses th o m to bus
subat.nHmt and permanent of
natural resosarses which con
beexpactedtaoutheah.-umof
a bypass. Savers property damage does
not mean nounlc Lou ‘ “ d by
delays in production.
Tile Ad the Federal Waler
Pollution Control Act as ,wlad . also
known as the Uean Water Act, found at
33 U.S.C. 1232 etseq.
Toxic Poll utox&ts moan any pnlliitenf
listed as to,dc under section 307(aXl) of
theAct. -
QuaL (fled Gmendwatez Sdantfcf
means a scientist or engineer who has
received a barcelaureate or post-
graduate degree In natural sciences or
engineering and has sufficient training
and experience In groundwater
hydrvlo ’ and related fields as may be
demonstrated by state registration.
professional certification, or completion
of a editod university programs that
enable that individual to make sound
professional Judgments regarding
groundwater monitoring, contamination
fate and transport, and action
(40 G’R 25g.so(fD.
Appendix A—Stats Specific Permit
Language for the Stats of New Mexico
This NPDES permit Is intended to protect
surface wateus resourom that are “waters at
the United Slates” from contamination
resulting from wu cntrated . .1 faedlng
operations thrcogh either surface of
subsuz convvyanca. This permit Is oot
intended to protect ground we resources
from con’.’”’ ”dee. Compliance with this
permit dess not absolv, the permittee from
the need to comply with New Mexico Water
Quality Control Commission Regulations for
the protection of ground water. For
Informaden on these stet, regulations please
contact new Mexico Rnvlronment
DSPS saL andsesterFrJ- and
RemedlatlonBugess. P.O. 3on 26110. Lute
F.. New U 4I!I 875w erall 5Q5
Stola Speci) Fermi Lesguep frth. —
o/Ok
Part LC. LL . .llatk , .is on The
blowing point source discharges are ant
authorized by this general peimll
7. “New” Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation, m..uctng alter the
efLth 5 date of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards (Oklahoma Annotated
Cod. Till. 783, ( apter 45J . e ct1ve
lens 25. 1902) to the fallow
“ -I— —
I, Wssabod ’ iarJ—d.s “Outstanding
Ruource Waters” and/or “Scenic
Rivers” In Appendix A of the Oklahoma
Water Quality Stendazth
b. Oklahoma wetarhodies ocatad within
the wa&ertherfa of waterbodies
designated as “ ‘i . Rivers” in
Appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards: and
c, Waterbodles located within the
boundaries of OU huwa Water Quality
Standards Aj,p . . ..dix B areer which are
specifically deei mlud ar “Outstanding
Resource Waters” Ii Ap w .Alv A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
Sto le Speafic J rznt Language/or the State
of Texas
Patti ’ !.
A, Discharge Notification. if, for any re .
there Lea dAndrarge. the permitte. te
requirudtonodiythe Directoria wrati
withIn 14 daysoitha discharge horn the
retention facility, Written notification of
discharges from retention structures to
waters of the U.S. shall be reported to the
State within five (5) workIng days. In
addition the permittee shall document
the following Information to the
palliation 1 ,.wvi .tlOQ plan w in 14 days
o 3 r ” nIag aware c i such discharge:
eai.en coot =

-------
F I aI Ra d I VoL No. 241 Monday, Fe u y I , &99 I N
APPENDXX B
NOTICE OF INTENT (NOl) to be Covered by
the General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
This notification shall riot be made to EPA. Region 6 if prohibited
from coverage under Part l.C.. of this permit.
Name and Address of Faciirty Cinclude County or Parish):_________
Telephone Number:
Nac e of Operator:
Address and Telephone Number of Owner (if different):_____
hzr bers and Type(s) of ani;als confined at the facility (e.g.
feeder pigs dairy cows, etc.):______________________________
r:zal acreaqe occupied by the facility:
z tude and Longitude Locatio of th Facility:
LATITUDE ____ degrees ____ minutes ____ seconds
LONGITUDE ____ degrees ____ minutes ____ seconds
Feceiving stream (if known): -
it3te Permit Number (if applicable):
Signature:
gnature must be in accordance with Date Signed
par: I .’.I of the General Permit

-------
7638 T.&il Raglitar I Vol 58. No. 24 1 Mrinday. February 8. 1993 I Notices
NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT)
NPDES Permit Number:________________________________________
State Permit Number (if applicable):
Date NOl was submitted: _____________________________________
Name and Address of Facility (include County or Parish):_____
Telephone Number: _____________________________________________
Name of Operator:_
The following information is required only if changes have been
made 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 by the facll.Lty:
r..at.tude and Longitude ocat .on of the Fac .lty:
____ decrees ____ ni utes seconds
r..cuc:T Dz ____ degrees ____ ni.nutes ____ seconds
Receiving Stream if known):
Reason for the termination of permit coverage:
(Add attached sheets if necessary.)
Siqr 1 ac..ire:
S gna: ..re -u5: be ...n 3c rlanc3 Data signed
Pert :..: : : e er.era.. —..:.

-------
F.d.rs 8a I VoL 58, No.241 M fay, Fe u iry 9, 1993! Notices 7639
APPE)IDIX C
BASIC FORMAT FOR ENVTRONMENTM ASSESSMENT
This is e 5asic format for the Environmental Assessment prepared by EPA Region 6 from
the review of the applicant’s Environmental Information Document (EID) required for new
source NPDES permits. Comprehensive information should’be provided for those items or
issues that are affected; the greate,,r the-impact, the more detailed information needed. The
EID should contain a brief statement addressing each item listed below, even if the item is
not applicable. The statement should at feast explain why the item is not applicable.
A. General Information
1. Name of applicant
2. Type of fad
3. Location of facility
4. Product manufactured
B. Description Summaries
I. Describe the proposed facility and construction activity
2. Describe all ancillary construction not 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
I. Historical and Archeological (include a statement from the State Historical
Preservation Officer)
2 - Wetlands Protection ana 100-year Floodplain Managemem (the Army Corps of
Engineers must be cont4cted if any wetland area or floodplain is affected)
3. Agricuitural Lands ca pnrp; farmland statement from the Soil Conservation
Service must be included)
3. 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, fauna!, aquatic resources, inventories and effects
S. Community Infrastructures available and resulting effects: social, economic.
health, safety, educational. recreational. housing. transportation and road
resources

-------
7640 . Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 24 / Monday, ‘ February 8, 1993 / Notices
BASIC ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT GUIDELINES
FOR NE\ SOURCE CTEGORY INDUSTRIES - EPA REGION 6
General Iniormation
A. Name of Applicant and Proposed Faciht
B
C
Des riptior
o( Site and
Location
Description
o Proiect.
Produ c
and Process:________________________________

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 24 / Monday, Febiuaxy 8. 1993 / Notice.
APPENDIX D
•CONTACTS AND REFERENCE MATERIALS
To report kills r a ter në mpacts on endangerea or threatened species,
contact the F sn and Wildlife Service Office nearest you that is listed below:
F inn & Service
7841
Regional Office
500 Gold Avenue. SW
P.O. Box 1305
Albuquerque, NM 87103
(5051 766—2914
Field Office
3530 Pan American Highway NE
Suite 0
Albuquerque. NM 8710’
(505) 883—7877
Field Of f ce
711 Stadium Drive East
Suite 252
Arlington, TX 76011
(817) 885—7830
Field Office
611 East 6th Street
4th Floor
Aust n,. TX 78701
(512) 482—5436
.ou si.ana Coo;erat..ie Extension..
Se r i e
State -:er :y
K! app 9ail
3a:; o ge. LA !C2—9C3
,!C., !8—6 9!
:oui.siana Department of
Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge. LA 70884—2215
(504) 765—0585
Louisiana Department of Agriculture
and Forestry
P.O. Box 94302
Baton Rouge. LA 10804_9302
iEC4 ) 22—l224
sc.,. C:r.servac.. .or Ser: ce
S. ecart—ent :f Acr.:...ture
::‘ errre’ t Street
A..exar.orta. LA 32
Field Office
17629 El Camu o Real
Suite•2 11
Houston, TX 77058
(713) 286—8282
Field Office
do Corpus Chri.ti.
Campus Box 338
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, TX
(512) 888—3346
Field Office
222 South Houston, Suite A
Tulsa, OK 74127
(918) 581—7458
Field Office
825 Caliste Saloom
Brandywi.ne I I, Suits 102
Lafayette, LA 70508
3l8) 264—6630
New Mexi:o Cooperative Extension
Service
New Mexico State University
P.O. Box 3AE
..as C: .ces, lii 88003
,505 6—64O4
New hex co, Environment Department
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
(505) 827—2850
New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Box 30005, Department 3189
Las Cruces, MM 88003—0005
(505) 646—3007
Soil Conservation Service
U. S. 3epartr%ent of Agriculture
: ‘ Go d Avenue SW, Room 3301
A1buauer ue. NM 97102-3157
•5CEj —:173
State University
78412
Louis i ana
ForGenera1 Information and Reference Materials, please contact the
-appropr ate State Agency listed below:
New Hex 3.CO

-------
7 1Z
F.dui. Le.L F VoL 5S, Mo. 211 M day, Februaiy 8, 1g I N’atfe
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Cooperat..ve £x:ens .on
Serv ce
Oklahoma State Dnivere .ty
214 Agr .cuLt tai a11
Sti.llwater, OK 74078—0469
(405) 744—5425
Oklahoma Departnent of Agr .cult ire
2800 N. L .ncoLn Blvd.
Oklahoma C .ty. OK 73105—4298
(405) 521—3864
Oklahoma Conservat .on COIIIJ .sSLOn
2800 N. Nincola Blvd., Room 160
Oklahoma City, OK 73105 -
(405) 521—2384
Soil Cortservat ion Service
U.S. Department of AgrLculture
USDA Agricultural Center Bldg.
St .lLwar. . r , OK 74074
1405) . —4488
Texas Aqr .ccZt ral Ex’tens .on 5erv .ce
Texae A 6 II Uzu.vers .ty
303 Aqr ctzlt ra1 Enq neerinq Bldg.
College Station. T C 77543—17’
(409) 845—7451
Texas Water CommJ.ssLOn
Agri.cultural Sect Lon
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711—3087
t512) 475—4573
Texas Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 12847
MaatLn, TX 78711
(512) 463—7476
Texas State Soil and Water
Conservat .on Board
311 North 5th
Temple, TX 76503
(817) 772—2250
So .1 ConservatLon Servtce
U. S. Department of Agr cu1t’4re
v.P. Poage Bldg.
101 5. Ma .n Street
Temple, TX 76501—7682
917) 774—1261
Following is a t .st of avai lable sources for reference matertal cn proper
operations and ma2.ntenance of concentrated anunal feeding eperat .ons. Also
Lncluded are sources for reference of preferred management pract .ces as
recogni.:ed by the agr .culturai ndustry.
GENERAL REFERENCES
‘ :at onaL !r eer Handbook Part 651, Agri.c ltural Waste Management F .e1d
! an4book (1992) P.O. Box 2890. as ) ngton, D.C. 2CC12.
ves’ k .ns e ac i.. .es !4ar dbook . MPWS—8. £x:er s .cn AgrLc 1:.1ral Eng ieer
, 5, Jn . -ierc:t ct . 5so .rr:, C moia. MO 6 ....
STANDARDS 1992. Standprds !ncineerit Prcczces and Data , 39th ! it&on (299Z)
Amer .can Sec .ety of Agr .cuLturaZ Eng .neers. 2950 N .les Road. St. Joseph, Z I
49085—9659.
25 Year. 24 Wour Ra .nfaL1 1nchg) , Techrn cal Paper 40. Uru.ted States
Department of Commerce. Weather Bureau, Wastr ngton. D.C.
LAND APPL.IcAr:oN
AnLmal Waste Ut 1 zar on an Cropland and Pastureland, LB. Shuyler (1979).
USDA Jt l zat on Research Report rIo. 6, Wash .ngton, D.C.
Ar.ma.. Waste t l :ac cr. ry Cc LarT an Past jreLar.d. 2. S. EnvLr nmental
?te :..cn Agency t9 ,. £PA- -X,- — D5?. J.S. Governrnent Pnw af ce,
Was D.C.
Texas
REFERENCE MATERIALS

-------
Federal Ragirter I Vol. 58. No. 24 I Monday. February 8, 1q93 / Notices 7643
Swine .agoon Effluent Appl .ed to Coastal Berinudagrass: I. Forage Yield,
Qual ty, and Element mova1 , ’ J.C. Burns, P.W. Westerman, ..D. King, O.k.
C znninqs, M.R. Overcash .G ode U985). Journal of Environrnental Quality,
14:9—14.
Eec:.ve es9 of Fcres: and Grass 3uffer Strips in Irproving the Water
Q a1 ty of Marure Polluted Runoff,’ P.C. oyle. G.S. Stanton (1977). ASk.!
Paper 77—2501, St. osepr., MI 49085.
Corn rcwth a o Co rposition n.Relation to Soil Fertility: Il. Uptake of N.
P and and the r D1stribu ?on n Different Plant Parts Dur ng the Growing
Season,” J.J. Manaway (19€ ). Agren. Journal 54:217—222.
Chan;es n the Physical Properties of Soil y Fertilizer ard Manure
Application,” .D. 3iswae. B.M. Ingole and LX. Jha (1969). Fertilizer News.
‘Jol. 14, No. 7, pp. 23—26.
Zn mal Waste Util.:aticn on Cropland and Pastureland. A Manual for
va..uat . .on Agrcr.omic and environmental Effects,” United States Department of
Agr cul:ure (1979). Sci. and Educ. Mm. Utit. Res. Rep. 6.
Ste Seiect cn as e1ated to Ut li:at on and Disposal of Organic Wastes,”
J.!. Witty, LW. Flach (1977). erican Soc ety of Agron., Soils for
ace e—t ! Or a .e wastes ar. Wastewaters , Chapter 1 .
AS: ’E c )eAaAC E :s::cS
“Soil Nutrient Content of Manures n an Arid Climate,” R.M. Azrirgton. C.!.
Pacne* i1980). Proceedings of Fcurtn International Sr osd on Agr cultural
waste, Amarillo, ‘exas. -
“I.i es:oc* Waste Charac:erizat on-a New Approach,” C.L.Barth l1985).
ricultural Was:e Ut.1:azion and Management, Proceedings of the Fifth
cterna: onal 5y r.pcs n of Agrtcult ral Wastes, ASkS, St. Jcsepn, MI. p. 266.
ve ao1e utr eits n ivestock Waste, P.W. Western an, L.M. Safley, Jr.,
:.c. Sarker, G.M. C escre r. I (195E). Agr cu1tura1 Waste ! t.1 :at on ar.d
arace en :. Proceethn s cf e_F f:h : zer atonal S pcsium of gricultural
—as es , AS , 5:. :cse n, MI, p. 85.
.. EE J GE’- ’E:. C E!
eçe:a:..:e s: rsa:—er: :f airy Wase..a:er, ’
C. r re ta. Q..a...:y, .2:446—451.
:a::.e ee:..:: aE:E ‘iar .a;e rer: ?:..c ..:eE for .Ja:er and ..: Pcl ”
::nt::1. ” : . ‘i. £ e :e ,:95C;. ;exas Acr.. ultural Ex:ersi i Ser:..ce,
C-—.
I
..:: Mar..re .far dl..rg Systeirs ar.o £c —e :, :. .. . Si..eete ” 1 29E3;. ?e as
r:..lt..ral ixters ci Service. 3-. 446.
Ccnt:c.t !or Da...ry Farrs, ” Dr. S .eete’, l9E). exas
!x:er scn Service. 3— 5 .
-: e ‘ a-a ee : S,a:e . ECS C -se:.a:..cn Prac:..ce S .a’ card. C:ce
iS . Ji. .:eo !ta:es :epa::ne—: f grcult ..re. SCal C se:ation Scrn.cc.
• i •: n. .C.
5CC ::nse: r: .c9 !ta’ ard. C ce 3:E :
-..:c £ .:e: ar —er: : £c : ser:at .o’ S€r- .. e.
S
•

-------
! iI .l la Ii r I Vol. 58, No. 24/ Monday. Februazy 8, 1.993 1 tJof ’
“Fencing.” SCS C aaveri.on Pract..ce Standard, Coda 382 (L98G . United States
Department of kgr ciaLt .ire. Soi. Conservation Service, Washington. D.C.
Waste Storage Structure,” SCS Conservation Practice Standard, Code 313
(1980). United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.
4 Fi.lter Strip.” SCS Cor.servat on Practice Standard, Code 393 (1982 . Uo.itsd.
States Department of Agriculture. Soil conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
“Pond Sealing or Lining.” SCS Conservation Practi Standard, Coda 521 1gP4
United States Department of Agriculture. 5 il Conservation Stvice.
Washington. D.C.
“Waste Treatment Lagoon..” SCS Conservation Pra tics Standard, Code 359 I9S4I.
Uniteä States Department of Agriculture. Soil. Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.
Diversion,” SCS Conservation Pract.j .ce Standard.. Coda 362 i9a5 . anited
States Department of Agriculture. Soil. Conservation Service, Washington. D.C.
Guide on Design. Operation and. Management of An.a.erohic Lagoons.” ‘schru.cal
Note Ser. 711, SNTC elses). Uni .t.ad States Department. of Agricu.Itu.re. SoiL
Conservation Serv ce, Uashingtor . D.C.
“Interim Engineering Standard for Swine and Poultry Disposal Pit.” S LTC
(1987). United States Department of Agriculture. Sot ]. Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.
“:nterus Standard for Dead Poultry Composting,” (1989).: United States
Department of Agriculture. Soil. Conservation Service. Auburn. Alabama.
“Design and Ccnst.rnctioe Guidal.a.nas for Considering Seepage from Agricu.Ltura.l
Waste Storage Ponds and Tre.armen.x. lagoons.” eehni. .cal. Note Set. 716 l99D).
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, Fort
Wcrth, Texas.
REFERE? C!S FOR O1 L.AHOMA
Oka r a Soil Fert..l..tv !andbock . 1st !d .ti.on i97). Oklahoma State
r..e:s.:y C:ope;ative xtens. n Sern. e .n tera:.:n . .‘.: ‘ t. e Ok.L .a.r.cr a
?:ar.: Fooc dca:i n Soc.ety.
“0k.a :ma Fac:s: .and A p1..cat..on. o .. .ves:ock. Manure.” Fact sheet C.
Oclanoma State lnivers..ty Cooperati e Exter.s on Service.
Oklahema facts: OSU Sci.1 Test. CaLi . rattons, Eec: Sheet. 2225. Oklahoma
State niversa.ty Cooperative Extension Service.
est ck ste Fac L.t es MW?S—18.. Yidwest Plan Service. Iowa.
state Jr.tversity, Ames, Iowa SCUll.
REFERENCES FOR TEXAS
“25 Year. 24 Hour Rainfall (Inches),” Technical Paper 40. United States
Department of C er:e. Wea er B4resu.. Washington. D.C.
St:ra;e ?er.oo . . ‘ ays. - e ar 4ater eieL:pment 3card. Report &o.
... .; .s:..—, exas.
?.. - :ff : - s. :: er compex Pr cnsses.
•:at _ , . eor rn 3e—:_:’ .,, Jn.:eo States Decartment of
-e. ..asr..’;t:n. .c.
(FR Dec. 93-1050 PlIed 2-6-03: &45 am)

-------
6964
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 21 / Wednesday, February 3, 1993 / Notices
Applicant: Reichhold Chemicals. Inc.
Chemical: (C) Polyurethane
prepolymer.
Vise: (C) Adhesive component.
Import Volume: Confidential.
Number of Customers: Confidential.
Worker Exposure: Confidential.
Test Marketing Period: Confidential.
Risk Assessment: EPA 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-43 -7
Date of Receipt: December 7, 1992.
Close of Review Period: January 20,
1993. The extended comment peiiod
will close February 18. 1993.
Applicant: Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Chemical: (C) Polyurethane adhesive.
Use: (G) Adhesive.
Production Volume: Confidential.
Number of Customers: Confidential.
Test Marketing Period. Confidential.
Risk Assessment: EPA identified no
significant environmental concerns.
EPA identified potential health
concBrns 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.
Chin.. M. Auin.
Director, chemical Control Division, Office
of Pollution Prevention and Tonics.
IFR Doc. 93—2540 Filed 2—2—93: 8:45 aini
muaio coos
MG2900 and TXG290000 ; FRL-4559-7)
Proposed NPOES General Permits for
Produced Water and Produced Sand
Discharges From the Oil and 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 March 15, 1993 on the draft
general permits for produced water and
produced sand discharges to coastal
waters in Louisiana and Texas. These
permits were proposed on December 22,
1992 in the Federal Register (57 FR
60926).
SUMMARY: The pr posed draft penniss
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 ‘R 435, subpart D).
the Stripper Subcategory (40 GR 435.
subpart F) that discharge to coastal
waters of Louisiana and Texas, and the
Offshore Subcategory (40 GR 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
permittees 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.
Signed this 25th day of January. 1993.
Myron 0. Knudson, P.S..
Director. Water Management Division. EPA
Region 6.
(FR Doc. 93—2542 Filed 2—2—93. 845 aml
uan coot ==
Office ci Research and Development
fFRL 455 -9)
Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and
Equivalent Methods; Equivalent
Method Designations
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’ambient
concentrations of sulfur dioxide.
The new equivalent method for ozone
is an automated method (analyzer)
which utilizes the measurement
principle based on absorption of
ultraviolet radiation by ozone at a
wavelength of 254 nm. This new
designated method is identified as
follows:
EQSA—0193—091. “Lear Siegler
Measurement Controls Corporation
Model ML 9810 Ozone 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°C. with a five-micron Teflon filter
element installed in the filter assembly
behind the secondary panel. the service
switch on the secondary panelset to the
IN position: with the following menu
choices selected: Filter type: Kalman,
Presltemp/flow camp: 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 sulfur
dioxide is an automated method
(analyzer) which utilizes a measurement
principle based on LJV fluorescence.
The new designated method is
identified as follows:
EQSA-0193—092, “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°C. with a five-
micron 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 comp: On. Span camp:
Disabled. Background: NOT Disabled.
Diagnostic mode: Operate; with the 50-
pin I/O 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.
Both of these methods are available
from Lear Siegler Measurement Controls
Corporation, 74 Inverness Dnve East.
Englewood. CO 80112—5189. A notice of
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 183,
September 21, 1992, page 43456.

-------
Federal R. ster/ VoL 5L Na . 21 / Wednesday, Fsbxnary 3.1993/ Notices
6963
A test analyzer ispresentathe of sech
of these methods has been tested by the
applicant. in ac dance with the teat
procedures specified In 40 C R pert 53.
After reviewing the results of these tests
and other information stthmiued by the
appIfr mts, EPA has determined, In
accordance with part 53, that thee..
methods should be designated as
equivalent methods. The Information
submitted by the applicants will be kept
on file at EPA ’s Atmospheric Research
and Exposure Aseeement Laboratory.
Research mangle Park, North Carolina
27711 and will be available
Inspection to the consistent with
40 CFR part 2 (EPA ’s regulations
Imp I.in m tlng the Freedom of
Information Act).
As a d i.igns .ted equivalent method,
either of these methods is acceptable for
use by States and other air monitoring
agan es undax requirements of 40 R
part 58, AmbIent Ale Quality
Surveillance. For such purposes, the
method must be used In smict
accordance with the operation or
Instruction manual assodated with the
method and subject to any IImlt tInna
(e.g.. operating temperature range)
speafled In the applicable designation
(see desaiptlon of the methods above).
Vendor modifications of a designated
method used for purposes of part 58 are
permitted only with psi or 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 (7R part 58
(Modifications of Methods by Users).
In general. a designation applies to
any analyzer which is Identical to the
analyzer desaibed in the designation. In
some cases, ‘ r’” analyzers
manufactured prior to the designation
may be upgraded (e.g., by minor
moiIiRr.*in or by substitution of a new
operation or instruction manuall so as to
be identical to the I .4gn”ted method
and thus achieve . b..4grM d status at a
modest cost. The manufacturer should
be consulted to d a, , , .b. 1 the fhlT(ty
of such upgrading.
Part 53 requlrea that sellers of
designated methods comply with
certain conditions. These conditions are
given In 40 C R 53.9 and are
summarized below:
(I) A copy of the approved operation
or instruction manual must accompany
the analyzer when It Is delivered to the
ultimate purchaser.
(2) The analyzer must not generate
any unseasonable hazard to operators or
to the envfronment.
(3) The analyzer must function within
the limits of the performance
speciflr ”ttnn’t given In Table B-I of part
53 (grit least one year after delivery
when maintained and up—t 4 in
accordance with the operation manrseL
(4) Any analynar offered sele see
reference or equivalent method must
bear a label or sticker Indicating that It
has been ‘I .’ign ted as a referenc. or
equivalent method in accordance with
part 53.
(5) If such an analyzerhas two or
more selectable ranges, the label or
sticker must be placed In close
proximity to the range selector and
Indicate which range or raz1g s have
been Included in the reference or
equivalent method desigvlAth .n .
(6) An appHv i # who offers analyzers
for sale as reference or equivalent
methods is required to maintains list of
ultimate purchasers of such analyzers
and to notify them within 30 days If a
reference or equivalent method
designation applicable to the analyzer
baa been canceled or if adluatment of
the analyzer is necessary under 40 CF
53.11(b) to avoid a cancellation.
(7) An applicant who modifies an
analyzer previously designated as a
reference or equivalent method Is not
permitted to sell the analyzer (as
modified) as a reference or equivalent
method (although he may choose to sell
It without such representatim.), nor to
attach a label or sticker to the analyzer
(as modified) tmi4ar provisions
desalbed above, until he baa received
notice under 40 CFR 53.14(c) that the
original designation or a new
designation applies to the method as
modified, or until he has applied (or
and received notice under 40 R
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 these
conditions ihould be reported to
Director. Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Asse ant Laboratory,
Methods Research and Development
Division (MD-77). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
Designation of these equivalent
methods will assist the States in
establiahing and operating their a1x
quality nmrvellIa c, systems under part
58. questions concerning
either method should be directed to the
manufacturer. Additional Information
concerning this action may be obtained
from Prank P. McElroy. Methods
Research and Development Division
(MD-li), Atmospheric Research and
Exposure . e ment Laboratory. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triseghe Park. North Carolina
27711. (919) 541—2822.
Erich har,
MsitterdAaminhsbetorjbrRs.sarck and
(FR Dec. 93—2536 Piled 2—2—93: 8:45 en)
raise ccc i ano e
FEDERAL. COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public biformetlon Collection
Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
January 27,1903.
The Federal Communications
Comml *lon 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 Con rv i ions copy
contractor, International Transaiption
Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., suite
140, Washington. DC 20037, (202) 857-
3800. For further Information on this
ubmlssrco contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, (202?
832—7513. Persons wishing to comment
on this Information coUecdon should
contact Jones Nethardt, Office of
Management and Budget. mom 3235
NEOB, Washington. DC 20503. (202)
395—4814.
0MB Mwrben 3080—0105.
Titie: Licensee Qualification Report.
Form Number? FCC Form 430.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (Including small businesses).
Frequency of Respanse. On o sicn
and annual reporting.
R 1 .t ’oied Annual Burden: 1,900
reapomee 2 hours average burden per
3,800 hour, total annual
Needs and Uses The FCC Form 430.
Uci n Qun1Iffr .ttion Report Is filed
by new applicants or annually be
Ifrana.es if sub tantIaL i 4 tang .i o ur
In the organizational structure to
provide Information concerning
corporate structure, alien ownership.
and charsotrn of applicant or license..
Part 22 applicants are required to file
FCC Form 430 when soliciting
authority for asslgnnr.mt or transfe. of
control If a orient one is not on file
required by item 18 on FCC Form
490. Information Ii used by
Comm 1n ,v staff to determine
whether applicants are legally
qualified to become or to remain
cemmon carrier telecommnn’ dons
licensees, as required by the

-------
4 z 9t
Federal Register i Vol. 58. No. 11 / Tuesday. January 19, 1993 / Notices
Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended.
In accordance wIth 40 R 2.306(j).
EPA has determined that trader EPA
contract number 8&-.W0-0032, RTI will
require access to CBI submitted to EPA
under sectIons 4,5.8. and 8 of TSCA
to perform successfully the duties
specified under the contract. Wll
personnel will be given access to
information submitted to EPA under
sections 4.5.6, and 8 of TSCA. Some
of the information maybe dairneder
determined to be CBL
EPA is Issuing this notice to Inform
all submitters of Information under
sectIons 4.5,6, and 8 of TSCA that EPA
may provide RTI a to these (31
materials on a need-to.know basis only.
All access to TSCA (31 under this
contract will take place at RTI’s
Research Triangle Park. NC facility only.
Rfl will be authorized aa a* to TSCA
CBI at Its facility under the EPA
“contractor Requirements for the
Control and Security of TSCA
Confidential Business lnformation
security manual. Before access to TSCA
CBI is authorized at RiTe site. EPA will
approve RTrs security ce rtifir $ t
statement, perform the required
inspection of its facility, and enswe that
the facility is In compI 4 .iic . with the
manual. Upon completing review of the
CS! materials, RTI will return all
transferred materials to EPA.
Clearance for access to TSCA CS!
under this contract may continue until
July 26,1993.
RTI personnel will be required to sigu
nondisclosure agreements and will be
briefed on ap 1 , 1 riate se .-u ty
procedures before they are permitted
access to TSCA (31.
Dated: Jannary 4.1993.
George A. L.
ActiagDirecter. Ia ! omwAioa MenrLgmser
Djvjsjon. Office of Pollution P,e,eatioa and
Toxic.
(FR Dec. 93-1181 Ffl.d 1-15-93: &45 ami
sees
Com n.d C ow O flow Contrui
Policy: Draft Guidenc. Avellablifty
AGBICY Envl ental Preter*
Agency.
AC’tlON Notic. of availability .
SUMMARY: This aoth noum s the
availability of the draft giililanr . i
documant entitled Ccenblned Sewer
Overflow rni h il Policy”.
DATES: Comments must be received by
EPA by Ma , 1993..
ADDRESSES: Copies of this document con
be obtained by writing or calling Mi.
Richard Kuhhnan, Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance, WH—548.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street SW.. Washington, DC
20460, (202) 280—5828. Comments on
the document should be sent to Mi.
Richard K1t1 1T,iM% at the above address.
FOR FURTHER 8IFO AT1ON COMTACT:
Richard ICIllilfIlan at (202) 260-5828.
SUPPLEMENTARY ssFORMA11ON: The main
purposes of the draft Policy are to
elaborate on the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Strategy published on September 8,
1980, at 54 FR 37370. and to . ntpedit .
compliance with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). While
implamt tation.of the 1989 Strategy has
resulted in progress toward controlling
combined sewer overflows (CSO),
significant public health and wjter
quality risks r n n
The Policy is being developed t sr
provide guidance to pennittees with
CSOs. National Pollutant Dlicharge
Elimination System (NPDES) authorities
and State water quality standards
authorities, on coordinating the -
plRnnlng. selection, sizing and
construction of (30 controls that meet
the requirements of the CWA and allow
for public involvement during the
decision-mR&4ng process. ___
Contained In the Policy e pwv ions
for developing e 1 ip ydate. site-specific
Nru permit requirements fur .9
combined sewer systems that overflow
as a result of wet weather events and
enfes ent Initiatives to require the
immediate elimination of overflows that
occur during dry weather, and to ensure
that the remaining CWA requirements
are complied with as soon as.
practlcel Je .
The permitlirig provisions of
Policy wem developed as a result of
extensive Input rec ved dining.
negoda policy dialogue. The
negotiated dialogue was conducted by
the office of Weiss and the Office of
Water’s M n.geo’ent Advisory Group.
Representatives from State.
environmental and municipal ‘.
organiv tions participated in the
negotiated dialogue. 1 ’
The enforcement Initiatives, including
one to be Initiated In 1.993 on CSOs
durlng.dry weather, were develbped by
EPA’s Office of Water and Office of
Eafor
The major provisions of the Policy
arer
(30 permittees should Immediately
undert a prece to aomreiely
characterize their combined sewer
system. demonstrate implementation’
nine minimum controls, and develop
long-term CSO control plan. Once the
long-term (30 control plan Is
completed, the pnrwlitae will be
responsibl. to implement the plan’s
recommendations as soon as
practicable;
State water quality n,Iard (WQS)
authorities should be involved in the
long-term (30 control planning effort
coordinate the review and possible
revision of WQS and implementation
procedures on CSO-impactod waters
with the development of the long-term
CSO control plan;
NPDES authorities should issua/
reissue permits to require immediate
compliance with the technology-based
and water quality-based requizemeiTta’
the CWA, end after completion of the
long-term CSO ui .tirul plan, incorpora
the following additional permit
requirements—performance standards
for the selected controLs based on
average design conditions, a post
construction water quality assessment
program, monitoring for compliance
with WQS, and a reopener clause
authorizing the NPDES authority to
reopen and modify the permit if it is
determined that the CSO trols fail tc
meet WQS or protect designated uses;
? *u authorities should also, as
noted above, commence enforcement
actions In 1993, against all CS0
perruittees which have CWA violations
due to (30 discharges during dry
weather. In addition, NPDES authoritie!
should ensure the implementation of
the nine minimum controls, noted
above, and Incorporate a schedule, with
appropriate mflestone dates, to
implement the required long-term CSO
. 1 t l plan into a Civil Judicial action
or adm t si e order. Schedules for
Implementation of the long-term (30
control plan may be phased based an
the relative importance of adverse
Impacts upon which WQS and
designated mae. and on a pvi tle,’s
finaneial capability. ___
Notwithstanding the p . . ublng and
enforcement provisloire of the Policy.
perinittees will be expected to comply
with any CSO-related requirements in
NPDES permits. cnn aut deaces or
court orders which predate the final
policy.
Dated: Janeary 4. 1993.
Lajuana 8. Wilchir,
Assistant Administrator for Wager.
Dated: January 5. 1293,
Hermit H. tate. Jr.,
Assistant AdministmrorforEnforcemena
IPR 1?óc. 93-1137 P lIed 1-15-13; 8.45 amI
su.tma coca

-------