General Permit Program Guidance
Permits Division
Office of Wastewater Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Note to Readers
In February 1988, EPA issued the General Permit Program Guidance. In June 1989, the Permits
Division issued a memorandum regarding the development of State NPDES general permit
programs. The memorandum and attached materials can be found at pages 1 tfirough 28 of this
package. The 1988 guidance can be found at pages 29 through 131.
-------
.'»"*-'>,
*i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
fj WASHINGTON, O.C. '204«0
.£
'•ft A r 5 A
JUN 13 IS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT} Development, of State NP.DES General Permit Programs
•ULtfj3Wu(*~ Aj^^sA^^-;
FROMt Cyntfiia Dougherty, Directoif
Permits Division (EH-336V
TO: W^ater Management Division Directors
NPDES StAt» Directors
The Pernits Division i.s seeking co increase Sjfeate interest
in general permit authority. We have .taken several steps to
increase the availability of information concerning State general
permit programs and to Simplify the process ot obtaining program
authority. In February 1988, the Permits Division issued the
^General Permit Program Guidance and today we are distributing the
attached program authorization summary. We beJLieve NPDES States
should review this information and consider adding-this key
element to their NPDES programs.
The General Permit Program Guidance (Guidance) was issued to
provide a streamlined approach to the general permit process.
The goal was to provide a centralized source of information about
the general permit process and obtaining general permit
authority, and to simplify the existing procedures for the
development and oversight of general permits. We have found,
however, that questions still remain regarding the State program
approval,process. To address these concerns, we are issuing the
attached package on the State general permit program approval
process.
A prime example of where general permits can be very useful
is in dealing with stormwater discharges. As you are aware, on
December 7, 1988, EPA proposed regulations covering stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity. One of the most
frequently asked questions at each of six public meetings
conducted during the comment period concerned general permit
application. General permit authority is a key program element
for successful implementation of the stormwater group application
-------
- 2 -
process and a*y be essential for dealing with large numbers of
atorowater permit applications foe construction activities. The
ability to ••ploy general permits will become even more important
when the stormvater moratorium «nds in October 1992 and all other
storawater point sources will be subject to permit requirenents.
The attached State General Perait Program Development
summary describes the approval process and the necessary
requirements which must be met prior to approval of a State
general perait program. The cove^r document briefly explains
these requirements. The package also includes model documents
which can be used to develop a submission for general permit
authority, am well as a copy of the federal general permit
regulations and the Guidance. These materials are provided with
the intent to facilitate and promote consistency ia the
development of general permit programs.
The Permits Division remains committed to assisting
interested states in obtaining general permit approval. We urge
NPDES States without general perait programs to carefully
consider the benefits of receiving authorization to issue general
permits.
If you have any questions regarding general permits or the
approval process, please call me (FTS/202 475-9545) or have your
staff contact Kevin Smith (PTS/202 475-9516) of this office.
Attachments
-------
General permit authority ia available to NPDES States. The program is an
administrative tool to simplify and reduce the burden of regulating certain
types of similar discharges, for example, storm water. TTie Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits, Permits Division, is conaitted to assisting States
in receiving authorization for general permit programs. In February, 1988,
Permits Division issued the General Permits Program Guidance (Guidance) to
facilitate State program approval. EPA ia now issuing ttiis document which is
intended to outline the federal general permits program and the requirements
and necessary submissions for State program approval.
USES/BENEFITS OF GENERAL PERMITS
o Some examples of existing general permitsi
- offshore oil and gas (Regions IV, VI, DC, and X)
- concentrated animal feedlots (Regions VIII and DC)
- construction activities ann hydrostatic testing (Region VIII)
o General permits also can cover storm water discharge* from industrial
and construction activities.
o A list of draft and final general permits is included in the Guidance.
GENERAL PERMITS PROGRAM — IMPLEMENTATION AND USS (40 CPR §122. 28}
A. Sources which may be covered by general permits:
o Separate storm water discharges, or
o A category of point source dischargers that satisfy the following
40 CFR J122.28(a)(2) criteria:
- same or substantially similar types of operations;
- similar wastestreams;
effluent limitations;
or similar nonitoririg requirenents; and
- suitability of use of general permit.
o Hot limited to "minor* sources
B. General permits are usually issued for specific geographic areas such
as designated planning areas under §§206 and 303 of the CWA, sewer
districts, or city, county, or State political boundaries.
C. General permits oust be developed based upon applicable effluent
guidelines or a BRJ determination and oust meet State water quality
standards and any Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (see
§403(c)) requirements)'.
-------
- 2 -
D. Tracking system fcr general permits is retired. Agency recommends
u*e of tii« EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS).
E. CUB Limitation en the use of general permits has been the difficulty
associated with meeting the water quality requirements of waters with
different designated uses over a large geographic area* - In sucn
instances, multiple general permits may be necessary.
F. The Director may determine that certain discharges within the scope
of a general permit nonetheless nay be more appropriately regulated
through the use of an individual permit. In these, circumstances, the
Director say require the dischargers to obtain an individual permit.
G. General permits must follow procedures equivalent to 40 GPR Part 124
TO tic- md comment requirements.
H. Motifi --ion requirements for permittees:
o EPA recommends that States require dischargers wanting to be
covered by a general permit to submit a Ho tie* of Intent (KOI) to
be covered.
o Some advantages of using an NOIt
- it identifies permittees covered by the general permit,
- it may be used as screening mechanism to determine whether
general or individual permit is more appropriate for the
applicant, and
- it assures that permittees understand their pollution control
obligation.
I. Development and oversight of general permits by States and EPA
1. Authorized States
o General permits can only be issued in NPE6S approved States if
the approval includes general permit authority.
o The State develops and issues the general -permit.
o Proposed permits must be submitted to EPA for review and
concurrence in the same manner as with individual permits.
2. EPK Regional Offices
o Regional Offices develop and issue general permits in non-
NPDES States (note - EPA tegicnal Offices cannot issue general
permits covering dischargers in States with NPDES authority,
even if the State dees not have general permit authority).
o Regional Office oversees State development of general permits.
o Regions assist tfPDES States to obtain general permit authority.
-------
- 3' -
3. EPA Headquarters' role:
o AM noted in the guidance, Headquarters only reviews general
permit applications foe offshore oil and gas and other general
permits determined to be of national significance.
o Headquarters also reviews the semi-annual Lists required to be
submitted by Regions Listing non-offshore oil and'gas general
permits issued in the previous six north* or to be issued in
the upcoming six months.
STATS PROGRAM APPROVAL PROCEDURES
A. General
o Currently 13 States approved to issue general permits
o Approval process is straightforward:
- The approved NPDES State prepares any necessary modification(s)
of State program and then submits the proposed general permit
program submission to EPA's Regional Offios.
• EPA's Regional Of floe and Headquarters review the program
submission and determine whether the program modification is
"substantial." If the modification is determined to be
substantial, public notice and comment of the proposed revision
is required.
- The Regional Administrator approves the general permit program
submission; Headquarters reviews final submission for
concurrence.
B. State program submissions for General Permits program authority must
include (see attached models):
o A complete copy of applicable State statutory and regulatory
authorities (including any revisions to the State legal authorities
necessary to issue general permits).
o A General Permit Program Description
o Any mmoessary revisions, to the NPDBS Memorandum of Agreement
o An Attorney General's Statement (or amendment) certifying that
State law provides adequate legal authority to administer and
enforce the general permit program along with specific citations.
C. State law
1. Statutory Authority
o A State's authority to issue general permits may arise from its
general statutory authority.
-------
- 4 -
o The priaary consideration is whether State law is limited to
individual permits or can be interpreted more broadly.
o The Attorney General roust assure EPA that the State's
permitting authority does not require individual permits for
all sources and that general permits issuance procedures are
consistent with State law.
2. Regulatory Authority
o State regulations oust be at least as stringent as federal
NPDES regulations (see listing of applicable federal
regulations in Guidance Appendix G) which:
- may only regulate storm water sources or sources which meet
§122.23(a)(2) requirements,
- provide procedures for administration of general permit
program,
- delineate the criteria used to determine which dischargers
will qualify for general permit coverage,
- reooonend that regulations require NOI from discharger to
be covered by a general permit,
- provide an "opt out" mechanism for dischargers desiring an
individual permit instead of general permit coverage,
- provide authority for the Director to require a discharger
covered by a general permit to obtain an individual permit
(and opportunity for interested persons to petition for
same), and
- do not automatically terminate individual permits when a
general permit is issued (the individual permit must be
revoked following 'appropriate notice and comment procedures
at 40 GFR Part 124 prior to general permit coverage).
General Permits Program Description (see attached model)
o As with NPDES permit program approval, the document should describe
how the general permit program will operate. For example, the
Program Description x
- outlines procedures the State intends co use for the application,
development, and issuance of general permits, including a
discussion of the mechanisms for public notice and comment;
- addresses the State's plans for permit enforcement and compliance
monitoring;
- includes a list of the types of general permits the State plans
to issue;
- details the procedures by which discharges covered by a general
permit may request an individual permit;
- delineates procedures regarding where and how an individual
requests coverage under a general permit;
- states which agency/department will administer the program; and
- describes resource allocations and any impact (increase/decrease
due to the new program) on the administration of the en-going
NPDES program.
-------
£. ijuirranduM of Agreement (see attached models)
o Th» ICfc, or revision, must briefly sketch the responsibilities of
both th» EPA and the State, as well as outline the basic aspects of
the State program. For example :
- The fOA must discuss the procedure for EPA review afid commen:: or
objection on the State's general permits, and
- the signature block for the EPA Administrator is re longer
necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ojpy of 40 CFR §122.28
B. Program Description and MQA requirements (excerpted from NPDES State
Program Guidance) ""*
C. Model General Petalt Program Description (Minnesota)
D. Model MCA Amendment (from NPDES State Program Guidance)
E. Model Attorney General's Statement Amendirant (Minnesota)
P. Model Federal Register Notice (Minnesota)
G. Copy of February, 1968 General Permit Program Guidance
-------
9122.23 General permit* (applicable to
State NPDES program*. se« 9 123.25).
(a) Coverage. The Director may issue
a general permit in accordance with
the following:
(1) Area.-The general permit shall be
written to cover a category of dis-
charges or sludge use or disposal prac-
tices or facilities described in the
permit under paragraph
-------
(iv) When an individual NFDES
permit la famed to an owner or opera-
tor otherwise subject to a general
NFDES permit, the applicability of
the general permit to the individual
NPDES permittee is automatically ter-
minated on the effective date of the
Individual permit.
(v) A source excluded from a general
permit solely because it already has .an
individual permit may request that
the individual permit be revoked, and
that it be covered by the general
permit. Upon revocation of the Indi-
vidual permit, the general permit shall
apply to the source,
(c) Q/ftfeore oil and 90* facilities
(Not applicable to State programs). (1)
The Regional Administrator shall.
except aa provided below. Issue general
permits covering discharges from off-
shore oil and gas exploration and pro-
duction facilities within the Region's
jurisdiction. Where the offshore area
includes areas, such as areas of biologi-
cal concern, for which separate permit
conditions are required, the Regional
Administrator may issue separate gen-
eral permits, individual permits, or
both. The reason for separate general
permits or Individual permits shall be
set forth in the appropriate fact
sheets or statements of basis. Any
statement of basis or fact sheet for a
draft permit shall include the Region-
al Administrator's tentative determi-
nation as to whether the permit ap-
plies to "new sources." "new discharg-
ers," or existing sources and the rea-
sons for this determination, and the
Regional Administrator's proposals as
to areas of biological concern subject
either to separate Individual or gener-
al permits. For Federally leased lands.
the general permit area should gener-
ally be no less extensive than the lease
sale area defined by the Department
of the Interior.
(2) Any Interested person. Including
any prospective permittee, may peti-
tion the Regional Administrator to
issue a general permit. Unless the Re-
gional Administrator determines
under paragraph (cXl) of this section
that no general permit is appropriate.
he shall promptly provide a project de-
cision schedule covering the issuance
of the general permit or permits for
any lease sale area for which the De-
partment of the Interior has pub-
lished a draft environmental impact
statement. The project decision sched-
ule shall meet the requirements of
{ 124.3(g). and shall Include a schedule
providing for the issuance of the final
general permit or permits not later
than the date of the final notice of
sale projected by the Department of
the Interior or six months after the
date of the request, whichever is later
The Regional Administrator may. n
his discretion, issue a project decision
schedule for offshore oil and gas facili-
ties in the territorial seas.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph (c)
shall affect the authority of the Re-
gional Administrator to require an in-
dividual permit under
5 122.28(bX2XlXA) through (F).
(Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et «, Clean Air Act (42 UAC. 7401 et seq.).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
<42 UJ8.C. «901
[48 FR 14153. Apr. 1. 1963. u amended at 48
FR 39619. Sept. 1. 1963; 49 PR 38048. S«pt.
26. 1964: 50 FR 6940, Feb. 19. 1933; S4 FR
256. Jan. 4. 1969; 54 FR 18782. May 2. 1989]
EDITORIAL NOTE At 54 FR 256. Jan. 4.
1989. 1 122.26 was amended by removing
paragraph (bX2X!XA) and redesignating the
existing paragraphs (B). (C). (D). (E) and
(F) u (A). (B). (C), (D) and (E) respectively.
At 54 FR 18782, May 2. 1969, I 122.28 was
acain amended. In part by revising para-
graph* l« to Suu
NFDES mtnmt, M« 1 12&2S).
(B) The discharger or "treatment wort*
treating domestic sewage" is cot in compii
ance with the conditions of the genervi
NPDES permit;
(C) A change has occurred In the av«u»ou
Ity of demonstrated technology or pr»ct:c«
for the control or abatement of poUuucnu
applicable to the point source or t re tun em
works treating domestic sewage;
(F) Standards for sewage sludge us« or
-------
§122.28(b)(2)(i) as revised November 16, 1990;
6. Section I22.28(b)(2)(i) is reviaed to
read as follows:
} 122J1 (feiwrtf p«nntts (appttcabie to
State NPOC5 program* *•• f 153.25).
• * * t *
(b) ' ' '
(2) Requiring an individual permit, (i)
The Director may require any discharger
authorized by a general permit to apply
for and obtain an individual NPDES
permit Any interested penon may
petition the Director to take action
under this paragraph. Gates where an
individual NPDES permit may be
required include the following:
(A) The discharger or "treatment
works treating domestic sewage" is not
in compliance with the conditions of the
general NPDES permit
(B) A change has occurred in the
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
source or treatment works treating
domestic sewage;
(C) Effluent limitation guidelines are
promulgated for point source* covered
by the general NPDES permit:
(D) A Water Quality Management
plan containing requirements applicable
to such point source* is approved;
(E) Circumstances have changed since
the time of the request to be covered so
that the ducharger is n« longer
appropriately controlled under the
general permit or either a temporary or
permanent reduction or elimination of
the authorized discharge U necessary:
(F) Standards for sewage sludge use
or disposal have been promulgated for
the sludge use and disposal practice
covered by the general NPDES permit:
or
(C) The discharge(s) is a significant
contributor of pollutants. In making this
determination, the Director may
consider the following factors:
(/) The location of the discharge with
respect to waters of the United States:
(2) The size of the discharge:
(3) The quantity and nature of the
pollutants discharged to waters of (he
United States: and
(<) Other relevant factors:
-------
C 3
(4) General Permit Authority*
Unlifce pretreatment and federal facilities authority,
general perJslt authority is an optional program and need not be
contained in a NPDES submission. If States choose to issue such
permits, however, EPA requires a program descriptionf.and MOA
modification to be included in all aubaissions requesting general
permit authority.
(a) Program Description
The State must generally describe how it intends to
administer its general permit program, including under what
circumstances general permits are to be issued. To enable
reviewers to determine whether a State's program is consistent
with the CWA, it is important for the State to clearly set out
its general permit strategy. This includes specifying the
classes of dischargers the State intends to permit (a list of
general permits the State plans to develop will be invaluable to
EPA personnel reviewing the program application), along with any
restrictions on general permit coverage (such as discharger size
or industry category) the State is imposing on itself.
The State must detail the procedures it will utilize to
ascertain which dischargers are covered under a given general
permit, as tst&l a« providing the approximate number of
dischargers it intends to include under each permit, if known.
Procedures for notifying dischargers of their eligibility for
coverage under a general permit should also be indicated.
*This material is excerpted from the "NPDES State Program
Guidance," July.29, 1986 (available from Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits, Permits Division (2N-336)).
-------
- 2 -
Furthermore, the document must discuss the public
participati^lF procedures for general permit issuance (these are
required by 40 C.P.R. Part 124). For «xample, the State must
indicate whether it will provide public notice when a discharger,
already regulated under an individual bJPDES permit, requests
coverage under a general permit and seeks to have its individual
perait revoked.
The general perait program description should indicate
staffing or resource, implications of program approval. For
example, general permits may free up some NPDES staffing and
resources which may be redirected toward other areas of th*
program.
(b) Memorandum of Agreement
The MOA oust detail the interrelationship between EPA and
the State. Specifically, the document must address EPA review
and comment/objection procedures for State general permits since
they are different from EPA review of individual MPDES permits.*
In the case of an HPDCS State seeking to modify its program
by adding general permit authority, the existing MOA must b«
revised if it contains language limiting its applicability to
individual permits), or lacks a discussion on EPA review and
comment/objsjsjsioe of State general permits.
* General permits must b* reviewed by th* Director of th* Officm
of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP), EPA Headquarters, before
they may be) issued by the State agency (se«, 40 CPU 123.43(b),
123.44(a){2), and 123.45(1)). Note, OVfEP~Kas waived Headquarters
review of certain general permits (see, "General Permit program
Guidance,* February, 1988, »t page 29).
-------
7r. c
A.
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AfiOiCTf
CENZIUL PEWIT PROGRAM
Thia program daacriptiott it aubaictad la accordaaca vieh 40 en 123.21
123.22, in ordar to obcala approval by ebt U.S. Zaariroaaaatal Protection
Agaacy (EPA) of tha Kiaaaaoca Pollutioa Control Ataaey'a (M?CA)
«dataiitr*eioo of eh« C«n«ral ftnit Frogrta. Thli pro|t«a 4««eripcion
•upplcs«ae« ch« d««crlptioa eoaetia«4 la eh« orl|ta*l appUeatioa for
d«l«|atioa of cha NTOES ?ro|raa, daca4 April 5, 1974. Tha Caaaral Varmit
Prograa vill ba a aubparc of eha NrDIS PrograB, curraaeijr adalaiatara4 by
eha M?CA.
Tha KPCA vaa dalagatad eha (f?DCS Prograa oa Juaa 30, I9fi, Miaaaaoea
raeaivad authority to adainiatar tha HrDIS Proiraa for fadaral facilititt
on Dactabar 9, 1978, aad aubaaquaacly r«ciir«d authority to adaiaiattr eha
pratraaOMat prograa oa July 16, 1979.
Tha Gaaaral Patmit Vrefram vill ba daaifaa4 to prorlda N7DU parmit
covaraga for low frltcicy dia«h«rsara which we«14 aoc ocharviaa raeaiva
an affMCtv* IFOSS M^tlc ia tha foraaaaabla futura. Tha Caaaral P trait
Profram vtXl iaftvra eha admiaiatratira tftieiaacy of tha Agaacy'a
parmltciaf arofraai aa4 allow at«ff raaourcaa to ba eoaeaacraea4 oa HTOES
paraita which a«y ha-va aora aifnificaot potantial for La»aetitn vatar
quality ia tha Stata of Mioaaaota. Gaaaral aatmitt will ba iaauad for
savaral elaaaaa of diaeharfara vhara individual paraita for auch a clatt
-------
would be aubecantially aicilar. Oiachargers Intended to be cov«r«d w-t:
include aon-contact cooling water dlcehargeri of 1 aillloo gallon* p«r
or leaa aaeVteat pump di*chargtr* of 100,000 gallone per day or Use. :?
ie •acimatatf that there are tpproxiaattly 100 non-contact cooling veeir «ad
200 heae pump dlachargera. Additional type* of diachargere which nay be
covered by general permita la the future Include *torm water discharge* and
backvaah water diachargea from potable water treatment plaata.
*• Administration?
The Geaeral Permit Program will be edmiaiatered for permit iaauaaee an-i
compliance 4nd enforcement activitiea by the KFCA, Divlaion of Water
Quality, Regulatory Compliance Section. A current orgaaiaational chart te
attached.
C. Legal Baala;
The •eatemant of the Hiaaeaota Attorney General la attached confirming eha,
the M?CA haa adequate authority to operate the General Permit Program.
°' Special Pro«o4ttrea am4 la^nirementa for the leeuaace aael taforeement el
General
1. Applicatioma
Applications for a general permit will be require* from diechargere.
The application form will be M?CA Short Form C (prevlouely iub«uc«d)
The aubmiceion of the application will be require* before, e dUchart»<-
-------
• 3-
wtll be considered to be covered by the general penic. K««crtetloni
on Che coverage of cha leaaral permlc vlll be caatained la eh«
permit .£•«• drafts of the feeertl p«nic previouely «ub«ict*d).
2. Gtntral Parmlt D«v«lop««ae
C«a«ral permit a vill b« d«v«iop«d aad issued ia •seaatullj th«
mannar a« ladivldual parmlea* hewrrar th« public aotiea vlll require
further dlatrlbutleo (see belov). General permlta vlll be developed
ualtt« Hloaeaota Water Quality Standard* aa4 any a^fllcablc USOA
effluent fuidelinee. Ceaeral permlta vill be issued for a tan oo
looger than five (S) yeara and vlll not be cmtlaue* beroad taeir
expiretioa datea. Xa aeeordaaee vita th« KFCi/CTA Keaoraodta of
Agreemeat. general permlta vlll be aent to OA for renew prior to
iaauaaca aael vlll not be iaaued over ths specific vrittea objectiea of
the 1?A.
3. Public Notice
All general permlta vlll be acenmfanlsd by a Fact Sheet outlining the
derlvaclaei •! the) y«cmlt limits. General termlta vlll be public
ootla*4 is «M«rm«mca vlth DSDA reguiatioma aaa* Hlmmeaota Kule
7001.0210. tlM public notice vlll be pubUahe4 It the MUmaaota State
Xegiater.
-------
4. Complianca/Eaforcasant
All jm»iT|in vill ba raquirad eo mbaae a Diacharga Monitoring
lUpcrt
S. If a p«rcicular ditchargar ia daaifaaead for coirarafa uadar a c«naral
parmit aa4 rao.uaaea cha iaauaaca of aa ta4i»idu4l panic* cha
application vill ba proeaaaad aa aa application for aa individual
panic ia aecordanca vich Mlanaaota lulaa 7001.0210, Subparc 6, If a
diachargar vho ia eurraaclj corara4 uadar a gaaaral panic raqtaaaea
tha iaauaaea of «a ia4ivi4o«JL permit* covtrtja ua4ar cha fanaral
panic vill b« eo«ti4«r«l caniaat*4 vb«a tha iaAividvul parmit la
ia«u«4. Zf «i laaUvi^oal diaeharfar ia ragulacad by aa in^iridoal
permit M4 tffllM ftt eerarafa «n4ar 4 fatMral parmit, cht diacb>ar|ar
vill W «HMi4«rt4 co b* ewara4 ua4«r cha fataral permit vnaa cha
tndirlrf**! permit U taninjtad or txyiraa. x^riarad parclaa.
includlflg parmiccaaa, may aaak raviav of a faaaral parmic'a
by flliaf • complaint ia cha prepar acaca court.
-------
-J-
E. Manpower and Retourctt;
Priority ft* Ittulaf general ptralta win be ettabliahed chroujh eh«
-«:«r Quality Progrta Plan. Genera! ptnlti will b« developed OD *n ««
nc«d«d b4«ij, uiiof the prii«oc «e«ffi&|. Ic it laticipiced chtc eh«
G«n*r*l ?«nle Preiru will require •ppreziMCtlr 200 person hoviri per 7t«r
la c«chnlc«l «ad •daioiiertelve support tad will ceec approziaActly $3,000
dollars. It U not •atlelp«ted chat the General Penlt ?ro|raa will rieule
in a tifnifleant reduction ia cost •!&«• currtfttlj ptrmlta eouldered
eliilble for teneral peniti are belag allow«4 to tx»ire. or appllc4tioQa
for &ev
-------
General Permits ATT.\o*E*r D
AMENDMENT'
TO THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
(State Agency)
AND THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION
The Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region ^ (hereinafter EPA) end the (State
Agency) (hereinafter ) is hereby amended to include (State
Agency) and EPA responsibilities for the development, issuance
and enforcement of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (hereinafter NPDES) general permits as follows-:
The (State Agency) has the responsibility for developing and
issuing NPD/ES general permits. After identifying dischargers
appropriately regulated by a general permit, the (State Agency)
will collect sufficient effluent data to develop effluent
limitations and prepare the draft general permit.
Each draft general permit will be accompanied by a fact sheet
setting forth the principal facts and methodologies considered
during permit development and will be transmitted to the following
EPA offices:
water Management Division Director
U.S. EPA, Region
(Address)
Director, Office Water Enforcement and Permits*
U.S. EPA (EN-335)
401 M Street SW
Washington D.C. 20460
EPA will have) up to ninety (90) days to review draft general
permits and provide comments, recommendations and objections
to the (Stater Agency)." In the event EPA does object to a '
general penal* It will provide, in writing, the reasons for
its objection and the actions necessary to eliminate the
oojection. The State has, the right to a public hearing on the
objection in accordance with 40 CFR 123.44 and Part III of
che MOA. Upon receipt of EPA's objection, the State may
General permits for discharges Crora separate storm sewers
need not be sent to EPA Headquarters for review.
-------
request a public hearing. If SPA's concerns are not satisfied
and the State has not sought a hearing within 90 days of the
objection, exclusive authority to issue the general permit
passes to EPA*
If E?A raise* no objections to a general permit i; will
publicly noticed in accordance with (insert State requirements)
and 40 CFR 124.10, including publication in a daily .or
weekly newspaper circulated in the area to be covered by the
permit. The (State Agency) will issue and administer NPOES
general permits in accordance with ( insert citations to
state regulations) and 40 CFR 122* 28.
The (State Agency) also has the primary responsibility for
conducting compliance monitoring activities and enforcing
conditions and requirements of general- pe-rnits.
All specific State commitments regarding the Issuanci and
enforcement of general permits will be determined through
the annual 106 workplan/3£A' process.
This Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement will be
effective upon approval of the (State Agency's) general
permits program application by the Regional Administrator of
EPA Region ___.
FOR (State Agency):
Director (Gate
FOR UNITES STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
Regional Administrator (Date!
U.S. EPA, Region
-------
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT
REGARDING STATE AUTHORITY
TO ISSUE GENERAL PERMITS
I heremy certify, pursuant to my Authority 41 Attorney
Gener*! of the State of Minnesota, th*t in my opinion. the Lawt 0«
the State of Minnesota provide adequita authority for the State,
through its Minnesota Pollution Control .Agency (MPCA), to carry
out the general per ait program set forth in £he "Program
Description for General Permit Program* submitted by the MPCA
as part of its application to the United States Environment*!
Protection Agency for approval to administer the General Permit
Program. The authority of the MPCA is found in the following
statutes and rules of the State, which are in full force and
effect on the date of this statement.
1. Permit Authority
Minn. Stat. $ 115.03, aubd. l(e)(19!4) authorises the MPCA to
adopt, issue/ reissue, modify, deny, revoke, and enforce
reasonable permits, under such conditions as the Agency may
prescribe, for the prevention of vater pollution and for the
operation of disposal systems and other facilities.
The MPCA also has) the authority to adopt rules to implement
its other authorities, fee Minn. Stat. S 113.03, subd. Kg)
(1914). Tfcf) MPCA has adopted rules relating to the issuance of
permits. sKma. Rules Parts 7001.0010-7001.1350. One of those
rules, Part 7001.0210, relates specifically to C-eneral Permits.
-------
-2-
2. General Permit Requirements
a. Dischargers Eligibl*.
Minn. *ttles Part 7001.0210, tubpart 2 provides that "if the
agency finds that it is appropriate to issue a single permit,'
the MPCA may issue a general permit "to a category of permittee*
whose operation!, emissions, activities, discharges, or
facilities art th« S«A« or substantially similtr.* Minn. Rul«»
Part 7001.0210, mbpart 3 ?o«s on to provide that general permiti
are appropriate when several permit applicants have the saae or
substantially similar operations, discharges, operating
requirements/ emission limitations, and monitoring requirements,
and discharge the saae types of vasts.
Minn. Rules Part 7001.0210, subpart « goes on to provide that
if the MPCA finds that a permit applicant's -facility is mere
appropriately controlled by an individual permit, the MPCA may
choose to issue an individual permit, rather than a general
permit, to that applicant. If the MPCA determines that it is
appropriate to issue general permits only to those categories of
applicants who would alto qualify for a general permit under the
EPA regulations, X aa of the view that It is within the MPCA's
discretion oader the) rule to limit general permits to those
categoric* •£ applicants.
b. Geographic Area.
Minn. Rules Part 7001.0210, subpart S provides that
permittees covered by a general permit must be located within a
-------
-3-
•P«cifie gao^raphic araa idancifiad in tha permit, in ay vxtw
thia ctata nal€ ia consistent with 40 c.r.R. $ 122.28(4X1) (1985).
c. Individual Permit*.
Minn. Rulea Part 7001.0210, subptrt 6 provides rfor the issuance
of tn individual parait to an applicant who could be covered by 4
ganaral pa rait but who raquasta aa individual p«rmit or who n
datarminad by tha KPCA to ba aora appropriately ragulatad by an
individual parait. I find thia atata provision to ba conaiatant
with tha fadaral proviaiona for individual parmita undar 40 C.F.R.
$ 122.2l(b)(2) (1915).
A paraon who alraady haa an individual parait «ay raquaat tha
HPCA to tarminata tha individual parait and includa that parsoo
in tha cata^ory of applicanta ineludad in tha gtnaral pamit.
Minn. Rulaa Part 7001.0040, subpart 2 and Part 7001,0170. I find
chaaa procaduraa to ba conaistant with tha procaduraa undar 40
C.F.R. S 122.2Kb) (2) (v) (1915) wharaby a parson with an individual
par mi t may raquaat to ba) ineludad ia aa IfA-iaauad ganaral parait.
d. P«mit Procadura.
(1) Application
KtCA rul«« raquira that any paraon who taaka a MFOES
parait froal tte NPCA »uat first subait a coaplatad pa rait
•pplicatioa. Nina. Hulao parts 7001.0050 and 7001.0090. A^y
parson who raquaata to ba ineludad ia a qanaral parait will hava
to submit a coaplatad parait application to tha MJCA.
-------
-4-
(2) Notice
Tim MICA'S rules require the Agency to publish notic* oc
* propo««d ffener*! p«rait in the-State Rtgi»t«r. Minn. Rul««
Part 7001.0210, subpart 4. This publication rtquirtment is what
the MPCA oust do at a minimum, but the Agency can give aore
notice. There is nothing in Minnesota law that pcacludvt th«
MPCA from giving aor« notice than is sp«cifU4 in th« rula, and
th« MPCA can suraly provide public notic* of a i«n«ral p«nait by
publication in a n«vspap«r if th« A^tncy chosts to do so.
(3) Public Cooacnts
wh«n a 9«n«ral permit is out oa public notice, any
person ao*y submit written coaaanti about th« proposed permit.
Minn. Aules Part 7001.OLIO. Any person may request that the HFCA
modify the proposed permit in any way the person desire*. Minn.
Rules Part 7001.0110, subpert 2. See also Minn. Hulas Pert
7000.0500, subpart 6, which-allows a citizen to request that a
concern be brought to the attention of the full MfCA ftoard. This
could include a request that a certain person proposed to be
included in A
-------
-------
T ?
REVISION OF MINNESOTA NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPOES) PROOUM TO ISSUE GENERAL PERMITS.
C ]
AGENCY: Envfron»«nt«1 Prottction Agency.
ACTION: Notlce'of Approval of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permits Program of the State of Mlnntsota.
SUMMARY: On , the Regional Administrator for the Envtron-
mtnttl Protection Agency (EPA), Region v approved the state of Minnesota's
N*t1oru1 Pollutiftt 01»ctt«rgt El1«ln«t1on Systen General Ptrmltt Program.
This action authorizes the Statt of Minnesota to issue general atrait* in
Heu of individual NPOES permits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AlfflO Manzardo, Chief, PeneUs Section,
U.S. EPA, Region v, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
312/353-2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28 provide for the issuanct of general
permits to regulate discharge* of wasttwater wfclcn result froa substantially
similar operations, art of the saM type) wastes, require the saat effluent
limitations or operating conditions, require s1«Har *on1tor1ng, and art
more approprlittly control ltd undtr a general per»n rather than by
individual
-------
-2-
Mlnnesota was authorized to administer the NPOES program in June, 1974
Their program, as previously approved, di<2 not include provisions «OP .„„
issuance oC general permits. There are several car.«
-------
•west Virginia
•Wisconsin
Wyoming
11/14/73
05/10/82
02/04/74
01/30/75
05/10/82
U/26/79
05/18/81
09/30/86
05/10/82
U/24/80
* denotes Approwt* State G«ner»l ?tmU
** Contact EPA Headquarters Office, Washington, OC for a current list
IV, Sevitw Under Executive Order 12291 and trie Regulatory Flexi
Act
Hie Off let Of Management md 8udg«t *« •xtfflpttd, thl? rult from ;n«
rtvltw rtqu1rt*««nts of Exteuffvt Ordtr 12291 puriu«nt to Stction 8(0) of
tn«t Ordtr.
Undtr tut RtguUtory FTtxIbillty Act, £PA 1$ rtqulrtd to-pr«e4rt «
^•gulitory Flexibility AnilysU for «11 rylti which m«y h«vt I Hgnlfl.
cant Impact on * substintUl nuffibtr of *m*H tfltit1«. ^ursulrtt to
Section 605(d) of th« Rtgulitory F1tx1b111ty Act (S U.S.C. §601 «t SK>).
I ctrtffy tn«t trtf* Stitt G«ntri1 Ptrmltl Progrnn w111 not n«vt • j1gn1f1«
cint impact on i substantial nuwotr small tntUltt. Approval of tht
Minnesota NPOES State General Penults Program establishes no new substan-
tive requirements, nor does it alter the regulatory control over any
industrial category. Approval of the Minnesota NPOCS State General
Permits Program merely provides a simplified administrative process.
Oatc
-------
-3-
III. Federal frtglsttr Notlct of Approval of Statt -NPQES Programs or
Modifications
l provldt Ftdtral Stglsttr notlci of any action oy tnt Agtnc/
approving or modifying a Statt NPOES program, fht following raolt *m
provtdt tnt puDlic with an up-to-datt list of r.ht status of NPOES
ptrmitting authority throughout tnt country. Toady's Ftdtral 5tg
notlct 1$ to innounct tht approval of M1 nntsot a 't» authority to is$u«
gtntral ptrmits.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Conn«ct1cut
Georgia
Haw* 11
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Mlnntsot*
MISSISSIPPI
Missouri
Montana
M«vad«
N«w York
North Carol
Ohio
Ortgofi
Ptnnsyl va.n1*
Shodt [jUnd
Soutn Carolina
TtnntssM
Vtrmont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Approved Statt
NPOES ptrmlt
program
10/19/79
11/01/86
05/14/73
03/27/75
09/26/73
Q4/QI/74
06/28/74
11/28/74
10/23/77
01/01/75
08/10/78
06/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17/73
06/30/74
05/01/74
10/30/74
06/10/74
06/12/74
09/11/75
04/13/tt
10/21/75
10/19/75
06/13/75
03/11/74
09/26/73
06/30/78
09/17/84
06/10/75
12/28/77
03/11/74
06/30/76
03/31/75
Approved to
rtgulatt Ftdtral
facilities
10/19/79
11/01/86
05/05/78
12/08/80
06/01/79
09/20/79
12/09/78
08/10/78
08/28/85
09/30/83
12/09/78
12/09/78
01/28/83
06/26/79
06/23/81
11/02/79
08/31/78
04/13/82
'06/13/80
09/28/84
• •
01/28/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/26/80
Approved Statt
prttrtatmtnt
progran
10/19/79
11/01/86
06/03/81
03/12/81
08/12/83
06/03/81
09/30/83
09/30/85
06/07/83
07/16/79
05/13/82
06/03/81
09/07/84
04/13/82
*•
06/14/82
* *
07/27/83
03/12/81
09/17/84
04/09/82
08/10/83
03/16/82
02/09/82
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
GENERAL PERMIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE
Office of Water
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Permits Division (EN-336)
February 1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
PREFACE iv
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND
NPDES Permit Program 1
Uses of General Permits 2
General Permits vs. Individual Permits 3
CHAPTER 2: LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Recognition by the Courts 5
History of the Regulations 5
Coverage under Existing Regulations 8
Administration of General Permits 8
Other Regulatory Provisions Governing
General Permits 10
CHAPTER 3: PROCESS
Identification of Suitable Class or Category 12
Permit Development 17
Relationship to State Water Quality Standards 18
Special Considerations 20
Issuance and Promulgation of General Permits 20
Notice of Intent to be Covered under a
General Permit 23
Variances and General Permits 26
State Role in Development and Oversight 27
EPA Regional Office Role in Development
and Oversight 28
EPA Headquarters Role in Development and
Oversight 29
Continuation of a General Permit 31
CHAPTER 4: EXPERIENCE
Benefits and Limitations of General Permits 33
Existing General Permits 35
Examples of Existing General Permits 35
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 37
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
CHAPTER 5: STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL PROCEDURES
General 40
Review of State Statutory Provisions 42
Review of State Regulatory Requirements 43
Modification of State Program 44
Headquarters' Concurrence in Program Approvals
and Modifications 46
APPENDIX A - Federal Register Publication Requirements for
Draft and Final NPDES General Permits
APPENDIX B - EPA Headquarters' Procedures for the Review of
Draft and Final NPDES General Permits
General Permitting Strategy for Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Activities Under EPA/MMS MOU
APPENDIX C - Continuance of EPA-Issued General Permits
Under the Administrative Procedure Act
APPENDIX D - Existing General Permits
APPENDIX E - Supplemental Attorney General's Statement
APPENDIX F - Modified Memorandum of Agreement
APPENDIX G - Federal General Permit Citations
APPENDIX H - standard Industrial Category Codes for General
Permits
111
-------
GENERAL PERMIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE
PREFACE
This guidance document is intended to:
l) demonstrate the benefits of general permits as an
administrative mechanism to assist permitting authorities to
meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and to regulate
numerous discharges in similar, but not necessarily
identical, circumstances;
2) assist permitting authorities that currently have general
permit authority in the development and issuance of general
permits ;
3) assist those states currently approved to administer the
basic NPDES permit program to obtain general permit
authority; and
4) identify general permits that have been developed by both
EPA Regions and approved States.
Qrganizatipn
This guidance discusses the background and history of the
general permit program (Chapter 1), reviews the evolution of the
general permit program in terms of its legal framework {Chapter
2) , explains the process for developing and issuing a general
permit (Chapter 3), examines EPA's and the States' experience in
the development and issuance ot general permits (Chapter 4), and
iv
-------
details the process for assumption by a State of general permit
authority (Chapter 5).
Appendices
This guidance also provides several appendices that should
prove useful as reference materials. Appendix A details federal
Register publication requirements for EPA-issued draft and final
NPDES general permits. Appendix B furnishes EPA Headquarters'
procedures for the review of draft and final general permits.
Appendix C discusses the continuation of EPA-issued general
permits. Appendix D lists all the existing general permits that
EPA Headquarters has on file for use as model general permits.
Appendices E and F provide copies of a supplemental Attorney
General's Statement and a modified Memorandum of Agreement as
examples of how a State NPDES program may be modified to obtain
general permit authority. Appendix G contains the federal NPDES
general permit cites. Appendix H lists the Standard Industrial
Codes used for general permits.
-------
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
MPDES Permit Program
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program, established by Congress in 1972, is administered
primarily by States, after their authority and ability to manage
the NPDES permit program has been reviewed and approved by EPA,
pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. In addition to
the basic NPDES permit program, States are also required to
assume responsibility for the regulation of discharges from
Federal facilities and the establishment of pretreatment
programs. To date, 39 States and Territories (out of a possible
56) have received authorization to administer the basic NPDES
permit program. Of those 39, 30 have been approved to regulate
Federal facilities and 25 have approved State pretreatment
programs.
in 1979, EPA promulgated revisions to the NPDES permit
program regulations. These revisions were mainly in response to
the 1977 Clean Water Act amendments, but also created a class of
permits called general permits. Under the general permit
program, one permit may be issued to cover a class or category of
similar dischargers in a defined geographic area with similar
effluent limitations.
As with pretreatment and Federal facilities (required NPDES
permit program elements), a State seeking general permit
-------
authority must either request modification of its approved NPDES
permit program or include its request for general permit
authority as. a part of a concurrent request for NPDZS authority.
However, unlike pretreatment and Federal facilities authority,
there is no requirement that an NPDES State seek general permit
authority; it is an optional program element.
General permit authority enables the State to issue one
permit covering a similar class or category of dischargers within
specified geographic boundaries. A general permit applies the
same or similar effluent limitations and control measures to all
dischargers covered under the general permit. To date, 13 States
(Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin) have NPDES general permit authority approved by
EPA.
Uses of General Permits
There are many varied reasons why permitting authorities
choose to use general permits to cover point source discharges.
Permitting authorities approved to issue general permits have
used general permits to reduce their permit issuance backlogs.
General permits can be written to cover large classes or
categories of similar dischargers, thereby substantially reducing
permit issuance backlogs. In addition, general permits can be
used to cover dischargers that have been previously unpermitted
due to resource constraints. By covering numerous dischargers
-------
under one general permit, the permitting authority can avoid much
of the time and burden that issuing individual permits to each
discharger would involve. For some classes of discharges, such
as storm water- point sources, issuing individual permits to each
source would overburden the existing NPDES permit program.
Permit application costs and paperwork burdens for dischargers
covered under the general permit are also reduced. Dischargers
covered by a general permit usually are not required to conduct
the sampling and analysis associated with individual permit
applications.
Early in the history of the general permit program, storm
water sewers were identified as ideal candidates for coverage
under general permits. The general permit program can serve as
a means to handle the vast numbers of storm water point sources
needing permits. Since EPA cannot issue general permits covering
dischargers in those States with NPDES authority, States that
currently do not have general permit authority are strongly
encouraged to seeX such authority in order to deal with the
numbers of storm water permit applications expected in the next
few years.
General Permits vs. Individual Permits
A well-fashioned general permit is the equivalent of an
individual NPDES permit. A general permit is identical to an
individual permit regarding effluent limitations, water quality
standards, monitoring and sampling requirements, and enfor-
-------
ceability. The only difference from the permit writer's
standpoint is that a general permit covers several point sources.
Thus, general permits are fashioned just as individual permits
with monitoring and inspection and recordkeeping requirements.
The permitting authority must have confidence in the appropriate-
ness of the general permit because of the potential cumulative
impact to the environment from the point sources covered by the
general permit. Good general permits are no less effective than
individual permits; they simply cover more than one discharger.
-------
CHAPTER 2
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Recognition bv the Courts
There is no specific provision in the Clean Water Act
explicitly defining or authorizing NPDES general permits. The
statutory authority for reg'-lating a group of sources with
similar discharges under one permit was first recognized in
v. Train (396 F.Supp. 1393 (D.D.C. 1975)); aJLf-Ld.- , HRDC v.
Costle. 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). That decision required
EPA to develop and administer a permit program for all point
sources in the feedlot, separate storm sewer, agriculture and
silviculture categories. EPA had previously exempted these
discharges from the requirement of applying for and obtaining an
NPDES permit. The court held that once a discharge is identified
as a point source it cannot be excluded from coverage under the
NPDES program. The court went on to state that EPA could make
use of administrative devices, such as "area permits," in
appropriate circumstances to make the program more flexible and
administratively manageable. 396 F.Supp. at 1402. Following
this decision EPA promulgated regulations to implement this
device, calling it the general permit program.
Hi-story of the Regulations
EPA first proposed general permit regulations (February 4,
1977, 42 FR 5846) that would have limited the scope of the
-------
general permit program to irrigation return flows (later exempted
from the requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act by
the 1977 amendments) and separate storm sewers. The final
regulations, published on Jane 7, 1979 (44 FR 32354) and codified
at 40 CFR 122.48 (1980), expanded the coverage of the general
permit program to include other categories of minor point
sources, in addition to separate storm sewers, within a desig-
nated "general permit program area" or "gppa". A "gppa" had to
correspond to existing geographic or political boundaries such
as designated planning areas under Sections 208 and 303 of the
Clean Water Act, sewer districts, city, county or State boun-
daries, State highway systems, standard metropolitan statistical
areas, or urbanized areas. Categories of point sources falling
within a "gppa" that involved similar operations, discharged the
same type of wastes, had similar monitoring requirements and the
same effluent limitations (whether promulgated effluent limita-
tions guidelines or those developed by best professional
judgements) were eligible for general permit coverage, if, in the
opinion of the EPA Regional Administrator or State Director, such
coverage was appropriate.
When the NPDES regulations were merged with those for the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) , the Underground
Injection Control (UIC), and the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit programs in 1980 into the Consolidated
Permit Regulations, the general permit provisions were reor-
ganized and rewritten (at 40 CFR 122.59 (1981)) to clarify
-------
questions relating to the program and to make minor changes.
First, the designation of a "general permit program area" was
abandoned since it served no purpose that could not be satisfied
by simply specifying in the permit the geographic or political
boundaries covered. Second, while previously the "gppa" could be
redefined if necessary to address differing state water quality
standards, the new regulations clarified that the general permit
could be modified for any of the causes that applied to
individual permits (e.g., receipt of information indicating
unacceptable cumulative impacts). Other minor changes to the
general permit program included: (1) shortening EPA Headquarters
review of EPA-issued draft general permits from 90 days to 30
days; (2) clarifying that a discharger's coverage under a general
permit automatically terminates on the effective date of an
individual permit for that discharger; and (3) removing the
requirement of on-site inspections prior to revoking a general
permit and requiring the discharger to acquire an individual
permit.
The Consolidated Permit Regulations made one important
substantive change. The sources other than separate storm sewers
for which a general permit could be written would no longer be
limited to "minor" sources so long as the general permit covers
sources involving similar types of operations, having the same
wastes, effluent limitations and operating conditions and similar
-------
monitoring requirements, and which would be more appropriately
regulated under a general permit.1
Coverage undej: Existing Regulations
When rhe Consolidated Permit Regulations were deconsolidated
on April 1, 1983, the general permit provisions were recodified
at 40 CFR 122.28 without change. Section 122.28(a), which sets
forth the appropriate coverage for a general permit, states that
a general permit shall correspond to existing geographical or
political boundaries, and specifies the types of sources that may
be regulated by a general permit. Thus, general permits may be
issued to separate storm sewers, or to other sources if such
sources satisfy the criteria on similarity and appropriateness.
These criteria are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
Administration of General Permits
Section 122.28(b) addresses the administration of general
permits beyond the issuance, modification, revocation, reissuance
and termination provisions in Part 124 applicable to all permits.
Section 122.28(b) allows the EPA Regional Administrator or State
Director to require, on his or her own initiative or in response
to a petition by any interested party, any discharger otherwise
eligible for coverage under a general permit to obtain an
1 In the April 1, 1983 de-consolidation of EPA permit
programs , the word "minor" was inadvertently reinserted into 40
CFR 122.28 and subsequently published in the July 1, 1984
publication of 40 CFR Parts 100 to 149. This error was corrected
in a February 19, 1985 Federal Register notice, at 50 FB 6940.
8
-------
individual permit. some of the reasons for which an individual
permit may be required are: failure to comply with the condi-
tions of the general permit; a change in the availability of
pollution control technology; promulgation of an applicable
effluent guideline; approval of an applicable Water Qiiality
Management Plan; failure to meet the criteria.in §122.28(a>
regarding sources appropriate for coverage under a general
permit; or a determination that the source is a significant
contributor of pollutants.
The EPA Regional Administrator may require a discharger
covered by an EPA-issued general permit to apply for an in-
dividual permit as described above only after providing the
owner/operator with a written notice that a permit application is
required, which contains a brief statement of the reasons for
requiring an individual permit, an NPDES application form, a
statement setting the deadline for the filing of the application
(the Regional Administrator may grant additional time), and a
statement that on the effective date of the individual permit the
general permit will cease to apply to the permittee (40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(ii)).
A discharger excluded from coverage under a general permit
solely because it is already covered under an individual permit
may request that the individual permit be revoked, and that it be
covered by the general permit. Upon revocation of the individual
permit, the general permit applies to the source. Revocation of
-------
an individual permit must follow public notice and comment
procedures (40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(v)) .
Other Regulatory Provisions Governing General Permit^
If an NPDES state is proposing to issue a general permit, 40
CFR 123.43 requires the State to send a copy of the draft or
proposed general permit, except those for separate storm sewers,
to both the EPA Regional Office and the Director, Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits, EPA Headquarters. 40 CFR 123.44 allows
EPA 90 days from receipt of the proposed general permit to
comment on, object to or make recommendations regarding the
proposed general permit.
If EPA is issuing the general permit, 40 CFR 124.58 sets
forth special procedures for internal EPA review. The EPA
Regional Administrator is required to send a copy of the draft
general permit and the administrative record to the Director,
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, during the comment
period. The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits has 30 days
or until the end of the public comment period, whichever is
later, to comment upon, object to, or maJce recommendations with
respect to the draft general permit. If the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits objects to a draft general permit within
the review period, the Regional Administrator cannot issue the
final general permit until the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits concurs in writing with the conditions of the general
permit. The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits is not
10
-------
required to provide written concurrence/approval on all draft
general permits; failure to object during the 30-day review
period can be taken as an approval. Thus, written concurrence 15
necessary only.for those general permits that have been objected
to at the draft stage.
Normally a formal evidentiary hearing is available to any
/•
person wishing to challenge any EPA-issued NPDES permit.
However, since general permits are rulemaJcings, 40 CFR 124.71
provides that persons affected by an EPA-issued general permit
must either challenge the general permit in the U.S. Court of
Appeals under sec. 509(b)(l) of the CWA or apply for an
individual NPDES permit. It is particularly important that a
complete administrative record of the general permit be compiled
since appellate court challenges do not allow the introduction of
new testimony through the hearing process. In addition, 40 CFR
124.Ill(a)(3) provides the option to the Regional Administrator
to use nonadversary panel procedures to process draft general
permits.
11
-------
CHAPTER 3
PROCESS
Identification of Suitable Class or Category
Normally it is the Region or State that initiates the
development of a general permit for a particular class or
category of point sources. However, a group of like dischargers
may also request that the permitting authority employ a general
permit rather than individual permits.
The first step in the development of a general permit is to
identify a class or category of dischargers meeting the criteria
of s 122. 28. (As noted in Chapter 2, general permits need no
longer be issued to cover only "minor" discharges; although some
permitting authorities have made the decision not to use general
permits to cover "major" discharges.) The five criteria for
general permits contained in 5122.28 must be met before a general
permit can be developed.
1 . Involve the -^iMlfi r>r ?"ftstantiallv similar types of
operations
Any category or subcategory of dischargers is eligible for
coverage under a general permit provided that all dischargers
within the permitted category or subcategory involve similar
types of operations. Examples of classes or categories of
dischargers that have been covered under general permits are
offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and production
-------
facilities; concentrated animal feedlots; non-contact cooling
water; hydrostatic testing of petroleum pipelines; and seafood
processing. These are just some examples of facilities that can
be covered by a general permit; this list is not exhaustive. As
mentioned above, coverage of storm water point sources by general
permits is also appropriate.
2. Discharge the same types of wastes
Once a class or category of dischargers has been identified
as having similar operations, a determination must be made as to
the similarity of waste streams. The regulations state that
facilities must discharge the "same types of wastes" to be
covered under a general permit. EPA has not interpreted this
requirement to mean that the waste streams must be identical in
composition. Rather, this requirement should be interpreted in
conjunction with the next two criteria; the waste streams should
be sufficiently similar that the same (or similar) permit
conditions are appropriate.
3. Require the same effluent limitations or operating
conditions
EPA has not interpreted thia requirement to mean that
effluent limitations or operating conditions must be identical.
Permit writers should be careful when water quality-limited or
special use streams are involved. The general permit can be
fine-tuned with requirements that ensure that State water quality
13
-------
standards are not exceeded, or that facilities discharging to
water quality- limited or special use streams are excluded from
coverage under the general permit. (See page 18 for a further
discussion. )
For all types of discharges outside the baseline of the
territorial seas, Section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act mandates
that Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluations (ODCEs) be performed.
The ODCE provides an additional basis for limitations and
monitoring requirements in these general permit. Just as a
general permit must incorporate those special limits detailed in
an ODCE, so also must Areas of Biological Concern (AJBCs)
identified by the Regional Administrator in accordance with the
criteria set forth in 40 CFR 125. L22(a) ( 1) through (10) be
addressed in the general permit for oil and gas facilities in
areas in and beyond the territorial seas. In either case, these
special limitations need not affect the entire geographical area
to be covered by the general permit and do not preclude issuing a
general permit to a large class or category of facilities, but
the general permit would have to incorporate conditions such that
facilities either operating in ABCs or affected by the findings
of the ODCE would comply with any special limitations.
4 . Re
-------
general permit could be structured to require different monitor-
ing procedures for different sized facilities within the same
class or category of dischargers. In one case facilities with a
certain volume-of effluent might be required to monitor more
frequently than small facilities (e.g., the permit could require
weekly monitoring for large facilities and monthly monitoring for
smaller facilities). In other cases, the general permit might
require different monitoring methods (e.g., continuous monitoring
vs. grab samples). As mentioned above, the general permit must
also accommodate special conditions required by ODCEs or for
ABCs. It is possible to tailor the general permit with specific
conditions so that a facility that does not have a certain waste
stream would not need to monitor and report for that waste
stream. For example, a general permit covering petroleum storage
and transfer facilities might include requirements for discharges
from truck washing and tank loading area runoff. However, if a
facility does not have these discharges, it could still be
covered by the general permit, but the specific requirements for
truck washing and tanJc loading would not apply. The facility
would only comply with those control and monitoring requirements
of the general permit that are applicable.
Another example might be a general permit covering both
dewatering activities and hydrostatic testing of pipelines, both
of which can occur during pipeline construction. If a facility
has both operations, all the monitoring requirements of the
general permit would apply. If a facility only has one of the
15
-------
two operations, then only those monitoring requirements specific
to that type of operation would apply.
The decision as to which monitoring requirements apply can
be made in several ways. The best approach is to fashion the
information required in the Notice of Intent (NOD to allow the
permitting authority to make the decision as to which control and
monitoring requirements are applicable for that particular
discharger. Or the NOT might be fashioned to require that the
potential permittee identify those proposed monitoring require-
ments that apply to the facility, subject to the approval of the
permitting authority. Another approach might be to structure the
'general permit in such a way as to allow the permittee to make
the decision, based on the terms of the permit, as to which
monitoring requirements are applicable; however, this approach is
not recommended.
5. Discharges are more appropriately controlled under a general
permit
The permitting authority must determine the suitability of
coverage under the general permit by examining the significance
of the discharges, pollutant levels, cumulative impacts on the
receiving water(s), etc. The EPA Regional Administrator or a
NPDES State Director must then state that, in his or her opinion,
the discharges are more appropriately controlled under a general
permit rather than an individual permit. This statement must
appear in the fact sheet accompanying the permit and an oppor-
16
-------
tunity for public comment on the suitability of covering such
dischargers under a general permit must be provided.
Permit Development
Once the five criteria discussed above are met, the actual
development of the general permit can proceed just as for any-
individual permit. The permit writer should first apply any
appropriate effluent limitations guideline(s). In the absence of
an effluent limitations guideline, the permit writer must use
his/her best professional judgement (BPJ) in establishing permit
limits and conditions. The NPDES regulations, at 40 CFR 125.3,
require that permits developed on a BPJ basis must consider the
appropriate technology for the category of point sources, based
upon all available information, and any unique factors relating
to the class or category of sources. In settiitg BPJ limitations,
the permit writer must consider several specific factors. These
factors are also those required to be considered in the develop-
ment of effluent limitations guidelines, and therefore, are often
referred to as the "304{b)11 factors (fiflfi, 40 CFR 125.3).
References (data sources, tools, etc.) for BPJ determinations are
numerous and voluminous. Examples of BPJ tools available to the
permit writer are abstracts of industrial N^DES permits,
treatability manuals, guidance documents, toxicity reduction
evaluations for selected industries, industry experts within EPA,
and effluent guidelines information (including Section 308
17
-------
questionnaires, screening and verification data, development
documents, etc.), as well as technical journals and books.
Relationship to State Water Quality Standards
The permit writer must also address whether the appropriate
effluent limitations guideline or BPJ determination will ensure
that State water quality standards are met. EPA has published
methods for establishing effluent limitations for all point
source discharges based on State water quality standards (e.g. ,
wasteload allocations). Any NPDES permit must ensure that State
water quality standards are met at the edge of any applicable
mixing zone. This is more difficult for a general permit because
of the multiple receiving water bodies involved within the
geographic area of the general permit. A general permit can be
subdivided, or several general permits can be issued, where there
is a need to meet varying State water quality standards, in
addition, individual permits can be required of dischargers with
existing water quality-based limitations, dischargers that have
caused exceedences of State water quality standards in the past,
or dischargers into receiving waters known or suspected of
failing to meet their designated use(s) due to point source
impacts.
State water quality standards are comprised of use
classifications and narrative and/or numerical criteria
established to protect the use. To be fully protective of
aquatic life and environmental quality, States should develop
18
-------
both numerical and narrative water quality criteria. Where
narrative criteria are adopted, the State indicates how it win
implement the criteria, e.g., through periodic field sampling of
the habitat oc bioassays of the effluent (acute and chronic
toxicity testing), during the State water quality standards
approval process.
In some instances, EPA recommended criteria may be used- to
help interpret a State narrative standard. For example, a State
may specify as a narrative standard that all waters shall not be
toxic to aquatic life or human health. In the absence of any
State numerical criteria for toxic chemicals, the EPA recommended
criteria may be used to define expected levels of toxicity. This
approach is recommended in the implementation of the requirements
of sec. 304(1) of the CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of
1987, for those States that have not yet revise'd their water
quality standards in accordance with sec. 303(c)(2) of the CWA.
Such States are still required under sec. 304(1) to list impaired
waters and develop individual control strategies.
There are several ways in which the permit writer can ensure
that State water quality standards are met. A narrative
statement requiring compliance with State water quality standards
can be part of the general permit. In addition, an NO I request-
ing information about the receiving water body can be used to
determine if general permit coverage is appropriate and if State
water quality standards will be met by the particular discharger.
Another approach would be to use statewide numerical limits as
19
-------
the applicable limits for a particular water body or group ot
receiving waters (e.g. , all State waters classified with a
particular use designation). Other methods, such as best
management practices (BMPs), are also available.
Special Considerations
Any special conditions mandated by an ODCE or ABC require-
ments should be included in the general permit. As discussed
above, the permit writer has the latitude to fashion the general
permit to cover varying operations, wastes, effluent limitations
and operating conditions, and monitoring requirements.
Issuance and Promulgation of General Permits
Once a tentative decision has been made to issue a general
permit, the permit writer develops a draft general permit
incorporating the necessary terms and conditions. When the draft
general permit and accompanying fact sheet have been prepared,
public notice must be given in publications of general circula-
tion (e.g. , statewide newspapers, or in the case of EPA-issued
general permits, in the Federal Register). The draft general
permit itself need not be published, only notice of its
availability; however, EPA practice has been to publish the fact
sheet for draft general permits and to publish the fact sheet,
response to comments received on the draft general permit, and
general permit upon the issuance of the final general permit.
20
-------
On November 3, L983, the Office of Management and Budget
waived review of EPA-issued general permits. This has greatly
reduced the review time for EPA-issued general permts. Appendix
A contains a memorandum of January 16, 1984, providing
boilerplate language that should be included in all draft and
final EPA-issued general permits. EPA Regional Offices should
adhere closely to these requirements in preparing draft and final
general permits to avoid delays in publication in the Federal
Register.
Since general permits are considered to be rulemaJcings,
EPA's issuance and promulgation activities must be conducted in
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
551, e_t sea.1 . NPDES States are, of course, bound by the
strictures of their statutes governing State rulemaking,
licensing, and adjudicatory proceedings. In some States, for
instance, this has meant that in addition to providing public
notice of a draft general permit in a statewide newspaper, the
draft general permit must also be published in a State
Administrative Register or Bulletin.
The permitting authority must ensure that there is adequate
public notice of the availability of the draft general permit and
all supporting materials (e.g. , the fact sheet) in the
administrative record, including all ODCE and ABC supporting
materials. The fact sheet must either be published or made
available for review by the public. In addition, the permit
21
-------
writer must ensure that there is opportunity for effective public
comment, including a public hearing, if appropriate.
After the close of t.;e comment period on the draft general
permit, all comments received must be evaluated and, where
significant, must be responded to, with any necessary changes
made to the general permit. Because the fact sheet represents
the original intent in developing the general permit, EPA
recommends that no changes to the original fact sheet be made.
Any necessary changes to the permit in order to respond to
comments received can be discussed in an addendum to the fact
sheet (commonly called Response to Comments). Any such Response
to Comments should include a citation to that part of the final
general permit changed in response to the comment (see. 40 CFR
25.8). Any comments on the draft general permit deemed to be of
an insignificant nature can be responded to in a letter to the
commenter without reference in the final permit, although this is
not required under 40 CFR 124.17. It is also imperative that
permit writers maintain complete files on all comments received
during the public comment period in order to respond to any
challenge to the general permit.
At the time of the final promulgation of the general permit,
the effective date and expiration date of the general permit must
be explicitly stated. Some permitting authorities have suggested
that the draft general permit incorporate a date by which the
general permit would automatically become effective if no changes
are made to the proposed general permit; this approach is
22
-------
incorrect since the final general permit may need to be adjusted
to respond to comments furnished during the public comment period
and such revisions may take longer than the proposed automatic
effective date: In addition, Section 553(d) of the APA requires
publication of a substantive rule not less than 30 days before
its effective date. The purpose of this requirement is to allow
permittees sufficient lead time to prepare to comply with new
regulatory requirements. Section 553(d)(l) of the APA provides
an exemption from the requirement to delay the effective date of
a promulgated regulation for 30 days in instances where the
regulation will relieve restrictions on the regulated community.
In the case of a general permit, such "relief might be the
issuance of an NPDES permit to previously unpermitted point
source discharges or that the submission of individual permit
applications will be unnecessary. The final permit should be
published in the same manner as the original draft permit and
must be signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, State Director,
or their designees. Although 40 CFR 124.17 provides that only
the final general permit and any Response to Comments need be
published, a preamble discussion of the circumstances surrounding
the issuance of the final general permit is very beneficial.
Notice of Intent to be Covered Under a General Permit
The general permit regulations do not specifically address
the issue of how a potential permittee is to apply to be covered
under a general permit. EPA and states have generally incor-
23
-------
porated permit conditions that either require potential permit-
tees to notify the permit authority that they intend to comply
with the general permit or that they do not wish to be covered by
the general permit and wish an individual permit. Another
approach would be to cover all dischargers engaged in an activity
regulated by the general permit automatically unless a discharger
specifically wishes not to be covered and requests an individual
permit. In the latter case, there is no clear accounting for the
number of permittees covered by the general permit nor an
identification of those permittees, which has a bearing on
enforcement and compliance activities. EPA-issued general
permits have generally required that those permittees wishing to
be covered must notify the permitting authority within a
specified time to be eligible for coverage. This notification
requirement is commonly called a Notice of Intent (NOD.
EPA recommends the use of NOIs for a variety of reasons. The
use of the NOI allows the permitting authority to know the number
of permittees covered and their identity and location. If the
general permit does not provide for automatic coverage, the
permitting authority can use the NOI as a screening mechanism to
determine the appropriateness of coverage under the general
permit (e.g. , if the discharge is located on a water quality-
Limited stream segment). In addition, the permitting authority
can use the NOI to determine appropriate monitoring conditions if
the general permit has varying monitoring requirements. The
requirement can provide certainty to permittees that they are
24
-------
covered by the general permit and can also provide general
information should they wish an individual permit.
Another advantage .of using the NOI is to ensure that the
terms a_nd conditions of the general permit continue in effect for
those permittees that have submitted an NOI should the general
permit expire and a new general permit is not issued in time. An
even stronger case for the continuance of general permits can be
made if the general permit is structured so as to require a new
submission of an NOI just prior to the expiration date of the
original general permit. (See discussion on Continuance of
General Permits on page 31.)
The general permit should detail the information to be
provided by the permittee in the NOI. In most instances, the NOI
requires the name, address, and telephone number of the permit
applicant, location of the facility (preferably in latitude and
longitude) , the responsible on-site official, and the name of the
receiving water. Other items that might be required in an NOI
could include a justification for coverage under the general
permit, seasonal or locational (mobile facilities) discharge
notifications or topographic maps and/or schematic drawings of
the facility. The information required in the NOI should be
tailored to the requirements of the permitting authority and the
nature of the discharges being covered.2 In addition, the
2 For mobile facilities, information concerning the general
geographic area of operations would be required, along with
notification of each instance of termination and initiation of
discharges at new sites.
25
-------
information required in the NOI should be sufficient to enable
the permitting authority to determine if che particular facility
qualifies for coverage under the general permit.
fJOIs are-not considered new Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) and therefore are not required to be cleared with the
Office of Management and Budget. The use of MOIs was incor-
porated in the generic ICR submission covering the NPDES permit
program, which was cleared by the Office of Management and
Budget on July 18, 1985 and is effective through July 31, 1988.
Variances and General Permits
Normally, an individual permittee is able to request a
variance from otherwise applicable effluent limitations. The
types of variances available and the timeframes for requesting
such variances are detailed in 40 CFR 122.21(1) and (m). Some
States have suggested that it might be appropriate to grant a
variance to all dischargers covered under a general permit (i.e.,
the general permit terms and conditions would contain the
variance). It is EPA's position that it is inappropriate to
grant variances in general ^permits.
However, a discharger who would be covered under a general
permit still has the right to request a variance. First, an
individual discharger could request a variance during the public
comment period on the general permit, wnich would then be
processed according to the applicable regulations. If the
variance were granted, the discharger would be issued an
26
-------
individual NPDES permit. Second, the discharger could submit an
individual permit application, thereby "opting out" of general
permit coverage. This application could include a request for a
variance.
State Role in Development and Oversight
NPDES States with general permit authority are responsible
for the development, issuance and enforcement of general permits
covering dischargers within the State. All State draft or
proposed (see. 40 CFR 122.2, Definitions, for the distinction
between draft and proposed permits) general permits, except those
'for separate storm sewers, must be submitted to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office and the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits for review and concurrence (sfifi, 40 CFR 123.24(d) and
123.43(b)). The Regional Administrator, according to 40 CFR
123.44(j) , may agree in the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA
and the State to review draft general permits rather than
proposed general permits. If such is the case, there is no need
to also submit the proposed general permit to either the Regional
Office or the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits unless the
proposed general permit (1) differs from the draft permit, (2)
the draft permit was objected to by the Regional Office or the
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, or (3) there were
significant public comments on the draft permit. The submission
of draft general permits should occur well in advance of public
27
-------
notice of the draft general permit as this tends to expedite the
review process.
EPA Regional Office Role in Development and Oversight
The EPA Regional Offices have three roles in the management
of the general permit program. First, the Regional Office is
responsible for the development of general permits in non-MPDES
States.-3 In these instances, the EPA Region has control of the
general permit issuance process. Second, if an approved NPDES
State with general permit authority is developing the general
permit, then the EPA Region will have an oversight role, as
defined in 40 CFR Part 123 and in the Memorandum of Agreement
between the Region and the NPDES State. The EPA Regional Office
staff should work closely with the State in developing the draft
general permit in order to avoid unnecessary delays.
The third role of the EPA Regional Offices is to work with
EPA Headquarters to assist NPDES States without general permit
authority in developing the necessary statutory and regulatory
framework for assuming the general permit program. In addition,
the Regional Offices are responsible for keeping EPA Headquarters
informed of new issues concerning general permits, as well as
working with EPA Headquarters in addressing such issues.
3 EPA Regional Offices cannot issue general permits covering
dischargers in States with NPDES authority, even if the State
does not have general permit authority.
-------
EPA Headquarters. Role in Development and Oversiaht-
EPA Headquarters developed procedures for trie review of all
draft and final NPDES general permits that were detailed in a
September 27, 1983 memorandum to the EPA Regional Water Manage-
ment Division Directors. In essence, these review procedures
provided for a 10-day review of draft general permits and a 5-day
review of final general permits by Headquarters.
EPA Headquarters has decided to waive its review and
concurrence on all non-offshore oil and gas general permits,
partly because States and Regions have gained sufficient
experience in the use of the general permit mechanism, and also
partly because Headquarters views the issuance of non-offshore
oil and gas general permits as somewhat routine. Non-offshore
oil and gas general permits include, for example, feedlots or
onshore oil and gas facilities. Thus, EPA Headquarters will
formally review and concur on draft or final general permits only
for offshore oil and gas activities and will conform to the
review procedures established in the September 27, 1983,
memorandum for these general permits. (See Appendix B for a copy
of the September 27, 1983 review procedures. Appendix B also
contains a guidance document, dated July 3, 1985, that provides
information on the NPDES permitting process for oil and gas
activities on the outer continental shelf and coordination with
the Minerals Management Service.) In general, EPA Headquarters'
waiver should speed up the issuance and promulgation of general
permits.
29
-------
Because 40 CFR 123.43, governing transmission of information
to EPA from the States, and 5124.58, governing special procedures
for EPA-issued general permits, require that the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits receive copies of all draft and proposed
general permits, whether State or EPA Regional Office general
permits, copies should still be sent to EPA Headquarters. In
addition, EPA Regional Offices will be required to prepare two
semi-annual lists of non-offshore oil and gas general permits
that (l) they or the States expect to issue in the upcoming six
months and (2) that they or the States have issued in the
preceding six months. These two lists should be submitted to
the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits by October l and
April 1 of each year. These lists will keep EPA Headquarters
informed of those general permits being developed and issued and
will allow Headquarters to distribute applicable general permits
to other EPA Regions and NPDES States as models. Such lists
win also allow EPA Headquarters to provide a measure of national
consistency concerning general permits issued in different
Regions and States.
Although EPA Headquarters has waived its review and
concurrence of all non-offshore oil and gas general permits, this
waiver may be revoked for general permits of national sig-
nificance or those involving legal or technical issues of first
impression. EPA Headquarters will examine the semi-annual Lists
and identify those non-offshore oil and gas general permits that
merit review.
30
-------
Continuation of a General Permit
Under Section 558(c) of the APA, an expired federally-issued
permit continues in force until the effective date of a new
permit, provided that the permittee has submitted a timely and
sufficient application and EPA, through no fault of the
permittee, does not issue a new permit with an effective date on
or before the expiration date of the previous permit (s_efl, 40 CFR
122.6). This is to protect the applicant from being jeopardized
by EPA's delay or failure to reissue a permit.
Most States with NPDES authority have comparable laws or
regulations (se_£, 40 CFR 122.6(b)). States, of course, are boun•:
by their own statutory requirements regarding continuance.
With regard to general permits, it is EPA's position that an
expired general permit continues in force and effect until a new
general permit is issued. Only those facilities authorized to
discharge under the expiring general permit are covered by the
continued permit. Where the notification requirements of a
general permit provide permit coverage prior to the actual
commencement of operations at a site (e.g. , mobile seafood
processors) , facilities providing such notice prior to the
expiration of the general permit are covered by the continued
general permit. Although EPA considers such continuance legally
permissible,4 permit continuance should be only a last resort.
4 However, there has been one adverse court decision on
this issue. In Nunan Kitlutsisti v. Arco Alaska. Inc. . (D.C.
Alaska, 1984), 592 F.Supp. 832, the U.S. District Court held that
an expired general permit is not continued under the APA as it is
not a license "required" by law. (The court reasoned that
31
-------
(See Appendix B for a January 16, 1984, memorandum containing a
further discussion of continuance of EPA-issued NPDES general
permits under the APA.)
issuance or reissuance of a general permit was wholly within
Agency discretion. ) By the time this case was appealed, EPA had
reissued the general permit. The 9tn Circuit, finding that there
was no longer a controversy between parties, declared the case to
be moot and vacated the District Court's decision. Thus, the
case is of limited precedential value.
32
-------
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIENCE
Benefits and Limitations of General Permits
The use of general permits provide certain clear benefits to
the permitting authority. General permits give permitting
authorities the ability to cover a large number of facilities
with one permit action, rather than multiple actions. In
addition, the permitting authority has the ability to frame the
general permit for a class or category of facilities within one
geographical area such that any new facilities entering the area
are automatically covered and new permit actions are therefore
unnecessary. Permit authorities are also able to significantly
reduce permit issuance backlogs in those instances where a large
number of similar facilities are contributing to the backlog.
This can be especially important in the handling of minor permit
backlogs. General permits also provide a practical means to
cover discharges from mobile sources within a geographic area;
only one permit action is necessary instead of several.
Based upon its experience, the Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits considers the benefits of general permits to far
outweigh their disadvantages. However, there can also be certain
drawbacks to the use of general permits that permitting authorit-
ies may need to address. Unlike individual permits, a larger
share of the responsibility for the information gathering
process leading to the development of a general permit falls on
-------
the permitting authority rather than on the permit applicant(s),
although the permitting authority can use existing information
from a variety of sources (e.g., an industrial trade association)
to develop the" general permit. While certain disadvantages may
make the issuance of general permits difficult in some cases,
they clearly do no> preclude the issuance of general permits.
For instance, incorporating limitations protecting varying State
water quality standards within a large geographical area can be
difficult but not insurmountable. As mentioned previously,
general permits can address these situations through a tiered
approach to the requirements in the general permit. The need to
have large numbers of similar facilities to make a general permit
administratively worthwhile is often cited as a drawback to
general permits. Although general permits are typically viewed
as best suited to covering large numbers of similar facilities,
general permits have also been issued to cover a modest number of
facilities (e.g., a general permit was issued to cover 21
concentrated animal feeding operations in Arizona). In addition,
issuance of a general permit to several facilities can be
practical if more facilities are expected to enter the geographic
area during the term of the permit or the discharge? are from
mobile sources within the permit area. At times the need to
adhere to the APA (or the State equivalent) is viewed as a
disadvantage. In fact, adherence to the procedures of the APA
need not be burdensome and can lead to the development of
effective and administratively supportable general permits, and
34
-------
is certainly less burdensome than issuance of individual permits
to each point source covered by the general permit.
Existing General Permits
A list of general permits already issued by either EPA or
NPDES States is furnished as Appendix D. Appendix D also lists
the Federal Register citations for each of the EPA-issued
permits. EPA Headquarters has copies of these permits on file
for distribution upon request. These general permits are
available as models for new general permits to be developed by an
EPA Region or NPDES States. These models will need to be
modified in most cases to ensure that State water quality
standards are protected.
Examples of Existing General Permits
Types of facilities covered under general permits include:
oil and gas well operations; petroleum storage and transfer
plants; seafood processors; construction dewatering activities;
hydrostatic testing of pipelines; and non-contact cooling water.
A few examples are:
1. Offshore Oil and Gas - (6 permits; 3,800 facilities covered)
The recent round of BPJ BAT/BCT general permits issued by
Regions IV, VI, IX, and X is an example of how these general
permits are becoming more common. The first BPJ BAT general
35
-------
permit was issued by Region X for discharges in the Bering/Beauf-
ort Seas. Region X has also issued a general permit for Norton
Sound, Alaska that took advantage of the Region's experience with
the Bering/Beaufort Seas general permit. Subsequent permits for
tne Gulf of Mexico, southern California, and Alaska have built
upon EPA's experience with these early general permits.
The Gulf of Mexico general permit is a good example of how a
general permit can be tailored to incorporate special limits
based on an ODCE. The general permit authorizes discharges from
any oil and gas facility discharging anywhere within the Gulf of
Mexico outside the territorial seas of the coastal States.
However, in and near ABCs, the permit will require one of two
options. Where the Minerals Management Service (MMS) requires
shunting (discharge through a pipe) to near the ocean floor, the
NPDES permit will rely on shunting to protect the ABC. If MMS
has not required shunting, or MMS has established "no activity
zones" around ABCs, then the NPDES permit will require discharge
rate limitations depending upon distance from the ABC. In the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, where live bottom areas are ill defined,
the general permit requires that an operator submit the live
bottom survey required by MMS to EPA for decisions regarding ABCs
and discharge rate limitations.
2. Concentrated Animal Feedlots - (4 permits; 450 feedlots)
Region VIII developed two general permits for animal
feedlots in several western States. Region IX used those general
36
-------
permits as models in developing a general permit for Arizona and
Region X used them as a model to develop a general permit for
Idaho. The use of prior general permits as models has sig-
nificantly reduced the work needed to develop general permits in
Regions IX and X, although some issues were raised concerning
permit limitations for feedlots confining more than 300, but
fewer than 1,000, animal units.
3 . Construction Activities & Hydrostatic Testing - (1 pe rm i t;
1 ,000 sites)
Region VIII developed a general permit that authorized
discharges from construction dewatering and hydrostatic testing
activities. This one general permit was written to cover both
types of discharges because both occur during the construction of
pipelines. Since the discharge of water from construction pits
almost always occurs in any type of construction, Region VIII
worked with construction trade associations in developing the
terms and requirements of the general permit.
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
General permits will be effective only to the extent that
permitting authorities (either EPA or NPDES states) are able to
systematically and efficiently identify instances of non-com-
pliance with the terms and conditions of the general permit, and
then to take timely and appropriate enforcement action to achieve
full compliance by the permittee.
37
-------
The requirements for NPDES permit program compliance
monitoring and enforcement are found at 40 CFR Part 123.
Specifically, 40 CFR 123.26, 123.27, and 123.45 detail the
measures that the EPA Regional Offices and those States approved
to administer the CJPDES permit program in lieu of EPA are
required to implement and conduct with regards to compliance
evaluations, enforcement and noncompliance and program reporting.
There is no one "correct" administrative system, although 40 CFR
Part 123 discusses the minimum basic principles for an effective
compliance tracking and enforcement system; differences in
organizational structure, staffing, and State laws and regula-
tions win necessitate different systems from. State to State.
For detailed information on the specifics required of compliance
monitoring and enforcement programs, contact J. William Jordan,
Director, Enforcement Division, Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits (EN-338).
In general, EPA Headquarters recommends the assignment of a
unique permit number to each permittee covered under a general
permit.5 (See discussion at 23-26, above, concerning the use of
5 Each general permit Is issued with a specific 9-character
alpha-numeric code, the first two characters are letters
representing the State or area covered by the general permit
(e.g., "NT for New YorJc, "CA for California, "GM" for Gulf of
Mexico). The next character must be a "G" for General Permit.
The fourth and fifth characters are the two-digit code for the
industrial category covered by the general permit (e.g., "28" for
offshore oil and gas, "01" for animal feedlots, "99" for
unassigned industries). (A complete list of industrial
categories is set forth in Appendix H. ) The last four categories
should be zeros ("0000"), to allow up to 9,999 individual
facilities to be covered by the general permit (0001-9999).
Then, as each facility submits an NOI, a specific permit number
38
-------
NOIs to allow che permitting authority to identify permittees
covered under the general permit.) This approach allows for the
tracking of compliance activities at each individual site covered
under the general permit. Information specific to each permittee
covered by the general permit should be entered into the Permit
Compliance System (PCS, the automated NPDES data base). States
that are not regular users of PCS, and do not have an automated
system that is compatible, should supply data to the applicable
EPA Regional Office in a form that allows the Regional Office to
enter the data into PCS.
The PCS system currently considers general permits to be
"minor" permits, although some consideration has been given to
changing the system to more accurately characterize general
permits (e.g. , a distinct classification as is currently the case
for Federal facilities). Generally, "major" permits require
monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), with the information
contained therein entered into PCS. "Minor" permits generally
contain quarterly monitoring requirements. There should also be
a routine schedule for updating the inventory of permittees
covered under the general permit to reflect changes in basic
information, such as changes in the ownership/address of a
source. The more frequently the information is updated and
entered into PCS, the greater the confidence and usefulness of
PCS.
is assigned for that facility (e.g., AZG010001, AZG010002, etc.).
Further information may be obtained by calling the PCS User
Support Hotline (202-475-8529).
39
-------
CHAPTER 5
STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL PROCEDURES
General
Obtaining general permit authority gives a State the full
range of regulatory options for controlling point source
dischargers.6 As of this writing, 13 States have been approved
to issue general permits for point sources, and several other
States are at various stages of receiving approval for issuance
of fJPDES permits. As noted earlier, general permit approval
allows States to issue permits covering multiple sources and are
thus able to reduce substantially their permit backlogs.
Obtaining approval to issue general permits is a straightforward,
step-by-step process that is described in detail in this Chapter.
Usually, obtaining general permit authority is not complex
because most State statutes do not preclude the issuance of
general permits. Tne State need only point to general authority
to issue permits; specific statutory authority to issue general
permits is not necessary. In most instances, the State Attorney
General need only certify to EPA that State law is adequate to
carry out the general permit program.
An approved NPDES State's plan to implement a general pernuc
program is processed as a revision or modification of its NPDES
6 Some NPDES States have issued general permits without
first obtaining EPA authorization. While these general permits
may be legal State permits, they are not NPDES permits and
dischargers are considered to be in violation of the CWA, unless
they are also covered by an individual NPDES permit.
-------
program. First, the Scats statutes, regulations, and NPDES
program submission (Attorney General's statement, Memorandum of
Agreement, and Program Description) are reviewed by the State co
determine if adequate authority exists to administer IJPDES
general permits. After any necessary amendments are made, the
State submits its program modification to the EPA through the
applicable Regional Office.
The authority to approve State NPDES programs and progr-n
modifications has been delegated to the EPA Regional Administrat-
ors, with certain restrictions. (£££, EPA Delegations Manual,
Chapter 2, No. 2-34, State frJPDES Program, dated July 25, 1984.)
Early coordination between the State, the Regional Office, and
EPA Headquarters on program approvals and program modifications
is important: if the review and approval process is to proceed
rapidly and delays are to be minimized. (See discussion on page
45. )
In the case of program modifications, the Regional
Administrator maJces a determination as to whether the program
modification is "substantial." (See. 40 CFH 123.62(b)(2).)
There are many reasons why a State's request for general permit
authority should be treated as a substantial program modifica-
tion. A general permit program can have the potential for
widespread impacts upon point source dischargers within the
State. In addition, the State may have to enact important
regulatory and/or statutory changes to allow for issuance of
general permits. Other legal issues may also be involved, sucn
41
-------
as potentially conflicting State statutes. Tne public participa-
tion elements of a State's general permit authority are often
crucial because of concerns relating to specific point sources
that could potentially be covered under a general permit. Changes
made to ensure public participation in the general permit program
may make the program modification substantial.
A substantial program modification triggers two require-
ments, first, substantial program modifications are subject to
public notice and comment procedures. Second, Headquarters'
concurrence is required.
Review of State Statutory Provisions
The State statutes must be analyzed for general permit
authority. The existing permitting authority provided in che
statute — the directives to the permitting authority and/or the
Director, the general prohibition against discharging without a
permit, and the enforcement authority — should be reviewed to
assure that there is authority to issue and enforce general
permits and particularly that any applicable State-specific
administrative law requirements are not limited to individual
permits. If general permit authority is provided in the statute,
it should b« reviewed to malce certain that it is not limited to
particular classes of dischargers, as this may be interpreted to
prohibit general permit issuance for categories which are not
mentioned. Of course, a State may wish to only provide for cn«
-------
use of general permits for certain point sources; if so, EPA
approval will be limited to those categories.
Review of Stat'e Regulatory Requirements
The State should have regulations analogous to 40 CFR
122.28, containing the substantive authority to issue general
permits. The State regulations should describe:
o the geographic area for which general permits may be
written;
o the criteria for selecting categories for coverage,
comparable to 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2); and
o the criteria for requiring or authorizing (upon
request) individual permits for specific dischargers.
The State regulations must be at least as stringent as the
federal NPDES regulations.
The State regulations requiring that all dischargers into
waters of the U.S. obtain permits should be reviewed; they may
have to be amended to add a qualifier for general permits. This
may be necessary if the language of the regulations or statute
seems to envision only the issuance of individual permits. If
the current statute is of the type described above, the Attorney
General must explain why general permits are also allowed.
The State regulations must also contain procedural require-
ments for general permit issuance. The regulations must require
the state Director, once he or she has made a tentative deter-
mination to issue a general permit, to prepare a draft general
43
-------
permit (40 CFR 124.10(c)). The regulations must require that
draft permits contain the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
I24.10(d): (1) necessary conditions (the same conditions
required to be* contained in individual permits); (2) immediate
compliance with the terms and conditions of the general permit;
(3) monitoring requirements; and (4) applicable effluent
limitations, standards, and prohibitions. The regulations also
must require that all draft general permits be accompanied by
fact sheets (see. 40 CFR 124.8(a)), which set forth the principal
facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological and
policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit. Of
course, the State regulations also must provide for public
participation in the issuance of general permits just as for
individual permits (see. 40 CFR 124.10).
Modification of State Program
If general permit authority was not contemplated at the time
the State sought approval to administer the NPDES program, some
revisions to the State program submission will be necessary.
A program submission must contain an Attorney General's
Statement to the effect that the laws of the State are adequate
to carry out the program (see. 40 CFR 123.23). This applies
equally when general permit program approval is sought. If the
State is already approved to administer the NPDES program, its
general permit program submission must contain a supplemental
Attorney General's Statement certifying that the laws and
44
-------
regulations of the State provide adequate legal authority to
issue and enforce general permits in accordance with 40 CFR
122.28. This statement muse include specific citations to
statutes and regulations that have been lawfully adopted at the
time the statement is signed and that will be fully effective by
the time the program is approved. Appendix E provides an example
of a supplemental Attorney General's Statement.
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) submitted as part of the
original program must be examined to determine whether any of its
provisions restrict the State's authority to implement a general
permit program. If it does, the Regional Administrator must
require submission of a modified MOA. In addition, if the MOA
provides for procedures different from those specified in the
federal regulations, it would have to be changed. For example,
40 CFR 123.44(a)(2) requires that the MOA provide for 90-day
review by EPA of general permits. Appendix F contains an example
of a modified MOA.
As mentioned previously, the determination of whether the
request for general permit authority is a substantial program
modification rests with the Regional Administrator. In the case
of general permit submissions that are considered substantial,
40 CFR 123.62(b)(2) requires public notice of the revision and 30
days for public comment. The public notice must be mailed to
interested persons and be published in the Federal Register, and
in the largest newspapers in the State to provide statewide
coverage. It must summarize the proposed revision and provide
45
-------
for the opportunity to request a public hearing. Such a hearing
will be held if there is significant public interest based on
requests received. This is the responsibility of the EPA
Regional Office.
Afcer consideration of the public comments and any hearing
held on the program modification, the Regional Administrator,
determines whether to approve or deny the modification. The
modification does not become effective until approved by EPA.
Approvals of substantial program modifications are published in
the Federal Register.
If the Regional Administrator determines that the proposed
modification is not substantial, the Regional Administrator may
approve or deny the modification without public comment by notice
of the decision in a letter to the Governor or his designee
(usually the state Program Director).
Headquarters* Concurrence in Program Approvals and Modifications
Although the authority to approve State NPDES permit
programs and program modifications has been delegated to the
Regional Administrators, EPA Headquarters remains involved in the
program approval and modification process. The July 25, 1984
State NPDES program delegation provides that EPA Headquarters,
both the Director of the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
and the Associate General counsel, Water Division, must concur in
any determination as to the completeness of State program or
program modification submittals. In addition, no decision by the
46
-------
Regional Administrator concerning final approval of a State
NPDES program or (substantial) modification to a State program
can be made without the concurrence of the two Headquarters
offices. Denials of program approval or program modifications
may be made by the Regional Administrator without EPA Head-
quarters formal concurrence, although the Regional Offices
should keep Headquarters apprised of all state NPDES activities.
While the delegation document provides that no Headquarters
concurrence is necessary for approvals of non-substantial
modifications to a State NPDES permit program, Headquarters'
concurrence is necessary on the completeness determination that
preceeds any decision on a minor modification to a State NPDES
permit program. This means that a concurrence package on the
completeness determination similar to that used for State program
approvals must also be submitted to EPA Headquarters prior to any
proposed insubstantial modification. Thus, in effect, Head-
quarters must concur twice on any program approval or approval of
a substantial program modification—once on the completeness
decision of the submittal and again on the decision to approve
either the program or the substantial modification. It should be
noted that any modification, substantial or not, which adds a
component (in this case, general permit authority) to any state
program will be published in the Federal Register. As mentioned
previously, early coordination with EPA Headquarters will ensure
that the concurrence process proceeds smoothly and expeditiously.
47
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20440
MATIN
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Federal Register (FR) Publication Requirements Cor
Draft and Final General NPDES Permits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I, II, III, IV, VI, vill, ix and X
FROMs Martha G. Prothro, Directo
Permits Division (EN-336)
ntil the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived
review of EPA issued general permits on November 3, 1983, the
Permits Division used OMB1s review period to correct PR format
problems in any pending permits. We can no longer provide that
service without delaying permit publication and issuance*
The Office of Standards and Regulations has prepared a
checklist for all PR submissions and has advised us that documents
will be returned to our office if they are not properly prepared
and submitted. Therefore, we are requesting that your staff
ensure that each notice is complete and correct before it is
submitted to us.
Executive Order 12291
With the waiver of Executive Order review, all general permit Cact
sheets and/or PR notices should contain the following statement:
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action
frost the) re vie* requirements of Executive Order 12291 pursuant
to Section 8(b] of that order.
Regulatory flexibility Act
All notices and/or permit fact sheets should contain the
following statementi
-------
After review of the facts presented in the notice printed
above, I hereby certify pursuant to the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this (these) general NPDES perrait(s) do
(will) not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Moreover, the permit(s) reduce(s) a
significant administrative burden on regulated sources.
Paperwork Redu-tlon Act (PRA)
In most cases, all of the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in a general permit are covered under existing generic
information collection clearance requests (ICRs).' Where the
requirements are already covered by our generic ICRs, the general
permit should contain the following statement:
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated
facilities in this (these) draft (final) general pemit(s)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. The information collection requirements of this
(these) perait(s) have already been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget in submissions made for the NPDES
permit program under the provisions of the Clean Water
Act.
Should the Region be aware of or should Headquarters identify a
permit requirements) that is not covered by an existing 1CR, an
estimate of the burden hours associated with the provisions)
must be prepared by the Region and submitted with, each general
permit. The Permits Division will prepare the required material
for OMB review under the PRA at the time of publication of the
draft permit in the PR. OMB is required to comment on paperwork
issues during the public comment period. In such cases the
required language is:
For draft permits:
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed in regulated
facilities in this (these) draft general NPOES permit(s)
• Generally, information collection requirements provided for
specifically in the NPOCS regulations have been covered by the
Permits Division in its generic ICR submitted to OMB. However,
these clearances basically cover only routine information
collection. Activities such as underwater diving inspections,
monitoring required pursuant to section 403(c) guidelines, etc.
would not be covered. (Please feel free to consult with us on
any specific requirements for which the status of a clearance
request is unclear.)
-------
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 O.S.C. 3501
et ••£• The information collection requirements of the
permTtCs), with the exception of Part(s) ( insert aeegian
and titles from permit.) , have been approved by the
Office OS Management and Budget (OMB) In submission! made
for the NPDfiS permit program under the provision* of the
Clean Water Act. Estimates of the burden hours associated
with thesd excepted provisions have been prepared and
submitted to OMB for review at the time of publication of
this notice.
For final permits:
No comments from OMB or the public were received on the in-
formation collection requirements in this (these) permit (s),
or
Any comments to EPA from OMB or the public on the infor-
mation collection requirements in the- (these) permit (s)
appear in the public comment, section of this notice at
Please be advised that clearance of new requirements not covered
by the generic requests could delay permit issuance due to OMB
review. However, where such requirements are necessary or appro-
priate, they should be imposed and the anticipated small increase
in overall burdens of the program should be defensible. Major
delays for this reason are unlikely in my judgment.
General Administrative Requirements
L. The document should be correctly classified as a proposed or
final permit in the title.
2. The document should contain each of the preamble elements.
AGENCY, ACTION, SUMMARY, DATES, ADDRESSES, FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
3. The SUMMARY shouid state in a sentence or two what you're
doing, why you're; doing it* and the intended effect of the
action.
4. The pages should be numbered at the top.
5. The document should be double spaced and printed in 12 pitch.
6. All signatures should be followed by a signature block. (If
someone signs for the Regional Administrator or the Water
-------
Management Division Director, include both names in «
signature block (e.g., L. Edwin Coate Acting for, Erntsta
Barnes, Regional Administrator).
The submission should contain an S.F. 2340-L5 Federal
Typesetting Fora with the required signatures in placeT
The cost o*. publishing the document should be estimated
as follows:
2 pages • 1 FR column • $136.00
photocopied pages • S3SO.OO (i.«., maps or reprinted
effluent limitations pages)
If you or your staff have further questions on these matters
please contact Michelle Miller of my staff (426-4793). Your
efforts to ensure that these documents are properly prepared will
eliminate unnecessary delays in Federal Register submissions.
cc: water Management Division Directors
Regions V and VIT
Director, Enforcement Division,
-------
APPENDIX
-------
UNITED STATiS SNVlSCN^SN7'1* .3*C7i",CN AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 3'C.
MATIN
JAN 16 1334
SUBJECT: Continuance of NPDES General Permits Under the APA
FROM: 3ruce R. Barrett, Director
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (EH-33S)
TO: Regional Water Management Division Director*
Regional Counsels
we have received a number of inquiriti as to whether
continuation of expired general permits is allowed under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the NPDCS regulations.
A recent Office of General Counsel (OGC) opinion (attached)
indicates that such continuance is legally permissible. However/
ihsrt are important reasons' for SPA not to rely on APA continu-
ance except in extreme cases where permit re issuance is delayed
for unexpected or unavoidable reasons. This memorandum addresses
the general permit reissuanee process in light of OGC's recent
review of the continuance issue.
SUMMARY
NPDES general permits may be continued under the APA
where the Agency has failed to reissue the peroit prior to
expiration. Although continuance is Itgally permissible,
permits should be continued only as a last resort and continuance
should be avoided by timely reissuanee of general permits
wherever possible.
Because of the geographic scope of general permits and the
nustser of facilities covered, continuance could raise questions
as to whether EPA has adequately considered long-term cumulative
environmental impacts, exacerbate the permit issuance backlog/
and create new issues or workload problems associated with new
'acility permits since new facilities cannot be covered by a
continued permit. Continuance is generally avoidable given
•decuate planning, where continuance is unavoidable, it should
s for the shortest possible time. Upon determining that a
,en«ral permit will not be reissued prior to expiration, the
-------
a»
-------
Thers are a nu.-r.5er of strong policy and program reasons .a
isurt timely reissuance rather than relying on A?A continuance
my general permits cover several dozens or even hundreds of
individual facilities. The large number of facilities covered
and the broad geographic coverage tend to focus industry and
public attention on Agency inaction when the permit is allowed
-o expire, especially in the early stages of implementation of
t.".e general permit program.
Many jenaral permits are controversial at the time of
initi'al permit issuance. Similar controversies can be antici-
pated during reissuance. EPA cannqt allow the public to
perceive that we are avoiding these issues through administrative
continuance off expired permits. For example, cumulative en-
vironmental impact assessments hinge on the number and volume
of discharges. Information gathered during the ten of the
original permit may justify new permit limitations, terms and
conditions at the time of reissuance. For marine dischargers,
determinations pursuant to S403(cJ of the Clean water Act are
usually dependent on the estimates of the number of facilities
that will discharge during the term of the permit. Delay in
updating these determinations raises questions about potential
environmental impacts and the efficacy of permit conditions.
Similar issues arise where there have been new standards or
effluent limitation guidelines promulgated during the course
' the permit or changes in the CWA or applicable requirements
>der other applicable statutes (e.g., Coastal Zone Management
Act/ Endangered Species Act).
Finally/ _a major gg*}. of the general para*.^
reduce the Agency's NPDES permit issuance backlog. Allowing
general permits to expire aggravates the backlog problems, in
addition, new disch*ro;»r«
Lssued_th« g«n«rai afgpjy Since these facilities would be
liable for discharge without a permit, they would likely request
an individual permit and be required to submit a full application
and do appropriate testing. This creates a permit issuance
workload demand that would be avoided by timely reissuance of
the general permit, as well as putting burdens on permit appli-
cants that would be removed by reissuance of the general permit.
•
Given the- drawbacks and problems, administrative continuance
of general permits should b« the exception rather than the rule.
Adequate planning and timely permit preparation will allow us
to avoid the necessity to use administrative continuance except
as a stop gap, short term measure. The Office of Water Enforce-
ment and Permits will work with the Regions to avoid continuance
wherever possible.
Csl'aurn T. Cheraey, OCC
-------
I? S83
HEhORAMDUM
SUBJECT: Continuance of NPDES General Permit* Under
the Administrative Procedure* Ace (APA)
FROM: Harearet B. Silver
Attorney
Water Division (LE-132W)
THRUx Col bum T. Cherney
Acting Aaeociate General Counsel
Water Diviaion (LE-132V)
TO: Bruce Barrett
Director
Office of Wacer Enforcement
and Permit* (Bt-333)
Thia ceaorandum responde to your request for * legal
opinion on aeveral iavuea related to the expiration, reiaauanee,
and continuance of general perbita under the APA.
I«au«i Can a general permit be continued under
the APA in the abaence of a renewal application eequirooent?
Reaponaei A good legal argueent can be «ade that a general
peroit nay be continued under th« APA, even though there ia
no cpecif ic requirement for a reneval application.
Dtacmaion:
Section 9(b) of the APA, 5 O.S.Cc I556(c), provide* that:
Uhen the licenaee haa cede timely and aufficient
application for a reneval or a nev liecnae in
accordance vita agency rulea, a licenae with
reference to an activity of a continuing nature
does not expire until the application haa been
finally determined by the agency.
Thia proviaion allova a licenaee (Ue.. permittee) to
lavtully continue its licensed activity attar ita licence
Uaa expired when the iaauing agency haa failed to act on the
licenaee' a reneval application.
-------
- 2 -
The purpose of chii provision is clearly set out in che
legislative history of the APA»
[This provision is) necessary because of the very
*evert consequence* of the conferring of licensing
authority upon adninistrative agencies. The
burden la upon private parties to Apply for
licenses or renewal*. If agencies are dilatory
in either kind of application, parties are sub*
Ject to irreparable injuries unless safeguards
are provided. The purpose of this section Is
to recove the threat of disastrous, arbitrary,
and irremediable administrative action.
92 Cong. 2ec. 5654 (1946) (reaarks of Representative Walter).
The courts have consistently relied oa this stateaent
of legislative intent in construing the purpose of this
provision. In Comaittee for Open Media v. FCC. 543 F.2d 861
(D.C. Clr. 1976) the U.C. Circuit described the purpose of
this section ae the "protection of licensees froa the uncer-
tainties seeming froa protracted adainistrative consideration
of applications for license renewals." Id* ae 867* In
County ot Sullivan v. CAB. 436 K.2d 1096^2nd Clr. 1971).
Judge friendly agreed that section 9(b) vat intended to
protect licensees froa an agency's failure to acti "lt]he
valuable rights conferred by a license for a Halted tera
shall not be lost slaply because the agency has not aanaged
to decide the) application before expiration of the existing
license." Id. at 1099. The court in Banker's Life 4 CasualtT
Co. v. CaTTovay. 530 F.2d 625 (5th Clr. 1976} quoted Judge
yriendly's language and added that "the kind of case that the
statute was aeant to cover vae that in which tiae exigencies
within the agency prevent it froa passing on a renewal appli-
cation, where an activity of a continuing nature is involved."
.Id. at 634.
Section 9(b) of the APA requires the licensee to make
"tiaely and sufficeat application for a renewal ... in
accordance with agency rules" to qualify for continuance of
its pornit. Too issue that has been raised is whether the
APA continuance provision applies to NFDCS general peraits
since there) ia DO renewal application requirement for such
peraits. Xa the) caae of an individual UPDES pereit. the
pereit holder aust suomit an application to renew its permit,
so the issue does not ariee. J./ Persons who wish to be
i/ 'ine KFUES regulations recognize that the APA continuance
~" provision applies to individual UPO£S percits. 40 CXI
122.6(a).
-------
- 3 -
covered under a general permit, however, generally need only
submit a "notice of intent to be covered" by the general
permit, after the general permit is issued. 2/ Neither che
terms of che general permie nor che NFDES peraic regulations
discuss requirements for coverage after a general peraic
expires. In other words, in the case of an individual permit,
che renewal process is initiated by the permit holder who
oust submit a renewal application, whereas che Agency oust
iniciace che renewal process for a general permit because
che Agency do** not provide any opportunity for the permit
holder co submit a renewal application.
Based on the overall purpose of Section 9(b), i.e., to
limit continuance to situations where the Agency, andnot
che permittee, has failed to act, we believe it is reasonable
to conclude that continuance of general permits is permissible
when the Agency has noc provided an opportunity to submit a
renewal application. I/ The APA-requires the permittee to
submit an application'"in accordance with agency rules'* as a
condition for continuance. However, since the current agency
rules do not provide a discharger covered under a general
permit the opportunity to initiate renewal, che discharger
has in essence don* all it can to ensure continued peraic
coverage. Therefore, where "time exigencies" have prevented.
Agency action, it is a reasonable interpretation of the APA
to allow a discharger the protection of che continuance
provision where the peraic has not been renewed through no
fault of che discharger. We believe this position is fair.
as well; it does noc make sens* for continuance co be available
to individual permit holders, bue noc general permit holders,
simply because the Agency has noc provided for A renewal
application for general permits. Also, noc allowing continuance
would seriously undermine the usefulness of general permits,
which were designed co reduet both che regulatory burden
on dischargers and che adainiscracive burden on EPA.
Although we believe che position that general permits
may be continued under the APA is legally defensible, we
strongly recommend chat the general peraic provisions of
che UPDES rules be amended co clarify this issue. The rules
should explain how and when a general permit may be continued,
'LI This is a requirement imposed by the terms of the general
~~ permit Itself, noc the UPDES regulations.
3/ Only dischargers covered under the original general
~~ permie would be encicled co operace under che continued
permie. New dischargers, who would otherwise qualify for
coverage under the general peraic, could noc be covered by
che general permit until EPA had reissued ic.
-------
- 4 -
And who may discharge under tha continued permit. Ac that
cine, we may wane co consider imposing tone sore of application
requireaenc, such as a new notice of intent to be covered when
a general permit is about to expire (this provision has
appeared in draft aaendnents to .the NPDES rules).
2) Issue: If the Agency conducted an assessment under
Section 403(c;
-------
applies only to current individual pennies, or co expired
APA-continuea individual pennies as well. We chink che
better reading is to limit this provision to current individual
permit*. 5/ In the case of an expired, A?A-continued individual
permit, we" b«liev« chat issuance of a general permit chat
covert ch« discharge should be considered "Agency accion" on
che permittee1• request for renewal of che individual permit
(unless che terms of che general permit scace otherwise) and
chat che discharger is covered by che general permic as of
che effective dace of che general permic. In addicion; we
believe a new nocice of incenc would be unnecessary in chis
caae since che aischarger has already submicced an application
for renewal of its individual permit (both che notice of
intent and renewal application serve a similar function,
i.e., to Inform the Agency who is discharging under the
general permit) .
Once again, it is important co spell out these provisions
in future general permits, or better yet, in the NPDES rules.
By distinguishing between current inoividual permits and
expired, APA-continued permits, and the effect of issuing a
general permit on each, it will be clear which permit
(.individual or general) is in effect for each discharge at
any given time.
57 For the s*ke o& etticiency, we may want to consider
"~ revoking all outstanding individual permits as part ot
the general permit issuance proceeding, rather than revoking
enem individually.
Prepared by: USlLVtR:krl:L£-132S:Rn. 539W:382-7706:9/27/83:
9/28/83:10/28/83:11/1/83:11/3/83:11/4/83:11/10/83
11/16/83:11/17/83
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
SEP 2 7 1983
MEMCRAKPm
SUBJECT: Final Procedures for the Review of Draft and Fi-al
General NPDES Permits
FROM: Bruce R. Barrett, Dire
Office of Water Enforcement and Perrits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regional Counsels
Rebecca W. Manner, Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water
Colburn Cherney, Acting Associate Central Counsel
Water Division
Louise Jacobs, Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Water
C. Ronald Smith, Director
Office of Standards and Regulations
Richard D. Horgenstern, Director
Office of Policy Analysis
Steven Schatzow, Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
This memorandum describes the final review procedures
for draft and final-.general NPCCS permits. These procedures
have been revieved and accepted by the affected program offices
in Headquarter* and the Water Management Division Directors.
The new procedure* outlined below should significantly reduce
the problems that have occurred in developing, reviewing, and
processing general permits.
-------
The attached general permits status report prepared by
the Permits Division, OWE? represents a list of all
general permits currently in development. Copies of
the status report will be sent to the Water ManagtTCtnc
Division Directors and Headquarters program offices on
a monthly basis. Headquarters program offices are
requested to identify those permits which they consider
important to review each month.
Regional offices must submit all draft and final
general permits to the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, to the attention of the Permits Division
Director. The Water Management Division Director and
the Regional Counsel must review and sign all draft and
final general permits submitted for Headquarters
review. By so signing, these officials are certifying
the programmatiCf technical, and legal sufficiency
of the general permit. General permits not duly signed
will be returned to the Region.
Headquarters review of general permits for concurrence
will be limited to issues of national significance and
consistency with regulations/ national guidance, and
relevant case law. Any other comments regarding
provisions generally within the discretion of the
permit writer (such as technical adequacy, identified
water quality standards, or general clarity, quality or
tnforceability) will be suggestions only.
Formal communications on general permit issues and
Headquarters * concurrence will occur between the
Director of the permits Division and the Water Management
Division Director. However, we continue to encourage
staff level discussions concerning permit development
so that issues can be resolved, to the maximum extent
possible, before review for headquarters concurrence.
The Permits Division Director is to receive all comments
from other Headquarters offices on draft general permits
in ten working days. In the review oc aratt general
permits, tne permits Division will identify to the Regional
Office any issues which could lead to non-concurrence
on the final. Generally, further processing of the draft
permit will not be delayed while Headquarters' cements are
being addressed by the Region prior to final promulgation.
However* there may be occasions involving an issue signifi-
cant enough to require modification of the fact sheet or
draft permit before publication. Zf Headquarters review
identifies a need for a change in the draft permit/ the
permits Division Director will notify the Water Management
Division Director by phone within the next two working days
-------
after tne deadline for submittal of all Headquarters
comments to the Permits Division. Written corments Wm
sent from the Permits Division Director to the Water Mar*
ment Division Director within five working days after' the
deadline for submittal of all Headquarters consents to t!»»
permits Division. If tht Water Management Division Cirsc-c
does not hear from the permits Division Director within «"•/
days of the end of the Headquarters review period, he -ay"
assune that the Permits Division is processing the perrit.
o The procedures for the review of final general gemts
will be -l.a same as those for dract permits except t.-.at
Headquarters review time will be shorter. The JvUy
1982 streamlined review process provides that the
review period is five working days unless the final
permit differs significantly crom the draft, (in such
cases the review period is specified as tan days. )
On August 8. 1983, the Office of Policy and Resource
Management and the Office of Water requested an exemption
for general NPCES permits from the review requirements of
the Executive Order 12291 from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). We understand that staff recommendations have
been prepared for Robert Bedell, Deputy Administrator/ and
w« expect a written response soon. We will make every
effort to keep you informed on the request and OMB's response.
Thank you for your positive comments on these procedures,
your efforts to follow them in the interim/ and your continued
support for the general permit program. Until an exemption is
granted* both draft and final general permits must be submitted
to OMB for review prior to publication in the Federal Register.
Regardless, progress has been -made. There was a time when
a general permit status report included only permits for
offshore oil and gas and animal feedlots.
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
JLL 3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transraittal of General Permitting Strategy Cor
OCS Oil and Gas Activities Under EPA/MMS HOC
FROMt Martha G. Prothro, Director rv^ _\v >\
Permits Division, OWEP (EN-336) N1^-*-*-<»- '<* •
TOt William Dickerson/ Director
Federal Agency Liaison Division, OPA (A-104)
Attached is a copy of the guidance document regarding the
NPDES permitting process for offshore oil and gas activities.
The Permits Division has prepared this as our action under
Part IV.A. and Part IV.B. of the Memorandum of Understanding
with the Minerals Management Service, signed on May 31, 1984.
I hope that this will prove useful to the EPA and MKS staff as
they coordinate activities under the MOU.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding this
document, or have your staff call Edward Ovsenik (FTS 426-7035)
Attachment
-------
June 18, 1935
The NPDCS Permitting Process
Cor OIL and Gas Activities on the
Outer Continental Shelf
Prepared by the Permits Division
Office of Hater Enforcement and Permits
United States Environmental Protection-Agency
under the
Memorandum of Understanding between EPA
and the Minerals Management Service
of the Department of the Interior
-------
Table of Contents
TOPIC PAGE
A. Introduction I
8. Covered Facilities and Permit \reas I
C. Provision* for Permit Modifications and Revocation .... 3
0. Provisions Cor Individual Permits 3
E. Existing Sources* New Dischargers* and New Sources .... 4
F. Effective Dates 4
G. Stato Certification 4
H. Fact Sheet 5
I. Technology Based Effluent Limitations 6
J. Ocean Discharge Criteria Guidelines 7
K. Oil Spill Requirements 8
L. Other Legal Requirements 9
1. endangered Species Act 9
2. Coastal Zone Management Act 9
3. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries- Act .... 11
4. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12291) 12
5. Paperwork Reduction Act 12
6. Regulatory Flexibility Act 12
APPENDICES!
A. Decision Logic tec 403{c) Determinations
B. Stat«« with Approved Coastal Zone Management Programs
-------
A. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates
discharges associated with offshore oil and gas exploration,
development, and production on the outer continental shelf (OCS)
under the Clean Water Act's (the Act) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. EPA Regional Offices
issue permits to facilities discharging into ocean waters beyond
the three mile limit of the territorial seas and nay also iisue
permits to facilities in the territorial sea if the adjoining
State does not have an approved NPDES program. Section 403 of
the Act requires that NPDES permits for discharges into the
territorial seas, the contiguous tone, and the oceans be issued
in compliance with EPA's guidelines for determining the degrada-
tion of marine waters. The NPDES Regulations are found in
40 CfR Parts 122, L24 and 125.
B. Covered facilities and Permit Areas
The traditional NPDES regulatory framework requires that an
owner or operator file an application to begin the permit process.
The NPDES regulations also authorize the issuance of a general
permit for a category of point sources located in the same
geographic area if their discharges warrant similar pollution
control measures. 40 CFR $122.28. The regulation* for general
permits provide that sufficient information may be available to
the Agency to determine permit condi-.ions without application
information. Therefore, general permits are issued without a
named party and without application requirements.
The first step in the issuance of a general permit is the
Director's determination that a category of point sources meets
the requirements of SI22.28. The Director is authorized to Issue
a general permit if there are a number of point sources operating
in a geographic area thatt
1. Involve the same or substantially similar types of
operations!.
2. Discharge the same types of wastes i
3. Require the same effluent limitations or operating
conditioner
4. Require the same or similar monitor!no requirements;
and
5. In the opinion of the Director, are more appropriately
controlled under the general permit than under individual
permits*
-------
Changes to the NPDES regulations on September 1, 1983
(48 PR 9619) also provide that ehe Regional Administrator («?A)
shall""issue general peewits covering discharges from offshore
oil and gas facilities within the Region's jurisdiction.
Interested persons, including prospective permittees, nay
petition the RA -to issue a general permit and the RA must
promptly estacLish a project decision schedule Cor oermit
issuance. The project decision schedule provides final ,permit
issuance no later than the final notice of sale or 6 months
after the petition, whichever is later.
The decision to issue a general permit is dependent upon
EPA having sufficient information to determine permit conditions
and address the factors in the ocean discharge guidelines, with
sufficient information, general permits may be Issued Cor entire
tracts or groups of traces offered in OCS leas* sales. Geographic
or political boundaries defining the area to be- covered are
specified in each permit. These boundaries) nay be OCS lease
sale areas defined in lease sale EISs, specific lease parcels*
or isobaths surrounding areas of biological concern.
EPA may issue a general permit covering, all lease sales
occurring within the geographic scope of the permit during its
five-year tern. EPA also issues general permits only covering
specific lease sale* which have already occurred* or are about
to occur. Currently, EPA Regions IV and VI are issuing one
permit to cover all lease sale activities within the Gulf of
Mexico. EPA Regions IX and X usually issue: general permits for
only specific lease sales. However, any general permit could
be modified to include new lease sale area* during the permit
term.
Areas of biological concern (ABCs) are areas which nay
require special permit conditions and/or effluent limitations
which differ from those contained in a general permit for a
broader area. In such cases/ separate general permits may be
necessary. If a lease sale contains several ABCs which require
widely different permit terms and conditions* these areas may
be more appropriately controlled by individual permits. EPA
may also issue one general permit for the entire lease sale
area, wit* one set of effluent limitation* established! for the
broad area*; and a second set of limitations for the ABCs.
General permits may be issued for all discharges in the
geographic area of the permit
-------
C. Provision* for Per«ie Modification and Invocation
The NP08S regulations provide for modification of a general
permit for any of the causes in $122.62, including information
which indicates unacceptable cumulative impacts ($122.62(a)(2).).
The results of any testing reauired by Section 403(c> may
indicate that „.,* general permit should be modified or revoked.
If on-site monitoring indicates that an individual permit should
be required, Sl22.28(b)(2)(iv) provide* that a general permit
terminates on the effective date of an individual permit. All
permit modifications or revocations are handled In accordance
with 5124.5, and requests for modification/ revocation/ or
termination must be in writing and contain facts or reasons
supporting the request. The RA may deny the request (5124.5(b))
or prepare a new draft permit incorporating the proposed changes.
The procedures for processing the new permit are the sane as
for all draft permits (5124.6).
D. Provisions for Individual Permits
Any owner or operator authorized to discharge by a general
permit may apply for an individual permit; any Interested, person
may petition the Director to require a facility to obtain an
individual permit; and the Director may require-aiv owner or
operator to aoply for and obtain an- individual permit on his own
initiative. The criteria, in 5122.28(b)(2) define cases which
may require an individual NPD6S permits
1. The discharge(s) is a significant contributor of
pollution;
2. The discharger is not in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the general permit;
3. A change has occurred in t*e availability of demonstrated
technology or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point sourcei
4. Effluent guidelines are subsequently promulgated for
th* point sources covered by the general permitsi
5. A Water Quality Management Plan containing* requirements
applicable to such point sources is approved* or
6. The requirements listed in 5122.28(a) are not met
(See A. and B. above).
However, changes in pollutant control or abatement technology*
effluent guidelines, or water quality standards may more aporo-
prlately be addressed through permit modification, or revocation
and re issuance if the changes affect a largo number of point
sources operating under a general permit.
-------
E. Existing Sourcesf New Pi*ehargera, and New Sourc»«
General permits for offahore oil and gas activities authorize
discharges for 'existing sources' and 'new dischargers' (40 CFR
5S 122.2, 122.29U).). Current osneral permits do not authorize
discharges from 'new sources' as' the Agency has not promulgated
new source performance standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas
extraction poiic" source category, and tn«r«Core no new sources
are currently operating (122.2, 122.29(0).). Wh«n NSPS are
promulgated, EPA will nave an independent ooligation undfcr
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to complete an
environmental review for EPA issued oil and aas NPDES Demits.
Therefore, NEPA compliance will be required for general permits
covering Federal waters and the territorial seas of the States
that do not have NPOCS permit authority. States issuing NPDES
permits for their territorial seas have no such NEPA compliance
obligations. See 40 CFR 122. 29 are effective Cor a fixed term, not to exceed
5 years*
G. State Certification
Under section 401(a)(l) of the Act, EPA may not issue a
permit until certification is granted or waived by the State in
which the discharge originates. State certification of general
permits covering federal waters is not mandated by statute or
regulations. Federal waters are defined as all waters on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) beyond any State's Territorial Seas
(as defined at Section 502 of the Act). However, the Director
-------
- 5 -
of a permit program may determine that State review of a federal
waters permit is appropriate. The Director, pursuant to 5124.53,
then must send the certifying State agency:
1. A copy of che draft permitj
2. A statement that EPA cannot issue or deny the permit
jntil the certifying State agency has granted'or
denied certification or waived its right to certify;
and,
3. A statement that the State will be deemed to have
waived its right to certify unless that.right is
excercised within a specified reasonable time* not to
exceed 60 days.
State certification of a permit require* that the State
agency identify more stringent conditions which the State finds
necessary to meet applicable conditions of section 208(e>* 301,
302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA and other requirements of State
law. The State must also provide a statement of the* extent to
which each condition can be made less stringent without violating
State law, including the appropriate State water quality standards.
Even though 401 state certification may not be required Cor
federal waters* State participation in the permitting process
is ensured under 5124.10(c)(1) which requires that public notice*
S403(c) determination* draft permits and fact sheets be provided
by mail to affected States and State agencies with jurisdiction
over fish, shellfish* and wildlife resources and over coastal
zone management plans.
H. Pact Sheet
Section 124.6 discharged!
3. A brief summary of the basis for the draft permit
conditions including!
a. applicable statutory and regulatory requirements such
as applicable effluent guidelines* and the basis for
effluent limitations and permit conditions imposed
under 403(c)» and*
b. supporting references to the administrative record.
-------
- 6 -
4. Reasons why alternatives to required standards do or do
not appear justified;
S. A description of the procedures Cor reaching a final
decision on the draft permit including:
a. t'le beginning and ending dates of the comment period
and "~o address where comments will be received;
b. procedures for requesting public hearings on a draft
general permit and an explanation that the regulations
do not provide for evidentiary hearings; and
c. procedures by which the public may participate in
the final permit decision including notice of public
hearings if they have already been scheduled.
6. Name and telephone number of a person to contact for
additional information.
7. The provisions of 40 CFR L24.56.
T- Technology Based Effluent Limitations
The Clean Water Act requires all dischargers to meet
effluent limitations based on the technological capacity of
dischargers to control the discharge of their pollutants. Section
301(b)(l)(A) requires the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) no later than July 1, 1977,
On April 13, 1979 EPA promulgated final effluent: limitations
guidelines establishing BPT for the Offshore Subcategory (40
CFR 435). Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (B) reouire the application
of the best available technology economically achievable) (BAT)
and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) to
control the discharge of toxic and conventional pollutants by
July 1, 1984. Effluent limitations establishing BAT and BCT
for the subcategory have not been promulgated* therefore
permits issued after June) 30* 1984 are based on best professional
judgement (BPJ) under Section 402(a)(l) of the Act. The factors
considered in BPJ determinations are dsscribed in 40 CPR Part
I22.44(a> and Part 125.3(d) (as amende* September 26, 1984,
49 FR 38032K These"factors are similar to the factors used in
establishing the) BAT/BCT effluent limitations guidelines.
Section 30C of the Act requires the application of best
available demonstrated technology for new sources or new source
performance standards (NSPS) in NPDES permits applicable^ to ns/w
sources. NSPS are based on the best available demonstrated
technology for the industrial category. Since new sources have
the opportunity to design the best and most efficient wastewater
treatment technologies, the Agency considers the) best demonstrated
process changes and end-of-pipe treatment technologies that
reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible in the development
of NSPS.
-------
- 7 -
j. Ocean Discharge Criteria Guidelines
The final 403(c) Ocean Discharge Criteria guidelines 40
CFR Part 125 (45 PR 65952, October 3, L980) set fortn criteria
Cor determinations of unreasonable degradation and irreoaraole
harm which must "be addressed orior to the issuance of a SPDES
permit. The 4">3 decision logic is outlined in Aopendix \.
The factors considered in a determination of unreasonable
degradation aret
1. The quantities, composition and potent1al for bio-
accumulation or persistence of the pollutants to be
discharged;
2. The potential transport of such pollutants by biological,
physical or chemical processes;
3. The composition and vulnerability of the biological
communities which may be exposed to such pollutants
including the presence of unigue species** communities
of species, the presence of species identified as
endangered or threatened pursuant to the> Endangered
Species Act* or the presence of those species critical
to the struct'ire or function of the ecosystem such as
those) important for the food chain;
4. The importance of the receiving water ares to the
surrounding biological community* including the presence
of spawning sites, nursery/forage ar«as* migratory
pathways or areas necessary for other functions or
critical stages in the life cycle of an organism;
5. The existence of special aquatic sites including, but
not limited to* marine sanctuaries and refuges, parks,
national and historic monuments* national seashores,
wilderness areas and coral reefs;
6. Potential impacts on human health through direct and
indirect pathways!
7. Existing or potential recreational and conmericial
fishing* including fin-fishing and shell-fishing;
8. Any applicable requirements of an approved Coastal
Zone Management Plan;
9. Such other factors relating to the effects of the
discharge as may be appropriate; and
10. Marine water quality criteria developed pursuant to
Section 304(a)(l) of the Act.
-------
- 8 -
The Agency's technical evaluation of drilling fluids dis-
charged by oil and gas operations has identified certain operatina
condition! which could be incorporated in the NPOES permit in
addition to BPT and BAT technologies to,address water quality
impacts. These conditions may include combinations of the
following:
a. dt3c-.arge off authorized drilling muds and additives
for which the Agency has bioassay test data;
b. use of a 'buffer zone' around areas of biological
concern in which the discharge of drilling fluids nay
be limited or restricted;
c. operational requirements*such as predilution, discharge
rate limitations, adequate dilution and dispersion of
drilling fluids, and bulk discharge restrictions;
d. use of shunting to minimize water column impacts; and
e. use of ,a surface or near surface discharge requirement
to minimize sediment impacts.
Permits may also include notification requirements for site-
specific survey information to aid the Agency in-determining the
appropriateness of general permit coverage* This measure may
be taken, for example, when the nature and extent of an area
of biological concern in a frontier area has not been adequately
defined. If site-specific information submitted with notifica-
tion should indicate that the provisions of a general permit
would not provide adequate protection of the site, the Director
may then require the facility to apply for and obtain an
individual permit.
K. Oil Spill Requirements
Section 311 of the Act prohibits the discharge off oil and
hazardous materials in harmful quantities. Routine operating
discharge* are usually specifically controlled by a NPDCS permit
and are excluded from the provisions of Section 311. A NPOES
permit does not preclude the institution off legal action or
relieve permittees from any responsibilities, liabilities* or
penalties for unauthorized discharges of toxic pollutants,
hazardous materials, or oil spills which are covered by Section
311 of the) Act. Permittees may have a duty to report such
unauthorized discharges to the Minerals Management Service, the
United States Coast Guard, and/or the environmental Protection
Agency. EPA regulations codifying Section 311 are found at
40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, and 117. Amendments to
the Part 110 regulations were proposed on March 11, 1985 (50 PR
9776 et seq.).
-------
- 9 -
L. Other Legal Requirements
L. Endanoered Species Act
The Endanger-d Species Act (ESA) requires that each federal
agency shall ensure thac none of its actions, including permit
issuance, jeopardizes th»» continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of their habitat.
For OCS general permits* the Agency follows the consultation
procedures described in section 1 of the ESA. Formal consulta-
tion begins ae the time of public notice of draft permits when
EPA submits a written request to the Director or Regional
Director of the Pish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Once a request 'for consultation
has been received NMFS has 60 days to submit a formal response
to EPA. Since the Department of the Interior has 60 days to
issue a biological opinion, final permit issuance can be> signif-
icantly delayed. In addition, a determination by NMFS that
insufficient information exists or that the permitting action
may jeopardize endangered or threatened species would require
EPA to obtain additonal information* potentially requiring the
Agency to repropose draft permits.
Since the 403(c) guidelines require an evaluation of
information on endangered species* informal request* and/or
staff meetings are used to identify effected endangered species
before permit proposal. A notice of intent to develop a general
permit may include) requests for identification of endangered-
species in the permit area* a description of critical life
stages or activities affected, and potential impact* on critical
habitat. Copies of the information used to complete the 403(c)
determination, permit fact sheets, and draft permits-may also
be provided to the Service with a request for review prior to
public notice, with sufficient information FWS and NMPS may be
able to provide EPA with recommendations for the draft permit.
The final biological opinion is placed in the administrative
record for final permit issuance.
2. Coastal lone) Management Act
The Coastal lone Management Act (CZHA) Section 307(c)(3)(A)
and it* implementing regulations at IS CP* Part 930 Subpart 0
require that consistency determination* be made for any federally
licenced or permitted activity affecting the coastal son* of a
State with an approved Coastal Zone Management Program. For
permit* covering federal waters, a decision to require CZMA
consistency require* a demonstration that the permitted activity
will affect the territorial sea* or coastal waters of the
approved State. Since there is no applicant for a general
permit, the Agency, in effect* become* the applicant and submits
a general permit for consistency certification to the appropriate
State agency. When CPA is the permit issuing authority within
-------
- LQ -
the territorial seas, consistency determinations are required.
For State* with approved NPDES programs no CZM consistency is
required tor permits issued for territorial seas dischargers.
If it i« determined that a consistency cerei(icacion is
required Cor a qeneral permit, a notice of intent to develop a
permit may request assistance and solicit recommendation* from
the State age-:/ regarding the means for ensuring that the
proposed activity will se conducted in a manner consistent wien
the State's management program. EPA provides the State with
written certification that the proposed activity complies with,
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with, the State's
approved management program. The consistency certification is
made at the time of public notice of draft permits and includes,
in addition to the requirements described in the next paragraph,
the? 403(c) determinations, the fact sheet, and proposed draft
permits.
With the consistency certification, EPA provides the State
agency with the following data and information!
a. A detailed description of the proposed activity and
its associated facilities to allow an assessment of
their probable coastal zone effects.
b. A brief assessment relating the probable coastal zone*
effects of the proposed activity and its associated
facilities to the relevant elements of the management
program.
c. A brief set of findings, derived*'from the assessment,
indicating that the proposed activity, its associated
facilities and their primary effects are all consistent
with the provisions of the management program.
d. Any additional information required under the State
management program.
Formal review of EPA's consistency certification begins at
the time) the stats agency receives a copy of the certification
along with the information and data described- above. The State
agency must provide) public notice of the proposed activity in
accordance^with State Law. At a minimum, this notice must be
sent to Stats* significantly affsctsd by the proposed activity.
At the discretion of the agency, public notice may include
announcement of one or more public hearings*
State agencies must notify EPA "at the earliest practicable
time" whether they concur or object to the consistency certifi-
cation* However, concurrence by the State is not presumed until
six months passes without an agency objection. The only other
tine limit imposed on the State is that, if a decision has not
been Issued within three months, the State must notify EPA of
-------
- 11 -
the status of the matter and the basis for further delay. Thus
it is clear that th* CZMA regulations allow considerable delays'
in permit issuance, and those delays may be beyond EPA's control.
1C the State agency concurs with EPA's consistency
certification, EPA may issue the permit. If the State agency
objects, it imst describe how the proposed activity is inconsis-
tent with spec*:ic elements of the management program, and
what alternative measures would allow the permit to be issued.
In the event of a State agency objection and failure to resolve
the issues between the two Agencies, EPA may not issue the
permit unless the Secretary of Commerce finds that the permitted
activity may be Federally approved because the activity is
consistent with the objectives or purposes of the Coastal Zone
Management Act* or is necessary in the interest of national
security. Procedures for appeals- are set forth 'at IS CPU Part
930, Subpart H.
Appendix B contains a list of Statss with approved Coastal
Zone Management Programs by EPA regions.
3. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
The) Marine Protection* Research and Sanctuaries] Act (MPRSAl
of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434 regulate* the dumping of all types
of materials into ocean waters and establishes a permit program
for ocean dumping including a comprehensive and continuing
program of monitoring and research regarding ths effect of
dumping materials. The MPRSA also establishes the Marine
Sanctuaries Program which is implemented by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). MPRSA is applicable
to general permits when the permit area includes proposed or
designated ocean dump sites and/or marine sanctuaries.
Where proposed and designated ocean dumping sites lie within
proposed general permit* areas* the discharges authorized by the
NPOES permit must be> reviewed for consistency or Inconsistency
with the dump sit* activities* Genorally, permittees entering
lease block*-.also containing ocean dumping activities, are*
required, toti'notify the> EPA Regional offices, directing, ocean
dumping activities cjC the movement of mobile drilling,vessels
or ths ccsHMncesMnt of drilling operations.
Title tXX of the MPRSA (Section 302(f)) requires that the
Secretary of Commerce, after designation of a marine sanctuary,
consult with other federal agencies* and issue necessary regula-
tions to control any activites permitted within the boundaries
of ths marine sanctuary. The Secretary must certify that any
permit* license, or other authorization issued pursuant to any
other authority is consistent with the purpose of the marine
sanctuaries program and can be carried out within its promulgated
regulations. The authority of the Secretary to administer the
provisions of the Act has been delegated to the Assistant
Administrator for Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
-------
- 12 -
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The rules gdverning oil and
gas activity within a designated sanctuary are-.specific to each
designation and «re published in the Federal Register at the
time sanctuaries are designated.
Factor 5 of the 4Q3(c) guidelines specifically requires
che identification of marine sanctuaries and an assessment of
the impact o^ the proposed permit on the resources of the
sanctuary. NCAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management, Marine
Sanctuaries Program, receives notice of the Agency's intent to
develop a general permit and is requested to identify both
proposed and designated marine sanctuaries within the oennit
area, as well as corresponding marine resources and NOAA regula-
tions which may be affected by the permit decision.
4. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12291)
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted
general NPOES permits from the review requirments of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to Section 8b of that order* Under the
exemption the Director of OMB retains discretionary authority
to request that a particular general permit be submitted for
review. The Director may also, at any time, withdraw the
exemption.
5. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
In general* the information collection requirements of
general NPOES permits have been approved by the. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)- in-submissions made for the NPDGS
permit program under the provisions of the Clean-water Act.
Should a general permit contain new monitoring and/or reporting
requirements not approved by OMB, the permit is submitted to
OMB for review under the PRA during the public comment period.
6. Regulatory flexibility Act (Reg. Plex.)
Because general NPDCS permits are considered rulemakings
under the APA, they *re subject to the Reg. Flex Act. Under
this Act, a Federal Agency must scrutinize the impact of any
rulemakingr on ssurll business. General NPDCS permits for Offshore
Oil and Gas> activities are generally found to have no impact
on a significant number of small entities because/ cost of
ope rations^ off thej OCS prohibits small business from entering
the marker. EPA ha* concluded, in recently issued general
permits* that no small business would be affected by the general
permi ts»
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
STATES WITH APPROVED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLANS
LISTED BY EPA pgCIQN AS OF JANUARY 6, 1994
REGION
rr
in
rv
VI
rx
STATE
Connecticut
Main*
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Louisiana
California
Hawaii
Alaska
Oregon
Washington
COMMENTS
Ocean, Bay Seament'L985
L984 [in development!
-------
APPENDIX 0
-------
Non-Oil and Gas General Permits
9/8/87
CATEGORY
PROPOSAL
FINAL
LIMITS
403(c)
Region I
Non-contact cooling water
and uncontaminated atom
water
Region II
Navy weapons training
(Vieques)
Sanitary & domestic
wastes (PR)
Region VI
Petroleum storage,
transfer & marketing
Correction notice
Hydrostatic testing
Private domestic
discharges (LA)
Region VIII
Construction activities (UT)
Construction activities (SD)
08/16/83
48 FR 37071
06/24/81
46 FR 32669
04/08/85
50 FR 13871
09/13/83
48 FR 41084
09/13/83
48 FR 41084
07/29/87
52 FR 28337
05/20/83
48 FR 22791
05/20/83
48 FR 22791
06/15/84
49 FR 24785
10/30/84
49 FR 43585
10/02/85
50 FR 40228
07/12/84
49 FR 28446
02/21/85
50 FR 7216
--
12/20/83
48 FR 56268
10/19/84
49 FR 41104
BPJ/Water Yes
Quality
BPJ/Water Yes
Quality
BPJ/Water Yes
Quality
'BPJ/Selt le-
ment Agmt
BPJ/Water
Quality
BPJ/Water
Quality
BPJ/Water
Quality
-------
CATEGORY
Non-Oil and Gas General Permits
Page 2
9/8/87
PROPOSAL
FINAL
LIMITS
403(c)
Region VIII continued
Peedlots (UT)
Peedlots (SD)
Region IX
Feedlots (AZ)
Deep seabed mining
Region X
Log transfer facilities
Seafood processors
Cone, animal feeding
operations (ID)
Extension comment period
08/04/81
46 FR 39670
05/22/81
46 FR 28008
07/18/84
49 FR 29141
08/29/83
48 FR 39144
02/23/84
49 FR 6788
12/17/83
48 FR 56107
05/09/86
51 FR 17236
06/13/86
51 FR 21617
08/14/86
51 FR 29156
04/28/83
48 FR 19201
07/29/82
47 FR 28127
10/16/84
49 FR 40441
10/05/84
49 FR 39442
06/18/84
49 FR
04/14/87
52 FR 12052
Pt. 412
Pt. 412
Pt. 412
BPJ/Water
.Quality
BPJ/Water
Quality
Yes
Yes
BPT/BCT/Water Yes
Quality
Pt. 412/BMP
-------
HudiburghiD-27idoc-lligwh:6/30/8
rev»9/8/87
-------
9-04-87
OCSOil and Gas
REGION IV £ VI SALE f
0
o
o
o
Gulf of Mexico All new &
(exp, dev & previous
prod)
extension of
content period
toxicity suspension
notice, errata sheet
Thermal Dynamics
notice
DRIP extension
ATR explanation
Inland Tidal Waters
Reissued OCS
CCS Federal Haters
Texas ft Louisiana
DRAFT
PROPOSAL
07/26/85
50 FR 30564
10/08/85
50 FR 41020
03/31/87
52 FR 10263
12/27/83
48 FR 57001
04/04/83
48 PR
08/15/80
HEARING/
EXPIRATION
BVTES
08/27-29/85
09/04-06/85
10/07/85
NONE
11/06/85
NONE
04/30/87
FJNAL PERMIT
ISSUANCE
07/09/86
51 FR 24897
09/18/86
51 FR 33130
07/06/87
52 FR 25303
07/13/87
52 PR 26181
09/15/83
48 FR 4194
04/03/81
46 PR 20284
EFFECTIVE/
EXPIRATION
DKTES LIMITS 403(c)
07/02/86 BPJ/BAT yes
07/01/91 BCT DisRateLim
08/29/86 yes
12/31/86 short term
07/02/87
09/30/87
HONE
BPT
Part 435
10/17/83 BPT
06/30/85 Part 435
04/28/81
04/30/83
-------
- 2 -
OCS Oil and Gas
REGION IX SALS I
o So Cal 35,48,53,68,73
(exp) 80,19ffvlMS
o So Cal 35,48,53.68.73
(dev & prod) 80,1966,1968
extension of
content period
o Reissue
So Cal
o Modification
So Cal
o So Cal OCS
DRAFT
PROPOSAL
08/22/85
50 PR 34036
08/22/85
50 PR 34052
09/19/85
50 FR 38029
06/21/83
48 F* 28394
06/21/83
48 FR 28394
09/14/81
46 FR 45672
HEARING/
EXPIRATION
rates
09/26/85
10/07/85
09/26/85
10/07/85
10/22/85
11/15/85
FINAL PERMIT
ISSUANCE
12/03/83
48 PR 55029
12/03/83
48 FR 55029
02/18/82
47 FR 7313
EFFECTIVE/
EXPIRATION
DATES
12/03/83
06/30/84
12/03/83
06/30/84
12/31/83
LIMITS
BPJ/BAT
BCT
BPJ/BAT
BCT
BPT
Part 435
BPT
Part 43$
BPT
Part 435
9-04-87
403(c)
yes
DiaRatLun
DisRatLim
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
-------
- 3 -
DCS Oil and Gas
REGION X SALE 1
o Beaufort Sea 71, 87
(exp) AK - 36,39,
43, 43A, BF
o Bering Sea 70, 83
(exp)
response to 5th
Circuit reraand
o Norton Sound 57
(exp)
o Cook Inlet 55, 60
(exp, dev & prod) AK- any
extension of
content period
extension of
conns nt period
o Bering Sea II 89
St. George Basin
(exp)
extension of
copnent period
extension of
content period
withdrawal
o BMufort So* 97
(••p)
DRAFT
PROPOSAL
03/14/84
49 PR 9610
03/14/84
49 PR 9610
08/19/85
51 FR 29600
02/15/85
50 FR 6385
07/17/85
50 FR 28974
09/03/85
50 FR 35598
10/07/85
50 FR 40893
07/22/85
50 FR 29928
09/03/85
50 FR 35598
10/07/85
50 FR 40893
07/08/86
51 PR 24745
09/ /87
52 re
HEARING/
EXPIRATION
EKTES
04/16/84
04/18/84
04/16/84
04/16/84
none
09/19/86
none
08/19/85
none
08/19/85
none
08/18/85
none
11/18/85
none
08/19/85
none
09/18/85
none
11/18/85
none
/ /87
/ /87
FINAL PERMIT
ISSUANCE
06/07/84
49 PR 23734
06/07/84
49 PR 23734
09/ /87
52 FR
06/04/85
50 FR 23578
10/03/86
51 FR 35460
OljG
Withdrawal
53 FR
EFFECTIVE/
EXPIRATION
DATES
05/30/84
05/29/89
05/30/84
05/29/89
06/04/85
05/29/90
10/10/86
10/10/91
/ /
/ /
LIMITS
BPJ/BAT
BCT
BPJ/BAT
BCT
No diesel
discharge
BPJ/BAT
BCT
BPJ/BAT
BCT/SWQS
BPJ/BAT
BCT
BPJ/BAT
BCT
9-04-87
403(c)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
AfiCs
yes
-------
ATTACHMENT A
NPDES Attorn*/ General's Statement
for General Permit*
I hereby certify, pursuant to Section 402(b) of the
Clean Water Act as amended (33 a.S.C. $1251, et. sea.) and
40 CFR $123.2Cic) that in my opinion the laws of the State
(Commonwealth) of _________ provide adequate legal authority
to issue and enforce general permits in accordance with the
general permit program outlined in 40 CFR $122.If . The
specific authorities provided, which are contained in lawfully
enacted or promulgated statutes or regulation in full force
and effect on the date of this statement-, include the following:
1. Authority to Issue General Permits
State law provides authority to issue general permits for
the discharge of pollutants from specified categories
of point sources to the same- extent as required under the
genar-1 pernit program administered by tn* U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency ("EPA") pursuant to Section 402
of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. $1251 et.
a«q., and 40. CFR $122.2f.
(a) Federal Authority: CWA $402(a), 40 era $l22.£g , $123.23.
(b) Statit Statutory Authority*
(c) State Regulatory Authority*
(d) Remarks of the Attorney Generals
(e) Judicial Decisions Demonstrating Adequate Authority:
-------
2- Authority to Enforce General Permits
State> law grants to the
STATi tf?DES PE3MI7TI.VG
the authority to enforce general perr.its pursuant to the
ir.pleraentation "of a general permit program under 40 C?R *) 122.12.
(a) Federal Authority: CWA $402(a), 40 CFR $122. i*. U23.ll
$123.17.
(b) State Statutory Authority*
(c) State Regulatory Authority:
(d) Remarks of the Attorney General:
(e) Judicial Decisions Demonstrating Adequate Authorityt
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
Mods I MOA
General Permit*
AMENDMENT
TO THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
MEMORANDUM OP AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
(State Agency)
AND THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION
The Memorandum of Agreement between the United State* Environmental
Protection Agency, Region ___ (hereafter EPA) and the (state Agency)
(hereafter _____ ) is hereby amended to include (State Agency) and
EPA responsibilities for the development, issuance and enforcement
of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:(hereafter
NPDES) general permits ae followsi
The (State Agency) ha* the responsibility for developing and
issuing NPDSS general permits. After identifying dischargers
appropriately regulated by a general permit, the (State Agency)
will collect sufficient effluent data to develop effluent
limitations and prepare the draft general permit*
Each draft general permit will be transmitted to the* following
EPA officest
Hater Management Division; Director
U.S. EPA, Region
(Address*
Director, Office Water Enforcement and Permits*
U.S. EPA (EN-335)
401 M Street sw
Washington D.C. 2046O.
EPA will,have up to ninety (90) days to review draft, general
permits anoT provide comments, recommendations and, objections
to the (Stats) Agency). Each draft.general permit will be
accompanied by * fact sheet setting forth the principal facts
and methodologies considered during permit development. In
the event EPA does object to a general permit it will provide,
in writing, the reasons for its objection and the actions
necessary to eliminate the objection. The State has* the
right to a public hearing on the objection. Upon receipt
• General permits for discharges from separate storm sewers
need not be sent to EPA Headquarters for review.
-------
of EPA's objection, the State may request a public hearing.
It EPA's concern* are not satisfied and the State has not
sought a hearing within 90 days of the objection, exclusive
authority to issue the general permit passes to EPA.
If EPA raise* no objections to a general permit it will be
publicly noticed in accordance with (insert State requirements).
and 40 C.P.R. §124.10, including publication in a daily or
weekly newspaper circulated in th* area to be covered by the
permit. The (State Agency) will issue general permits in
accordance with (insert citations to State regulations) and
40 C.P.R. $122.28.
The (State Agency) may require any person authorized by a-
general permit to apply for, and obtain an individual NPDES
permit. In addition, interested persons, including dischargers
otherwise) authorised by a general permit, may request that a
facility be excluded from general permit coverage. Dischargers
wishing exclusion must apply for an Individual NPDES permit
within ninety (90) days of publication of the general permit.
The applicability of a general permit will automatically
terminate upon the effective date of the individual permit.
Finally, a discharger with an effective or continued individual
SPDES permit may serk general permit coverage by requesting its
permit to be revoked.
The (State Agency) also has the primary responsibility for
conducting compliance monitoring activities and enforcing
conditions and requirements of general permits.
All specific State commitments regarding the issuance and
enforcement of general permits will be determined through
the annual 106 workplan/SEA process.
This Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement ''ill be
effective upon approval of the (State Agency's) general
permits program application by the Administrator of EPA
Region _.
FOR (State Agency)t
Director (Date)
FOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAt PROTECTION AGENCYi
Regional Administrator (Date)
U.S. EPA, Region
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
FEDERAL GENERAL PERMIT REGULATIONS ~ CITATIONS
Topic
Definitions
Substantive Aegs.
Coverage
Administration
Offshore Oil & Gas
Applications
Draft Permits
Fact Sheets
Public Notice
EPA Review State Permits
Individual Permits
Special Procedures for EPA Permits
Evidentiary Hearings
Attorney General Statement for
State Program Approval
Reg. Cite
§L22.2
§L22.23
§L24.3(a)(l)
§124. 6(c)
§124. 8(a)
fL24.10(e)(l)
.10(c)(2)(i)
.lO(d)tl)Ui-iii)
$123.24(d)(3)
•43(b)
•44(a)(2)
•44(b)(2)
$124.52{a)
$124.58
§124.71(a)
§123.23(c)
-------
APPENDIX H
-------
Standard Industrial Category Codes
for General Permits
Code (GPCT) Deacription (GPCD)
01 Agricultural Production Livestock:
04 coal Mining
07 Construction
10 Deep Seabed Mining
13 Pish Butcheries and Preserves
16 Landfill Runoff
19 Laundry, Cleaning, and Garment Services
22 Heat Products
25 Non-Contact Cooling Haters
28 Offshore Oil and gas
31 Oil and gas Extraction
34 Petroleum and Bulk Station* and Terminals
37 Placer Mining
40 Private Households
43 Processed Fruits and vegetables
46 salt Extraction
49 Sand and Gravel
50 Sand and Gravel
52 Seafood Processing
55 Sewerage Systems (commercial)
58 Sewerage Systems (municipal)
61 Storm Water Runoff
64 Hater Supply
67 Hydrostatic Testing
70 Log Transfer
99 Not Yet Defined
------- |