Title: Final NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity; Notice Sept 9, 1992
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004325/00001
 Material Information
Title: Final NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity; Notice Sept 9, 1992
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Final NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity; Notice Sept 9, 1992 (JDV Box 95)
General Note: Box 20, Folder 1 ( EPA (Federal Register) ), Item 3
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004325
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text



Wednesday
September 9, 1992


Part III


Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
Industrial Activity; Notice


1%allwy- -








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
IFiL-4202-51
Final NPDES General Permits for
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final NPDES general
permits.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrators
of Regions I, IV, VI, VIII, IX, and X (the
"Regions" or the "Directors") are issuing
final National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(except discharges from construction
activity) in 11 States (Alaska, Arizona,
Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
South Dakota. and Texas); the
Territories of Johnston Atoll, Midway
and Wake Islands; on Indian lands in
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire,
Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; from
Federal facilities in Colorado, and
Washington; and from Federal facilities
and Indian lands in Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
These general permits establish
Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements,
prohibitions, requirements to develop
and implement storm water pollution
prevention plans, and requirements to
conduct site inspections for facilities
with dischargers authorized by the
permit. In addition, these general
permits establish monitoring
requirements for certain classes of
facilities and a numeric effluent
limitation for discharges of coal pile
runoff subject to the general permits.
ADDRESSES: Notices of Intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permits should be sent to: Storm Water
Notices of Intent, PO Box 1215,
Newington, VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
sent to the appropriate EPA Regional'
Office. The addresses of the Regional
Offices and the name and phone number
of the Storm Water Regional
Coordinator is provided in section IV.G
of the Fact Sheet.
/, The index to the administrative
records for these permits are available
at the appropriate Regional Office. The
complete administrative record is
located at EPA Headquarters, EPA


Public Information Reference Unit, room
2402 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying. Specific record information
will be made available at the
appropriate Regional Office as
requested.
DATES: These general permits shall be
effective on September 9, 1992. This
effective date is necessary to provide
appropriate dischargers with the
opportunity to comply with the October
1,1992 deadline for submitting an
NPDES application for storm water
discharges associated with industrial by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be
covered by the permits.
Deadlines for submittal of Notices of
Intent (NOIs) are provided in section
IV.A.2 of the Fact Sheet and Part ILA of
the general permits. Today's general
permits also provide additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the permit
and for submitting monitoring data
where required.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the final
NPDES general permits, contact the
NPDES Storm Water Hotline at (703)
821-4823 or the appropriate EPA
Regional Office. The name, address and
phone number of the Regional Storm
Water Coordinators are provided in
section IV.G of the Fact Sheet.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
III. Coverage of General Permits
IV. Summary of Permit Conditions
A. Notification Requirements
1. Contents of NOIs
2. Deadlines
3. Additional Notification
4. Notice of Termination
B. Special Conditions
1. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil
C. Tailored Pollution Prevention Plan
Requirements
1. Pollution Prevention Team
2. Description of Potential Pollution
Sources
a. Drainage
b. Inventory of Exposed Materials
c. Significant Spills and Leaks
d. Non-storm Water Discharges
e. Sampling Data
f. Risk Identification and Summary of-
Potential Pollutant Soirces
3. Measures and Controls
a. Good Housekeeping
b. Preventive Maintenance
c. Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures
Sd. Inspections
e. Employee Training
f. Recordkeeping and Internal Reporting
Procedures


g. Sediment and Erosion Control
h. Management of Runoff
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation
D. Special Requirements
1. EPCRA Section 313
2. Salt Piles
3. Discharges to Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems
4. Coal Piles
E. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
F. Regional Offices
G. Compliance Deadlines
V. Cost Estimates
VI. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12291)
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. 401 Certification
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Introduction
The Regional Administrators of the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) are issuing final general
permits for the majority of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity as follows:
Region I-For the States of Maine and
New Hampshire; for Indian lands
located in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Maine.
Region IV-For the State of Florida:
and for Indian lands located in Florida,
Mississippi, and North Carolina.
Region VI-For the States of
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas; and for Indian lands located in
Louisiana, New Mexico (except Navajo
lands and Ute Mountain Reservation
lands), Oklahoma, and Texas.
Region VIII-For the State of South
Dakota; for Indian lands located in
Colorado, Montana, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Utah (except Goshute
Reservation and Navajo Reservation
lands), and Wyoming; for Federal
facilities in Colorado; and for the Ute
Mountain Reservation in Colorado and
New Mexico.
Region IX-For the State of Arizona;
for the Territories of Johnston Atoll, and
Midway and Wake Island; and for
Indian lands located in California and
Nevada; and for the Goshute
Reservation in Utah and Nevada, the
Navajo Reservation in Utah, New
Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley
Reservation in Nevada and Idaho.
Region X-For the States of Alaska
and Idaho; for Indian lands located in
Alaska, Idaho (except Duck Valley
Reservation lands), and Washington;
and for Federal facilities in Washington.
These general permits may authorize
the majority of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States, including
discharges through large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
and through other municipal separate


41236


- Mwwm


I-


-------------- -------"L--------






Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


storm sewer systems. As discussed
below, these permits do not authorize
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities I and several additional
classes of storm water discharges.
This notice contains four appendices.
Appendix A summarizes EPA's response
to major comments received on the draft
general permits published on August 16,
1991 (56 FR 40948). Appendix B provides
the language of the final general permits.
Except as provided in part XI of the
permits, parts I through X apply to all
permits. Part XI of the permit contains
conditions which only apply in the State
indicated. Appendix C is a copy of the
Notice of Intent (NOI) form (and
associated instructions) for dischargers
to obtain coverage under the general
permits. Appendix D is a copy of the
Notice of Termination (NOT) form (and
associated instructions) that can be used
by dischargers wanting to notify EPA
that their storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity have
been terminated or that the permitted
has transferred operation of the facility.
On August 16, 1991 (56 FR 40948), EPA
requested public comment on draft
general permits forming the basis for
today's final general permits. In addition
to addressing those storm water
discharges from industrial activity
addressed in today's permits, the August
16,1991, draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges from
construction activities. The permits in
this notice only address storm water
associated with industrial activity other
than construction activities. Elsewhere
in today's Federal Register, EPA is
publishing NPDES permits for storm


Elsewhere in today's Federal Register. EPA is
publishing final general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity from
construction sites in a number of States.


water discharges from construction
industrial facilities.
EPA received more than 330
comments on the August 16,1991, draft
general permits. In addition, public
'hearings to discuss the draft general
permits were held in Dallas, TX;
Oklahoma City, OK; Baton Rouge, LA;
Albuquerque, NM; Seattle, WA; Boise,
ID; Junheu, AK; Pierre, SD; Phoenix, AZ;
Orlando, FL; Tallahassee, FL; Augusta,
ME; Boston, MA; and Mancheser, NH.
EPA is incorporating, by reference,
portions of the detailed fact sheet for the
draft general permits published on
August 16, 1991, as part of the final fact
sheet and statement of basis for today's
final permit. The sections of the prior
fact sheet being incorporated are section
1, Background; section 4, Summary of
Options for Controlling Pollutants; and
section 5, The Federal/Municipal
Partnership: The Role of Municipal
Operators of Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewers.
II. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
The volume and quality of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity depend on a number
of factors, including the industrial
activities occurring at the facility, the
nature of precipitation, and the degree.
of surface imperviousness. Rain water
may pick up pollutants from structures
and other surfaces as it drains from the
land. In addition, sources of pollutants
other than storm water, such as illicit
connections,2 spills, and other
improperly dumped materials, may
increase the pollutant loads discharged
from separate storm sewers. The
sources of pollutants in storm water

SIllicit connections are contributions of
unpermitted nonstorm water discharges to storm
sewers from any of a number of sources including
sanitary sewers, industrial facilities, commercial
establishments, or residential dwellings.


discharges differ with the type of
industry operation and specific facility
features. For example, air emissions
may be a significant source of pollutants
at some facilities, material storage
operations at others, and still other
facilities may discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity with
relatively low levels of pollutants.
From 1978 through 1983, EPA provided
funding and guidance to the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to study
runoff from commercial and residential
areas. NURP included 28 projects across
the Nation conducted separately at the
local level but centrally reviewed,
coordinated, and guided.
One focus of the NURP program was
to characterize the water quality of
discharges from separate storm sewers
that drain residential, commercial, and
light industrial (industrial parks) sites.
The majority of samples collected in
NURP were analyzed for seven
conventional pollutants and three
metals. Table 1 summarizes the data in
the NURP data base on concentrations
for these 10 pollutants and fecal
coliform. The data collected in NURP
indicated that on an annual loading
basis suspended solids in discharges
from separate storm sewers draining
runoff from residential, commercial, and
light industrial areas are approximately
an order of magnitude or more greater
than effluent from sewage treatment
plants receiving secondary treatment.
The study also found that annual
loadings of chemical oxygen demand
(COD) are comparable to effluent from
sewage treatment plants receiving
secondary treatment When analyzing
annual loadings associated with urban
runoff, it is important to recognize that
discharges of urban runoff are highly
intermittent and that the short-term
loadings associated with individual
.events will be high and may have shock
loading effects on receiving water, such
as sag in dissolved oxygen levels.


TABLE 1.-QUALTY CHARACTERISTICS OF RUNOFF FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS

nAverage residential or Weighted mean residential or NURP recommendations for
commercial site concentration commercial site concentration load estimates
TSS 239 mg/I 180 mg/I 180-548 mg/I
800.. *.*-----..._... --.-.-.-.---.- 12 mg/I 12 mg/I 12-19 mg/I
co.--__ 94 mg/I 82 mg/I 82-178 mg/I
Tow .Phosph....... 0.5 mg/I 0.42 mg/I 0.42-0.88 mg/I
SOie Phosphorus_ .. 0.15 mg/I 0.15 mg/I 0.15-0.28 mg/I
oWKedhl Nitrogen _...._........ 2.3 mg/I 1.90 mg/I 1.90-4.18 mg/I
TCNiite. ... 1.37 mg/l 0.86 mg/I 0.86-2.21 mg/I
ToM Colpper.. p3g/I 43 pg/I 43-118 pg/I
Tolad d. -- .. .236 pg/I 182 pg0/ 182-443 pg/I
ToMl Zinc 63 pg/I 202 pg/I 202-633 pg/
Fsea Colform-
Warm Weather-- 8040 countsd100 gml 27.605 counts/100 mi. --- .........
ldWeather 22.918 counts/100 gml 7,075 counts/100 mi ..

tM RDWIoopf4 om Results o Ne lde U Ru Pgam VOl. -Fil port, EPA 1983.


-I-~r"s~ I


41237








Federal Regster / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9 1992 / Notices


NURP also involved monitor
-- priority pollutants. Seventy-seq
priority pollutants, including 1
inorganic and 83 organic pollute
were detected in samples of st
discharges from residential, co
and light industrial lands take
NURP. Table 2 shows the prior
pollutants detected in at least
of the discharge samples that
tested for priority pollutants. T
data also showed that a signifi
number of these samples excee
various freshwater water quali
criteria.
Although NURP did not eval
and grease, other studies have
demonstrated that urban runoff
extremely important source of
pollution to receiving waters,s
hydrocarbon levels in urban ru
typically being reported at a ra
mg/l to 10 mg/L These hydroce
tend to accumulate in bottom a
where they may persist for lon
of time and can adversely affect
organisms.

TABLE 2.-PR- oTY POLLUT
TESTED IN AT LEAST 10 P
NURP SAMPLES




Metals and norgant -
Antimony ..-......._.
Arsenic.........
Beyllium
Cadmium.... -----
Chromium...... .....
Copper ...... ..
Cyaniden ___
Lead..___
Nicea -.-..---------
eni .........
Zinc..........................
Pesticikdes:
Alpha-hexachocyciohexane
Alpha-endosuan...... .....
Urndane ..........
Halogenated Aliphatics:
Methane, dichloro ............ ... ..
Phenols and Cresols:
Phenol pentac o-... ......
Phthalate Esters:
Phthalate, bis (2-ethyihexyl) .........
Pocydic Aromatic Hydrocaronr
Chryeene, ............................. ..... .
Fuokrant ene.........................
Phenanthrwne ne_...._-
Pyrene ... .......................


SFor example, see "Controlling Urba
Practical Manual for Planning and Desi
"' BMP"'. Metropolitan Washington Cour
Governments. July 1987.


ing 120 Other studies have shown that many-
ren storm sewers contain illicit non-storm
4 water discharges and that large amounts
ants, of wastes are disposed of improperly in
arm water storm sewers. Removal of these
mmercial, discharges presents opportunities for
During dramatic improvements in the quality of
ity storm water discharges. Storm water
10 percent discharges from industrial facilities may
were contain, in addition to illicit connections
he NURP and improperly disposed wastes, toxics
cant and conventional pollutants when
'ded material management practices allow
ty exposure to storm water.
In some municipalities, illicit
uate oil connections of sanitary, commercial
and industrial discharges to storm pewe
f Is an systems have had a significant impact
oil on the water quality of receiving waters
with Although NURP did not emphasize
noff identification of illicit connections to
nge of 2 storm sewers other than to ensure that
rbons monitoring sites used in the study were
ediments free from sanitary sewage
Periods contamination, the study concluded that
ct benthic illicit connections can result in high
bacterial counts and dangers to public
health.
ANTS DE- Studies have shown that illicit
RCENT OF connections to storm sewers can create
severe, widespread contamination
problems. For example, the Huron River
requency Pollution Abatement Program inspected
of Detecon 60 businesses, homes, and other -
ere buildings located in Washtenaw County
Michigan, and found that 14 percent of
13 the buildings had improper storm drain
52 connections. Illicit discharges were
12 detected at a higher rate of 60 percent
48 for automobile-related businesses,
9 including service stations, automobile
23 dealerships, car washes, body shops,
94 and light industrial facilities, While
43 some of the problems discovered in this
9 study were due to improper plumbing or
illegal connections, a majority were
20 approved connections at the time they
19 were built, but have since become
17 unlawful discharges.
NURP and other studies of urban
11 runoff insight on what can be-
14 considered background levels of
ig pollutants for urban runoff, as these
to studies have focused primarily on
monitoring runoff from residential.
22 commercial, and light industrial areas.
10 However. NURP concluded that the
it quality of urban runoff can be impacted
12 adversely by several'sources of .
15 pollutants that were not evaluated
directly in the study and that are
aRunf A generally not reflected in the NURP
aing Urbaa data, such as illicit connections,
i construction site runoff, industrial site
runoff, and illegal dumping,


For some industrial facilities, the
types and concentrations of pollutants
Sin storm water discharges are similar to
the types and concentrations of
Pollutants generally found in storm
water discharges from residential and
commercial areas. However, storm
water discharges from other industrial
facilities have a significant potential for
Higher pollutant levels. In addition,
pollutant loadings per unit area from
some industrial facilities may be high
because of a high degree of
Imperviousness.
Six activities can be identified as
major potential sources of pollutants In
r storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. (1] Loading or
unloading of dry bulk materials or
liquids; (2) outdoor storage of raw
materials or products; (3) outdoor
process activities; (4) dust or particulate
generating processes; (5] illicit
connections or inappropriate
management practices; and (6] waste
disposal practices. The potential for
pollution from many of these activities
may be influenced by the presence and
use of toxic chemicals. These activities
are discussed in more detail below.
1. Loading and unloading operations
typically are performed along facility
access roads and railways and at
loading/unloading docks and terminals.
* These operations include pumping of
liquids or gases from truck or rail car to
a storage facility or vice versa.
pneumatic transfer of dry chemicals to
or from the loading or unloading vehicle,
transfer by mechanical conveyor
systems, and transfer of bags, boxes.
drums, or other containers from vehicle
by forklift trucks or other materials
handling equipment. Material spills or
losses may discharge directly to the
storm drainage systems or may
accumulate in soils or on surfaces and

See "Best Management Practices: Useful Tools
for Cleaning Up", Rogoshewski. P. 1982 Proceedings
of the 1982 Hazardous Material Spills Conference;
"Manual of Practice: On Site Identification of Illicit
Connections". The Cadmus Group, 1990: "Design of
Urban Runoff Quality Controls". American Society
of Civil Engineers, 1988 "Urban Stormwater Quality
Enhancement-Source Control Retrofitting, and
Combined Sewer Technology". Torno. American
Society of Civil Engineers. 1989; "NPDES Best
Management Practices Guidance Document", EPA.
1979; "Guidelines to Pollution Prevention: The
Pesticide Formulating Industry". 1900 EPA/e2S/7-
90/004 "Guides to Pollution Preventiona The Paint
Manufacturing Industry". 1990, EPA/625/7-/00/0
"Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Fabricated
Metal Products Industry". 1990, EPA/625/7--00WOM
and "Analysis of Implementing Permitting Activities
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Industrial Activity". EPA. 1991.


rr JI


41=31







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9,1992 ] Notices


be washed away during a storm or
. facility washdown.
2. Outdoor storage activities include
the storage of fuels, raw materials,
byproducts, intermediates, final
products and process residuals.
Methods of material storage include
using storage containers (e.g., drums or
tanks), platforms or pads, bins, silos,
boxes, or piles. Materials, containers,
and material storage areas that are
exposed to rainfall and/or runoff may
contribute pollutants to storm water
when solid materials wash off or
materials dissolve into solution.
3. Other outdoor activities include
certain types of manufacturing and
commercial operations and land-
disturbing operations. Although many
manufacturing activities are performed
indoors, some activities, such as
equipment maintenance and/or
cleaning, timber processing, rock
crushing, vehicle maintenance and/or
cleaning, and concrete mixing, typically
occur outdoors. Processing operations
may result in liquid spillage and losses
of material solids to the drainage system
or surrounding surfaces, or creation of
dusts or mists, which can be deposited
locally. Some outdoor industrial
activities cause substantial physical
disturbance of land surfaces that result
in soil erosion by storm water. For
example, disturbed land occurs in
construction and mining. Disturbed land
may result in soil losses and other
pollutant loadings associated with
increased runoff rates. Facilities whose
major process activities are conducted
indoors may still apply chemicals such
as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer
outdoors for a variety of purposes.
4. Dust or particulate generating
processes include industrial activities
with stack emissions or process dusts
that settle on plant surfaces. Localized
atmospheric deposition is a particular
concern with heavy manufacturing
industries. For example, monitoring of
areas surrounding smelting industries
has shown much higher levels of metals
at sites nearest the smelter. Other
industrial sites, such as mines, cement
manufacturing, and refractories,
generate significant levels of dusts.
5. Illicit connections or inappropriate
management practices result in
improper non-storm water discharges to
storm sewer systems. The likelihood of
illicit discharges to storm water
collection systems is expected to be
higher at older facilities, due to past
Practices, as well as for facilities that
high volumes of process water or.
diapos of significant amounts of liquid
S usts, including process waste waters,
Scooing waters, and rinse waters.


Pollutants from non-storm water
discharges to the storm sewer system of
individual facilities are caused typically
by a combination of improper
connections, spills, improper dumping,
and the belief that the absence of visible
solids in a discharge is equivalent to the
absence of pollution.Illicit connections
are often associated with floor drains
that are connected to separate storm
sewers. Rinse waters used to clean or
cool objects discharge to floor drains
connected to separate storm sewers.
Large amounts of rinse waters may
originate from industries that use regular
washdown procedures; for example,
bottling plants use rinse waters for
removing waste products, debris, and
labels. Rinse waters can be used to cool
materials by dipping, washing, or
spraying objects with cool water, for
example, rinse water is sometimes
sprayed over the final products of a
metal plating facility for cooling
purposes. Condensate return lines of
heat exchangers often discharge to floor
drains. Heat exchangers, particularly
those used under stressed conditions
(such as exposure to corrosive fluids)
such as in the metal finishing and
electroplating industry, may develop
pinhole leaks that result in
contamination of condensate by process
wastes. These and other non-storm
water discharges to a storm sewer may
be intentional, based on the belief that
the discharge (condensate in the
example previously discussed) does not
contain pollutants, or they may be
inadvertent, if the operator is unaware
that a floor drain is connected to the
storm sewer.
6. Waste management practices
include temporary storage of waste
materials, operating landfills, waste
piles, and land application sites that
involve land disposal. Outdoor waste
treatment operations also include waste
water and solid waste treatment and
disposal processes, such as-waste
pumping, additions of treatment
chemicals, mixing, aeration,
clarification, and solids dewatering.
Facilities ofteh conduct some waste
management on site.
Coal Pile Runoff
The following description of coal pile
runoff is summarized from the "Final
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
Sand Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category"
(EPA-440/1-82/029), EPA, November
1982. A more complete description of
coal pile runoff can be found in the
development document.
The pollutants in coal pile runoff can
be classified into specific types


according to chemical characteristics.
Each type relates to the pH of the coal
pile drainage. The pH tends to be of an
acidic nature, primarily as a result of the
oxidation of iron sulfide in the presence
of oxygen and water. The potential
influence of pH on the ability of toxic
and heavy metals to leach from coal
piles is of particular concern. Many of
the metals are amphoteric with regard to
their solubility behavior. These factors
affect acidity, pH, and the subsequent
leaching of trace metals:
Concentration and form of pyritic
sulfur in coal;
Size of the coal pile;
Method of coal preparation and
clearing prior to storage;
Climatic conditions, including
rainfall and temperature;
Concentrations of calcium
carbonate and other neutralizing
substances in the coal;
Concentration and form of trace
metals in the coal; and
The residence time of water in the
coal pile.
Coal piles can generate runoff with
low pH values, with the acid values
being quite variable. The suspended
solids levels can be significant, with
levels of 2,500 mg/l not uncommon.
Metals present in the greatest
concentrations are copper, iron,
aluminum, nickel, and zinc. Others
present in trace amounts include
chromium, cadmium, mercury, arsenic,
selenium, and beryllium.'
m. Coverage of General Permits
These final general permits may
authorize all new and existing '
discharges composed of storm water
associated with industrial activity. To
be authorized under today's general
permit, the owner or operator of a
facility with a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity must
submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be
covered, using an NOI form (or
photocopy thereof) provided by the
Director. Unless notified by the Director
to the contrary, owners or operators
whd submit such notification are
authorized to discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity under
the terms and conditions of this permit.
Upon review of the NO, the Director
may deny coverage under this permit
and require submittal of an application
for an individual National Pollutant

A more complete description of pollutants in
coal pile runoff is provided in the "Final
Development Document forEffluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment
Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source
Category" EPA-440/1-2/029). EPA. November
1982.


41239







Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


Discharge Elimination System (NPDESk
S permit.
Dischargers thai have previously
submitted an individual permit
application or participated in a group
application are not precluded from
submitting an NOI to obtain coverage .
under today's general permits.
Seven types of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity ar
not authorized by and may not be
covered by today's general permit. Each
of these is discussed in turn below.
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are mixed
with sources of non-storm water other
than discharges that are either (1) in
compliance with a different NPDES
permit or (2) identified in the permit as
being a class of non-storm water
discharge that can be authorized by the
permit and comply with the
requirements of the permit
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are subject
to an existing effluent limitation
guideline for storm water or a
combination of storm water and process
water, '
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from facilities
with an existing NPDES individual or
general permit for the storm water
discharges. Storm water discharges that
are authorized by an existing NPDES
individual or general permit may be
authorized by this permit after the
existing permit expires, provided that
the permit did not establish numeric
limitations for such discharges. In
addition, storm water discharges that
are not covered by an existing NPDES
permit may be authorized by this permit
even where other storm water
discharges from the same facility are
covered by a different NPDES permit:
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from
construction activities;7

For the purpose of this permit, the following
effluent limitation guidelines address storm water
or a combination of storm water and process water:
cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411); feedlota (40
CFR 412); fertilizer manufacturing (40 CFR 418)
petroleum refining (40 CFR 419); phosphate
manufacturing (40 CPR 422); steam electric (40 CPR
423); coal mining (40 CFR 434) mineral mining and
processing (40 CPR 43) ore mining and dre-ing (40
CFR 440); and asphalt emulsion (40 CFR 443). This
permit may authorize storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity that are not
subject to an effluent imitation guideline ev
where a different storm water discharge at the
facility is subject to an effluent limitation guideline.
EPA is in the process of issuing separate general
permits fr storm water discharges ssociatd with
industrial activity from construction actvties. I
,-. situations where construction activities occur at a
existing industrial facility, or where nduhsrial
actvlties addressed by 40 CP R122,Ze(b) ) thdrog
(ix) or (x) such a asphal plants and concrete
plants, are employed at a construction site. the


Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that the Director
has determined to be or may reasonably
expect to be contributing to a violation
of a water quality standard;
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that may
adversely affect a listed or proposed to
be listed endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat: and
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from Inactive
mining, inactive landfills, or inactive oil
and gas operations occurring on Federal
lands where an operator cannot be
identified.
IV. Summary of Permit Conditions
The conditions of today's general
permits have been designed to comply
with the technology-based standards of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
general permits contain a prohibition on
discharging sources of non-storm water,
requirements for releases of hazardous
substances or oil in excess of reporting
quantities, a set of tailored requirements
for developing and implementing storm
water pollution prevention plans,
monitoring requirements for selected
discharges, and numeric effluent
limitations for coal pile runoff.
A. Notification requirements
General permits for storm water.
discharges associated with industrial
activity must require the submittal of an
NOI prior to the authorization of such
discharges (see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i),
April 2, 1992, [57 FR 11394]1. Consistent
with these regulatory requirements,
today's general permits establish NOI
requirements that operate instead of
individual permit application
requirements.
Dischargers submitting an NOI must
use the form provided by the Director
(or photocopy thereof]. A copy of the
NOI and accompanying instructions are
provided in appendix C. NOI forms are
also generally available from the Storm
Water Hotline ((703) 821-4823) and
appropriate EPA Regional offices (see
the Regional Offices section of today's
notice).
1. Contents of NOIs
The NOI must include the following
information:
Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. Where a
mailing address for the site is not

storm water discharge associated with Idustrial
activity from the industrial activity addessd by 40-
CFR 122.28(b) (1) through (ix) or (xi) ca be
authorized by the permit addressed by this fac
sheet.


available, the location can be described
in terms of the latitude and longitude of
the facility to the nearest 15 seconds
that the facility Is located in;
Up to four 4-digit Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that
best represent the principal products or
activities provided by the facility or for
hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facilities, land disposal
facilities that receive or have received
any industrial waste, steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage, a
narrative identification of those
activities;
The operator's name, address,
telephone number, and status as
Federal, State, private, public, or other
entity;
The permit number of any NPDES
permit for any discharge (including non-
storm water discharges) from the site
that is currently authorized by an
NPDES permit:
The name of the receiving waterss,
or if the discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer
and the receiving waters) for the
discharge through the municipal
separate storm sewer,
An indication of whether the owner
or operator has existing quantitative
data describing the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges
(existing data should not be included as
part of the NOI);
An indication as to whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process." Where a
facility has participated in a group
application, the number EPA assigned to
the group application shall be supplied;
and
For any facility that begins to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity after October 1,1992,
a certification that a storm water
pollution prevention plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
with Part IV of this permit (A copy of
the plan should not be included with the
NOI submission).
The NOI must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 122.22. A
complete description of these signatory
requirements are provided in the
instructions accompanying the NOI (see
appendix C). Completed NOI forms must
be submitted to the Director of the
NPDES program in care of the following

SAs discussed above dschargers that have
previously participated in a go application are
not precluded from submitting an NOI to be covered
by today's permte.


_ U,_ __I- ------ ~urrrul.l I\


M


41MQ







Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, SeDtember 9. 1992 / Notices


address: Storm Water Notices of Intent,
P.O. Box 1215, Newington, VA 22122
2. Deadlines
Except for the special circumstances
discussed below, dischargers who
intend to obtain coverage under today's
general permit for a storm water
discharge from an industrial activity
that is in existence prior to October 1,
1992, must submit an NOI on or before
October 1,1992, and facilities that begin
industrial activities after October 1,
1992. are required to submit an NOI at
least 2 days prior to the commencement
of the new industrial activity.
Oil and gas exploration, production,
processing, or treatment operations or
transmission-facilities that are not
required to submit a permit application
as of October 1,1992, in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii) but that
have a discharge after October 1,1992,
of a reportable quantity of oil or a
hazardous substance for which
notification is required pursuant to 40
CFR 110.6, 40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6
are required to submit an NOI within 14
calendar days of the first knowledge of
such release.
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from any facility
owned or operated by a municipality
that has participated in a timely part 1
group application and where either the
group application is rejected or the
municipally owned or operated facility
is denied participation in the group
application by EPA must submit an NOI
on or before the 180th day following the
date on which the group is rejected or
the denial is made, or on or before
October 1,1992, whichever is later. This
deadline is consistent with section
1068(b) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
A discharger is not precluded from
submitting an NOI at a later date.
However, in such instances, EPA may
bring appropriate enforcement actions.
EPA may deny coverage under this
permit and require submittal of an
individual NPDES permit application
based on a review of the completeness
and/or content of the NOI or other :
information (e.g., water quality
information, compliance history, history
of spills etc.). Where EPA requires a
dischager authorized under the general
permit to apply for an individual NPDES
permit or an alternative general permit,
EPA will notify the discharger in writing
that a permit application is required.
Coverage under this general permit will
automatically terminate if the discharger
fas to submit the required permit
application in a timely manner. Where
the discharger does submit a requested o
ermit application, coverage tnder this


general permit will automatically
terminate on the effective date of the
issuance or denial of the individual
NPDES permit or the alternative general
permit as it applies to the individual
permitted.
3. Additional Notification
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
discharge through a large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer
system must, in addition to submitting
an NOI to the Director, submit a copy of
the NOI to the municipal operator of the
system receiving the discharge.
4. Notice of Termination
Where a discharger is able to
eliminate the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
a facility, the discharger may submit a
Notice of Termination (NOT) form (or
photocopy thereof) provided by the
Director. This will assist EPA in tracking
the status of the discharger.
A copy of the NOT and instructions
for completing the NOT are provided in
appendix D of today's notice. The NOT
form requires the following information:
Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. Where a street
address for the site is not available, the
location of the approximate center of the
site must be described in terms of the
latitude and longitude to the nearest 15
seconds, or the section, township and
iange to the nearest quarter,
The name, address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Termination;
The NPDES permit number for the
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity identified by the
NOT;
An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges has
changed; and
The following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified facility
that are authorized by a NPDES general
permit have been eliminated or that I am no
longer the operator of the facility or
construction site. I understand that by
submitting this Notice of Termination, I am
no longer authorized to dischare storm
water associated with Industrial activity

th tme s large and medhn m epal separate
storm ewr systems ( nsytes serving a populatoi
of Mo,0o or mor) mr defied at 40 CFR 1S(b)
(4) uad (). Some of the dtie and ontie ti whi
thee systems fMoud a listed In Appendlccu F
, H. and I to 4o CIR pest 1s. Oi er ie and
medium sytas ve been d d byrEPA Om a
cas ..-aw i


under this general permit, and that
discharging pollutants in storm water
associated with industrial activity to waters
of the United States is unlawful under the
Clean Water Act where the discharge is not
authorized by a NPDES permit. I also
understand that the submittal of this notice of
termination does not release an operator
from liability for any violations of this permit
or the Clean Water Act"
NOTs are to be sent to the Director of
the NPDES program incare of the
following address: Storm Water Notice
of Termination, P.O. Box 1185,
Newington, Virginia 22122.
The NOT must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 122.22. A
complete description of these signatory
requirements is provided in the
instructions accompanying the NOT (see
appendix D).
B. Special Conditions
1. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
Today's general permits do not
authorize non-storm water discharges
that are mixed with storm water except
as provided below. Non-storm water
discharges that can be authorized under
today's permits include discharges from
fire fighting activities; fire hydrant
flushings; potable water sources,
including waterline flushings; irrigation
drainage; lawn watering: routine
external building washdown without
detergents; pavement washwaters
where spills or leaks of toxic or
hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been
removed) and where detergents are not
used; air conditioning condensate;
springs; uncontaminated ground water:
and foundation or footing drains where
flows are not contaminated with process
materials such as solvents that are
combined with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
To be authorized under the general
permits, these sources of non-storm
water (except flows from fire fighting
activities) must be identified in the
storm water pollution prevention plan
prepared for the facility. (Plans and
other plan requirements are discussed in
more detail below). Where such
discharges occur, the plan must also
identify and ensure the implementation
of appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
components) of the discharge. For
example, to reduce pollutants in
Irrigation drainage, a plan could identify
low maintenance lawn areas that do not
require the use of fertilizers or *
herbicides; for higher maintenance lawn
areas, a plan could identify measures


A19AI


a194A1








Federal Register / Vol. 57; No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9, i992 / Notices


Such as limiting fertilizer use based on
seasonal and agronomic considerations,
decreasing herbicide use with an
integrated pest management program,
introducing natural vegetation or more
hardy species, and reducing water use
(thereby reducing the volume of
irrigation drainage).
Today's permits do not require
pollution prevention measures to be
identified and implemented for non-
storm water flows from fire-fighting
activities because these flows will
generally be unplanned emergency
situations where it is necessary to take
immediate action to protect the public.
The prohibition on unpermitted non-
storm water discharges in these permits
ensures that non-storm water discharges
(except for those classes of non-storm
water discharges that are conditionally
authorized) are not inadvertently
authorized by these permits. Where a
storm water discharge is mixed with
non-storm water that is not authorized
by today's general permits or another
NPDES permit, the discharger should
submit the appropriate application
forms (Forms 1, 2C, and/or 2E) to gain
coverage of the non-storm water portion
of the discharge.
2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil
These general permits provide that the
discharge of hazardous substances or oil
from a facility must be eliminated or
minimized in accordance with the storm
water pollution plan developed for the
facility. Where a permitted storm water
discharge contains a hazardous
substance or oil in an amount equal to
or in excess of a reporting quantity
established under 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR
117, or 40 CFR 302 during a 24 hour
period, the following actions must be
taken:
Any person in charge of the facility
is required to notify the National
Response Center (NRC) (800-424-8802;
in the Washington, DC, metropolitan
area, 202-428-2675) in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR
117, and 40 CFR 302 as soon as they
have knowledge of the discharge;
The storm water pollution
prevention plan for the facility must be
modified within 14 calendar days of
knowledge of the release to provide a
description of the release, an account of
the circumstances leading to the release,
and the date of the release. In addition,
the plan must be reviewed to identify
measures to prevent the reoccurrence of
" such releases and to respond to such
releases, and it must be modified where
appropriate.
SThe permitted must also submit to
EPA within 14 calendar days of


knowledge of the release a written-
description of the release (including the
type and estimate of the amount of
material released), the date that such
release occurred, the circumstances
leading to the release, and steps to be
taken to modify the pollution prevention
plan for the facility.
Anticipated discharges containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of reporting
quantities are those caused by events
occurring within the scope of the
relevant operating system. Facilities that
have more than one anticipated
discharge per year containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reportable
quantity are required to:
Submit notifications for the first
release that occurs during a calendar
year (or for the first year of this permit,
after submittal of an NOI); and
Provide a written description in the
storm water pollution prevention plan of
the dates on which such releases
occurred, the type and estimate of the
amount of material released, and the
circumstances leading to the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
identify measures to minimize such
releases and the plan must be modified
where appropriate.
Where a discharge of a hazardous
substance or oil in excess of reporting
quantities is caused by a nonstorm
water discharge (e.g.. a spill of oil into a
separate storm sewer), that discharge is
not authorized by this permit and the
discharger must report the discharge as
required under 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117,
or 40 CFR 302. In the event of a spill, the
requirements of section 311 of the CWA
and other applicable provisions of
sections 301 and 402 of the CWA
continue to apply. This approach is
consistent with the requirements for
reporting releases of hazardous
substances and oil that make a clear
distinction between hazardous
substances typically found in storm
water discharges and those associated
with spills that are not considered part
of a normal storm water discharge (see
40 CFR 117.12(d)(2)(i)).
C. Tailored Pollution Prevention Plan
Requirements
All facilities covered by today's
general permits for storm water
,discharges associated with industrial
activity must prepare and implement a
storm water pollution prevention plan.
The storm water permits address
pollution prevention plan requirements
for a number of categories of industries,
including: Baseline requirements for all
industries; special requirements for
certain facilities subject to Emergency


Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) section 313; special
requirements for storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity
through large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems; and
special requirements for facilities with
outdoor salt storage piles. These tailored
requirements allow the implementation
of site-specific measures that address
features, activities, or priorities for
control associated with the identified
storm water discharges. This framework
provides the necessary flexibility to
address the variable risk for pollutants
in storm water discharges associated
with the different types of industrial
activity addressed by these permits.
This approach also assures that
facilities have the opportunity to
identify procedures to prevent storm
water pollution at a particular site that
are appropriate, given processes
employed, engineering aspects,
functions, costs of controls, location,
and age of the facility (as contemplated
by 40 CFR 125.3). The approach taken
also allows the flexibility to establish
controls that can appropriately address
different sources of pollutants at
different facilities.
The pollution prevention approach
adopted in today's general permits
focuses on these two major objectives:
(1) To identify sources of pollution
potentially affecting the quality of storm
Water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the facility; and
(2) to describe and ensure
implementation of practices to minimize
and control pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from the facility and to ensure
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit.
The storm water pollution prevention
plan requirements in the general permit
are intended to facilitate a process
whereby the operator of the industrial
facility thoroughly evaluates potential
pollution sources at the site and selects
and implements appropriate measures
designed to prevent or control the
discharge of pollutants in storm water
runoff. The process involves the
following four steps: (1) Formation of a
team of qualified plant personnel who
will be responsible for preparing the
plan and assisting the plant manager in
its implementation, (2) assessment of
potential storm water pollution sources,
(3) selection and implementation of
appropriate management practices and
controls, and (4) periodic evaluation of
the ability of the plan to prevent storm
water pollution and comply with the
terms and conditions of this permit.


~P~YrY~V'ULT~y~. .~ A


41242








Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


EPA believes the pollution prevention
Approach is the most environmentally
sound and cost-effective way to control
the discharge of pollutants in storm
water runoff from industrial facilities.
This position is supported by the results
of a comprehensive technical survey
EPA completed in 1979.o0 The survey
found that there are two classes of
management practices industry uses to
control the non-routine discharge of
pollutants from sources such as storm
water runoff, drainage from raw
material storage and waste disposal
areas, and discharges from places where
spills or leaks have occurred. The first
class of management practices includes
those that are low in cost, applicable to
a broad class of industries and
substances, and generally are
considered essential to a good pollution
control program. Some examples of
practices in this class are good
housekeeping, employee training, and
spill prevention procedures. The second
class includes management practices
that provide a second line of defense
against the release of pollutants. This
class addresses containment, mitigation,
cleanup, and treatment
Since publication of the 1979 survey,
EPA has imposed management practices
Sand controls in NPDES permits on a
case-by-case basis. The Agency also has
continued to review the appropriateness
and effectiveness of such practices, 1 as
well as the techniques used to prevent
and contain oil spills.1' Experience with
these practices and controls has shown
that they can be used in permits to
reduce pollutant discharges in storm
water in a cost-effective manner. EPA
has developed guidance entitled "Storm
Water Management for Industrial
Activities: Developing Pollution
Prevention Plans and Best Management
Practices", EPA, 1992 to assist
permittees in developing and

'o See "NPDES Beat Management Practices
CWddnce Document US. EPA. December 179.
DA-esoo/9g-04.
Pr example, see "Best Management Practice
Usful lools for Cleaning Up", Thron. H.
toloshewski. p.. 1982. Proceedings of the 1982
Hardou Material Spills Conference; "The
aunical Industries' Approach to Spill Prevention-.
Tompo. C. Goodier. i. 19i Proceedings of the
WM National Conference of Control of Hazardous
Merial Spills: a series of EPA memorandum
ailed "Best Management Practices in NPDES
Iu'-anikomation Memorandeumn. 1983.1985.
1M 1988 Review of Emergency System
wto Congres". EPA. 1988 and "Analysis of
Wmnenrting Permitting Activities for Storm Water
O-ge, Assooiated with Industrial Activity".

See hr ample. The CMO Spill Prevenol .
CI anmd Courtreaure Program Task Porme
art EPA. 19e and "Guidance Manual for the
.PM of an Accidental Spill Prevention
rM d b p .dy r pSAJCfrePA. wm.


implementing pollution prevention
measures.
1. Pollution Prevention Team
As a first step in the process of
developing and implementing a storm
water pollution prevention plan,
permittees must identify a qualified
individual or team of individuals to be
responsible for developing the plan and
assisting the facility or plant manager in
its implementation'.When selecting
members of the team, the plant manager
should draw on the expertise of all
relevant departments within the plant to
ensure that all aspects of plant
operations are considered when the plan
is developed. The plan must clearly
describe the responsibilities of each
team member as they relate to specific
components of the plan. In addition to
enhancing the quality of communication
between team members and other
personnel, dear delineation of
responsibilities will ensure that every
aspect of the plan is addressed by a
specified individual or group of
individuals. Pollution Prevention Teams
may consist of one individual where
appropriate (e.g., in certain small
businesses with limited storm water
pollution potential).
2. Description of Potential Pollution
Sources
Each storm water pollution prevention
plan must describe activities, materials,
and physical features of the facility that
may contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to storm water runoff or,
during periods of dry weather, result in
pollutant discharges through the
separate storm sewers or storm water
drainage systems that drain the facility.
This assessment of storm water
pollution risk will support subsequent
efforts to identify and set priorities for
necessary changes in materials,
materials management practices, or site
features, as well as aid in the selection
of appropriate structural and
nonstructural control techniques. Plans
must describe the following elements:
a. Drainage. The plan must contain a
map of the site that shows the pattern of
storm water drainage, structural
features that control pollutants in
runoff,1' surface water bodies (including
wetlands), places where significant
materials are exposed to rainfall and

1" Nonstructural features such as pass swale
and vegetative buffer strips also should be shown.
14 Significant materials include, but are not
limited to the following raw materials: fuels:
solvents, detergnts and plastic pellets wished
materials, suc as metallic products; raw materials
used in food processing or production: hazardous
ubstances designated under section 101(14) of the
. CopA Environmental Respoase,


runoff, and locations of major spills and
leaks that occurred in the 3 years prior
to the effective date of this permit. The
map also must show areas where the
following activities take place: Fueling,
vehicle and equipment maintenance
and/or cleaning, loading and unloading.
material storage (including tanks or
other vessels used for liquid or waste
storage), material processing, and waste
disposal For areas of the facility that
generate storm water discharges with a
reasonable potential to contain
significant amounts of pollutants, the
map must indicate the probable
direction of storm water flow and the
pollutants likely to be in the discharge.
Flows with a significant potential to
cause soil erosion also must be
identified.
b. Inventory of exposed materials.
Facility operators are required to
carefully conduct an inspection of the
site and related records to identify
significant materials that are or may be
exposed to storm water. The inventory
must address materials that within 3
years prior to the effective date of the
permit have been handled, stored.
processed, treated, or disposed of in a
manner to allow exposure to storm
water. Findings of the inventory must be
documented in detail in the pollution
prevention plan. At a minimum, the plan
must describe the methods and location
of on-site storage or disposal; practices
used to minimize contact of materials
with rainfall and runoff; existing
structural and nonstructural controls
that reduce pollutants in runoff; and any
treatment the runoff receives before it is
discharged to surface waters or a
separate storm sewer system. The
description must be updated whenever
there is a significant change in the types
or amounts of materials, or material
management practices, that may affect
the exposure of materials to storm
water.
c. Significant spills and leaks. The
plan must include a list of any
significant spills and leaks of toxic or
hazardous pollutants that occurred in
the 3 years prior to the effective date of
the permit. Significant spills include, but
are not limited to, releases of oil or
hazardous substances in excess of
quantities that are reportable under
section 311 of CWA (see 40 CFR 110.10
and 117.21) or section 102 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability

Compensation and Lability ActICERCLA): any
chemical the facility is required to report pursuant
to EPCRA Section 313: fertilizers pesticides: and
waste products such as hes. slag. and sludge that
have the potential to be released with storm water
discharges. (See 40CR 122.I(b)()).


-- -~---~-r~SLC~-----~~ '1


41243







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


Act (CERCLA) (see 40 302.4). Significant
,- spills may also include releases of oil or
hazardous substances that are not in
excess of reporting requirements and
releases of materials that are not
classified as oil or a hazardous
substance.
The listing should include a
description of the causes of each spill or
leak, the actions taken to respond to
each release, and the actions taken to
prevent similar such spills or leaks in
the future. This effort will aid the facility
operator as she or he examines existing
spill prevention and response
procedures and develops any additional
procedures necessary to fulfill the
requirements of part IV.D.3.c. of this
permit.
d. Non-storm water discharges. Each
pollution prevention plan must include a
certification, signed by an authorized
individual, that discharges from the site
have been tested or evaluated for the
presence of non-storm water discharges.
The certification must describe possible
significant sources of non-storm water,
the results of any test and/or evaluation
conducted to detect such discharges, the
test method or evaluation criteria used,
the dates on which tests or evaluations
were performed, and the on-site
r drainage points directly observed during
the test or evaluation. Acceptable test or
evaluation techniques include dye tests,
television surveillance, observation of
outfalls or other appropriate locations
during dry weather, water balance
calculations, and analysis of piping and
drainage schematics1".
Except for flows that originate from
fire fighting activities, sources of non-
storm water that are specifically
identified in the permit as being eligible
for authorization under the general
permit must be identified in the plan.
Pollution prevention plans must identify
and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
discharge.
EPA recognizes that certification may
not be feasible where facility personnel
do not have access to an outfall,
manhole, or other point of access to the
conduit that ultimately receives the
discharge. In such cases, the plan must
describe why certification was not
feasible. Permittees who are not able to
certify that discharges have been tested
or evaluated must notify the Director in
accordance with part VI.A. of the
permit.

s In general, smoke tests should not be used for
evaluating the discharge of non-storm water to a
separate storm sewer as many sources of non-storm
water typically pass though a trap that would limit
the effectiveness of the smoke test .


e. Sampling data. Any existing data
on the quality or quantity of storm water
discharges from the facility must be
described in the plan. These data may
be useful for locating areas that have
contributed pollutants to storm water.
The description should include a
discussion of the methods used to-
collect and analyze the data. Sample
collection points should be identified in
the plan and shown on the site map.
f Risk identification and summary of
potential pollutant sources. The
description of potential pollution
sources culminates in a narrative
assessment of the risk potential that
sources of pollution pose to storm water
quality. This assessment should clearly
point to activities, materials, and
physical features of the facility that
have a reasonable potential to
contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to storm water. Any such
activities, materials, or features must be
addressed by the measures and controls
subsequently described in the plan. In
conducting the assessment, the facility
operator must consider the following
activities: loading and unloading
operations; outdoor storage activities;
outdoor manufacturing or processing
activities; significant dust or particulate
generating processes; and on-site waste
disposal practices. The assessment must
list any significant pollution sources at
the site and identify the pollutant
parameter or parameters (i.e.,
biochemical oxygen demand, suspended
solids, etc.) associated with each source.
3. Measures and Controls
Following completion of the source
identification and assessment phase, the
permitted must evaluate, select, and
describe the pollution prevention
measures, best management practices
(BMPs), and other controls that will be
implemented at the facility. BMPs
include processes, procedures,
schedules of activities, prohibitions on
practices, and other management
practices that prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants in storm water
runoff,
EPA emphasizes the implementation
of pollution prevention measures and
BMPs that reduce possible pollutant
discharges at the source. Source
reduction measures include, among
others, preventive maintenance,
chemical substitution, spill prevention,
good housekeeping.. training, and proper
materials management. Where such
practices are not appropriate to a
particular source or do not effectively
reduce pollutant discharges, EPA
supports the use of source control
measures and BMPs such as material
segregation or covering, water diversion,


and dust control. Like source reduction
measures, source control measures and
BMPs are intended to keep pollutants
out of storm water. The remaining
classes of BMPs, which involve
recycling or treatment of storm water,
allow the reuse of storm water or
attempt to lower pollutant
concentrations prior to discharge.
The pollution prevention plan must
discuss the reasons each selected
control or practice is appropriate for the
facility and how each will address one
or more of the potential pollution
sources identified in part IV.D.2. of the
plan. The plan also must include a
schedule specifying the time or times
during which each control or practice
will be implemented. In addition, the
plan should discuss ways in which the
controls and practices relate to one
another and, when taken as a whole,
produce an integrated and consistent
approach for preventing or controlling
potential storm water contamination
problems. The portion of the plan that
describes the measures and controls
must address the following minimum
components.
a. Good housekeeping. Good
housekeeping involves using common
sense to identify ways to maintain a
clean and orderly facility and keep
contaminants out of separate storm
sewers. It includes establishing
protocols to reduce the possibility of
mishandling chemicals or equipment
and training employees in good
housekeeping techniques. These
protocols must be described in the plan
and communicated to appropriate plant
personnel.
b. Preventive maintenance. Permittees
must develop a preventive maintenance
program that involves regular inspection
and maintenance of storm water
management devices and other
equipment and systems. The program
description should identify the devices,
equipment, and systems that will be
inspected; provide a schedule for
inspections and tests; and address
appropriate adjustment, cleaning, repair,
or replacement of devices, equipment,
and systems. For storm water
management devices such as catch
basins and oil/water separators, the
preventive maintenance program should
provide for periodic removal of debris to
ensure that the devices are operating
efficiently. For other equipment and
systems, the program should reveal and
enable the correction of conditions that
could cause breakdowns or failures that
may result in the release of pollutants.
c. Spill prevention and response
procedures. Based on an assessment of
possible spill scenarios, permittees must


41244







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


specify appropriate material handling
procedures, storage requirements,
containment or diversion equipment,
and spill cleanup procedures that will
minimize the potential for spills and in
the event of a spill enable proper and
timely response. Areas and activities
that typically pose a high risk for spills
include loading and unloading areas,
storage areas, process activities, and
waste disposal activities. These
activities and areas, and their
accompanying drainage points, must be
described in the plan. For a spill
prevention and response program to be
effective, employees should clearly
understand the proper procedures and
requirements and have the equipment
necessary to respond to spills.
d. Inspections. In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation, qualified facility personnel
must be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan. A set of tracking or followup
procedures must be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in
response to the inspections. Records of
inspections must be maintained.
e. Employee training. The pollution
prevention plan must describe a
program for informing personnel at all
levels of responsibility of the
components and goals of the storm
water pollution prevention plan. The
training program should address topics
such as good housekeeping, materials
management, and spill response
procedures. A schedule for conducting
training must be provided in the plan.
Where appropriate, contractor
personnel also must be trained in
relevant aspects of storm water
pollution prevention.
f. Recordkeeping and internal
reporting procedures. The pollution
prevention plan must describe'
procedures for developing and retaining
records on the status and effectiveness
of plan implementation. At a minimum,
records must address spills, monitoring,
and inspection and maintenance
activities. The plan also must describe a
system that enables timely reporting of
storm water management-related
information to appropriate plant
personnel.
g. Sediment and erosion control. The
Pollution prevention plan must identify
areas that, due to topography, activities,
soils, cover materials, or other factors
have a high potential for significant soil
eosion. The plan must identify
measures that will be implemented to
limit erosion in these areas.
h. Management of rnoff. The plan
must contain a narrative evaluation of
te appropriateness of traditional storm


water management practices (i.e.,
practices other than those that control
pollutant sources) that divert, infiltrate,
reuse, or otherwise manage storm water
runoff so as to reduce the discharge of
pollutants. Appropriate measures may
include, among others, vegetative
swales, collection and reuse of storm
water, inlet controls, snow management,
infiltration devices, and wet detention/
retention basins.
Based on the results of the evaluation,
the plan must identify practices that the
permitted determines are reasonable
and appropriate for the facility. The plan
also should describe the particular
pollutant source area or activity to be
controlled by each storm water
management practice. Reasonable and
appropriate practices must be
implemented and maintained according
to the provisions prescribed in the pLn.
In selecting storm water management
measures, it is important to consider the
potential effects of each method on
other water resources, such as ground
water. Although storm water pollution
prevention plans primarily focus on
storm water management, facilities must
also consider potential ground water
pollution problems and take appropriate
steps to avoid adversely impacting
ground water quality. For example, if the
water table is unusually high in an area,
an infiltration pond may contaminate a
ground water source unless special
preventive measures are taken. Under
EPA's July 1991 Ground Water
Protection Strategy, States are
encouraged to develop Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSGWPP). Efforts to control
storm water should be compatible with
State ground water objectives as
reflected in CSGWPPs.
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation
The storm water pollution prevention
plan must describe the scope and
content of comprehensive site
inspections that qualified personnel-will
conduct to (1) confirm the accuracy of
the description of potential pollution
sources contained in the plan. (2)
determine the effectiveness of the p;an.
and (3) assess compliance with the
terms and conditions of the permit. The
plan must indicate the frequency of such
evaluation which in most cases must be
at least once a year.e" The individual or

'* Where annual site inspections are shown in the
plan to be impractical for inactive mining sites, due
to remote location and naccessibility. site
inspections must be conducted at least once even
three years. However, at least.o4e inspection must
take place before October 1.1994. For ming sites
that:become inactive after October 1. 94. the first


individuals who will conduct the
inspections must be identified in the
plan and should be members of the
pollution prevention team.
Material handling and storage areas
and other potential sources of pollution
must be visually inspected for evidence
of actual or potential pollutant
discharges to the drainage system.
Inspectors also must observe erosion
controls and structural storm water
management devices to ensure that etch
is operating correctly. Equipment
needed to implement the pollution
prevention plan, such as that used
during spill response activities, must be
inspected to confirm that it is in proper
working order.
The results of each site inspection
must be documented in a report signed
by an authorized company official. The
report must describe the scope of the
inspection, the personnel making the
inspection, the date(s) of the inspection,
and any major observations relating to
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan. Inspection
reports must be retained for at least
three years after the date that the permit
expires.
Based on the results of each
inspection, the description of potential
pollution sources in part IV.D.2. and
measures and controls in part IV.D.3 of
the plan must be revised as appropriate
within two weeks after each inspection.
Changes in the measures and controls
must be implemented on the site in a
timely manner, and never more than 12
weeks after completion of the
inspection.
D. Special Requirements
1. EPCRA Section 313
Today's permits establish special
requirements for certain permittees
subject to reporting requirements under
section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community-Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) (also known as title III of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA)). EPCRA
section 313 requires operators of certain
facilities that manufacture (including
import), process, or otherwise use listed
toxic chemicals to report annually their
releases of those chemicals to any
environmental media. Listed toxic
chemicals include more than 300
chemicals listed at 40 CFR 372.
The criteria for facilities that must
report under section 313 are given at 40
CFR 372.22. A-facility is subject to the
annual reporting provisions of section

site inspection must take place on -e date two'
years after such a site becomes inactive -


41245


---- ----~~---- ~-~~. -.`.7.. ~..7~'~"BilB"es~ I


41245








Federal Regiter / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


. 313 If it meets all three of the following
criteria for a calendar year.
It is included in Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39;
It has 10 or more full-time
employees; and
It manufactures (including imports),
processes, or otherwise uses a chemical
listed in 40 CFR 372.65 in amounts
greater than the "threshold" quantities
specified in 40 CFR 372.25.
There are more than 300 individually
listed Section 313 chemicals, as well as
20 categories of Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) chemicals for which reporting is
required. EPA has the authority to add
to and delete from this list The Agency
has identified approximately 175
chemicals that it is classifying for the
purposes of this general permit as
"Section 313 water priority chemicals".
For the purposes of this general permit,
section 313 water priority chemicals are
defined as chemicals or chemical
categories that (1) are listed at 40 CFR
372.65 pursuant to EPCRA section 313;
(2) are manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used at or above threshold
levels at a facility subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements; and
(3) meet at least one of the following
.. criteria: (i) Are listed in appendix D of
40 CFR part 122 on either Table I
(organic priority pollutants), Table Il
(certain metals, cyanides, and phenols),
or Table V (certain toxic pollutants and
hazardous substances); (ii) are listed as
a hazardous substance pursuant to
section 311(b)(2)A) of the CWA at 40
CFR 116.4; or (iii) are pollutants for
which EPA has published acute or
chronic toxicity criteria. A list of the
water priority chemicals is provided in
addendum B to the permit in appendix
B.
Summary of Special Requirements
The special requirements in today's
permits for facilities subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA Section 313
for a water priority chemical state that
storm water pollution prevention'plans,
in addition to the baseline requirements
for plans, must contain special
provisions addressing areas where
Section 313 water priority chemicals are
stored, processed, or otherwise handled.
The permit provides that appropriate
containment, d-' nage control, and/or
diversionary strictures mtst be
provided for such areas. At a minimum.
one of the following preventive systems
or its equivalent must be used:
Curbing, culverting, gutters, sewers,
or other forms of drainage control to
prevent or minimize the potential for
storm water run-on to come into contact
with significant sources of pollutants; or


Roofs, covers, or other forms of
appropriate protection to prevent
storage piles from exposure to storm
water and wind.
In addition, the permit establishes
requirements for priority areas of the
facility. Priority areas of the facility
including the following:
Liquid storage areas where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals;
Material storage areas for section
313 water priority chemicals other than
liquids;
Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals; and
Areas where section 313 water
priority chemicals are transferred,
processed, or otherwise handled.
The permit provides that site runoff
from other industrial areas of the facility
that may contain section 313 water
priority chemicals or spills of section 313
water priority chemicals must
incorporate the necessary drainage or
other control features to prevent the
discharge of spilled or improperly
disposed material and to ensure the
mitigation of pollutants in runoff or
leachate. The permit also establishes
special requirements for preventive
maintenance and good housekeeping,
facility security, and employee training.
Storm water pollution prevention
plans for facilities subject to these
special requirements must be reviewed
by a Registered Professional Engineer
(PE). The PE must be able to certify that
the storm water pollution prevention
plan has been prepared in accordance
with good engineering practices. The PE
must personally examine the facility and
be familiar with the requirements of
today's permit before making a
certification. The permit requires that a
PE certification be made every three
years. Where significant modifications
are made to the facility, such as the
addition of material handling areas or
chemical storage units, permittees are
required to obtain an additional PE
certification as soon as practicable. The
PE certifications do not relieve the
discharger of the duty to prepare and
implement fully a storm water pollution
prevention plan that is in accordance
with the permit
Sampling requirements for storm
water discharges from EPCRA section
313 are discussed below. Facilities
should review monitoring data and
evaluate pollution prevention measures
suitable for reducing pollutants in
discharges.


Requirements for Priority Areas
The permit provides that drainage
from priority areas should be restrain
by valves or other positive means to
prevent the discharge of a spill or othe
excessive leakage of section 313 water
priority chemicals. Where containment
units are employed, such units may be
emptied by pumps or electors; however,
these must be manually activated.
Flapper-type drain valves must not be
used to drain containment areas, as
these will not effectively control spills.
Valves used for the drainage of
containment areas should, as far as is
practical, be of manual, open-and-closed
design. If facility drainage does not meet
these requirements, the final discharge
conveyance of all in-facility storm
sewers must be equipped to be
equivalent with a diversion system that
could, in the event of an uncontrolled
spill of section 313 water priority
chemicals, return the spilled material or
contaminated storm water to the facility.
Records must be kept of the frequency
and estimated volume (in gallons) of
discharges from containment areas.
Additional special requirements are
related to the types of industrial
activities that occur within the priority
area. These requirements are
summarized below:
Liquid storage areas. Where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals, the material and
construction of tanks or containers used
for the storage of a section 313 water
priority chemical must be compatible
with the material stored and conditions
of storage, such as pressure and
temperature. Liquid storage areas for
section 313 water priority chemicals
must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals.
Appropriate measures to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals may
include secondary containment
provided for at least the entire contents
of the largest single tank plus sufficient
freeboard to allow for precipitation, a
strong spill contingency and integrity
testing plan, and/or other equivalent
measures. A strong spill contingency
plan would typically contain, at a
minimum, a description of response
plans, personnel needs, and methods of
mechanical containment (such as use of
sorbants, booms, collection devices,
etc.), steps to be taken for removal of
spill chemicals or materials, and
procedures to ensure access to and
availability of sorbents and other
equipment. The testing component of the
plan would provide for conducting


W


41246







Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


integrity testing of storage tanks at set
intervals such as once every five years,
and conducting integrity and leak testing
of valves and piping at a minimum
frequency, such as once per year. In
addition, a strong plan would include a
written and actual commitment of
manpower, equipment and materials
required to comply with the permit and
to expeditiously control and remove any
quantity of spilled or leaked chemicals
that may result in a toxic discharge.
Other material storage areas.
Material storage areas for section 313
water priority chemicals other than
liquids that are subject to runoff,
leaching, or wind must incorporate
drainage or other control features to
minimize the discharge of section 313
water priority chemicals by reducing
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals.
Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas. Truck and rail car
loading and unloading areas for liquid
section 313 water priority chemicals
must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 water priority
chemicals. Appropriate measures to
minimize discharges of section 313
chemicals may include the placement
and maintenance of drip pans [including
the proper disposal of materials
collected in the drip pans) where
spillage may occur (such as hose
connections, hose reels, and filler
nozzles) when making and breaking
hose connections; a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan;
and/or other equivalent measures.
Other transfer, process, or handling
areas. Processing equipment and
materials handling equipment must be
operated to minimize discharges of
section 313 water priority chemicals.
Materials used in piping and equipment
must be compatible with the substances
handled. Drainage from process and
materials handling areas must minimize
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals. Additional
Protection such as covers or guards to
Prevent exposure to wind, spraying or


releases from pressure relief vents to
prevent a discharge of section 313 water
priority chemicals to the drainage
system, and overhangs or door skirts to
enclose trailer ends at truck loading/
unloading docks must be provided as
appropriate. Visual inspections or leak
tests must be provided for overhead
piping conveying section 313 water
priority chemicals without secondary
containment.
2. Salt Piles
Today's general permits contain
special requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from salt storage facilities.
Storage piles of salt used for deicing or
other commercial or industrial purposes
must be enclosed or covered to prevent
exposure to precipitation, except for
exposure resulting from adding or
removing materials from the pile. This
,requirement only applies to runoff from
storage piles discharged to waters of the
-United States. Facilities that collect all
of the runoff from their salt piles and
reuse it in their processes or discharge it
subject to a separate NPDES permit do
not need to enclose or cover their piles.
Permittees must comply with this
requirement as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than
three years from the date of permit
issuance.
3. Discharges to Large and Medium
Separate Storm Water Systems
Permittees which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
through large or medium municipal
separate storm water systems 7 are
required to submit a signed copy of their
NOI to the operator of the municipal
separate storm sewer system.
Facilities covered by these permits
must comply with applicable

Lage and medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems are systems located in an
incorporated city with a population of 100,000 or
more, or in a county identified as having a a or
medium system see 40 CFR 12L26(b)(4) and (7) and
appendices F through I to part 122).


requirements in municipal storm water
management programs developed under
NPDES permits issued for the discharge
of the municipal separate storm sewer
system that receives the facility's
discharge, provided the discharger has
been notified of such conditions. In
addition, permittees that discharge
storm water associated with industrial
activity through a municipal separate
storm sewer system serving a
population of 100,000 or more must make
their pollution prevention plans
available to the municipal operator of
the system upon request by the
municipal operator.
4. Coal Piles
Today's permits establish effluent
limitations of 50 mg/1 total suspended
solids and a pH range of 6.0-9.0 for coal
pile runoff. Any untreated overflow from
facilities designed, constructed, and
operated to treat the volume of coal pile
runoff associated with a 10 year, 24 hour
rainfall event is not subject to the 50
mg/1 limitation for total suspended
solids. Permittees must comply with this
requirement as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than
three years from the date of permit
issuance.
E. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
Today's permits establish discharge
monitoring requirements for certain
classes of industrial facilities. These
monitoring requirements are
summarized in Table 3. For the most
part, special monitoring requirements
are limited to discharges associated
with specific industrial activities at
facilities within the identified class,
such as landfills or coal piles. Facilities
with storm water discharges that are
subject to monitoring requirements are
not required to monitor storm water
discharges that are not addressed by a
monitoring requirement so long as the
two discharges are segregated and the
flows do not commingle.
mu.W CODE 6mW-8O-M


- ~ I


41247








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


U --Z


Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


Type of Type of MoI. tori. Rqni
Facility Storm Water Discharge Parametaers F m F.Rum

EPCRA, Storm water discharges that come into Oil and Grease, BODS, COD, Semi- Annual
Section 313 contact with any equipment, tank, TSS, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, annual
Facilities container, or other vessel or area used Total Phosphorus, pH, acute
Subject to for storage of a Section 313 water whole effluent toxicity, any
Reporting priority chemical, or located at a truck Section 313 water priority -
Requirements or rail car loading or unloading area. chemical for which the facility
for Water where a Section 313 water priority reports
Priority chemical is handled
Chemicals

Primary Metal All storm water discharges associated Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Semi- Annual
Industries with industrial activity pH, acute whole effluent annual
(SIC 33) toxicity, Total Recoverable
Lead, Total Recoverable
Cadmium, Total Recoverable
Copper, Total Recoverable
Arsenic, Total Recoverable
Chromium, and any pollutant
limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject

Land Disposal Storm water discharges from active or Ammonia, Total Recoverable Semi- Annual
Units/ inactive land disposal units without a Magnesium, Magnesium annual
Incinerators/ stabilized cover that have received any (dissolved), Total Kjeldahl
BIFs waste from industrial facilities other Nitrogen, COD, TDS, TOC,
than construction sites; and storm water Oil and Grease, pH, Total
discharges from incinerators and BIFs. Recoverable Arsenic, Total
that bur hazardous waste Recoverable Barium, Total
Recoverable Cadmium, Total
Recoverable Chromium, Total
Cyanide, Total Recoverable
Lead, Total Mercury, Total
Recoverable Selenium, Total
Recoverable Silver, Acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity

Wood Storm water discharges from areas that Oil and Grease, pH, COD, Semi- Annual
Treatment are used for wood treatment, wood TSS annual
Facilities surface application or storage of treated
or surface protected wood

Facilities that use chlorophenolic Plus Pentachlorophenol and
formulations Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity

Facilities that use creosote formulations. Plus Acute Whole Effluent
Toxicity

Facilities that use chromium-arsenic Plus Total Recoverable
formulations Arsenic, Total Recoverable
Chromium, Total Recoverable
Copper
i-


L


41248






Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 f Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


U41=


Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


Type f Type of Mbuai 4hrti
Faculty Storm Water Discl hae Parameters 1 c rq.y
Industrial Storm water discharges from coal i Oil ad Grease, pH, TSS, Semi- Annual
Facilities with uraoff Total Recoverable Copper, annual
Coal Piles Total Recoverable Nickel,
Total Recoverable Zinc
Battery Storm water discharges from areas for Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Semi- Annual
Reclaimers storage of lead acid batteries, pH, Total Recoverable Copper, annual
reclamation products, or waste Total Recoverable Lead
products, and areas used for lead aid
battery reclamation
Airports Storm water discharges from aircraft or Oil ad Grease, OD5, COD, Annual Retain
(with over airport deicing areas TSS, pH, and the primary onsite
50,000 flight ingredient used in the deicing
operations per materials
year)
Coal-fired Storm water discharges from cot Oil and Grease, pH, TSS, Annual Retain
Steam Electric handling sites (other than ooff from Total Recoverable Copper, onsite
Facilities coal piles which is not eligible for Total Recoverable Nickel,
coverage under tis permit) Total Recoverable Zinc
Animal Storm water discharges fom animal BODS. Oil and Grease, COD, Annual Retain
Handling/ handling areas, manure management TSS, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen onsite
Meat Packing areas, production waste management (TKN), Total Phosphorus, pH,
Facilities aeas exposed to precipitation at meat Fecal Coliform
packing plants, poultry packing plants,
facilities that manufacture animal and
marine fats and oils
Chemical and Storm water discharges that come into Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Annual Retain
Allied Product contact with solid chemical storage piles pH, any pollutant limited in an onsite
Manufacturers/ effluent guideline to which the
Rubber facility is subject
Manufacturers
(SIC 28 and
30)
Automobile Storm water discharges exposed to: Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Annual Retain
Junkyards pH, any pollutant limited in an onsite
(a) over 250 auto/truck bodies with effluent guideline to which the
drivelines, 250 drivelines, or any facility is subject
combination thereof

(b) over 500 auto/truck units

(c) over 100 units dismantled per year
where automotive fluids are drained or
stored


41249







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


Type of Type of Mmasr Reponiai
- Facility Storm Water Discharge Parameters FPreq F rnmy
Lime Storm water discharges that have come Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Annual Retain
Manufacturing into contact with lime storage piles pH, any pollutant limited in an onsite
Facilities effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject

Oil-fired Storm water discharges from oil Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Annual Retain
Steam Electric handling sites pH, any pollutant limited in an onsite
Power effluent guideline to which the
Generating facility is subject
Facilities
Cement All storm water discharges associated Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Annual Retain
Manufacturing with industrial activity (except those pH, any pollutant limited in an onsite
Facilities and from material storage piles that are not effluent guideline to which the
Cement Kilns eligible for coverage under this permit) facility is subject
Ready-mix All storm water discharges associated Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Annual Retain
Concrete with industrial activity pH, any pollutant limited in an onsite
Facilities effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject

Ship Building All storm water discharges associated Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, Annual Retain
and Repairing with industrial activity pH, any pollutant limited in an onsite
Facilities effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject


BILLING CODE 6560-60-


41250


41250








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


Where a given storm water discharge
is addressed by more than one class of
monitoring requirements, then the
monitoring requirements for the
applicable classes of activities are
additive. Monitoring requirements must
be evaluated on a outfall-by-outfall
basis. If a particular discharge fits under
more than one set of monitoring
requirements, the facility must'comply
with both sets of sampling requirements.
Discharges composed entirely of
runoff from coal piles must be monitored
in a manner that ensures that the runoff
is not diluted or otherwise intermingled
with storm water from other sources or
other types of discharges. This is
necessary to ensure that coal pile runoff
complies with the numeric effluent
limitations in today's permit.
As noted in Table 3, only those
facilities required to conduct semiannual
monitoring must report monitoring
results to EPA on a regular basis. Other
facilities required to conduct monitoring
must only submit the results of their
sampling data if the data are requested
by EPA. Facilities that are not identified
in Table 3 are not required to conduct
discharge monitoring unless the Director
provides written notice that monitoring
is necessary.
All samples must be collected from
the discharge resulting from a storm
event greater than 0.1 inches in
magnitude and that occurs at least 72
hours after the previously measurable
(greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm
event. A minimum of one grab sample
may be taken for discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours. For all other discharges, data
must be reported for both a grab sample
and a composite sample. The grab
sample must be taken during the first
thirty minutes of the discharge. If the
collection of a grab sample during the
first thirty minutes is practicable, a grab
sample can be taken during the first
hour of the discharge. In such cases the
discharger must submit with the
monitoring report a description of why a
grab sample during the first thirty
minutes was impracticable. The
composite sample must either be flow-
weighted or time-weighted. Composite
samples may be taken with a continuous
sampler or as a combination of a
minimum of three sample aliquots taken
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
the discharge, with each aliquot being
separated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes. Composite samples do
not have to analyzed for pH, cyanide,
whole effluent toxicity, and oil and
rease. Only grab samples need to be


analyzed for these parameters where
these parameters are specified. Samples
must be analyzed in accordance with
the analytic methods approved under 40
CFR 136.
The permit allows the use of
substantially identical outfalls to reduce
the monitoring burden on a facility.
Permittees that intend to use this
provision must justify and document in
writing why one outfall is representative
of others. All facilities must include the
written justification in the facility storm
water pollution prevention plan. Where
a facility that is subject to semi-annual
monitoring requirements (EPCRA
section 313. waste disposal sites, wood
preserving facilities, battery reclaimers,
coal pile runoff, and primary metal
facilities) does not monitor a
substantially identical outfall, the
permitted must submit the justification
of why an outfall(s) is representative of
others with the discharge monitoring
report Otherfacilities required to
conduct monitoring under the permit
(e.g. those with annual monitoring
requirements) are not required to submit
the justification unless it is requested by,
the Director. These facilities must keep
the justification in the storm water
pollution prevention plan.
The permit allows for temporary
waivers from sampling based on
adverse climatic conditions. This
temporary sampling waiver is only
intended to apply to insurmountable

weather conditions such as drought or
dangerous conditions such as lightning.
flash flooding, or hurricanes. These
events tend to be isolated incidents and
should not be used as an excuse for not
conducting sampling under more
favorable conditions associated with
other storm events. The sampling waiver
is not intended to apply to difficult
logistical conditions, such as remote
facilities with few employees or
discharge locations which are difficult to
access.
The location for submittal of all
reports is contained in the permit.
Consistent with Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-105, facilities
located on certain Indian Lands in
Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Idaho,
Nevada, and Colorado should note that
permitting authority has been
consolidated in one EPA Region where a
reservation crosses the boundaries
between the Regions. For example, all
NPDES permitting for Navajo lands is
handled by EPA Region IX. The permits
require dischargers that must submit
monitoring information annually to
provide copies to receiving large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer


systems and States that have requested
this information.
The permit requires retention of
monitoring records for six years, since
not all facilities who monitor will be
required to submit the results annually.
In addition, pollution prevention plans
must be kept for the life of the permit.
F. Regional Offices
Notices of Intent to be authorized to
discharge under these permits should be
sent to: Storm Water Notices of Intent,
PO Box 1251, Newington, VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office:
CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT
United States EPA, Region I,
Water Management Division, (WCP-
2109),
Storm Water Staff,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, room
2209,
Boston, MA 02203.
Contact: Veronica Harrington, (617) 565-
3525.
NJ, NY, PR, VI
United States EPA, Region II, Water
Management Division, (2WM-WPC),
Storm Water Staff, 26 Federal Plaza,
New York, NY 10278. Contact: Jose
Rivera, (212) 262-2911.
AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
United States EPA, Region IV, Water
Management Division, (FPB-3), Storm
Water Staff, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,
Atlanta, GA 30365. Contact: Chris
Thomas, (404) 347-3012.
AR, LA, NM (except see Region IX for
Navajo lands and see Region VIII for
Ute Mountain Reservation land), OK,
TX
United States EPA, Region VI, Water
Management Division, (6W-EA),
Storm Water Staff, First Interstate
Bank Tower at Fountain Place, 1445
Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200,
Dallas, TX 75202. Contact: Region VI
Storm Water Hotline at (214) 655-
7185.
CO, MT, ND, SD. WY, UT (except see
Region IX for Goshute Reservation and
Navajo Reservation lands)
United States EPA, Region VIII, Water
Management Division, NPDES Branch
(SWM-C), Storm Water Staff. 999 18th
Street, Denver, CO 80202-2466.
Contact: Vern Berry, (303) 293-1630.


41251








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9, 1992 / Notices


Note-For Montana Indian Lands,
" please use the following address:
United States EPA. Montana Operations
Office, Federal Office Building,
Drawer 10096, 301 South Park, Helena,
MT 59620-0026. Contact: Paul
Montgomery. (406) 449-5486.
AZ; CA. HI, NV, American Samoa,
Guam, the Goshute Reservation in UT
and NV, the Navajo Reservation in UT,
NM, and AZ the Duck Valley
Reservation in NV and ID, Johnston
Atoll, Midway and Wake Island
United States EPA, Region IX, Water
Management Division, (W-5-1), Storm
Water Staff, 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105. Contact Eugene
Bromley, (415) 744-1906.
AK, ID (except see Region IX for Duck
Valley Reservation lands), OR, WA
United States EPA. Region X, Water
Management Division, (WD-134),
Storm Water Staff, 1200 Sixth Street,
Seattle, WA 98101. Contact: Steve
Bubnick, (206) 553-8399.
G. Compliance Deadlines
For most permittees, today's permits
establish deadlines of April 1, 1993 for
development of pollution prevention
plans and October 1, 1993 for
/- compliance with the terms of the plan.
Alternative deadlines are provided for
facilities where industrial activities
commence after October 1, 1992; certain
oil and gas operations; and municipal
operators of facilities that have
participated in a timely part 1 group
application where either the group
application is rejected or the facility is
denied participation in the group
application by EPA.
For facilities where industrial activity
commences after October 1, 1992, but on
or before December 31, 1992, the storm
water pollution prevention plan must be
prepared and provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and the
permit on or before 60 calendar days
after the commencement of industrial
activity. For facilities where industrial
activity commence on or after January 1,
1993, the storm water pollution
prevention plan must be prepared, and
provide for compliance with the terms of


the plan and the permit, on or before the
date of submission of a NOI to be
covered under this permit.
For storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from an oil and
gas exploration, production, processing,
or treatment operation or transmission
facility that is not required to submit a
permit application on or before October
1,1992 in accordance with 40 CFR
122.26(c)(1)(iii), but after October 1,1992
has a discharge of a reportable quantity
of oil or a hazardous substance for
which notification is required pursuant
to either 40 CFR 110.6, 40 CFR 117.21 or
40 CFR 302., the storm water pollution
prevention plan must be prepared and
must provide for compliance with the
terms of the plan on or before the date
60 calendar days after the first
knowledge of such release.
For storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from a facility
that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated in a
timely group application and where
.either the group application is rejected
or the facility is denied participation in
the group application by EPA. the
pollution prevention plan must be
prepared on or before the 365th day
following the date on which the group is
rejected or the denial is made, and must
provide for compliance with the terms of
the plan and this permit on or before the
545th day following the date on which
the group is rejected or the denial is
made.
The permits provide additional time
for complying with the additional
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities and for salt storage facilities.
The portions of a plan addressing these
additional requirements must provide
for compliance with the plan on or
before October 1, 1995. In addition, the
permits provide that facilities with coal
pile runoff are required to comply with
the numeric effluent limitations of the
permit by October 1,1995. However.
storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities subject to these additional
requirements must be prepared by April
1, 1993 (or, for facilities that commence
industrial activity after October 1.1992,
before the facility commences industrial
activity) and provide for compliance


with the baseline terms and conditions
of the permit (other than the numeric
effluent limitation) as expeditiously as
practicable, but by no later than
October 1,1993 (or, for facilities that
commence industrial activity after
October 1,1992, on or before 60 calendar
days after the commencement of
industrial activity).
V. Cost Estimates
1. Pollution Prevention Plan
Implementation
Storm water pollution prevention
plans for the majority of facilities will
address relatively low cost baseline
controls for the majority of industrial
facilities. EPA's analysis of storm water
pollution prevention plans indicates that
the cost of developing and implementing
the costs of these plans is variable and
will depend on a number of the
following factors: The size of the facility,
the chemicals stored or used at a
facility, the nature of the plant
operations, and the plant designs (e.g.,
the processes used and layout of a plan),
and the housekeeping measures
employed. Table 4 provides estimates of
the range of costs of preparing and
implementing a storm water pollution
prevention plan. It is expected that the
low cost estimates provided in Table 4
are appropriate for the majority of
smaller facilities. High cost estimates
are also provided.
b. SARA title III facilities. Table 5
provides estimates of the range of costs
of preparing and implementing a storm
water pollution prevention plan for
facilities subject to the special
requirements for facilities subject to
SARA Title l section 313 reporting
requirements for chemicals classified as
"Section 313 water priority chemicals".
EPA expects the majority of facilities to
have existing containment systems that
meet the majority of the requirements of
these permits. High cost estimates
correspond to facilities that are
expected to be required to undertake
some actions to upgrade existing
containment systems to meet the
requirements of these permits.


TABLE 4.-SUMMARY OF ESTIMATEp RANGES OF COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
WITH BASELNE REQUIREMENTS
Low Costs High Costs
First Yer Annual First Yea Annual
Costs Costs Costs Costs


Submi&ta ol NOO..
Notification of Mu
Plan Preparation.
Plan Implementat


$14-)
14 .. .
1,518 ...........
90 $294


$14------
14
76,153.....
35,400 $9371


-


....~.. ~..... .....--UII. ....-- .. ......- -.- --- -~-- --I
ion ............,--, ....----....-^.......~.~.-.-I.--I--.~.- .. .-.


41252






Federal Regiser / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 1992 /Notices


TABLE 4.-SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RANGES OF COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE WiTK STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
WITH BASELINE REQUIREMENTS-Continued


This table identifies estimated low
and high costs to develop and
implement storm water pollution
prevention plans.
Low costs of implementing program
components are zero where existing
programs or procedures is assumed
adequate.
Costs in 1992 dollars.


The estimated costs for plan
preparation and plan revisions includes
costs of prpparing/revising plan to
address baseline requirements and any
applicable special requirements, such as
EPCRA Section 313 requirements.
However, the costs of implementing
special requirements, such as those for


EPCRA Section 313 facilities are not
otherwise addressed in this table.
The high cost estimate for
requirements to address reportable
quantities of hazardous substances will
occur in the year the reportable quantity
release occurs and will not necessarily
occur in the first year of permit
compliance.


TABLE 5.-SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
FOR FACILmEs SUBJECT TO SECTION 313 OF EPCRA FOR WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS

Low Cost HghNCost
Co P a Cast 3
3 years oss Cyea oss
Planrpti .... .....830
Liuri Storage Aroem $1,200 ........
MsterdN SwporeNs 60
Loading Areas .. ..... 21,000
Process A- -- 11.190
Drainage/Runoaf ......________________ 7,750 ..
Housekeepin/Mainienan $5,57
Facility Security -.. ... -.....
employee Trin- 1.403
PE CrUiaibon 53 1.000
Moestoring Coes 2,424 4,847
Tox*iy ReP-..ion .. 3,046
TOTALS -.......... _30 2,477 54,940 1,253


This table identifies estimated
additional low and high costs to develop
and implement storm water pollution
prevention plans for EPCRA section 313
facilities subject to special conditions.
Low costs of implementing program
components are zero where existing
programs, procedures or security is
assumed adequate.
The high costs for preparing pollution
prevention plans to include EPCRA
section 313 additional requirement were
addressed as part of the estimated high
costs for preparation of baseline
pollution prevention plans (see Table 4.
PE Certification is only required once
every three years. Cost shown if
averaged over three yea period.
Costs for toxicity reductions will only
be incurred during the last two years of
the permit Thus, this cost has been
/ averaged over a five year period.


2. Salt Storage Facilities
Salt pile covers or tarpaulins are
anticipated to have a fixed cost of $400
and an annual cost of $160 for medium-
sized piles and a fixed cost of $4000 and
an annual cost of $2,000 for very large
piles. Structures such as salt domes are
generally expected to have a fixed cost
of between $30,000 for small piles ($70 to
$00 per cubic yard) and $100,000 for
larger piles ($18 per cubic yard) with
costs depending on size and other
construction parameters.
& Coal Pile Runoff
The effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in the draft permits can be
achieved by these two primary methods:
limiting exposure to coal by use of
covers or tarpaulins and collecting and
treating the runoff. In some cases, coal
pile runoff may be in compliance with
the effluent limitations without covering
of the pile or collection or treatment of


the runoff. In these cases, the operator
of the discharge would not have a
control cost
The effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in the draft permits can be
achieved by limiting exposure of storm
water to coal by use of covers or
tarpaulins and storm water anon
berms. The use of tarpaulins and berms
to prevent exposure is expected to be
practical for coal piles smaller than
30,000 cubic meters. EPA expects the
majority of industrial facilities subject to
the requirement will have coal piles
smaller than 30,000 meters.
The cost of covering up to a 30,000
cubic meter coal pile with covers or
tarpaulins is anticipated to cost
approximately $0.70 per cubic yard, or
$0.91 per cubic meter. For a 30,000 cubic
meter pile the cost of tarpaulins alone
would be $27,440. The cost of a berm to
divert storm water runon that may flow
under a covered pile and exit as


41253


--cLZ~








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


polluted runoff is expected to be $7 per
linear foot of berm. For a 30,000 cablc
meter coal pile that is twenty feet in
height, it is anticipated that a 450 foot
berm at a cost of $3,150 would be
needed. Therefore, the total cost of
tarpaulins and a berm to avert exposure
of storm water to a coal pile 30,000 cubic
meters in size would be $30,590.
For those facilities which manage coal
piles greater than 30,000 cubic meters,
EPA assumes that these facilities will
use the technology specified in the
steam/electric effluent guidance based
upon costs indicated in the guidance. If
facilities can not meet permit limits
using this control technology and cannot
afford another control technology, they
have the opportunity of seeking an
individual permit.
Table 6-provides estimates of the
costs of treating coal pile runoff.'
These costs are based on a
consideration of a treatment train
requiring equalization, pH adjustment,
and settling, including the costs for
impoundment (for equalization), a lime
feed system and mixing tanks for pH
adjustment, and a clarifier for settling.
The costs for the impoundment area
include diking and containment around
each coal pile and associated sumps and
pumps and piping from runoff areas to
the impoundment area. The costs for
land are not included. The lime feed
system employed for pH adjustment
includes a storage silo, shaker, feeder,
and lime slurry storage tank,
instrumentation, electrical connections,
piping, and controls.
Additional costs may be incurred if a
polymer system is needed. In this case,
costs would include impoundment for
equalization, a lime feed system, mixing
tank, and polymer feed system for
chemical precipitation, a clarifier for
settling, and an acid feeder and mixing
tank to readjust the pH within the range
of 6 to 9. The equipment and system
design, with the exception of the
polymer feeder, acid feeder, and final
mixing tank, are essentially the same as
shown in Table 6. Two tanks are
required for a treatment train with a
polymer system, one for precipitation
and another for final pH adjustment
with acid. The cost of mixing is
therefore twice that shown in Table 6.
The polymer feed system includes
storage hoppers, chemical feeder,

The type and degree of treatment required to
meet the effluent limitations of these permits vary
depending on factors such as the amount of sulfur In
the coal. This section describes a model treatment
scheme for estimating costs for compliance with the
effluent limitations. Dischargers may Implement
other less expensive treatment approaches to
enable them to discharge in accordance with these
.limits where appropriate.


solution tanks, solution pumps,
interconnecting piping, electrical
connections, and instrumentation. The
costs of clarification are identical to that
of Table 6. A treatment train with a
polymer system requires the use of an
acid addition system to readjust the pH
within the range of 6 to 9. The
components of this system include a
lined acid storage tank, two feed pumps,
an acid pH control loop, and associated
piping, electrical connections, and
instrumentation.
Additional information regarding the
cost of these technologies can be found
in "Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category,"
(EPA-440/182/029), November 1982,
EPA.


TABLE 6.-SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED
COSTS FOR TREATMENT OF COAL PILE
RUNOFF
30,000 120,000
cubic cubic
meter coal meter coal
___ 0"Pile pile

Impoundment
Installed Capital Cost
($).......................... 6,850 6,850
Operation and
Maintenance ($/
year).. ..................
Lime Feed System:
Installed Capital Cost
($) ........ ..................... 138,800 255,700
Operation and
Maintenance ($/
year)........................ 5,780 10,655
Energy Requirements
(kwh/yr).. .................... 3.6x10"4 3.6x10"*4
Land Requirements
(ft" 2)................... ..... 5.000 5.000
Mixing Equipment
Installed Capital Cost
($)............................ 65,750 91.320
Operation and
Maintenance (s
year)............................ 2,20 2,430
Energy Requirements
(kwh/yr)..................... 1.3x10"3 3.3x10"3
Land Requirements
(ft"2) .......................... 2.000 2,000
.Clarification:
Installed Capital Cost
($)................................ 182650 237.450
Operation and
Maintenance ($S
year) .........................* 3200 3.650
Energy Requirements
(kwh/yr)..................... 1.3X10;*3 3.3x10"3
Land Requirements
(acres)......................... 0.1 0.1
SNegligible.
Sources "Development Document for Effluent Limi-
tations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment
Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Cate-
g ", (EPA-440/182/029), November 1982, EPA).
ts estimates are in 1992 dollars.


41254


i


--~--------- -~~. I ;- .-. -. -I


VL Economic Impact (Executive Orda
12291)
EPA has submitted this notice to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review under Executive Order 12291
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in these
final general permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA did not prepare
an Information Collection Request (ICR)
document for today's permits because
the information collection requirements
in these permits have already been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in submissions made
for the NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act
VIIL 401 Certification
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or permit, including
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge into
navigable waters shall be granted until
the State in which the discharge
originates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302 303,306.
and 307 of the CWA. The section 401
certification process has been completed
for all States, Indian lands and Federal
facilities covered by today's general
permits. The following summary
indicates where additional permit
requirements have been added as a
result of the certification process and
also provides a more detailed discussion
of additional requirements for Maine,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and
Texas.
Region I
Maine: See the following and part
XI.A for additional 401 conditions.
The State of Maine included the
following requirements as conditions for
Certification of the Storm Water
General Permit. Test organisms for
certain whole effluent toxicity testing
requirements pertaining to discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
discharges shall include Ceriodaphnia
dubia and Salvelinus fontinalis (Brook
Trout). The EPA and the State of Maine
currently agree to require that half of all
freshwater vertebrate whole effluent
toxicity testing for most individual
permits, shall be conducted using the
State's Brook Trout, Salvelinus
fontinalis Chronic or Acute protocols.
The remainder of the toxicity tests
utilize the Region I. fathead minnow
acute or chronic protocols.
The State of Maine includes the
requirement for the substitution of the







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, Septemiber 9, 1992 / Notices


State's protocols for the EPA's protocols,
as part of the State Certification for
each permit. The Region I EPA received
a December 18 1990, MOU from the
State defining the freshwater vertebrate
species substitution requirement To
expedite permit issuance, draft
individual permits and fact sheets
include the State's brook trout protocol
based on the MOU. The Region does not
object to the certification conditions
requiring the use of the Maine protocols
for the species Ceriodaphnia dubia and
Salvelinus fontinalis (Brook Trout). The
State of Maine shall provide the
appropriate brook trout protocol.
Maine Indian lands: No 401
conditions.
Massachusetts: Indian lands only, no
401 conditions.
New Hampshire: no 401 conditions.
New Hampshire: Indian lands only, no
401 conditions.
Region IV
Florida: no 401 conditions. Florida:
Indian lands only, no 401 conditions
(two separate permits for two different
tribes).
Mississippi: Indian lands only, no 401
conditions.
North Carolina: Indian lands only, no
401 conditions.
Region VI
Louisiana: see the following and Part
XI.B for 401 conditions. Louisiana Indian
Lands: see the following and Part X.B
for 401 conditions.
As a condition for certification under
Section 401 of the CWA, the State of
Louisiana required inclusion of the
following limitations necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards. These limitations are
required under Louisiana Annotated
Code 33:1X708 (LAC 33IX.708). In
accordance with a July 17, 1992 letter
from the State clarifying certification
requirements, the Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production facility
limitations will be effective on the
effective date of the permit Oil and gas
exploration facilities in Louisiana have
been subject to the LAC 33IX.708
limitations since March 20,1991. The
general permit establishes a three year
compliance date for facilities other than
oil and gas exploration and production
facilities; the General Limitations will
become effective October 1, 1995. This
compliance schedule is included to
allow the facilities not currently
regulated under NPDES or State
discharge permits time to implement the
pollution prevention plan components
necessary to achieve the discharge
limitations.


~1) General limitation,: Effective 10/


(1) General Limitations: Effective 10/
1/95.

Parameter Dily
main um
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ............... 50 mg/i
Oil & Gee. ..... I. 1mg/I

(2) Oil & Gas Exploration and
Production Facilities: Effective 10/1/92.

Parameter Daily
uniMaxu

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COO)._.. 100 mg/
Total Organic Carbon (TOQC).. ..... 50 mg/I
Ou & Grease...-........ .........- 15 ng/I

Chlorides: (a) Maximum chloride
concentration of the discharge shall not
exceed two times the ambient
concentration of the receiving water in
brackish marsh areas.
(b) Maximum chloride concentration
of the discharge shall not exceed 500
mg/1 in freshwater or intermediate
marsh areas and upland areas.
Monitoring requirements for Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) and Oil and
Grease have been addedto all facilities
required to monitor annually or semi-
annually. Facilities without monitoring
requirements must insure the pollution
prevention plan developed in
accordance with part IV will insure
compliance with these effluent
limitations. The definitions of brackish
marsh, freshwater marsh, intermediate
marsh, upland area, and saline marsh at
LAC 33:IX.708 have been included in
part X. of the permit.
New Mexico: See the following and
part XC for 401 conditions. New Mexico
Indian lands (except Navajo lands and
Ute Mountain Reservation lands): see
the following and part X.C. for 401
conditions.
As a condition for certification under
Section 401 of the CWA, the State of
New Mexico required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards. These conditions apply only
to permittees with facilities discharging
into waters of the State of New Mexico
designated by the latest edition of
Water Quality Standards for Interstate
and Intrastate Streams in New Mexico
for use as a domestic water supply. A
list of these waters as of June 29,1991, is
included with the final permit For all
discharges to domestic water supply
waterbodies, the final permit establishes
an annual monitoring requirement for all
parameters for which the state has
established a domestic water supply
water quality standard. This testing
requirement is in addition to any other


annual or semi-annual monitoring
required under the permit. Should any
test result exceed the following action
levels (the water quality standard), the
permitted must submit the monitoring
results to the State within 24 hours of
receiving the test results from the
laboratory. The parameters to be tested
and the associated action levels are:

Reportable
Parameter Quntity
Acton Level

Dissolved arsenic.....--............. 0.05 mg/I
Dissolved barium.................. .. 1.0 mg/I
Dissolved cadmium.............................. 0.010 mg/I
Dissolved chromium............................ 0.05 mg/I
Dissolved lead...................................... 0.05 mg/I
Total mercury........ ............... 0.002 mg/l
Dissolved nitrate (as N)............. 10.0 mg/I
Dissolved selenium .................... 0.05 mg/I
Dissolved silver ............................... .... 0.05 mg/
Dissolved cyanide............................... 0.2 mg/l
Dissolved uranium.................. 5.0 mg/I
Radium-226 + radium-228..... ..... 30.0 pCi/I

Results of the domestic water supply
testing requirement will be used to
evaluate whether a public health risk
was present after mixing (dilution) with
the stream and further determine if an
individual or alternative general permit
was necessary. To insure protection of
domestic water supplies, this condition
applies to all affected waterbodies
within the State of New Mexico where
EPA Region 6 is the permitting authority,
including Indian Nations and Federal
Facilities. The 24-hour report for
discharges on Indian Nations must be
sent directly to EPA Region 6, with a
copy provided to the governing body of
the Indian Nation.
Much of the State of New Mexico is
characterized as arid or semi-arid, with
long periods between rain events. Due
to this climate pattern, characterized by
seasonal precipitation and a build-up of
pollutants on the ground between storm
events, the State requested inclusion of
a requirement for a minimum of 60 days
between sampled events and a minimum
of 150 hours since the previous
measurable storm event. These
requirements would insure the sampling
results would be more representative of
the quality of storm water discharges in
the State. For consistency, this condition
applies to all areas within the State of
New Mexico where EPA Region 6 is the
permitting authority, including Indian
Nations and Federal Facilities.
Oklahoma: See the following and part
XI.D for 401 conditions.
. Oklahoma Indian lands: See the
following and part XLD for 401
conditions.
Under section 301 of the CWA and 40
CFR 122.44, EPA is required to include


41255









Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September A 1992 / Notices


permit conditions necessary to insure
compliance with more stringent
conditions of State law. On April 28.
1992, the Agency published a
supplemental notice for the draft
Oklahoma General permit in the Federal
Register (57 FR 17909). This notice
added a requirement based on the 1988
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards,
prohibiting new point source discharges
to several classes of high quality
waterbodies of the State. On June 25,
1992, the Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards were revised, modifying the
discharge prohibition section upon
which the April 28,1992, proposed
permit conditions were based. The final
permit conditions reflect the
requirements of Oklahoma Annotated
Code Title 785, chapter 45 (OAC 785:45-
5-25), effective June 25, 1992. Today's
notice of the final permit also serves as
final notice of the Agency's decision on
the April 28, 1992, Federal Register
Notice.
In order to comply with OAC 785:45-
5-25, the permit will not authorize any
new point source discharge of storm
water associated with industrial activity
to "new" point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity (those commencing after the
June 25, 1992, effective date of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards-
OAC 785:45) to the following waters:
(i) Waterbodies designated as
"Outstanding Resource Waters" and/or
"Scenic Rivers" in appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards;
(ii) Oklahoma waterbodies located
within the watersheds of waterbodies
designated as "Scenic Rivers" in
appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards; and
(iii) Waterbodies located within the
boundaries of Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards appendix B areas which are
specifically designated as "Outstanding
Resource Waters" in appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
In addition to this general permit
exclusion on coverage, the Agency
would like to emphasize that OAC
785:45-5-25 also prohibits the issuance
of any NPDES discharge permit (other
than for storm water runoff from
temporary construction activity) for new
point source discharges to ORWs or
Scenic Rivers, that commences after
June 25, 1992.
Outstanding Resource Waters and
Scenic Rivers are located in the
following river basins identified in
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
Basin 1-Middle Arkansas River:
Barren Fork and certain listed
tributaries; and the Upper Illinois River
above Barren Fork confluence and
certain listed tributaries.


Basin 2-Lower Arkansas River. Lee
Creek and certain listed tributaries.
Basin 4-Lower Red River Upper
Mountain Fork River and certain listed
tributaries.
. For specific applicability, or a
complete listing affected waterbodies,
permittees should refer to the Oklahoma
Water Quality Standards, appendices A
and B, or contact the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board.
To address possible statutory changes
regarding the "new discharge"
prohibition, the following reopener
clause has been added at the request of
the State. "This permit may be reopened
and modified if the State of Oklahoma
adopts new or revises existing water
quality requirements regarding the
discharge of storm water."
Texas: See the following and part XLE
for 401 conditions. Texas Indian lands:
See the following and part XIE. for 401
conditions.
As a condition for certification under
section 401 of the CWA. the State of
Texas required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards.
The following effluent limitations are
required under the Texas Water Quality
Standards (31 TAC 319.22 and 319.23).
All pollution prevention plans
developed pursuant to this permit must
enable the discharger to comply with the
limitations listed below.
All Discharges to Inland Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/1), for discharges to inland
waters are as follows:

Total metal Monthy Daily Sing
Total_______average composite grab

Arsenic..................... 0.1 0.2 0.3
Ba um...... ...... 1.0 2.0 4.0
Cadmium................... 0.05 0.1 0.2
Chromium............... 0.5 1.0 5.0
Copper.............. 0.5 1.0 2.0
Lead ..... ............ 0.5 1.0 1.5
Manganese............ 1.0 2.0 3.0
Mercury.................... 0.005 0.005 0.01
Nickel....................... 1.0 2.0 3.0
Selenium ......... 0.05 0.1 0.2
Silver........ 0.05 0.1 0.2
Zinc........................ 1.0 20 6.0


All Discharges to Tidal Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/1), for discharges to tidal
waters are as follows:


Total metal

Arsenic- .......-......
Barium..............-....
Cadmium...........
Chromium .....
Copper...................

Mercury.................
Nicke ...................
Selenium.............
Slver.................
Zinc.....................


Monhly
average co

0.1
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.005
1.0
0.1
0.05
1.0


The definitions of "inland" and "tidal"
wafers has been included in part XLE of
the Texas permit. Inland waters are
those not defined as tidal waters. Tidal
waters include those waters of the Gulf
of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the
State of Texas, bays and estuaries
thereto, and those portions of the river
systems which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tides, and to the
intrusion of marine waters.
Since the majority of discharges
covered by this permit have never
before been regulated by NPDES permit
a three year compliance schedule for the
limitations has been included to allow
dischargers an opportunity to develop
and implement the pollution prevention
plan controls necessary to achieve
compliance. Unless already required
under semi-annual or annual monitoring
requirements of the permit, sampling for
the hazardous metals listed above will
not be required. The permitted will,
however, be responsible for compliance
with the discharge limitations at all
times following the October 1, 1995,
effective date of the limitations.
The Texas Surface Water Quality
Standards also contain a whole effluent
toxicity standard requiring all
discharges to exhibit greater than 50%
survival of the appropriate test
organisms in 100% effluent for a 24-hour
period (i.e. 24-hr LC50 > 100%). As a
condition for certification, the State
required modification of the toxicity test
protocol contained in the permit to
conform to that specified to demonstrate
compliance with the State standard. The
test protocol for the Texas general
permit requires the use of a five dilution
acute freshwater toxicity test, reporting
of pass/fail on 50% or greater survival in
the 100% effluent dilution, and reporting
of pass/fail on statistically significant
difference in toxicity between the
control the 100% effluent dilution. In
addition, the State required inclusion of
acute toxicity testing for the chromium-
arsenic formulations category of wood
treatment facilities. The results of the
toxicity testing will be used to
demonstrate compliance with the State


~l----~"-~~--~---~LI`-L--L i--~- L_~_C.-L_- -LIL:il. I. i _i ~~


Dally
composite


1.0 g.J
1.0 4a
1.0 2
1.0 13
2.0 30
0.005 0.M
2.0 3.
02 0.3
0.1 02
2.0 0


-


41256







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


water quality standard and identify
S discharges that will require more
stringent pollution prevention plans
and/or individual or alternative general
permit coverage.
General Permits for EPA Region 6
With regard to reporting the results of
any toxicity testing required under the
permit, the permits for Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas have
been modified to require the submittal
of a summary of the results, with the full
toxicity report retained by the permitted.
The results are to include pass/fail
information on 50% survival in the 100%
dilution after 24 hours in addition to the
pass/fail information on a statistically
significant difference in toxicity
between 100% effluent and the control.
The format to be used is included as
Tables in the final permit. The Texas
permit also requires only submittal of
the summary table, which are modified
to include the five-dilution series test
required as a condition for State
certification. The net cost to the
permitted is expected to be minimal,
since the information necessary to
determine 50% or greater survival in the
100% dilution is readily available from
the results of the test used to determine
a statistically significant difference
between the control and the 100%
dilution. No additional testing is
required. The additional information
gained will allow the permitted and the
Agency to prioritize action on
discharges exhibiting relatively greater
toxicity (i.e. those showing greater than
50% lethality would be more toxic than
those exhibiting only a statistically
significant difference in survival). The
use of simple test report summaries will
reduce the report mailing cost and
simplify completion of Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for the
permitted; while also reducing the
administrative burden on the permitting
authority, both for review and document
storage.
In addition to conditions required for
State Section 401 certification, EPA
Region 6 has made the following
modifications to the Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas general
perihits. First, the area covered by each
permit has been clarified to include all
administered by EPA Region 6 in the
appropriate State. This clarification was
included to insure coverage on federal
lands and Indian Nations. EPA Region 6
does not administer NPDES authority on
Navajo Nation lands in New Mexico
(administered by EPA Region 9) and Ute
Mountain Tribal lands in New Mexico
(administered by EPA Region 8).


Region VIII
South Dakota: No 401 conditions.
South Dakota Indian Lands: No 401
conditions.
Montana Indian Lands: No 401
conditions.
North Dakota Indian lands: No 401
conditions.
Wyoming Indian lands: No 401
conditions.
Utah Indian lands (except the Goshute
Reservation and Navajo reservation
lands in Utah):'No 401 conditions.
Colorado federal facilities: See Part
XI.F for 401 conditions.
Colorado Indian lands and New
Mexico Indian lands (including only the
Navajo Reservation lands and Ute
Mountain Reservation lands located in
Colorado and New Mexico): See part
XI.F for 401 conditions.
Region IX
Arizona: See part XI.G for 401
conditions. Arizona Indian lands
(including Navajo reservation lands in
Utah and New Mexico): No 401
conditions. California Indian lands: No
401 conditions. Nevada Indian lands
(including the Goshute Territory in Utah
and the Duck Valley reservation lands
in Idaho): No 401 conditions. Johnston
Atoll: No 401 conditions. Midway and
Wake Island: No 401 conditions.
Region X
Alaska: See part XI.H for 401
conditions. Alaska Indian lands: No 401
conditions. Idaho: See part XI.I for 401
conditions. Idaho Indian lands (except
the Duck Valley reservation lands in
Nevada and Idaho): No 401 conditions.
Washington Indian lands: See part XI.J
for 401 conditions. Washington federal
facilities: See part XI.J for 401
conditions.
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
U.S.C. 601 et. seq., EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of rules on
small entities. No Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is required, however, where
the head of the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Today's permits provide small entities
with an application option that is less
burdensome than individual
applications or participating in a group
application. The other requirements
have been designed to minimize
significant economic impacts of the rule
on small entities and does not have a
significant impact on industry. In
addition, the permits reduce significant


administrative burdens on regulated
sources. Accordingly, I hereby certify
pursuant to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, that these
permits will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1251 et
seq.
Dated: August 28,1992.
Patricia Meaney,
Acting RegionalAdministrator, Region I.
Dated: August 28, 1992.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting RegionalAdministrator, Region IV.
Dated: August 27,1992.
B.J. Wynne,
Regional Administrator. Region VI.
Dated: August 28,1992.
Kerrigan Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
Dated: August 28,1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
RegionalAdministrator, Region IX.
Dated: August 27,1992.
Dana Rasmussen.
Regional Administrator, Region X.
Appendix A-Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the August 16, 1991
Draft General Permits
Definition of Storm Water Discharge
Associated With Industrial Activity
Some commenters on the August 16,
1991 draft general permits expressed or
suggested confusion over the scope of
the regulatory definition of "storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity" which the Agency had
promulgated on November 16, 1990 (55
FR 47990). In EPA's view, however,
while the August 16, 1991 notice did not
request comments on modifying the
regulatory definition, the Agency
believes that it is appropriate to add a
preface to today's general permit that
clarifies the NPDES regulatory
framework for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. In
addition, the Agency has corrected
several typographical errors and
inadvertent omissions to the text of the
definition of "storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity" in
the "Definitions" section of today's
general permits.
Coverage Issues
Consistent with Tier I of United States
Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) long-term permitting strategy, the
August 16, 1991 draft general permits
were intended to allow the majority of
storm water discharges associated with


_I_


- 61aia. -


41257








Federal Register / Vol 57, N 175 / Wednesday, September a 1993 1 Notices


industrial activity (located in the State
'" for which the permit was issued) the
opportunity to obtain coverage.
However, the draft permits provided
four limitations on coverage. The draft
permits proposed to exclude certain
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, including those (1)
that storm water effluent limitations
guidelines cover, (2) that an existing
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
authorizes; (3) that the Director
designates as causing or expected to
cause a water quality standard
violation; and (4) that originate from
inactive mining or oil and gas operations
on Federal lands where an operator
cannot be identified.
Several commenters urged EPA to
provide maximum opportunities for
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
obtain coverage under the general
permits. A number of commenters were
concerned that several provisions of the
August 16, 1991 draft permits could be
interpreted to mean that if one storm
water discharge at a facility was
ineligible for coverage under the general
permit, then any remaining storm water
discharges on site would also be
ineligible.
In response, EPA intends that the
limitations on coverage be applied on a
discharge-by-discharge basis, as
opposed to a facility-by-facility basis. In
response to concerns raised in the
comments, the Agency has clarified two
provisions of the permit to reflect this
concept The first provision addresses
storm water discharges that are subject
to an effluent limitation guideline.19 The
Agency wants to clarify that if a facility
has multiple storm water discharges,
with one or more storm water
discharges subject to an effluent
limitation guideline and one or more
discharges not subject to an effluent
limitation guideline, then the
discharges) that are not subject to an
effluent limitation guideline may obtain
coverage under today's permits.
However, the discharges from the
facility that are subject to an effluent
limitation guideline may not be covered
by today's permits because today's

For the purposes of this permit, the following
effluent limitations guidelines address storm water
or a combination of storm water and process water.
cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411); feedlots (40
CFR 412); fertilizer manufacturing (40 CFR 418)-
S petroleum refining (40 CFR 419); phosphate
manufacturing (40 CFR 422) steam electric power
generation (40 CFR 423); coal mining (40 CFR 434)
mineral mining and processing (40 CFR 436); ore
mining and dressing (40 CFR 440): and asphah (40
CFR 443),


permits do not incorporate the
limitations for these discharges
The second provision in the August
16.1991 draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities with an
existing NPDES permit The Agency
notes that-this language was somewhat
ambiguous, in that it could apply to
storm water discharges with an existing
NPDES permit or to facilities with an
existing NPDES permit. Thus, today's
permits have been clarified to provide
that only storm water discharges that
are authorized by a different NPDES.
permit cannot be authorized by today's
permit.
One commenter indicated that the
proposed general permit language
implied that coverage under the general
permit would be permanently restricted
for facilities that are currently permitted
under the NPDES program for their
storm water discharges.
In response, EPA has clarified today's
general permits to provide that for storm
water discharges currently subject to an
individual NPDES permit dischargers
may apply for coverage under the
general permit when the existing permit
expires, provided that the existing
individual permit does not contain
numeric effluent limitations. Facilities
with existing NPDES permits for storm
water discharges that have established
numeric limits for these discharges are
generally not eligible for coverage under
the general permit
One bommenter requested that EPA
clarify that a given industrial facility
may be issued two separate NPDES
permits, one for process wastewater and
another for storm water. In response,
EPA wants to clarify that facilities with
an existing NPDES permit for process
wastewaters and/or other non-storm
water discharges are allowed to obtain
coverage for their storm water
discharges under today's general
permits.
Two commenters expressed confusion
regarding the exclusion of inactive and
abandoned mining and oil and gas
operations on Federal lands from
coverage under the draft general permit.
These commenters thought that EPA
was exempting such sites from
regulation under the November 1. 1990
rule by excluding these sites from
coverage under the general permit
In response, the Agency explained in
the August 16.1991 draft permits that it
is developing a distinct set of general
permits that more appropriately control
pollutants from inactive mining and
inactive oil and gas operations on
Federal lands where an operator cannot
be identified due to the unique nature of


these types of storm water discharges
EPA wishes to reaffirm that today's
general permits do not provide coverap
for storm water discharges from these
inactive sites because an alternate draft
general permit is currently being
developed. Such discharges do,
however, remain subject to the
requirement to submit a NPDES permit
application.
The Department of the Interior, which
has extensive land management
responsibilities, requested that storm
water discharges from inactive landfills
on Federal lands where an operator
cannot be identified be addressed in a
similar manner as inactive mining and
inactive oil and gas operations on
Federal lands. The commenter indicated
that the significant number and
geographic distribution of such sites on
Federal lands favored an approach that
was similar to controlling storm water
from inactive mines and oil and gas
operations on Federal lands. The
commenter also indicated that NPDES
requirements should be coordinated
with ongoing efforts by Federal land
managers to address inactive landfills,
and that the best way to accomplish this
is to issue different general permits
tailored for these discharges. In
response, EPA has excluded from
coverage under today's permit those
storm water discharges from inactive
landfills on Federal lands where an
operator cannot be identified. The
Agency will address these discharges in
conjunction with distinct permitting
efforts addressing storm water
discharges from inactive mining
operations and inactive oil and gas
operations on Federal lands.
One commenter thought that EPA was
requiring facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to obtain coverage under the
general permit, and was precluding
dischargers from submitting individual
permit applications or participated in
appropriate group applications.
The Agency wants to clarify that by
encouraging the use of general permits
to address storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, and
August 16, 1991 proposal was not
limiting the application options to Notice
of Intents (NOls) and coverage under a
general permit. The submittal of an NOI
to be covered by a general permit is only
one of three application options for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity identified by the
November 16 1990, NPDES storm water
application regulations.
A number of commenters expressed
confusion as to whether they must apply
for coverage under today's general


- I' ----1--~-r~-- --


I _


41258







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


permit if a group application has already
been submitted. EPA wishes to clarify
that while facilities that had
participated in approved and completed
group applications are not required to
obtain coverage under today's general
permit, they do have the option to do so.
Requiring an Individual Permit
Application
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permit provided that EPA may require
the submission of an individual permit
application at any time during the term
of the permit. The draft permit further
provided that where EPA requests an
individual permit application and an
owner or operator fails to submit a
timely application, the coverage of the
permit must be terminated on the date
the application is due.
Several commenters questioned EPA's
authority to terminate permit coverage.
They believed that EPA must specify
requirements for permit coverage
termination, such as an adjudicatory
process that would allow the permitted
a formal appeal. Additionally, one
commenter was concerned with the
discretionary authority granted to EPA
in requiring individual permit
applications and felt that certain
guidelines should be set forth.
In response, today's permits reflect 40
CFR 122.28(b)(3) (as amended on April 2,
1992, (57 FR 11412)), which establish
procedures for EPA to require a
discharger authorized by a general
permit to apply for and obtain an
individual permit and for any interested
person to petition the Director to require
an individual permit. EPA also has
broad authority under Section 308 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) to require
information, such as individual
applications.
Where the discharger fails to submit a
timely application, such a failure would
constitute noncompliance by the
permitted with a permit condition and
would constitute grounds for permit
termination (see 40 CFR 122.64). EPA
would follow the applicable procedures
in 40 CFR 124 in terminating permit
coverage. In addition, 40 CFR 124.52
provides guidelines for EPA to
determine that a facility required
covered by a general permit be required
to obtain an individual permit.
This discretionary authority is critical
because it allows the Director to identify
facilities that may be significant
contributors to water pollution or
facilities that have other site-specific
conditions that would be better
addressed under an individual permit. In
general, EPA will make decisions on
lerminating coverage under the general
j permit in a manner that is consistent


with the goals and objectives of the
Agency's four-tiered, long-term
permitting strategy for storm water
Discharges associated with industrial
activity (see April 2,1992, (57 FR 11394)).
One commenter disagreed with the
statement in the draft general permit
that storm waterdischarges associated
withindustrial activity that are not
authorizedby the general permit or
another NPDES permit are not in
complifn.e with the CWA. This
commenter stated that the simple
submission df an individual permit
application or participation in an
approved group application should
satisfy the discharger's legal obligations
under the CWA. While timely submittal
of an individual permit application or
.participation in an approved group
application constitutes compliance with
EPA's storm water permit application
regulations, it does not, by itself, provide
for compliance with the CWA
requirement that storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States be
authorized by an NPDES permit.
NOI Requirements
The August 16, 1991 draft permits
included a requirement that each
discharger submit an NOI to be'
authorized to discharge under the
permits. Under the August 16, 1991 draft
permits, NOIs had to provide the name,
mailing address, and location of the
facility for which notification was
submitted; up to four 4-digit SIC codes
describing the facility: the operator's
name, address, and telephone number;
the latitude and longitude of the facility;
the name of the receiving water or, if the
discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer;
and existing sampling data.
A number of commenters on the
August 16, 1991 draft general permits
indicated that NOI requirements were
generally less burdensome than
individual permit applications and that
NOIs are a useful tool in the permitting
process. A number of commenters
indicated that a standardized NOI form
would be extremely useful and would
ease burdens on the regulated
community. In response, the Agency has
* developed standardized NOI form,
which is included in Appendix C of
today's notice. Copies of the NOI form
are available from EPA Regional Offices
(see the ADDRESSES section of today's
notice) or from the Storm Water Hotline
at (703) 821-4823.
Some commenters noted that the
information required in the NOI was
adequate, sufficient, and/or appropriate.
However, commenters raised several


concerns with specific requirements of
the NOI. Several commenters suggested
that NOIs should require additional
information describing the facility.
These commenters suggested a number
of additional information requirements,
including descriptions of raw materials
that are received by the facility;
materials that are produced or
processed by the facility; raw materials
that are used or stored at the facility in
substantial amounts; approximate
amounts of materials at the facility that
fall under the above categories each
year; how these materials are handled;
any precautions taken to prevent
pollutants in storm water runoff; and the
size of the facility and a
characterization of the surrounding area.
The commenters indicated that this
information would assist EPA in
identifying priority facilities. Several of
these commenters indicated that the
limited information in an NOI is not
sufficient to support further conclusions
or determinations on when and whether
Tier II-IV permits should be required or
other evaluations of the risks posed by
storm water discharges from various
industrial categories.
In response, the Agency notes that it
will use information from a number of
sources to evaluate appropriate Tier II,
III, and IV permits. For example, the
Agency will use information from group
applications and from monitoring data
collected pursuant to today's permit to
assist in the development of Tier III
(industry-specific) permits. The Agency
can use information in section 305(b)
reports, along with information from
other sources, to develop Tier II
(watershed) permits. In addition, the
Agency will review individual permit
applications, information from
municipal operators of large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems, and other information to
develop Tier IV (individual) permits. In
addition, today's permits require
facilities to develop storm water
pollution prevention plans that contain
more detailed, facility-specific
information, which the Agency can
request for review. Given these other
sources of information and the initial
status of program development, the
Agency does not believe that such
additional information is necessary in
NOIs at this time. The Agency is
requiring that dischargers provide the
permit number of any NPDES permit for
other discharges from the facility and
the group application number if the
facility has participated in a group
application. Obtaining this information
will allow the Agency to coordinate
permitting and compliance monitoring


---


4125


41259








Federal Register / Vo. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


efforts associated with other discharges
'" with actions taken with respect to
today's permits. Obtaining the permit
numbers of non-storm water NPDES
permits will allow EPA to have access
to information about a permitted's
activities with a minimal burden placed
on the discharger and EPA. This
information will be particularly useful in
identifying priorities for storm water
permit issuance and in developing Tier
II, III, and IV permits.
One commenter suggested that EPA
provide expanded instructions to assist
facilities in accurately determining their
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code(s), their locations by latitude and
longitude, and the names of the
receiving waters. In response, EPA notes
that the NOt only requires dischargers
to provide a latitude and longitude
where a street address for the site is not
available. In addition. EPA has provided
additional guidance on obtaining this
type of information in the "Guidance
Manual for the Preparation of NPDES
Permit Applications for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity," April 1991, EPA-505/8-91-002.
This manual is available from the
National Technology Information
Service (NTIS) by calling (703) 487-4650
(NTIS publication number PB-92114578
$35.00). EPA believes that identifying the
longitude and latitude of a site presents
a minimal burden to a small number of
dischargers.
One commenter raised concerns about
being required to submit sampling data
that have been collected by a facility
without the intention of having the data
submitted in order to evaluate potential
problems. They were concerned that
such data may not be reliable, and in
some cases may be meaningless. Other
commenters suggested that the
requirement to submit quantitative data
be limited to the previous three years.
One mining company suggested that
EPA delete the requirement to submit
existing quantitative data because
processing and classifying the data
would impose a substantial burden on
Agency resources.
Based on additional consideration of
this provision, the NOI requirements for
today's permits do not require the
submittal of existing quantitative data
(sampling data), but rather require
dischargers to indicate whether they
have sampling data available describing
their storm water discharges. As
discussed below, the Agency believes
that these data can serve useful
purposes, and is requiring facilities to
maintain records of existing data in their
storm water pollution prevention plans.
The Agency believes that this approach


will provide discrargers with an
opportunity to explain problems with
data quality. The Agency has made this
change to reduce the administrative
burdens associated with submitting and
handling NOIs. The Agency notes that it
can request this information from the
discharger where appropriate.
One commenter recommended that
the NOI be used to cross-check with
other requirements and available data.
In response, EPA is requiring that NOfs
include the number of any NPDES
permit for any discharge (including non-
storm water discharges) from the site
that is currently authorized by an
NPDES permit In addition, dischargers
are required to indicate whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process. EPA
believes that this information will
greatly assist in its efforts to cross-check
other information regarding the facility.
Several commenters requested that
EPA clarify whether a pollution
prevention plan must be included in the
NOI. In response, the Agency has
modified the language in today's permits
to clarify that dischargers are not
required to submit a pollution
prevention plan when they submit an
NOL
One commenter indicated that
dischargers should only have to submit
information required in the NOI if that
information is available. In response, the
Agency believes that the information
required in the NOIs by today's permits
will not impose excessive burdens on
dischargers. The Agency believes that
the information required in the NOls is
appropriate given the goals and
functions of these permits. For example
EPA must know where the industrial
facility is located in order to conduct
site visits. The street address of the
facility, or, where it is not available the
facility's latitude and longitude (or
section, township, and range), can be
used to identify the site location. The
SIC codes that best represent the
principal products made or activities
conducted by the facility will give EPA
an indication of the nature of the
industrial activity at the facility. An
alternative indicator of the industrial
activity is required for classes of
facilities that do not have SIC codes that
accurately describe the principal
products or services provided (e.g.
hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facilities, land disposal
facilities that receive or have received
any industrial waste, steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage). This
information gives an indication of the
pollution potential of the facility and is


necessary to evaluate oversight and
enforcement priorities for followup
actions by EPA. In addition, this
information can be used to identify
particular classes of discharges where
industry-specific general permits may be
appropriate or where individual permits
may be necessary. Today's permits
require up to four SIC codes to
characterize facilities that conduct
multiple activities that are addressed by
more than one SIC code. The operator's
name, address, and telephone number
are necessary to support
communications with the permitted and
to allow EPA to request information or
provide guidance. The permit numbers)
of additional NPDES permits) for any
discharge(a) (including non-storm water
discharges) from the site that are
currently authorized by an NPDES
permit will allow EPA to coordinate
oversight and compliance monitoring
activities taken under today's permits,
such as inspections, with other actions
taken pursuant to other NPDES permits.
The name of the receiving waters) will
allow EPA to identify discharges to
impaired, sensitive water bodies, or
high-value water resources that require
additional oversight and compliance
evaluation. Permittees that discharge to
a large or medium municipal separate
storm water permits require the
applicant to provide the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer.
The name of the municipal operator of
the storm sewer provides EPA with the
opportunity to coordinate compliance
monitoring activities and the
identification of priority discharges with
municipalities. An indication of whether
the owner or operator has existing
quantitative data describing the
concentration of pollutants in storm
water discharges informs EPA of
additional data to review in
characterizing the nature of the
discharge. An indication of whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process allows
EPA to implement the group application
process better and eliminates
redundancy or overlap between that
process and coverage with general
permits. The certification that a storm
water pollution prevention plan has
been prepared for the facility in
accordance with the permit ensures that
plans for new facilities have been
developed and assists the Agency's
compliance monitoring efforts.
One commenter indicated that
facilities such as remote oil and gas
operations may not have mailing
addresses. In response, the Agency has
modified today's permits so that where
a mailing address for a site is not


I _
--


41260







Federal Regster /

available, the location can be described
in terms of the latitude and longitude of
the facility.
One commenter suggested that it
would be more reasonable to allow
permittees to be automatically covered
by a renewed general permit. EPA
disagrees with this comment. The
Agency believes that it is appropriate
for permittees to reapply every five
years under a general permit in the same
manner as they would with an
individual permit application, and does
not believe that the requirement to
resubmit an NOI every five years
creates excessive burdens on
dischargers. This information also
allows EPA to update its record of
permittees.
One commenter indicated that
identification of Department of Defense
(DOD) facilities by a single SIC code
may present a problem because there
may not be an appropriate code or
several activities may be taking place at
different portions of the installation. In
response, the Agency wants to clarify
that the NOIs associated with today's
permits provide for up to four SIC codes
that best describe the facility. In
general, a Federal facility, such as a
DOD installation, that has an industrial
activity on the facility should se the
SIC code that would describe the same
specific industrial activity at a private
facility. The Agency also notes that
some DOD bases or installations will
have different industrial activities at
multiple locations at the iastallatio. In
such cases, the facility should submit
one NOI for each location conducting a
different industrial activity.
One commenter recommended that in
addition to the signature by a
responsible corporate officer (as defined
by 40 CFR 122.22 the person having
overall responsibility for environmental
matters should be required to sign the
NOL The commenter indicted that this
information would simplify EPA's efforts
to contact a permitted In response, EPA
is concerned that sch a requirement
may came confusion among dischargers
during the initial application process.
The Agency notes that today's permits
require permittees to develop storm
water pollution prevention plans that
provide for a description of a storm
water pollution prevention team. This
requirement is intended to provide a
clear description of personnel that are
responsible forimplementing permit
requirements. Therefore, the Agency
does not believe that it is necessary to
require the person having overall
responsibilty for environmental matters
to sign the NOI.


Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


NOI Deadlines
In the August 16, 1991 draft general
permits, EPA proposed that NOIs to
obtain coverage under the permits be
submitted within 180 days of the date of
issuance of the general permits or at
least 30 days prior to the
commencement of construction of a new
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity. Subsequent to the
August 18, 191. notice, EPA extended
the regulatory deadlines for submitting
individual permit applications (see
November 5, 19 (56 FR 56549)) and
part 2 of group applications (see April 2,
1992 (57 FR 11304}) for storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity to October 1,1992.
Today's final general permits provide
that NOIs for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
industrial facilities existing on er before
October 1, 182 mst be submitted on or
before October 1 1,92. The Agency has
selected the October 1.19 9 date to
provide consistency with the deadlines
for submitting individual permit
applications and Part 2 of group
applications. Using the October 1, 192
deadline will minimize confusion
regarding these deadlnes, particularly
where EPA issues permits for different
States on different dates. In addition
the October 1,1982 deadline provides an
equitable framework for coplyig with
permit application reuirements.
Today's permits provide that facilities
with industrial activity addressed by the
storm water program that begin to
operate after October 1. 92, must
submit an NOI at least 2 days prior to
the commencement of the industrial
activity at the facility. The Agency
believes that this short time period is
appropriate for new discharges or ew
sources which begin operation after
October 1982 because development of
a storm waterpollation prevention plan
and submittal of an NOI can be
anticipated and planned for prior to the
initiation of operations.
Several commuters requested
clarification of whether a new NOI must
be submitted where the operator of the
discharge changes. In response, 40 CFR
122.61 requires that permittees notify
EPA when a permit is transferred to a
new owner or operator. In additional 40
CFR 122.2(b)2)Qi) requires that
dischargers seeking coverage under a
general permit submit an NOL The
Agency considers an operator change at
a facility to be analogous ta a new
discharger seeking coverage under the
permit, and has clarified in today's
permits that where an operator of a
facility with a discharge covered by the
permit changes, the new operator of the


41261


facility must submit an NOI at least 2
days prior to the change.
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that not all oil and gas operations
are required to obtain NPDES permit
coverage for their storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity and asked EPA to clarify the
deadlines for submitting an NOI for
those facilities that are required to
obtain NPDES permit coverage.
In response, section 402(1)(21 of the
CWA provides that EPA shall not
require a permit for discharges of storm
water runoff from mining operations or
oil and gas exploration, production,
processing or treatment operations, or
transmission facilities if the storm water
discharge is not contaminated by
contact with, or does not come into
contact with, any overburden, raw
material, intermediate product finished
product, byproduct, or waste product
located on the site of such operations.
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 12226(a)(2]
codify this provision, and today's permit
does not attempt to require coverage for
discharges that are excluded under the
CWA from the NPDES program. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1{iii)
state that the operator of an oil and gas
operation is not required to submit a
permit application for their storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity unless the facility has a
discharge of storm water resulting in the
release of oil or a hazardous substance
that exceeds the reporting quantities
established under 40 CFR 1106, 40 CFR
117.21, or 4CFR 302.6 or contributes to
a violation of a water quality standard.
The Agency wants to clarify that oil
and gas operations that discharge
contaminated stmrm water at any time
between November 18,1967 and
October 1,1992 and that are currently
not authorized by an WN ES permit,
must submit an NO, an individual
permit application or participate in an
approved group application by no later
than October 1, 192. The Agency also
wants to clarify that facilities that
evaluate their storm water discharge
after a release of a reportable quantity
of oil or a hazardous substance that
occurs after October 1, 192, and
determine that their storm water
discharge is contaminated must either
submit an NOI to be covered by today's
permits within 14 days of their first
knowledge of the release or submit an
individual permit application. This
provision does not require operators of
oil and gas operations to submit an NOI
where they do not have a contaminated
storm water discharge. Operators of oil
and gas operations that release a
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous







Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


substance in a storm water discharge
i who do not believe that their storm
water discharge is contaminated may
submit an individual permit application
in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR 122.2{6c)(1)(iii).
EPA believes the 14-day time frame is
appropriate because of the risk
associated with such facilities. The
Agency also notes that facilities with a
reportable quantity release of a
hazardous substance or oil are required
to notify the National Response Center
(NRC) as soon as they know of the
release, and that the facility should have
the information necessary for submitting
an NOI readily on hand.
Some commenters requested
clarification of whether dischargers that
missed the deadlines for submitting an
NOI may ultimately obtain general
permit coverage. A number of these
commenters were particularly
Concerned about dischargers unaware of
the requirement to obtain an NPDES
Permit for their discharge by October 1,
1992. These commenters urged EPA to
provide flexibility in allowing them to
submit an NOI to be authorized to
discharge under the general permit after
: the deadlines specified in the general
permit.
In response, EPA recognizes that there
-. will be situations where it will be
appropriate to allow a discharge to be
authorized under the general permit
after the deadline for submitting an NOI.
For example, some facilities may only
become aware of the general permit or
that their storm water discharge must be
authorized by an NPDES permit after the
deadline for submitting an NOL has
passed. The Agency recognizes that the
NPDES storm water program is
relatively new, at least in terms of
t implementation activities, and the.
i application deadlines have changed on
several occasions, which may have
confused some dischargers. While
ignorance of NPDES storm water
requirements is not a shield from
enforcement for discharging without a
f permit, the Agency recognizes the
administrative advantages in allowing
Ian existing discharger to obtain
: coverage under the general permit.
fIn response to these concerns, today's
permits clarify that a discharger that
misses either the October 1, 1992
deadline or the 48-hour deadline for
facilities that commence construction
after October 1, 1992, is not precluded
from submitting an NOI and being
authorized to discharge under the
general permits at a later date. EPA
,- wants to clarify that where a discharger
has submitted an NOI after the
deadlines specified in the permit, the
Agency has the authority and reserves


the right to bring appropriate
enforcement actions.
Notice of Termination
Some commenters noted that facilities
with "paragraph (xi)" storm water
discharges could eliminate their storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity by eliminating
exposure of material to storm water. In
addition, several commenters indicated
that a facility can change industrial
activity or otherwise discontinue
industrial activity and can eliminate its
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity where significant
materials no longer remain exposed to
storm water. Some of these commenters
requested that EPA provide a
mechanism for reporting to EPA when
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity at a facility have been
eliminated.
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that the regulatory definition of
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity is provided at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14). Paragraph (xi) of the
regulatory definition provides that
facilities under Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 20, 21, 22, 23,
2434, 25, 265, 27, 283, 285, 30, 31 (except
311), 323, 34 (except 3441), 35, 36, 37
(except 373), 38, 39, or 4211-25 which are
not otherwise addressed by other
categories of the definition have a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity only where material
handling equipment or activities, raw
materials, intermediate products, final
products, waste materials, by-products,
or industrial machinery are exposed to
storm water.20
In response to these concerns, today's
permits have been modified to allow
permittees to submit a Notice of
Termination (NOT) to EPA indicating
that the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
their facility have been eliminated.
Non-Storm Water Discharges
The August 16, 1991 draft permit
required all discharges covered by the
permits to be composeedentirely of
storm water and discharges of material
other than storm water to be in

'o The exclusion contained in paragraph (xi) was.
however, vacated and remanded to EPA for further
proceedings. NRDC v. EPA. No. 90-7071 (9th Cir..
June 4. 1992). EPA interprets the effect'of the Court's
remand as requiring the Agency to conduct further
proceedings to address the Court's decision. Thus.
EPA will not require that facilities identified by
paragraph (xi) without exposure to submit storm
water applications until the Agency has had the
opportunity to complete additional proceedings in a
manner consistent with the Ninth Circuit decision
and the provisions of section 402(p)(2)(B) of the
CWA.


compliance with a different NPDES.
permit issued for the non-storm water
discharge. EPA indicated that it was
taking this approach because these
general permits were not intended to
authorize process wastewater
discharges.
A number of commenters strongly
supported the prohibition or noted that
it appeared reasonable. However, a
number of comments addressing this
provision raised technical concerns that
certain non-storm water discharges are
commonly allowed to discharge via a
separate storm sewer or are otherwise
mixed with storm water discharges,
These commenters indicated that some
classes of nonstorm water discharges
could not easily be separated from
drainage or separate storm sewer
systems and that separating such
discharges from storm sewer systems
usually would not provide any
environmental benefits. Some of these
commenters maintained that a strict
prohibition on non-storm water
discharges would significantly limit the
number of facilities obtaining coverage
under the general permit
In response to these comments, EPA
believes that it is important to retain a
modified version of this provision in the
permit to clarify that certain non-storm
water discharges, such as process waste
waters or wastes improperly disposed
through a storm drain, are not
authorized by today's general permits
for storm water discharges. However,
today's permits provide for two sets of
circumstances where storm water
discharges that are mixed with storm
water may be authorized by this permit.
Consistent with the proposal today's
permit authorizes storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are mixed with non-storm
water discharges in compliance with a
different NPDES permit However, the
monitoring requirements and
compliance point for numeric limitations
for the non-storm water discharge must
be addressed in the permit for the non-
storm water discharge. In addition, the
Agency also recognizes that discharging
some classes of non-storm water via
separate storm sewers or otherwise
mixed with storm water discharges is
largely unavoidable and/or poses little
if any environmental risk. Therefore, the
Agency has clarified that today's
permits authorize storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are mixed with discharges
from firefighting activities, fire hydrant
flushing, potable water sources
Including waterline flushings, landscape
irrigation drainage, routine exterior
building washdown which does not use


1


I


41262







Federal Register f Vol. 57, No. 175 Wednesday, September 9, 199& / Notices


detergents, pavement washwaters
where spills or leaks of toxic or
/ hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been
removed) and detergents are not used,
air conditioning condensate (but not
including cooling water from cooling
towers, heat exchangers or other
sources), springs, uncontaminated
ground water, and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents provided that the non-
storm water component of the discharge
is identified in the pollution prevention
plan. In addition, the plan must identify
and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention
measures for each of the non-storm
water components) of the discharge.
As a general matter, EPA believes
that where these classes of non-storm
water discharges are identified in a
pollution prevention plan and where
appropriate pollution prevention
measures are evaluated, identified and
implemented, they can be effectively
controlled under today's permit. The
Agency also notes that it can request
individual permit applications for such
discharges where appropriate and
necessary. The Agency is not requiring
that flows from firefighting activities be
identified in plans because of the
emergency nature of such discharges
coupled with their low probability and
the unpredictability of their occurrence.
The Agency notes that the approach in
today's permits taken for non-storm
water discharges is parallel to the
approach taken for non-storm water
discharges to large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
in its November 16, 1990 rulemaking (55
FR 47990). The non-storm water
discharges addressed in today's permits
are similar to those addressed in the
November 16, 1990 rulemaking, although
several modifications to the list have
been made that provide additional
clarity and that recognize the industrial
nature of facilities covered by today's
permits. The modifications also reflect
the generally higher degree of control
that industrial facilities can exercise
over the generation of non-storm water
discharges on a site. For example,
routine exterior building washdown that
does not use detergents and pavement
washwaters where spills or leaks of
toxic or hazardous materials have not
occurred (unless all spilled material has
been removed) and where detergents
are not used have been specified in
today's permits to specifically identify
nonstorm water discharges that are
commonly expected from industrial
sites. The reference to spills is to ensure


that washwaters used to clean spills are
not flushed to the storm sewer and
.directly to waters of the United States.
Releases ofReportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits provided that the permits would
not relieve the permitted of reporting
requirements for releases of hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities established under 40 CFR 117
and 40 CFR 302. The draft permits
further provided that discharges of
hazardous substances in storm water
discharges are to be minimized in
accordance with the applicable storm
water pollution prevention plan and can
in no case contain a hazardous
substance equal to or in excess of a
reportable quantity.
A number of commenters strongly
supported the prohibition, or noted that
it appeared reasonable. However,
several other commenters indicated that
the prohibition on releases of hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities acted as a series of effluent
limitations and that the Agency had not
established such limitations consistent
with the technology-based or water
quality-based standards of the CWA.
These commenters indicated that the
reportable quantities established under
40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 were not
developed as numeric effluent
limitations under the NPDES program.
One of these commenters indicated that
some hazardous substances still had
reportable quantities of 1 pound that
had been originally established by
Congress. However, a number of the
commenters that objected to the
prohibition as a perceived effluent
limitation agreed that the reporting of
such discharges was appropriate and
that a facility with such a discharge
should not be exempt from liability
provisions under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the
CWA. Some of these commenters also
noted that the use of best management
practices aimed at preventing and/or
cleaning up the release, instead of
numeric end-of-pipe limitations, is the
most effective way to address these
discharges.
In response, the Agency has modified
this provision in today's permits to
provide additional consistency with the
reporting requirements for releases of
hazardous substances and oil in excess
of reporting quantities at 40 CFR 110,40
CFR 117, and 40 CFR 302 to provide
clarification that the Agency does not
intend for the prohibition on releases in
excess of reporting quantities to act as
numericeffluent limitations, and to


address such releases in a manner
consistent with the approach taken in
today's permits with respect to pollution
prevention plan implementation.
Today's permits require that the
discharge of hazardous substances or oil
in the storm water discharge(s) from a
facility must be minimized in
accordance with the applicable storm
water pollution prevention plan for the
facility. Where a release containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reporting
quantity established under either 40 CFR
117 or 40 CFR 302 occurs during a 24-
hour period, the permitted must:
Notify the National Response
Center (NRC) as soon as he or she has
knowledge of the discharge:
Notify the appropriate EPA
Regional Office within 14 calendar days
of knowledge of the release. The notice
must contain a written description of:
the release (including the type and
estimate of the amount of material
released), the date that such release
occurred, the circumstances leading to
the release, and steps to be taken to
identify measures to prevent the
reoccurrence of such releases and to
respond to such releases as needed; and
Modify the storm water pollution
prevention plan for the facility within 14
days of knowledge of the release to
describe the release, the circumstances
leading to the release, and the date of
the release. In addition, the plan must be
reviewed and where appropriate
modified by the permitted to identify
measures to prevent the reoccurrence of
such releases and to respond to such
releases as needed.
The Agency has clarified that today's
permits do not authorize the discharge
of hazards substances or oil resulting
from an on-site spill of non-storm water
materials. This is consistent with CWA
and CERCLA requirements for
hazardous substances and oil for
anticipated intermittent point source
discharges at 40 CFR 117.12(d)(i).2
The Agency believes that this
approach will result in the same
objectives as the approach in the August
16, 1991 draft permits (i.e., to provide the
Agency with information that allows for
considering whether an individual
permit is appropriate), while minimizing
confusion and concerns regarding the
provision. Further, this approach

S4w CFR 11~n2tl(2)(i excludes discharges that
are continuous or anticipated iterrmittent
discharges from a point sourc.a identified in an
NPDES permit from reporting requirements if the
discharge of the hazardous substance results from
the conamination tf aorn water, promded that the
storm waters aot comomated by an oW-te spill
of a hazardous substance.


I


41263







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


provides additional flexibility for
implementing appropriate pollution
prevention measures. The Agency also
believes that ample enforcement
authority under the CWA and CERCLA
exists for addressing releases of
hazardous substances in excess of
reportable quantities and that the
approach taken in today's permits
complements those authorities.
One discharger raised concerns that
the prohibition implied that discharges
of a hazardous substance up to an
applicable reportable quantity was
acceptable and that a permitted was not
required to do anything unless such a
release occurred. In response, EPA does-
not intend to imply that discharges of
hazardous substances up to an
applicable reportable quantity are
acceptable in the sense that a discharger
should do nothing until discharging a
hazardous substance or oil in excess of
a reportable quantity. The Agency notes
that any point source discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States
without a permit is prohibited under
section 301 of the CWA. In addition.
today's permits do not establish numeric
effluent limitations for such storm water
discharges from industrial activities
(except for coal pile runoff). Rather, the
permits requires dischargers to develop
and implement best management
practices and pollution prevention
measures to reduce and/or control
pollutants in the discharge even in cases
where the discharge does not contain
hazardous substances or contains
hazardous substances at levels
significantly lower than reportable
quantities.
Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
At the heart of the August 16, 1991
draft permits were flexible requirements
for site-specific storm water pollution
prevention plans to be developed and
implemented to minimize and control
pollutants in storm water discharges.
The Agency adopted this approach in
order to address adequately the variable
storm water management/pollution
prevention opportunities at different
types of industrial facilities.
In general, many commenters
supported requiring storm water
pollution prevention plans to achieve
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) requirements in lieu
of numeric limitations. Many of these
commenters indicated that pollution
prevention measures (e.g., source
Reduction measures-and elimination of
pollutant sources) were for many
industrial facilities the most practicable
and cost-effective approaches to


reducing pollutants in storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters supported
the flexibility that the proposed
requirements provided for developing
tailored plans and pollution prevention
strategies. Some of these commenters
indicated that this approach allowed
facilities to use their own expertise and
knowledge of the facilities and that
industrial operators were in the best
position to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention
strategies. Other commenters noted that
it was essential for facilities to take the
lead role in determining requirements
that are reasonable and necessary for
their facility. Others urged the Agency
to maintain flexibility.to address unique
industry-specific or facility-specific
conditions. Several commenters
indicated that they believed that broad
effluent limitations or national
performance standards for pollution
prevention requirements were not
appropriate at this time and that
industry should be given flexibility to
establish specific pollution prevention
measures for their facilities.
One commenter indicated that based
on experience at industrial sites, the
most effective means of controlling
pollutants in storm water was the
requirement for each permitted to
develop and implement a pollution
prevention plan. This commenter
indicated that the plan requirements in
the August 16, 1991 proposal appeared
to be both effective and enforceable, as
well as easily understood by the people
responsible for complying with the
general permit.
Several commenters indicated that
requirements to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention
measures should be limited to a subset
of all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. One commenter, while noting
that pollution prevention measures can
be effective in some cases, indicated
that industrial facilities should have the
option of preparing a pollution
prevention plan or meeting a numeric
effluent limitation or other performance
standard. This commenter alternatively
suggested that only facilities that have
been shown to contribute significantly
to storm water-related impacts on
receiving waters should be required to
comply with requirements to develop a
plan. Another commenter suggested that
numeric limitations be provided as a
floor. The commenter further suggested
that facilities should not be required to
implement pollution prevention
measures for storm water discharges
that contain pollutants at levels lower


than the concentrations provided in the
numeric limitation. One commenter
indicated that permittees should only be
required to develop pollution prevention
plans if monitoring data shows that
these are appropriate or necessary. A
mining company indicated that runoff
from an industrial facility may actually
be of better quality than the receiving
water and that a blanket requirement
that all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity prepare plans is not appropriate.
In response, EPA notes that the CWA
requires NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity (see section 402(p)(2)(B)). In
addition, the CWA requires NPDES
permits for storm water discharges that
are significant contributors of pollutants
to waters of the United States or that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard (see section
402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA). All NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity must
at a minimum, establish BAT/BCT
requirements (see section 402(p)(3) of
the CWA). Thus, consistent with the
requirements of the CWA. the
requirements in today's permits to
develop and implement storm water
pollution prevention plans apply to all
permittees whether the Agency has
made a showing that a facility is
contributing to a water quality impact or
not, or whether pollutants in the
discharge from a facility exceed the
concentrations in discharges from
surrounding land uses.
The Agency believes that Congress
establishes this technology-based
framework because it was aware of the
technical and administrative difficulties
of making a showing that a single
facility is a significant contributor to
specific water quality impacts and it
determined that mandatory minimum
pollution control requirements were
appropriate for industrial facilities with
storm water discharges. Today's permit
establishes BAT/BCT requirements in
terms of requirements to develop and
implement storm water pollution
prevention plans.22 These requirements
apply to all permittees.
The Agency notes that the
requirement to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention plans
is not the only option the Agency had
for establishing BAT/BCT requirements,
and that many NPDES permits
incorporate numeric limitations to
reflect application of BAT/BCT
requirements. However, the Agency

*" In addition, today's permits establish a numeric
effluent limitation for coal pile runoff.


~,~F~--~--~-~"----~~


41264


1


I





I


SA more complete discussion of these potential
Pollutant sources can be found in the section 3 of
the August 16 1991 draft fact sheets (56 PR 40965).


currently does not have sufficient data
to develop appropriate numeric effluent
Limitations for all of the varied sources
of storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity covered by these
permits. The Agency also notes that
facilities covered by today's permits
have varied potential for having many
different pollutants in their storm water
discharges. While today's permits do not
provide permittees with the option of
meeting a numeric effluent limitation in
lieu of developing and implementing
pollution prevention measures, the
SAgency notes that facilities that wish to
pursue numeric effluent limitations for
their storm water discharges may submit
data sufficient to support the
development of such limitations either
through the individual or group permit
application process.
One commenter thought plans should
not be required where facilities do not
have a previous history of spills or any
materials on site to create a spill. In
response, EPA wants to clarify that
spills are only one potential source of
pollutants in storm water discharges.
Other major potential sources of
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
include the following: loading and
unloading of materials; outdoor storage
of raw materials or products; outdoor
process activities; dust or particulate
generating processes; illicit connections
or management practices; waste
disposal; and vehicle maintenance.23
The requirements for storm water
pollution prevention plans in today's
permits have been designed to address
these sources of pollutants as well as
spills. The potential for spills at a
facility is only one factor that pollution
prevention plans should address.
One commenter suggested that
facilities should be allowed to have a
Registered Professional Engineer (PE)
conduct a site review to identify
pollutant sources and establish a
schedule for elimination of those
sources as an alternative to
implementing a pollution prevention
plan. EPA has not adopted this
approach in today's permit. Perhaps
most importantly, EPA needs well
documented plans to conduct its own
review of the adequacy of pollution
prevention measures and is concerned
that a PE certification without arn
accompanying plan may be inadequate
for this purpose. While PE certifications
can play an important role in pollution
prevention strategies, the Agency also
has concerns that a PE evaluation, by


itself; may not ensure successful
elimination of all potential sources of
pollutants to storm water. The Agency
believes that PE certifications are best
suited for evaluations of structural
controls, spill prevention and response
measures, and the effectiveness of
comprehensive pollution prevention
plans. For many facilities, however,
complying with today's permits means
relying on nonstructural controls as part
of a comprehensive plan. In addition,
the Agency believes that this approach
would create unnecessary confusion
regarding the requirements of the permit.
Several commenterburged EPA to
ensure that requirements for developing
and implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans were feasible,
particularly for small businesses. Some
commenters suggested that a less
resource-intensive approach should be
developed for smaller facilities. Other
commenters indicated that they thought
the requirements for plans were too
complex or burdensome, particularly for
small businesses and small
municipalities with industrial
facilities.24 A few commenters
suggested that EPA delete some of the
components of the plan or phase in
some plan requirements to ease the
burden of development and
implementation of plans. Others
suggested that facility size should be
considered when developing the plan.
EPA agrees that the varying sizes and
complexities of facilities should be
reflected in the storm water pollution -
prevention plans. This is one reason that
EPA favors having each permitted
develop and implement site-specific
storm water pollution prevention plans
under today's general permits. EPA
believes that today's permits generally
provide flexibility for those smaller
facilities which have smaller potential
for contributing pollutants to storm
water to develop and implement less
complex, and less costly, plans than
larger, more complex facilities.
EPA does not agree, however, that
some of the components of the plan
should be deleted for smaller facilities.
EPA believes that all of the components
for the plans required by today's permits
are essential for reducing pollutants in
storm water discharges and cannot be
selectively deleted or phased in without
hindering the effectiveness of the overall
pollution prevention efforts. Therefore,

14 Subsequent to the August 16 1991 proposal.
EPA has reserved the regulatory deadlines for storm
water discharges associated with industrial
activities from facilities that are owned or operated
by a municipality with a population of 100000 or
less, other than discharges from airports.
powerplants or uncontrolled sanitary landfills (see
April 2. 192. (57 FR 11409)).


EPA has determined that all components
of the storm water pollution prevention
plan required under today's permits are
necessary to reflect BAT/BCT. The
pollution prevention plan requirements
of today's permits can be described in
terms of four components. In addition,
some facilities are required to conduct
discharge monitoring.
The first component, formation of a
pollution prevention team is critical to
identifying individual responsibilities
and ensuring accountability for
implementing plans. The formation of
the Team formalizes the identification of
responsibilities and is not expected to
incur significant costs in and of itself.
The role of the Team will depend on the
engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques
identified in the plan and the processes
employed at the facility.
Successful plan implementation must
be based on adequate identification of
pollutant sources. The second
component of the plan, description of
pollutant sources, is achievable because
it is based on the information that
should generally either be readily
available from the normal business
practices of the facility (e.g. materials
inventories) or from standard
evaluations or observations. The costs
of these descriptions depend on such
factors as the nature of the process
employed, the age of the equipment and
facilities, and the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques.
The third component of the plan is
identifying and implementing measures
and controls. The costs of complying
with other measures and controls of the
plan depend on the nature of the process
employed, the age of the equipment and
facilities, and the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques. Good housekeeping,
preventive maintenance, spill
prevention and response, inspections,
employee training, and recordkeeping
and internal reporting have been
identified as measures that are broadly
applicable to all industry types and
activities 5 and are achievable through
good engineering practices. The Agency
has identified a number of methods for
testing or evaluating the presence of
non-storm water discharges, such as
inspecting outfalls during dry weather
conditions, conducting dye testing, and
evaluating accurate schematics

*See "NPDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Document," EPA, 1979 and "Staff
Analysis of Implementing Permitting Activities for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity." EPA. 1991.


r
Q


41265


Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175/ Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices









Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


available for meeting this requirement.
Where a certification that the discharge
has been tested or evaluated for the
presence of non-storm water discharges
is not feasible, today's permits do not
require a certification, provided that the
storm water pollution prevention plan
indicates why the certification is not
feasible and identifies potentially
significant sources of non-storm water
at the site, and the discharger notifies
EPA. Today's permits require permittees
to identify structural, vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures to limit erosion
and in a narrative consideration
evaluating the appropriateness of
traditional storm water management
practices used to divert, infiltrate, reuse,
or otherwise manage storm water runoff
in a manner that reduces pollutants in
storm water discharges from the site.
The flexibility of these provisions will
ensure that attainable practices are
implemented based on an consideration
of the costs of the measures and the
application of the control techniques to
a given facility.
The fourth component of the plan are
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations. The requirements for these
evaluations include annual inspections
of the facility, which are consistent with
practices at well run facilities. In
addition, the permit establishes targeted
monitoring requirements for selected
industrial activities. These monitoring
requirements, which are authorized by
section 308 of the CWA, are necessary
to ensure compliance with the
requirements of today's permits and to
protect water quality. Monitoring
requirements have been kept at a low
frequency and apply only to targeted
activities to limit cost of these
requirements.
The Agency has developed specific
guidance to assist facilities in
developing plans that comply with the
requirements of today's permits (see
"Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices," EPA. 1992).
This guidance contains worksheets,
checklists, and model forms that should
significantly reduce the burdens of
smaller facilities and help assist in the
development of plans under today's
permits in an achievable manner.
Several commenters indicated that the
pollution prevention requirements in the
August 16, 1991 draft permits were
directed too heavily towards
"traditional" industry and may not be
the most cost-effective requirements for
their facilities. Some of these
commenters indicated that some
facilities would be better off pursuing


group applications or submitting
individual applications.
In response, as discussed above, EPA
believes that all of the components for
the plans required by today's permits
are essential and cannot be selectively
deleted or phased in without hindering
the effectiveness of the overall storm
water pollution prevention efforts at a
facility. However, the Agency notes that
it has built considerable flexibility into
today's pollution prevention plan
requirements. Under today's permits,
while permittees must comply with all
applicable components of the plan,
facilities can focus most heavily on
those pollution prevention measures
that will most effectively reduce
pollutants to storm water discharges
from their industrial activities. The
Agency believes that the requirements
in today's permits can be tailored for the
different types of industrial facilities
that generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. The
Agency also wants to clarify that
today's permits do not preclude
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
continuing participation in an approved
group application where they are
already an approved member or
submitting an individual application
where they believe that the
requirements of today's permits are not
appropriate for their discharges.
One commenter noted that the
requirements in the August 16, 1991 draft
permits appeared reasonable, but that
permit writers should have additional
discretionary authority to waive some of
the components of the general permit In
response, the Agency notes that today's
permits do provide considerable
flexibility in developing site-specific
pollution prevention plans. Again, the
Agency wants to clarify its view that all
components of a storm water pollution
prevention plan outlined in today's
permits are needed to comply with the
BAT/BCT standards of the CWA.
Industry comments regarding the level
of specificity of requirements were
mixed. A number of commenters
commended the Agency on its efforts to
promote flexibility in storm water
management. Some industrial
commenters urged EPA to provide
greater detail in plan requirements or
additional technical guidance to assist
them in developing site specific plans
and to allow facilities to better
determine whether they are in
compliance with the permit. One
commenter noted that additional
technical guidance could greatly reduce
the burdens on small industries because
facilities could then prepare their plans


without the significant expense of an
outside consultant -
In response to these concerns, the
Agency has rearranged and reordered
the requirements of the pollution
prevention plans in today's permits and
clarified several points found confusing
by commenters. These changes have
been made to simplify preparation and
implementation of plans and to
minimize confusion. As mentioned
above, the Agency has also developed
specific guidance to assist facilities in
developing plans that comply with the
requirements of today's permits (see
"Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices", EPA 1992). This
guidance contains worksheets,
checklists and model forms which
should assist facilities which are not
using outside consultants to develop
plans under today's permits in an
achievable manner.
Other commenters urged EPA to
specify the objectives of the plans
without prescribingthe means by which
the objectives must be achieved (e.g., to
establish guidelines for pollution
prevention measures, but to not specify
how they will be achieved). In response,
the Agency has considered the issue of
the appropriate balance between
flexibility and specifying requirements,
and believes that the approach taken in
today's permits is appropriate, (e.g. to
identify specific classes of measures
that must be addressed in a pollution
prevention plan, but to provide
sufficient flexibility in meeting such
requirements as good housekeeping.
preventive maintenance, spill
prevention and response procedures,
and employee training, so that specific
procedures or actions are not
prescribed). Today's permits require the
development of plans that identify
potential sources of pollution which may
reasonably be expected to affect the
quality of storm water discharges from
the facility and describe and ensure the
implementation of practices which are
to be used to reduce the pollutants in
storm water discharges. Today's permits
identify specific components that the
plan must address, including
requirements for a pollution prevention
team, description of potential pollutant
sources, measures and controls
appropriate for the facility, and
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations.
Other commenters indicated that
several provisions of the August 16, 1991
general permits (such as certain
recordkeeping provisions) appeared to
be redundant. In response, today's


41266







Federal Register /

permits have been modified to eliminate
any such redundancy.
One environmental group, while
noting that the concepts identified in the
plan were sound and important and
supporting the idea of having industrial
facilities create well-targeted plans that
contain the identified elements,
indicated its belief that the approach
was far too open-ended to ensure that
any given facility will go beyond
"business as usual" in preventing
, pollutants to its storm water discharges.
The commenter urged the Agency to
require specific practices or preventive
actions or specific menus of practices.
The commenter suggested that the
requirements for traditional storm water
controls and sediment and erosion
practices should at a minimum contain
both a Best Management Practices
(BMP) menu and a minimum number of
practices that each facility must select
from the menu.
In response, the Agency disagrees
with this commenter, and believes that
today's permits establish requirements
with a reasonable amount of specificity
that will result in substantial reduction
in the discharge of pollutants in storm
water. As discussed above, the permit
establishes a prohibition on the
discharge of most non-storm water
discharges, specific requirements for
releases of hazardous substances, and
requirements for the development and
implementation of storm water pollution
prevention plans. The provisions for
pollution prevention plans require that
permittees specifically address eight
different types of measures and controls,
as well as meet requirements for a
pollution prevention team, identify
potential pollutant sources, conduct
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations, and meet special
requirements for specific industry
categories.
The Agency has not established a
menu of traditional storm water controls
and sediment and erosion practices
because the significant variability in
facilities covered by today's permits
precludes the identification of universal
standards or practices that are
appropriate or can be implemented by
all permittees. For examples, small
facilities where the entire facility is
covered by impervious structures may
not have areas where significant erosion
occurs, and may have limited space for
traditional storm water measures. Other
facilities may have extensive areas with
significant erosion potential and/or
more opportunities for traditional storm
water management measures.
However, the permit has been
modified to provide that plans must
contain a narrative consideration of the


Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


appropriateness of traditional storm
water management practices used to
divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise
manage storm water runoff in a manner
that reduces pollutants in storm water
discharges from the site. The plan must
provide that measures determined to be
reasonable and appropriate shall be
implemented and maintained. The
permit specifies that appropriate
measures may include vegetative swales
and practices, reuse of collected storm
water (such as for a process or as an
irrigation source), inlet controls (such as
oil/water separators), snow
management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices. With respect to sediment and
erosion controls, the permit has been
modified to provide that the plan must
identify structural, vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures to be used to
limit erosion in areas with a high
potential for significant soil erosion. The
Agency believes that the additional
clarity added to these provisions
ensures that the permit is not too open-
ended and that permittees will
implement reasonable and appropriate
storm water management measures and
measures to limit erosion in areas that
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion.
In addition, the guidance manual
"Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices," U.S. EPA, 1992
identifies a.number of specific storm
water management measures and
sediment and erosion controls that can
be used to satisfy these requirements
and discusses their general applicability
to industrial sites. Storm water
management measures addressed in the
document include flow diversion
practices; water reuse; vegetative
practices, such as flow attention by use
of open vegetated swales and natural
depressions; infiltration of runoffon site
via filter strips, swales, level spreaders,
infiltration trenches, concrete grids, and
modular pavement; and sequential
systems (which combine several
practices). Sediment and erosion
practices discussed in the manual
include the use of mulching, matting,
temporary seeding, permanent seeding,
permanent planting, sodding, chemical
stabilization, interceptor dikes and
swales, pipe slope drains, subsurface
drains, filter fences, gravel or stone filter
berms, storm drain inlet protection,
sediment traps, sediment basins, outlet
protection, check dams, and gradient
terraces.
One commenter indicated that the
permits should clarify the specific
factors, including processes employed,


41267


engineering aspects, functions, costs of
controls, location, and age of facility,
that permittees should take into account
when developing pollution prevention
measures.
In response, today's permits require
that permittees consider the relevant
BAT and BCT factors when developing
and implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans. The following factors
are to be considered when evaluating
BAT requirements: the age of equipment
and facilities involved; the process
employed; the engineering aspects of the
application of various types of control
techniques; process changes; the cost of
achieving such effluent reduction; and
non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements).
The following factors are to be
considered when evaluating BCT
requirements; the reasonableness of the
relationship between the costs of
attaining a reduction in effluent and the
effluent reduction benefits derived; the
comparison of the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from the
discharge from publicly owned
treatment works to the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from a class
or category of industrial sources; the age
of equipment and facilities involved; the
process employed; the engineering
aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques; process
changes; and non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements).
Other commenters suggested that
similar plans, such as Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) or
BMP plans, could substitute as storm
water pollution prevention plans. There
were numerous comments on
consistency with other plans,
specifically expressing a concern about
duplication of permitting. Many
commenters argued that it was not
effective to have three different plans
covering safety, storm water pollution
prevention, and/or SPCC. They felt that
these plans should be consolidated.
Other program plans and
requirements such as those listed by
commenters contain provisions that
meet some elements of the storm water
pollution plan, but none, either alone or
in conjunction with others, specifically
addresses storm water concerns or the
requirements for plans in today's
general permits. EPA does, however,
encourage facilities to use applicable
practices and provisions from existing
plans when developing their storm
water pollution prevention plans. During
the development of the storm water
pollution prevention plan, EPA believes
the use and incorporation of other


1










41268 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices
I l l III III


existing plans will help reduce the
burdens associated with their
development and implementation
Pollution Prevention Team
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits contained a provision requiring
that plans identify a pollution
prevention committee of individuals
within the plant organization who are
responsible for developing the pollution
prevention plan and assisting the plant
manager in its implementation,
maintenance, and revision.
In today's permits, the Agency has
changed the name of the committee to
"Pollution Prevention Team." The
Agency believes that the term "Team"
will better convey the purposes of the
provision.
A number of commenters requested
that the Agency simplify requirements
for small businesses to implement
pollution prevention committees. Some
commenters indicated that many small
businesses may only have one person
dedicated to all aspects of
environmental and safety and health
regulatory compliance, or that facility
owners or operators address regulatory
l compliance matters.
In response, the Agency believes that
it is critical for plans to identify those
employees who will be responsible for
implementing the various provisions
identified in the plan. EPA agrees that
the storm water pollution prevention
committee size will vary based on the
facility size and complexity. The Agency
agrees that in some situations it will be
appropriate for the "Team" to be
comprised of one employee. Today's
permits have been clarified to reflect
that the team or committee may be
comprised of one employee where
appropriate.
Several commenters indicated that
because many facilities already have
individuals who are responsible for
environmental compliance, the creation
of a pollution control committee only
adds another layer to a compliance
strategy. Several commenters indicated
that the committee may interfere with
the facility manager and that the facility-
manager should have ultimate
responsibility and accountability for the
content and implementation of the storm
water pollution prevention plan.
The Agency agrees that many
facilities have already identified
individuals responsible for
environmental compliance and that
often the facility manager should have
ultimate responsibility and
accountability for the content and
implementation of the plan. The Agency
believes that it is important that the plan
specifically identify those individuals


responsible for developing the pollution
prevention plan and having specific
roles in its implementation, maintenance
and revision. The Agency believes that
the commenters' situation is a fairly
common practice among industrial
facilities and that today's permits are
designed along compatible principles
intended to identify such individuals
and their relationships to others who
have critical roles in implementing
measures identified in pollution
prevention plans. The Agency believes
that identifying a pollution prevention
team will ensure the structure and
organization necessary for successful
plan implementation. The Agency
strongly recommends that individuals
who have already been identified as
being responsible for environmental
compliance at industrial facilities be
given central roles in Pollution
Prevention Teams. The Agency does not
intend the Pollution Prevention Team in
any way to interfere with the facility
manager, but rather to assist the facility
manager in developing and
implementing the plan. In addition, the
Agency anticipates that in many
instances the plant manager or his/her
equivalent will be a prominent member
of the Pollution Prevention Team. EPA
disagrees that the requirement to
identify the Team in the plan will create
undue burdens on facilities where
responsible individuals have already
been identified, since such individuals
should generally play a major role on
the Team.
One commenter indicated that the
pollution prevention committee/team
should not be required to "address all
aspects of the facility storm water
pollution prevention plan." The Agency
disagrees with this comment; it is
critical that responsibility be assigned
for implementing each activity identified
in the plan.
One commenter indicated that the
pollution prevention committee is
unnecessary and noted that most
individual NPDES permits do not require
such committees. In response, the
Agency believes that a pollution
prevention team is necessary for the
successful implementation of a source
control-oriented pollution prevention-
based approach. The Agency agrees that
most individual permits for process
wastewaters do not require the
identification of pollution prevention
measures. However, most individual
permits for process wastewaters take a
different approach to regulating
pollutant discharges, that of numeric
effluent limitations, and do not focus on
comprehensive source controls.


Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits contained provisions requiring
that plans contain certain information to
assist in identifying and characterizing
potential sources that may contribute
pollutants to storm water discharges
The pollutant source identification
requirements in the August 16, 1991 drat
permits addressed requirements for a
site map, a topographic map, a narrative
description of significant materials used
at the site, a lost of spills and leaks, an
estimate of the types of pollutants likely
to be present in the storm water, and a
summary of sampling data.
Several industry commenters agreed
that successful pollution prevention
strategies must be based on an accurate
understanding of the pollution potential
of the site being considered.
Some commenters felt that the
requirement for the plan to include a
topographic map was too burdensome.
They indicated that a topographic map
would not be useful and suggested that
a site map would be adequate. In
response to these comments, the Agency
is concerned about the confusion with
respect to how facilities intend to use
the topographic map. As a result, to
simplify these requirements, today's
permits do not specifically require the
inclusion of a topographic map. The
Agency believes that a site map
indicating an outline of the drainage
area of each storm water outfall, and
other appropriate information,28 will
generally serve the purposes that a
topographic map would be used for in
the context of pollution prevention plan.
The agency also notes that under the
August 16 1991 draft general permits
facilities could utilize a site map as an
alternative to a topographic map, thus
today's permits do not constitute a
significant change.
One commenter indicated that it
would be difficult to delineate off-site
portions of the drainage areas of some
outfalls. The commenter suggested that
they only be required to show the parts
of the drainage that are on site. In
response, the Agency has clarified in
today's permits that only the portions of

2" In today's permits, drainage site maps must
indicate an outline of the portions of the drainage
area of each storm water outfall, each existing
structural control measure to reduce pollutants in
storm water runoff, surface water bodies, locations
where significant materials are exposed to
precipitation, locations where major spills or leaks
have occurred, and locations of the fueling stations,
vehicle and equipment maintenance and/or
cleaning area. loading/unloading area, locations
used for treatment, storage or disposal of wastes.
liquid storage tanks, processing areas and storage
areas.








Failmrd mL P r I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9,1992 / Notices


L the drainage area within the facility's
boundaries need to be identified.
A number of commenters indicated
that certain industrial activities, such as
loading and unloeding operations, may
occur under covered areas such as in
buildings or loading docks with
sufficient cover to prevent exposure to
precipitation and that spills are not
normally exposed to storm water. One
commenter requested that EPA clarify
that the list of significant spills and
leaks should be confined to those
materials that cannot be fully cleaned
and removed and could potentially come
in contact with storm water. Another
commenter suggested that EPA only
require spill information for areas to be
covered by the general permit. One
commenter suggested that the listing of
spills and leaks should not include
releases to impervious surfaces that are
automatically drained to waste
treatment sumps and that do not go to
storm drains, or to impervious surfaces
that are cleaned up without any
chemicals entering a storm drain.
Another commenter suggested that spills
and leaks into secondary containment
structures should not be listed, as the
presence of a secondary containment
system gives adequate notice that care
is exercised, and that this requirement
was unnecessary and unduly
burdensome.
In response, EPA recognizes that some
spills, such as those that occur inside
buildings that drain to a sanitary sewer,
are not potential sources of pollution to
storm water discharges, and thus do not
need to be identified in the storm water
pollution prevention plan. However, the
agency believes that spils to sumps or
secondary containment areas that
receive storm water discharges should
generally be identified in the storm
water pollution prevention plan because
such devices can overflow during large
or repeated storm events, or storm water
may be drained and discharged from
such devices. The Agency also believes
that it is important to identify spills that
occur on impervious surfaces that re
exposed to precipitation or that
otherwise drain to a storm drain even
when the spill is deemed up before any
of it enters a storm drain. Listing such
events provides an indication of
potential poltant sources that may
occur in the future and helps direct
priorities for developing and
kaplementing spill response measures.
In response to the concerns raised in
these comments, the Agency has limited
this provision to significant spiBs and
leaks at areas that are exposed to
precipitation or that otherwise drain to a
storm water conveyance at the facility.
One camnenter recommended that
spill prevention and response


procedures be deleted because EPCRA
and the Resources Conservation
SRecovery Act (RCRA) already address
accidental releases. Another commenter
suggested that the list of spills be
deleted and that the need for such a list
is adequately addressed by reportable
quantities, as spills of such size must be
reported and are already on file with the
government.
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that the central reason for
requiring this information in the
pollution prevention plan is to ensure
that dischargers adequately consider
potential sources of pollution when
identifying and implementing storm
water pollution prevention measures.
The Agency believes that such site
evaluation is critical for appropriate
implementation of storm water pollution
prevention measures. Similarly, such
information provides EPA with a better
basis for reviewing and evaluating the
adequacy of specific plans. The Agency
also notes that the spill reporting
measures under the other statutes
identified above have limited scope and
objectives, and in general, do not
specifically consider the potential of
pollutant discharges in storm water or
controls for such pollutant discharges in
a comprehensive manner.s 2 s The

Agency also notes that spill reporting
requirements have been developed
under section 311 of the CWA and under
section IBe of CERCLA. However, the
Agency notes that these requirements
only apply to releases of hazardous
substances or oil in excess of reportable
quantities, and that this reporting
requirement focuses primarily on
emergency response to such incidents
These reporting requirements do not

Section T3 of the Emergency Ranning and
CommuZit Rightto-Know Ac (EPCRA) (lso
knh n as tildls of the Supefund Ameidments
and Reauthkisatieo Act (SARA) of 198). requires
operators of certain facilities that manufacture,
import, process, or otherwise use Bted toxic
chemical report annumel thirrekses of those
ceaisicl. to the eYOmhtmek On"y thee faciliies
that mneflins. import, process, or otherwise use
Slisted toxic chemical in excess of applicable
threshold quantities of the chemical have a primary
sC codeof e through S, and have 10 or or full-
time ameplmiy meat report. Secton 31 of EPCRA
focuses oabe mas rseportig oif slease. and not
on the control of such releases.
"S Subtitle C of the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to establish
Mrqui"Msent fa bcitim that geen .tru sport
or traL steel or ispos metodf that mBet the
regplatey defiaitio of haadaurdo wems. The
RCRA Subtitle C regulations include requirements
for certain generators and treatment, storage. nd
dispose facffies t deelo4, and mpmenet
m sI pan aL n asm erd E paucyiedumes to
minimims hasrd t hmesm bhealb or the
environment hom irms. plnosil or any
unplanned release of hazardous waste or hazardous
waste onsdeun atst a., rse e rwfhr aewte.In
general. RCAdm t-addresi ufbals that are
not miersd to be wastes and de not address
wastes that are not regulated as hazardous wastes.


address releases of materials that are
not classified as hazardous substances
or oil. or releases of hazardous
substances or oil that are less than
reporting quantities. The Agency
believes that many spills, leaks, and
releases that are not considered to be
reportable quantities of a hazardous
substance can still contribute significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water
discharges.
One commenter indicated that
numerous local State, and/or Federal
spill reporting requirements already in
place require spill reporting and
recommended that any spill reports
prepared in accordance with these
existing spill reporting regulations be
referenced or attached to the storm
water plan.
In response, the Agency agrees that
these spill reports can, in some cases,
provide useful information for
identifying potential pollutant sources,
and encourages permittees to review
such information when developing and
modifying plans. However, the Agency
is not specifically requiring that such
information be included in the plan in
order to allow the permitted to best
determine the appropriate form of such
information.
One commenter requested
clarification of whether the rerm
"significant spills" included spills that
were not in excess of reporting
quantities established under section 311
of the CWA or section 102 of CERCLA.
In response, EPA notes that the
definition section of the permit contains
a definition of significantt spills" that
includes, but is not limited to, releases
of oil or hazardous substances in excess
of reportable quantities under section
311 of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR
11010 and CFR 11721) or section 102 of
CERCLA fsee 40 CFR 302.4). The Agency
believes that it is appropriate to include
certain releases that are not releases of
oil or hazardous substances in excess of
reportable quantities for several
reasons. The materials that are
considered hazardous substances do not
identify all materials that can cause
water quality impacts. In addition,
discharges of hazardous substances in
amounts less then reportable quantities
can cause water quality impacts. Other
significant spells include spills that could
potentially add significant amounts of
polltants. Such listing should address
other materials in addition to materials
that are listed as hazardous substance
or as oil. In addition, instances of
chronically repeated smaller spils can
constitute significant spills if such spills,
taken together, add significant amounts
of pollutants to storm water discharges.
Another commenter requested that
EPA clarify whether the list of spills


i -amlR-sm/ o. 7No n ededa.Setmbr9,192/Noie


- ---- "~1~91 I


41269







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


needed to be updated to identify
significant spills and leaks that occur
after the effective date of the permit. In
response, the Agency wants to clarify
that plans are to be updated to address
significant spills and leaks that occur
during the term of the permit.This
information is necessary to ensure that
major potential sources of pollution to
storm water discharges are identified.
One commenter indicated that
existing quantitative data describing the
concentration of pollutants in storm
water discharges may be
unrepresentative of typical events and
good sampling protocols may not have
been used. The commenter indicated
that the discharger may have conducted
the sampling in order to evaluate
potential problems without intending to
submit the data.
In response, the Agency believes that
existing quantitative data can in many
cases be a useful, readily available
source of information to identify
potential pollutant sources. The Agency
recognizes that often the discharger did
not intend to submit such data, but
believes that such data can still be
useful for evaluating potential pollutant
sources. The Agency also recommends
that, where possible, dischargers
provide a description of procedures and
protocols that were used when
collectingand analyzing samples. This
type of information can be useful in
evaluating the validity and accuracy of
the data. It should also be emphasized
again that EPA is not requiring this data
to be submitted with the NOL Rather,
today's permits provide only that such
data be identified in the NOI and made
available only when the permitting
authority requests it.
One commenter requested
clarification of whether sampling data
collected during the term of the permit
must be summarized in the plan. In
response, EPA is clarifying that
sampling data collected during the term
of the permits must be summarized in
the storm water pollution prevention
plan.
One commenter urged the Agency to
examine requirements for the narrative
description of significant materials that
have been treated, stored, or disposed.
The commenter suggested that a
requirement for a materials storage and
handling report for all chemicals and
compounds listed for the facility's
effluent guidelines under the NPDES
program and for other chemicals used
and byproducts formed at the site be
.- added to the narrative description ot
significant materials and to the risk
identification and assessment/material
inventory portion of the permit.
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that the inventory of exposed
materials is intended to address


materials that potentially may be
exposed to precipitation, including
chemicals used and byproducts formed
at the site that may be exposed to
precipitation. Among the items that.
should be included on the inventory
area materials related to chemicals or
compounds listed in effluent limitations
guidelines to which the facility is subject
or chemicals or compounds specifically
controlled or limited in any other
NPDES permit for the facility should be
addressed to the extent that such
materials may be exposed to
precipitation.
One commenter suggested that a
current list and description of materials
is adequate; a description of materials
that may have been exposed to storm
water and the management practices in
the past three years is excessive.
However, another commenter indicated
that a three year period for this
requirement was too short, and that
many sites have been used for purposes
other than those for which the sites are
currently operated. This commenter
suggested that any historical activities
at the site that now contribute to storm
water pollution should be identified.
In response, the Agency agrees that
past activities may result in pollutant
sources for present storm water
discharges, and that it is appropriate to
address materials that may have been
exposed to storm water in the past three
years. EPA believes that the three year
period is reasonable and does not
impose excessive burdens for collecting
information on permittees. The Agency
notes that the three year period is
consistent with similar requirements for
individual applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(i) (B) and
(D) and general NPDES records
retention requirements under 40 CFR
122.21(p) and 40 CFR 112.7(d)(8).
The August 16, 1991 draft permits
proposed that the plan provide a
prediction of flow and an estimate of the
types of pollutants likely to be present
in the storm water for areas of the plant
that generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity with
a reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants.
Several commenters requested
clarification of what constitutes a
"reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants." One
commenter recommended that the
"reasonable potential" language be
removed.
In response, EPA believes that
permittees can evaluate whether areas
of the facility have a reasonable
potential for containing significant
amounts of pollutants based on a
consideration of structures and
activities in that area of the facility.


---------LLWIYIIIIII ----l~-^-^r


Activities such as loading and unload
of materials, outdoor storage of raw
materials or products, outdoor process
activities, outdoor equipment or vehicle
maintenance activities, dust or
particulate generating processes, illicit
connections or management practices,
and waste disposal will generally have a
reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants in
storm water discharges. Process or
storage equipment which is exposed to
precipitation or structures such as metal
roofs can have a reasonable potential
for containing significant amounts of
pollutants. Significant amounts of
pollutants would include pollutant
concentrations or unit loadings above
those typically found in runoff from
areas where there is no industrial
activity or other significant sources of
pollutants exposed to precipitation and
minimal potential for deposition of
pollutants, or that had potential to
adversely affect water quality. EPA is
retaining the. "reasonable potential"
language, but has modified the
requirement to limit it only to areas of
the facility with a potential for
contributing pollutants to storm water
discharges.
One commenter indicated that the
requirement to predict the total quantity
of pollutants likely to be in storm water
discharges is unreasonable, and could
not accurately be based on one sample
per year. Several commenters also
recommended that a facility be required
to make data estimates only when there
has been a demonstration that a
facility's storm water will be
contaminated.
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that an estimate of the total
quantity of pollutants likely to be in
storm water discharges is not required
by this provision. Rather, the intent of
the language used in the August 16,1991
draft permits was to require dischargers
to identify the types of pollutants likely
to be present in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Today's permits have been modified to
clarify this point. Since today's permits
do not require all facilities to sample
their storm water discharge, the Agency
believes that this provision has
additional importance in ensuring that
information in the plan is evaluated and
potential pollutant sources and
pollutants are identified. EPA believes
that it is consistent with the objectives
of a preventive strategy that pollution
prevention measures be implemented in
situations where there is a potential for
a facility's storm water to contain a
particular pollutant. For example, spill
prevention measures and/or good

housekeeping measures, which prevent
pollutants from getting pollutants into


4IL270


------







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


storm water, can be appropriate where
- spills have not occurred or where good
housekeeping is currently preventing
pollutants from entering the storm
water. Thus, EPA does not agree with
the comments that all dischargers
should be required to identify pollutants
in storm water only when there has
been a demonstration that such
pollutants are present. Today's permits
establish monitoring requirements for
targeted industrial activities to provide
more detailed information regarding the
nature and extent of pollutants in storm
Water discharges from these facilities.
One commenter indicated that the
requirements to provide drainage maps,
a narrative description of material
management practices and control
measures, and a history of significant
spills were too extensive, and that some
dischargers would find it preferable to
submit individual permit applications. In
response, the Agency has considered the
burdens associated with developing
such information and believes that the
requirements are necessary to begin to
identify potential pollutant sources. The
Agency does not believe that the
pollutant source identification
requirements in today's permits are
excessive. Much of the information
required in the description of potential
pollutant sources, such as the inventory
of exposed materials, can be obtained
from facility records, or site inspections.
A list of significant spills and leaks can
be obtained from facility maintenance
records, reporting records and
discussions with employees. EPA
expects that many facilities will have
existing site maps indicating the major
features of the facility or will be able to
develop such maps based on site
inspections. Plant managers or other
employees should be readily able to
develop descriptions of potential
pollutant sources and use best
professional judgement in evaluating the
pollution potential of the various
activities. A prediction of the direction
of flow can be based on site topography
and simple observations of drainage
patterns. The identification of the types
of pollutants likely to be present in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity can be based on
knowledge of the plant activities and
processes. EPA has issued technical
guidance that wfll provide permittees
with additional assistance in complying
with these requirements. EPA also notes
that the sorce identification
requrements in today's permits are
S omparable with the source
identification requirements in individual
I rmit applications. In addition, the
individual permit applications
requirements for storm water discharges


require the submittal of sampling data,
whereas today's general permits do not
require dischargers to sample their
storm water discharges as part of the
NOI application.
Measures and Controls
The August 16,1991 draft general
permits requested comments on eleven
baseline pollhfion prevention measures.
The measures addressed pollution
prevention committees; risk
identification and assessment/material
inventory; preventive maintenance; good
housekeeping spill prevention and
response procedures; storm water
management sediment and erosion
prevention; employee training; visual
inspections; recordkeeping and internal
reporting procedures; and non-storm
water discharges. As discussed earlier
in today's notice, these requirements
have been rearranged and reordered to
provide additional clarity and minimize
confusion.
One commenter suggested that the
permit specifically require and pollutant
generating material to be completely
sheltered from precipitation and wind.
In response, the Agency recognizes that
covering or sheltering pollutant
generating material can bean effective
-means of reducing pollutants in storm
water discharges. However, the Agency
recognizes that in some situations, this
may not be the most cost-effective
approach to controlling pollutants. For
example, the Agency has defined an
effluent limitation guideline for coal pile
rnmoff from steam electric facilities that
is typically met by collecting and
treating the runoff rather than covering
the piles. Thus, the Agency is not
prepared at this time to mandate that all
pollutant generating material be
completely sheltered from precipitation
and wind.
One commenter indicated that EPA
has not shown that existing plant
maintenance practices and
recordkeepng are insufficient. In
response, NPDES permits for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity nmot establish
conditions in accordance with the CWA,
and the Agency does not have the
burden of showing that existing plant
maintenance practices and
recordkeeping are insufficient to
establish today's permit requirements.
In fact the Agency has considered
typical industry practices at wel
operated facilities when establishing the
requirements ii today's permits. The
Agency believes that plant maintenance
practices and recordkeeping are an
important component to a storm water
pohltion prevention strategy. The
Agency recognizes that some facilities


will have adequate maintenance
practices and recordkeeping that have
been successful in preventing polhltant
discharges in storm water. Under
today's permits, these facilities are only
required to docnnent such practices in a
pollution prevention plan and continue
them.
Several commenters indicated that
requirements such as good housekeeping
should be limited to areas with a
tangible connection to the storm water
discharge. In other words, the pollution
prevention requirements should not
apply to indoor locations with no
potential to contribute pollutants to
storm water discharges. In response, the
Agency agrees with this commenter. The
Agency notes that under the August 16,
1991 draft permits, priorities for controls
in a plan were to reflect identified
potential sources of pollutants at the
facility. Where indoor activities are not
a potential source of pollutants, good
housekeeping measures do not have to
be addressed for such areas. The
Agency has clarified today's permits
with regard to this point.
One commenter suggested that the
inventory of types of material handled
should be limited to those materials that
could impact storm water. In response,
the Agency has clarified today's permits
to provide that the inventory of
materials handled at the site is limited
to materials that potentially may be
exposed to precipitation.
One commenter suggested that oil and
gas operations in arid areas should not
be required to develop certain plan
components, such as the certification for
non-storm water discharges, risk
identification, and assessment/material
inventory, because such operations do
not have conventional storm drains and
facilities have little potential to
discharge to navigable waters.
In response, EPA notes that a facility
that does not have a storm water
discharge ssoiated with industrial
activity is not required to obtain permit
coverage. However, storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that occur as the result of
infrequent storms or as the result of
overflowing detention ponds must be
authorized by an NPDES permit The
Agency believes that pollution
prevention measures identified in
today's permits are appropriate because
they will reduce the potential for
sources to contribute pollutants to storm
water under various climatic conditions,
including arid conditions. Pollution
prevention activities such as risk
identification, and developing an
assessment/material inventory are
important in arid regions to identify


I_ _


-----------------c`"~--~ti6-~ ~h


41271






Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


potential sources of pollutants to storm
F water. Improper non-storm water
discharges to storm water conveyances
can occur in arid conditions since most
sources of non-storm water are not
related to precipitation events but rather
are related to process waters from other
sources such as wash waters or
produced waters. The Agency also
wants to clarify that dischargers may
seek alternative permit requirements by
submitting an individual permit
application or participating in a group
application.
One commenter indicated that the
requirement to perform a "risk
assessment" was not realistic for small
businesses. In response, the Agency
noted that different commenters
appeared to be interpreting the
requirement for a risk assessment
differently, with some facilities
apparently assuming that extensive
monitoring and evaluation would be
required. In an effort to minimize
confusion, the language in today's
permits has been modified by removing
the term "assessment" from the risk
identification section. This provision
does not require a formal risk
assessment, but rather requires a
narrative description of the potential
-"' pollutant sources at specified material
handling areas (loading and unloading
operations, outdoor storage activities,
outdoor manufacturing or processing
activities, significant dust or particulate
generating processing, and on-site water
disposal practices), an identification of
significant potential sources of
pollutants at the site, and, for each
potential source, an identification of
pollutants of concern.
Several industry commenters
requested that the requirements for
storm water management be clarified. In
response, today's permits have been
modified to explain that storm water
management measures are used to
divert, contain, reuse, or otherwise
manage storm water runoff in manner
that reduces pollutants in storm water
discharges from the site. In addition, the
permit has been modified to list several
classes of typically used storm water
management measures: vegetative
swales and practices, reuse of collected
storm water (such as for a process or as
an irrigation source), inlet controls (such
as oil/water separators), snow
management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices.
One commenter suggested that EPA
define a criterion for determining
whether the use of traditional storm
water management measures are
reasonable and appropriate. When


evaluating whether the use of traditional
storm water management measures are
reasonable and appropriate, dischargers
should evaluate the costs of the
measure, the potential pollutants
removed, and the potential for ground
water impacts.
EPA requested comments on
providing facilities that reuse
substantially all storm water with an.
exemption from certain storm water
pollution prevention plan requirements.
Several commenters supported this
option, arguing that by reducing
discharge volumes facilities pose less
environmental risk.
EPA believes that the collection of
storm water for later uses, such as
irrigation, dust control, or process water,
can in some cases reduce the immediate
potential for pollutants to be discharged
to waters of the United States by
decreasing the amount of storm water
that is directly discharged. In addition,
the use of storm water at a facility can
reduce the demand on other water
supplies and/or reduce energy
consumption. However, the Agency
notes that some forms of storm water
reuse lead to the ultimate discharge of
the pollutants in the storm water to
waters of the United States. For
example, use of storm water for dust
control, lawn irrigation, or washings in
outdoor areas may result in pollutants
migrating to waters of the United States
via wind deposition or subsequent storm
events. Use of storm water for cooling
water may allow pollutants to pass
through a process and be discharged to
waters of the United States. In such
cases, pollution prevention measures
prior to reuse are still appropriate.
Therefore, EPA has decided against
adopting an exemption based on water-
reuse.
EPA encourages facilities to
incorporate storm water reuse as a site-
specific pollution prevention practice
where such practices will result in the
reduction of the discharge of pollutants
to waters of the United States. Today's
general permits have been modified to
specifically list storm water reuse as a
potential practice related to the
management of runoff. The Agency
believes that this approach will allow
facilities employing storm water reuse
management practices as part of their
pollution prevention plans to minimize
the costs associated with storm water
management measures where
appropriate water reuse is the most cost
effective storm water management
measure.
The August 16, 1991 draft permits
provided that permittees are to certify
that the facility's storm water discharge


(or conveyance) has been tested for *
presence of non-storm water dischar
This provision is similar to a provisiM
in the requirements for individual per*
applications that requires a certificate
that all outfalls have been tested or
evaluated for the presence of non-stora
water discharges (see 40 CFR
122.26(c)(1)(i)(C)).
One commenter recommended that
the certification requirement for non-
storm water discharges be consistent
with the language used for individual
permit applications for storm water
discharges. Another commenter
suggested that permits should allow
certifications based on evaluations other
than testing (as provided in the
individual permit application
requirements). One commenter
indicated that requiring permittees to
check for and remedy possible entrance
of non-storm water discharges could be
more efficient and less costly than other
tests.
In response, the November 16, 1990
permit application regulations require
applicants to certify that storm water
discharges be tested or evaluated for the
presence of non-storm water
discharges. In the August 16, 1991 draft
permits, the Agency inadvertently
limited the certification to testing, and
did not specify evaluation as a method
for certification, although such
evaluations were discussed earlier in
the fact sheet The Agency has modified
today's permits to make them more
consistent with the November 16, 1990
permit application requirements by
providing that a facility may certify
based on an evaluation of illicit
connections.
Two commenters raised concerns that
the requirement for facilities to certify
that they have tested for the presence of
non-storm water discharges to storm
sewers could be onerous, particularly to
very small businesses. The commenters
indicated that some facility operators
may not be able to locate floor plans,
drainage maps, and other materials
required to identify and remedy illicit
connections.
In response, as discussed above, the
Agency has modified today's permits to
clarify that permittees may either test or
evaluate their facility for the presence of
non-storm water discharges. This
approach provides flexibility for
complying with the certification
requirement and does not require
permittees to locate floor plans, or
drainage maps where they can inspect
storm water discharge points or conduct
evaluations on another basis. The
Agency believes that most facilities can
evaluate or test for the presence of non-


41272


I


I


Am


-


di
di
a


a
s
1
I






Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wedriesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


ie
es.

mit
on


storm water discharges in a manner that
is not onerous or overly costly. For
example, at many facilities, the
discharger can observe for flow in
downstream portions of storm drains
during dry weather conditions when
sources that generate non-storm water
are operating or when water from a hose
or other source is added to potential
entry ways, such as floor drains, to the
storm sewer system."e Today's permits
also provides that where a certification
is not feasible, a certification is not
required, provided that the storm water
pollution prevention plan indicates why
the certification is not feasible and
identifies potential significant sources of
non-storm water at the site, and that the
discharger notifies EPA.
One commenter suggested that the
permits contain a limited waiver for
small businesses faced with the costs of
.removing illicit connections. Another
commenter suggested that costs to
correct improper connections may be
prohibitive for small businesses. In
response, the CWA requires that point
source discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States are illegal
except as authorized by an NPDES
permit. EPA cannot waive this
requirement for small businesses. Non-
storm water discharges to waters of the
United States that are not authorized by
an NPDES permit that establishes
appropriate technology-based and water
quality-based requirements are in
violation of the CWA. Today's permit
only establishes requirements for a
specific set of non-storm water
discharges. Addressing requirements for
other classes of non-storm water
discharges in today's permits is beyond
the scope of today's permits. Although
today's permits authorize several
specific classes of non-storm water
discharges that are in compliance with
pollution prevention measures, today's
permits cannot authorize all non-storm
water discharges from small businesses.
Thus, facilities with non-storm water
discharges to their storm water
conveyance system that are not
authorized by today's permit are
required to either obtain an NPDES
Permit for such discharge or eliminate
the discharge.
One commenter noted that EPA does
lot require discharge permits for "total
retention" systems and requested that

mA moe complete discussion of methods to
z. illicit connections can be found in the draft
rl of Practice: Identification of Illicit
l Cmctio* UaS EPA. September 1990


EPA define a design storm to determine
whether a retention system could
qualify. The commenter noted that the
limitations in several effluent guidelines
for storm water do not apply to
discharges resulting from a storm event
greater than the 25-year, 24-hour event.
EPA would like to clarify that any point-
source discharge of storm water
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States (including
those through a municipal separate
,storm sewer system to waters of the
SUnited States) legally requires a
discharge permit. This includes any
potential discharge from a retention or
detention device, regardless of the size
of the storm. Discharges as a result of a
catastrophic event could be subject to
enforcement discretion by the permitting
authority, in consultation with the State
water quality agency. The Agency
recognizes that several effluent
limitations guidelines for classes of
storm water do not apply to discharges
resulting from events of greater
magnitude than a specified design
storm. This is primarily because these
guidelines are based on a consideration
of treatment techniques which typically
involve collection and storage of the
storm water prior to treatment The
design storm threshold in the guidelines
allows dischargers to design the storage
units necessary in the treatment system.
The requirements in today's permits for
storm water pollution prevention plans
do not require the discharger to provide
storage for storm water. Rather, the
pollution prevention measures that are
identified in today's permits can be
implemented regardless of storm size,
and therefore, an exemption for
discharges that exceed a specific design
storm is not necessary.
One commenter requested
clarification of who certifies that storm
water discharges have been tested for
the presence of non-storm water
discharge and how the certification is
made. In response, part V.G of today's
permits specify signatory requirements
for certifications, including the
certification regarding non-storm water
discharges.
One commenter suggested that EPA
should specify a frequency for testing
storm sewers for illicit connections and
recommended a frequency of more than
once per year. In response, the Agency
believes that conducting the testing or
evaluation required by today's permits
once per permit term may be
appropriate for some facilities where
new sources of non-water are not added


at the facility. Thus, today's permits do
not establish a frequency of testing of
once per year.
One commenter suggested that smoke
tests should be listed as a method for
identifying non-storm water discharges
to separate storm sewers. In response,
the Agency has specifically not listed
smoke tests because of the potential to
misapply such tests in evaluating the
presence of non-storm water discharges
to storm sewers. Smoke testing (blowing
smoke from a downstream point in a
pipe up through the pipe) can be a useful
technique for detecting storm drains to
sanitary sewers. However, smoke tests
are often ineffective at finding non-
storm water discharges to separate
storm sewers. This is because line traps
which are intended to block sewer gas
(and will prevent the passage of smoke)
are commonly used on non-storm water
drain systems. (Line traps are less
frequently used on storm drains).
Several commenters requested
clarification on which employees require
training. One commenter indicated that
some industrial facilities would have
large numbers of clerical and
administrative personnel who would
have no opportunity to create or abate
storm water pollution. The Agency
agrees with this commenter. Today's
permit has been modified to provide that
employee training programs are to
inform personnel responsible for
implementing activities identified in the
storm water pollution prevention plan or
otherwise responsible for storm water
management at all levels of
responsibility of the components and
goals of the storm water pollution
prevention plan.
Several commenters recommended
that the pollution prevention measures
used for the construction industry be
used for the mining industry. In
response, while many of the land
disturbing operations and subsequent
stabization measures at mining sites are
similar to practices and activities at
construction sites, the Agency notes
possible differences between the two
classes of activities, such as the greater
use of toxic chemicals at some classes
of mining sites. The Agency also notes
that there is an overlap between the
types of controls the August 16, 1991
draft permits required for construction
sites and those required for other
industrial activities, particularly with
respect to erosion and sediment
measures and storm water management
(or management of runoff) measures.
The Agency notes that the greater


_


41273


'~lll"~"*P~








Federal Register / Vol S. No i175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 / Notices


overlap between measures used at
* mining sites and those used at
construction sites generally involves
erosion and sediment measures and
storm water management measures. The
Agency believes that the requirements
in today's permits are appropriate for
storm water discharges from mining
operations that are covered by today's
permits, and recommends that where
such operations are similar to
construction activities plans emphasize
sediment and erosion controls and storm
water management measures. Again, the
Agency wants to clarify that dischargers
may seek alternative permit
requirements by submitting an
individual permit application or
participating in a group application.
A number of State and local agencies
indicated that they generally opposed
diverting storm water to sewage
treatment plants as an option for
preventing pollutants in storm water.
These commenters indicated that efforts
should be focused on controlling
pollutants in storm water at the source,
and that the option should be limited to
discharges containing significant
amounts of pollutants. Treatment plants
serving a separate sanitary sewer
system were not designed to handle the
large amounts of storm water volume
'^ that can be produced in an urban area.
These commenters requested that EPA
clarify that wastewater treatment
agencies have authority to approve or
reject any application to introduce storm
water into the sanitary sewer system. In
response, the Agency notes that
diversion of storm water discharges to
sewage treatment plants was only
raised as an option for consideration in
the fact sheet to the August 16. 1991
draft permits. Today's permits do not
specifically require permittees to
discharge their storm water to sewage
plants. As noted in the August 1, 1991
notice, such diversion must be
coordinated with the operators of the
sewage treatment plant and the
collection system to avoid.worsening
any existing problems with either
combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
basement flooding, or wet weather
operation of the treatment plant The
Agency agrees the operators of
treatment plants (or operators of
collection systems) typically have
authority to approve or reject the
introduction of storm water into the
sanitary sewer system.
Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation/Monitoring
The August 16, 1991 draft permits
provided that storm water pollution
prevention plans are to include
provisions for qualified plant personnel


to inspect designated equipment and
plant areas. In addition, the Augst 16,
1991 draft permits required an annual
site inspection to verify that the
description of potential pollutant
sources in the plan is up to date and
accurate and that the pollution
prevention measures identified in the
plan are being Implemented and are
adequate.
On April 2, 1992 57 FR 113941 EPA
published final regulatory modifications
at 40 CFR 12244(il(4) that require
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to require, at a minimum, the
discharger to conduct an annual
inspection of the facility site to identify
areas contributing to a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity and evaluate whether measures
to reduce pollutant loadings identified in
a storm water pollution prevention plan
are adequate andproperly implemented
in accordance with the terms of the
permit or whether additional control
measures are needed. In addition, the
April 2 1992 regulations provide that
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must require the discharger to
maintain for a period of three years a
record summarizing the results of the
inspection and a certification stating
that the facility is in compliance with
the plan and the permit and identifying
any incidents of noncompliance. Such
reports and certification must be signed
in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22. The
April 21992 regulatory modifications
were made in response to comments
generally indicating that site inspections
are an appropriate tool for assisting in
evaluating compliance with pollution
prevention measures for storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters on the
August 18, 1991 notice supported the use
of inspections to ensure compliance
with storm water pollution prevention
plan requirements. Some commenters
indicated that routine inspections and
maintenance by qualified persons, along
with adequate records of such
inspections, were critical to ensuring
adequate and properly implemented
pollution prevention measures.
Several commenters encouraged EPA
to require annual, in-depth inspections
of facilities to identify the potentiaffor
pollutants to enter drainage systems.
Some of these commenters suggested
that more frequent but less
comprehensive inspections could
supplement the detailed annual
inspection and would ensure that
potential pollution sources of significant
concern are detected. However, several


commenters requested that EPA clarity
the differences between the two
inspection provisions of the August Ia
1991 draft permits. Several of these
commenters indicated that the
requirements appeared to be dnplicative
and suggested that EPA eliminate one of
the inspection requirements.
In response, the Agency has renamed
the term "site inspection" as used in the
context of annual inspections to be
"Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation" to clarify the difference
between comprehensive, in-depth
evaluations of all areas of the facility
that generate storm water associated
with industrial activity and more
frequent, less comprehensive
inspections that may focus specifically
on one or two potential pollutant
sources, such as inspecting drip pans for
accumulation of materials.
The requirements in today's permits
for comprehensive site compliance
evaluations are consistent with the
minimum requirements at 40 CFR
122.44(i)(4) for inspections in NPDES
permits for storm water discharges.
Evaluations conducted under this
provision are to be based on in-depth
inspections and are to evaluate the
discharger's compliance with its storm
water pollution prevention plan and
with today's permits. As part of these
evaluations, the portions of the site that
generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity must
be inspected for potential pollutant
sources and for the effectiveness of
controls developed as part of the storm
water pollution prevention plan. The
pollution prevention plan for the facility
must be revised where necessary to
address the findings and reflect the
recommendations of the inspection.
Additionally, an annual certification
must be prepared indicating that the
storm water pollution prevention plan
was evaluated as part of an inspection,
that the plan is adequate for control of
facility storm water discharges, and that
the facility is in compliance with the
plan.
In addition to the requirements for
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations, today's permits also require
inspections of designated equipment
and areas of the facility. This
requirement recognizes that periodic
routine inspections of certain equipment
or areas of the facility are appropriate
pollution prevention measures. The
Agency has included this provision of
the permit separately to ensure that
facilities conduct more frequent
inspections of certain activities (e.g.,
leak detection measures for specified
equipment or daily or weekly


41=44







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


walkthroughs to ensure good
housekeeping) without the burdens of a
more intensive comprehensive site
compliance evaluation.
Several commenters requested
clarification of what constituted
qualified personnel for the purpose of
conducting comprehensive site
compliance evaluations and inspections.
In response, the Agency is hesitant to
define specific plant officials that must
conduct either comprehensive site
compliance evaluations or more
frequent inspections. The Agency
believes that qualified personnel must
have sufficient technical abilities to
conduct the inspection or evaluation.
With respect to inspections, the
personnel conducting the inspection
must be aware of the goals of the
inspection. (For example, personnel
inspecting a site to ensure that good
housekeeping practices are being
implemented must be able to identify
potential sources of pollutants
associated with poor housekeeping
efforts. Personnel inspecting spill
response procedures must be able to
evaluate the readiness, accessibility,
and adequacy of equipment necessary
to respond to potential spills.)
In addition, the personnel conducting
the inspection must be familiar enough
with the portion of the industrial process
being inspected to appropriately
accomplish the goals of the inspection.
With respect to comprehensive site
compliance evaluations, the personnel
conducting the evaluation must be
knowledgeable of the contents and
objectives of the facility's storm water
pollution prevention plan and the
permit In addition, the personnel must
have sufficient knowledge of the
operations at the facility to evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures and to identify potential
sources of pollutants to storm water
discharges. In addition, the personnel
should generally be key members of the
storm water pollution prevention team
identified in the plan.
Some commenters expressed concerns
about monitoring or inspection
requirements for inactive mining sites.
The April 2,1992 rule provides that
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from inactive mining operations
4"y. where annual inspections are
Impracticable, require certification once
tvery three years by a Registered
tfessional Engineer (PE) that the
cility is in compliance with the permit,
alternative requirements. Today's
permits provide that where annual site
Sapections are shown in the plan to be
inpracticable for inactive mining sites


due to remote location and
inaccessibility of the site,
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations are to be conducted at least
onie every three years. EPA has
selected this lesser frequency in
response to comments that inactive
mining operations are often in remote
areas that are not necessarily supported
by infrastructure that allows easy
access.
A number, of commenters urged EPA
to require that a PE be required to
certify that plans "be prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practices". Some of these commenters
urged the Agency to model PE
certification requirements after similar
requirements under Spill Prevention
Countermeasure and Containment
(SPCC) requirements at 40 CFR 112.3. In
response, the Agency recognizes that a
PE certification can be a useful tool,
particularly when evaluating the
pollutant removal abilities of structural
controls or of spill control/response
procedures. However, EPA is concerned
aboutrequiring PE certifications at this
time for all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. The Agency recognizes that
today's permits cover a significant range
of industrial facilities that will
emphasize different components of
pollution prevention strategies. PE
certifications may not be useful for some
types of facilities because they manage
minimum amounts of toxic chemicals or
other potential pollution generating
materials, and have limited
opportunities for structural controls,
storm water management or erosion
control. The Agency does recognize, as
discussed below in the context of
special requirements of EPCRA section
313 facilities, that such PE certification
requirements can be useful tools in
ensuring that targeted facilities have
adequate and appropriate storm water
pollution prevention measures in place.
One commenter recommended a
minimum frequency of inspection of
once per three years, as this frequency is
consistent with SPCC requirements. In
response, the Agency disagrees with this
comment for a number of reasons. First,
the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.44(i)(2) require, at a minimum,
annual inspections of facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Second, it should be
noted that SPCC requirements primarily
focus on preventing and containing
major spills. These requirements rely on
structural controls such as secondary
containment, which are generally less
likely to change with time than typical
storm water pollution controls, such as


material handling practices. Third, there
is a wide variety of potential pollutant
sources to storm water discharges, such
as material handling activities and
loading/unloading activities, that can
significantly change with time at an
industrial facility.
Additional Requirements for EPCRA
Section 313 Facilities
EPA identified storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
facilities that are subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA section 313
for water priority chemicals as priority
discharges for targeted special
requirements in the August 16, 1991 draft
general permits. The Agency requested
comments on two major approaches for
developing special requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from these facilities.
Under the first approach, Option A, the
general permit would establish special
semi-annual monitoring requirements,
special pollution prevention
requirements, including secondary
containment for targeted areas, and a
whole effluent toxicity (WET) effluent
limitation. Under the second approach.
Option B, the general permits would
establish a WET limitation, and special
monitoring requirements at a frequency
of greater than twice per year. Under
Option B, the general permit would not
contain special pollution prevention
plan requirements.
Targeting EPCRA Section 313 Facilities
A number of commenters addressed
the issue of whether storm water
discharges from facilities subject to
reporting requirements under EPCRA
section 313 for water priority chemicals
should be subject to special conditions.
A number of commenters generally
supported the Agency's efforts to target
priority industries for more specific
permit requirements. Some of these
commenters indicated that special
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities were appropriate because of
the toxic nature of chemicals handled by
the facilities and the significant amounts
of chemicals handled by these facilities.
Several commenters suggested that the
special requirements should apply to all
facilities which manage toxic chemicals,
regardless of whether they are subject to
EPCRA section 313.
However, some commenters
questioned the appropriateness of
targeting storm water discharges from
EPCRA section 313 facilities for special
requirements. A major concern of these
facilities was that facilities subject to
FPCRA section 313 requirements do not
necessarily have significant amounts of


41275







Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 192 Notices


toxic chemicals in their storm water
discharges. Some of these commenter
suggested that EPA be required to
demonstrate that these facilities have
more pollutants in their storm water
discharges than other classes of
industries or that special requirements
should be triggered where sampling of
storm water indicates that releases are
occurring.
In response, the Agency believes that
the additional pollution prevention plan
requirements in today's permits are
appropriate for facilities with large
amounts of EPCRA section 313 water
priority chemicals for several reasons.
First, the Agency has identified leaks
and spills of toxic chemicals associated
with material management practices as
a major potential source of pollutants in
storm water discharges (see August 16
1991, (56 FR 40960). Based on a number
of studies, the Agency believes that
storage systems, truck and rail transfer
facilities, and other process areas where
significant amounts of toxic chemicals
are used and exposed to precipitation
may release pollutants if basic accepted
engineering practices are not employed.
For example, FPA's "Hazardous Waste
Tank Risk Analysis", EPA, 1986.
indicates that the principal causes of
-.- reported tank failures are external
corrosion, installation problems,
structural failure, spills, and overfills
due to operator errors, and ancillary
equipment failure, and that inadequate
practices, including those observed at
the time of the study, lead to a
substantial probability of releases to the
environment from such tank failures.
The analysis indicated that the major
causes of releases from tank systems
are usually unrelated to the
characteristics of the material stored in
the tanks. The analysis also indicated
that inadequate management practices
allow significant releases to continue
undetected until the release becomes
obvious. Information from the Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCCJ data base and the Pollution
Incident Reporting System (PIRS) data
base indicates that operator error,
structural failures, and corrosion were
both significant causes of releases for
aboveground tanks and failures of
ancillary equipment is a significant
cause of releases from above ground
systems. These data bases indicate that
85 percent to 90 percent of more than
2,000 reported incidents of the spills of
oil or hazardous substances from
ancillary equipment resulted from
failures of piping systems (including
failures of pumps, flanges. couplings.
interconnecting hoses, and valves).
Some of the most significant sources of


pollutants at these facilities can be
attributed to intermittent events, such as
significant spills or leaks. The Agency
believes that a preventive approach that
does not wait for large spills or leaks to
occur is the most sensible approach and
is consistent with the goals of the CWA
as well as the pollution prevention
emphasis of the storm water program.
Second, the Agency believes that the
management practices identified in the
additional requirements for EPCRA 313
facilities are typically employed at well
operated facilities that use large
amounts of toxic chemicals. The Agency
notes that industry practices have been,
developed in response to concerns about
spills and other health and safety issues.
Based on the Agency's evaluation of
material management practices, the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
identify specific types of management
practices that reflect the best available
technology for facilities which use large
amounts of toxic materials. Today's
permits are intended to reflect the Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable. The Agency believes that
the additional requirements in today's
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
are consistent with the purposes,
objectives, and content of a significant
number of industry standards.s0 In
addition, these requirements are
consistent with practices identified
under other regulatory programs for the
management of other materials, such as
the SPCC program for oil and tank
requirements under subtitle C of RCRA
for hazardous wastes.,* Many industry

Example of industry standards evaluated in
this rulemaking include ASMEIANSI BI~
(Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping)
ASAE/ANSL Bg 1 (Welded Aluminum-Alloy
Storage Tanks); ASME/ANSI g96.1 (Welded
Aluminum-Alloy Storage Tanks); NFPA 30
(Flammable and Combustible iquid Code.); NACI
Recommended Practice (Standd Recommended
Practice-Control of External Corroson oaa Mtalli
Buried. Partially Buried or Submerged Liquid
Storage System) API Standard 820 Meomaded
Rules far Design and Constructk oa Laer.
Welded. Low-Pressure Stoag Tanks); API
Standard s50 (Welded Steel Tank for Oil Storagep
APt Recommended Practice 651 (Cathodt
Potecion of AbovrCroond Petole" Strage
Tanks); API Recommended Practice 62 (Lning of
Above-Ground Petroleum Stovge Tank Bottoms)
API Standard 853 (Tank Inspectib. Repair,
Alteration, and Reconstruction) and API 200 (Safe
Operation of Inland Balk Plants).
SExamples of requirements under the Federal
program evaluated in this rulemakina incihde
underground storage tank requirement (40CFR
280): Occupational Safety and Health
Administration general safety and healh
regulation for flammabl and combutible
surrounding tanks (4 CFR 1910) Depatmea of
Transportation requirements or oil pipelines (0
CFR 195); the Department of Interior requirement
for the containment and collectFo of otl discharges
from ai shore dritin (30 CFR 2501.


commenters indicated that, typical
we run industrial facilities with lsr
amounts of toxic materials already
conduct the practices identified in the
August 16 1991 draft permits. Altho.
many of these commenters argued thm
permit conditions addressing these
controls were not necessary because
facilities are already conducting thae
practices, the Agency believes that
facilities with large amounts of toxio
chemicals generally do take extra
precautions in handling their chemicals,
and that the special requirements for
EPCRA section 313 represents the bet
available technology currently being
used at these facilities.
The Agency has selected the universe
of facilities subject to the EPCRA
section 313 program reporting
requirements to represent a "front end"
of the toxics program to which EPA is
already committed. This class of
facilities is appropriate for targeting for
better controls for routine toxics
releases and improved industrial
practices to prevent and respond to
releases involving toxics. The Agency
already has substantial data base which
identifies facilities subject to these
requirements and the type and amount
of toxic chemicals which are
manufactured, processed or otherwise
used at these facilities. EPA will
continue to evaluate the appropriateness
of applying these special types of
requirements to other facilities as more
information becomes available,
A number of commenters noted that
special measures for managing toxic
chemicals were already being conducted
by many industrial facilities. For
example, one commenter speculated
that heightened public scrutiny of
EPCRA section 313 facilities has lead to
enhanced reporting and training which
has already been implemented to
decrease contamination. Another trade
association thought EPCRA section 313
facilities pose a lower risk because
storage of large amounts of the section
313 substances is typically subject to
careful controls, including secondary
containment, that would prevent the
possibility of storm water
contamination. This commenter
indicated that such facilities generally
maintain control programs that include
release prevention procedures, training
in pollution prevention, spill prevention
and cleanup, and other appropriate
management practices. Several of these
commenters assumed that EPA was
targeting PCRA section 313 facilities
because the Agency believed that they
were not careful with the materials they
handle.


41M7








Federal Register / VoL 57. No 175 / Wednesday, September 9, T992 / Notices


In response, as discussed in more
detail above, the Agency agrees with the
commenters to the extent that it believes
that the management practices
identified in the additional requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities are
typically employed at well operated
facilities that manufacture, process or
otherwise use large amounts of toxic
chemicals. However, the Agency
disagrees with the commenters to the
extent that they are contending that the
additional requirements in today's
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
(facilities that manufacture, process or
otherwise use large amounts of toxic.
chemicals} we not appropriate. Rather,
as discussed above, the Agency believes
that the additional rrequirements for
EPCRA section 313 facilities repreents.
the Best Available Temchaogy
Economically Achievable for these
facilities, and therefore are appropriate
for technoogy-based permits for these
facilities.
Some commenters suggest that special
requirements be limited to storm water
discharges from facilities that are
subject to EPCRA section 32. EPCRA
section 312 applies to any facility that is
required to prepare or have available a
material safety data sheet MSDSJ for a
hazardous chemical under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
197 and regulations promulgated under
that Act EPCRA section 312 estabisfres
reporting requirements for facilities with
hazardous chemicals present at the
facility in atmonts equal to or greater
than 10,000 pounds, or that are
extremely hazardons substances present
at the facility in an amount greater than
or equal to 50 pounds (or 55 gallons) or
the threshold planning quantity (TPQJ
for an extremely hazardous substance
as defined in 40 CFR part 355 (see 40
CFR 370.20). In addition, EPCRA
reporting requirements apply to facilities
where a local emergency planning
committee has requested the submittal
of a MSDS. EPCRA section 313
establishes threshold amounts for the
purposes of reporting of 25,000 pounds
of toxic chemical manufactured
(including imported or processed at a
facility during a calendar year or 10,000
Pounds of a toxic chemical otherwise
usd at a facility during. a calendar year.
These commented noted that the
IPPlicabilty ofEPCRA section 313 is
based oi the amount oftoxic chemical
manufactured, processed or otherwise
ed per year. and that it was possihe -
6 some facilities to meet this
requirementt with a relatively low
"nae inventory level of perhaps less
wn 5so pounds.


rn response, the Agency believes that
the.threshold established by EPCRA
section 313 represents a group of
facilities that's better for targeting the
special requirements of today's permit
than EPCRA section 312. Although.
facilities that are subject to EPCRA
section 13t may have less than 10,000
pounds on site at any one time, these
facilities receive and handle significant
amounts of toxic chemicals during the
course of a year. In addition, EPCRA .
section 312 applies to any facility in any
SIC code required to prepare MSDSs,
whereas EPCRA section 313
applicability is limited to facilities with
a primary SIC code of 20 through 39.
EPCRA section 312 applies to a much
broader class of facilities, including
many not subject to storm water permit
requirements. The Agency believes that
establishing special requirements for
EPCRA section 312 facilities would
create additional confusion among
facilities which are subject to EPCRA
section 31 requirements, but do not
have storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. Furthermore, the
amount of hazardous chemicals present
at a facility which triggers section 3=2
requirements may be quite low, as noted
above. Thus, section 313 facilities may
not be appreciably different from
section 312 facilities in terms of the level
of chemicals present at any one time.
A number ofcommenters that
objected to certain special requirements
for all EPCRA section 313 facilities
suggested that any facility (regardless if
they are subject to EPCRA section 313)
that has had a release. of a hazardous
substance or oil in excess of reportable
quantities under 40 CFR parts 110, 117 or
302 should be subject to special
requirements because of their proven
history of releases. Other commenters
indicated that only those facilities that
have reported releases of EPCRA
section 313 chemicals in their storm
water should be subject to special
conditions and that the Agency should
shield or exempt from special
requirements those facilities that report
zero or de minimis releases. However,
other commenters indicated that many
of the facnrifes that are currently
reporting zero or small releases of toxic
chemicals via their storm water
discharges have not monitored
pollutants in their storm water
discharge.
EFA disagrees with these
commenteras First the Agency believes
.that large apHLs or release that are
generally associated withreleases of a
hazardous aubstance-or oilin. excess of
reportable quantities under 40 CFR parts
110.117or 302 are only one potential


source of pollutants at EPCRA section
313 facilities. Other potential sources of
pollutants at these facilities include
chronic leaks, smaller spills,
management of containers and storage
and/or use of chemicals in solid form.
These potential sources can contribute
significant amounts of pollutants that
are nonetheless below reportable
quantities under 40 CFR parts 110, 117 or
302. Second, as discussed above, some
6f the most significant sources of
pollutants at facilities identified in the
SPCC and PIRS data bases can be
attributed to intermittent events, and
will not necessarily be identified by
periodic monitoring, Without monitoring
data, releases of toxic chemicals could
go unreported, and therefore a report of
zero release may not reflect the true
pollutant potential of the storm water
discharge. Today's permits establish
semi-annual monitoring requirements for
certain facilities subject to EPCRA
section 313. However, this low
monitoring frequency, while appropriate
for the limited purposes articulated in
today's notice, are not intended to
sufficiently identify relatively infrequent
intermittent releases in a manner that
would ensure that other controls are not
necessary to minimize the discharge of
toxic chemicals in storm water
discharges. Rather, such low-frequency
monitoring requirements are only a part
of a more comprehensive approach to.
controlling toxic pollutants in storm
water discharges from EPCRA section
313 facilities. Similarly, regulations
developed under EPCRA section 313
allow facility operators to estimate the
amount of toxic chemicals in storm
water without the use of monitoring
data. Such estimates, while appropriate
for developing the TRU data. do not
provide adequate safeguards that toxic
chemicals are not being released in
storm water discharges. Third,
conditions at EPCRA section 313
-facilities can change with time, and
operator errors, structural failures, and
corrosion can lead to failures of process,
handling and storage equipment used for
EPCRA water priority chemicals which
result in the release of toxic chemicals
to storm water discharges. Such releases
can continue undetected until the
release becomes obvious "2 and are not
necessarily linked to past releases. The
Agency believes that a preventive
approach that does not wait for spills or
other releases to occur is the most
sensible approach and is consistent with
the goals of the CWA as well as the
pollution prevention emphasis ofthe

U-Se "MHer&doue Wes T Tai Risk AmnalysW".
EPA. r16.


_ I~ ~I__ I_


41277




vs


Feder Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, Septembe 9, .1992 / Notices


storm water program. Fourth, the
Agency believes that management
practices identified in the additional
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities are representative of well
operated facilities that use large
amounts of toxic chemicals even though
a facility may not have had a release of
a hazardous substance or oil in excess
of reportable quantities.
One commenter indicated that the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
database for 1989 indicated that only 6
percent (88 of 1,470 facilities reporting
storm water discharges) of the EPCRA
section 313 facilities reported releases of
more than 1,000 pounds per year of toxic
chemicals in their storm water during
the previous reporting year. This -
commenter speculated that facilities that
reported these releases already had an
NPDES permit because they otherwise
would not have conducted the
monitoring required to support the
release estimates.
In response, EPA recognizes that 6
percent per year of the EPCRA section
313 facilities that reported toxic
chemicals in storm water reported
releases of over 1,000 pounds per year of
toxic materials in their storm water.
However, the Agency strongly disagrees
S with the commenter that this is an
indication that EPCRA section 313
facilities represent a low risk as a class.
First, the Agency believes that the
release of less than 1,000 pounds of toxic
chemicals via storm water can be very
significant, and that the 1,000 pound of
toxic chemical threshold limit does not
represent acceptable levels of pollutants
in releases. Many of the EPCRA section
313 water priority chemicals can have
significant toxic effects at low
concentrations, even though the total
amount of toxic chemical released
annually is less than 1,000 pounds. In
addition, facilities can have intermittent
releases oftoxic chemicals of less than
1,000 poumir such as spills or
concentrated leaks that can have
significant water quality impacts.
Facilities that have released low levels
of toxic chemicals one year can have
significantly larger releases in
subsequent years due to spills, leaks
which have developed from older
equipment, or changes in management
practices. Thus, over a longer time
period, such as five or ten years, more
than six percent of the facilities may
have releases of greater than 1,000
pounds per year of toxic chemicals
reported in their storm water discharges.
The Agency does not believe that 6
percent of the facilities is a trivial
number when considering such large
releases of toxic chemicals. The Agency


also recognizes that many, if not most,
EPCRA section 313 facilities did not
have actual monitoring data to establish
their 1989 estimates of releases of toxic
chemicals to storm water. The Agency
believes that this could have caused
significant under reporting of toxic
chemical releases. The Agency does not
agree with the commenter's argument
that only those facilities which
monitored their storm water discharges
prior to 1989 pursuant to an NPDES
permit are of concern. The Agency
remains concerned about the potential
for releases from facilities that have not
been required to monitor their storm
water discharges in the past.. ,
Some commenters indicated that
Congress or EPA may expand the
criteria for coverage under EPCRA
section 313 after the permits were
issued. These commenters requested
that EPA clarify what storm water
general permit requirements would
apply to facilities that would not be
subject to EPCRA section 313
requirement at the time of permit
issuance, but, due to the change in
defining the EPCRA section 313
universe, would be subject to EPCRA
section 313 requirements in the future.
Applicability to EPCRA section 313
could change in 3 ways: (1#) The
threshold amount of toxic chemicals
required to trigger reporting could
change; (2) requirements could be
expanded to facilities other than those
classified as SIC 20-39; and (3) specific
chemicals or classes of chemicals could
be added or deleted from the list of toxic
chemicals.
EPA intends to base applicability of
the special requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from EPCRA section 313
facilities on the date of permit issuance.
Thus, if the applicability of EPCRA
section 313 requirements is expanded to
include facilities that use less than
current threshold amounts, additional
chemicals, or facilities other than those
classified as SIC code 20-39, the special
requirements in today's general permits
would not apply to those additional
facilities.
If, on the other hand, the applicability
of EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements are restricted (e.g. a
chemical is deleted from the list of toxic
chemicals, the threshold amount of
chemicals is raised, or facilities within
SIC 20-39 are exempted), the Agency
wants to clarify that it will not require
facilities which are not subject to
reporting requirements under the newly
restricted requirements under EPCRA
section 313 to comply with the special
requirements for storm water discharges


in today's permits. While the Agency
recognizes that discharges from these
facilities were considered in develop
today's permits, it believes that this
approach will minimize confusion and
address concerns that special
requirements would no longer be
required at such facilities. The agency
also notes that it may consider the
factors that lead to the decision to
restrict reporting requirements under
EPCRA section 313 in the same manner
as it would with respect to the special
requirements of today's permits.
Other commenters requested that EPA
clarify the applicability of the special
requirements in the storm water general
permits for facilities that met the
threshold requirements of EPCRA
section 313 during some years, but did
not meet the requirements in other years
(even though the EPCRA section 313
thresholds did not change). One
commenter indicated that continuing
special NPDES requirements for
facilities that have reduced their use of
EPCRA section 313 chemicals removed
the incentive for the facility to reduce
their toxic chemicals.
In response, EPA wants to clarify that
permittees that had to report releases
under EPCRA section 313, but during the
term of the permit have modified their
industrial practices such that they no
longer manufacture, process or
otherwise use EPCRA section 313 water
priority chemicals onsite in amounts
that exceed the applicable thresholds
under EPCRA section 313, are not
subject to the special requirements of
today's permit after reductions in use
have been made. The Agency also
wants to clarify that facilities that meet
the EPCRA section 313 thresholds for
the first time during the term of the
permit will be required to comply with
the additional requirements in today's
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
three years after the date they are first
required to report under EPCRA section
313.
Some commenters expressed a
considerable amount of confusion
regarding whether the additional
requirements applied to materials other
than section 313 water priority
chemicals. For example, a number of
commenters indicated that containment
and other special requirements were
inappropriate for products which were
not made of section 313 chemicals, such
as products made of polystyrene
materials. Some of these commenters
correctly indicated that many
polystyrene products are intended to be
exposed to water and water resources.
The Agency wants to clarify that the
special requirements in today's permits


41278


-----------------~----







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


for facilities that are subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements only
apply to areas of the facilities where
EPCRA section 313 chemicals are
managed. With respect to products
made of polystyrene, the Agency wants
to clarify that the feedstock for
polystyrene, styrene, is a.EPCRA section
313 chemical. However, polystyrene.
which results from the polymerization of
the monomer styrene, is not a EPCRA
section 313 water priority chemical. The
Agency notes there are significant
chemical and physical differences
between polystyrene and its monomer,
styrene. The Agency agrees that
polystyrene has much less potential to
contribute pollutants to waters of the
United States (other than in the form of
floatables such as litter or improperly
disposed pellets) then styrene, and
believes that styrene should be managed
in a way to eliminate contamination to
storm water.
One commenter indicated that many
facilities are required to report under
section 313 because they have ammonia
refrigeration systems or chlorine used
for disinfection, and the nature of the
use of these chemicals poses a very
limited potential for discharge of
pollutants through storm water. In
response, the Agency notes that
significant spills or releases of such
materials can result in significant water
quality impacts. As discussed in more
detail below, the Agency believes the
Agency has added sufficient flexibility
to the requirements of today's permits to
allow facilities to develop and
implement pollutionprevention
strategies that are appropriate and are
not overly burdensome for such.
situations.
One commenter noted that some
facilities may use one or more section.
313 water priority chemicals in. excess of
the 10,000 pound threshold, but use other
motion 313 water priority chemicals in
amounts oflessthan the threshold.The
commenter requested thatEPA clarify if
the special requirements for managing
EPCRA section 313 apply to allparts of
the facility where any toxic.chemical is.
managed, or only those parts of the
facility where section 313 water priority
chemicals that the facility must report
for (e.g. these toxic cnhmirnn. managed
1i amounts in excess of 10,000 pounds),
ae used. In response, the Agency want
to clarify that the special requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities in.
today's permits oaly apply to those
portions of a facility where toxic.
chemicals that a facility must report
releases ~ under EPCRA section. 313
are managed The Agency notes
however, that the other baseline


requirements of today's permits apply to
others parts. of the facility that generate
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
Some commenters expressed concern
that the special requirements placed
unnecessary burdens on facilities that
manage their toxic materials indoors.
Other commenters suggested that EPA
provide incentives for industries to
eliminate exposure of raw materials and
EPCRA section 313 toxic chemicals to
pzecipita~ion. .
In response;the special.requirements
for storm water pollution. prevention
plans at facilities that. are subject to
EPCRA section 313 for section 313 water
priority chemicals primarily focus on
aseas of the facility where equipment
used for the management, storage and
processing of section 3!3 water priority
chemicals is exposed to precipitation or
can otherwise contribute pollutants to a
storm drainage system.. The Agency
believes that the. burdens associated
with the requirements of today"s permit
are significantly reduced for facilities
that manage (including loading and
unloading activities. their toxic:
chemicals in buildings or under cover
such that there is no exposure to
precipitation and where the floor
drainage in the building is knownto. be
segregated from the storm water
collection system. The Agency believes
that this approach provides incentives
for facilities tomanage toxic chemicals.
in a way that ensures there is no-
exposure to preipitation.
EPCRA SeeoRa 3 3FFaodfLes: Types of
Control
With respect to the two approaches
for establishing permit conditions.
Options A and B, commenters expressed
a wide diversity of opinions. Some
commenters favored the design
standards approach of Option A. These
commenters provided a number of
reasons for this support Some
commenters indicated that secondary
containment and other measures are an
essential part of storm water
management at facilities that use large
amounts oftoxic materials. Some
cmnmenters stated thatthis approach
would encourage facilities to develop
addition measures to control potential
releases, ofmateriala into storm water.
Other commentess indicated that this
approach would reward companies that
have already installed such controls. by
reducing monitoring and reporting
requirementsaOthes cmmMnters.
indicated that this approach pomoted
pollution prevenion.measures and
provided a. check rnoff before it is
discharged Anther commenter
indicatedtbat eqiements.h


containing storm water and monitoring
each discharge event were necessary to
ensure water quality standards were
met. One commaeter indicated that
design standard were necessary
because the acute WET limitation, by
itself, underestimated the true
environmental risks of storm water
discharges.
A number a commenters favored the
performance standards approach of
Option B. These cunanenters indicated
that performance standards provide
flexibility to industry, and allowed
indu~sry to pursue the most cost-
effeetive cantrl approach. Some of
these commenters felt that this approach
would better aliew for consideration of
local or facility specific factors in
developing cacmxls. One commenter
thought performance standards were the
best way ta encourage innovative
approaches. Some of the commenters
indicated that the compliance
obligations under either of the two
proposed options could be substantial.
Some commenters indicated that this
approach would allow some industrial
facilities to avoid the costs of secondary
containment. Several commenters
indicated that they viewed design
standards as inefficient, ineffective
methods for reducing pollutants.
rn adkiltion, some commenters urged
the Agency to adopt an alternative
approach. A number of commenters
expressed their belief that both
approaches were excessive or otherwise
inappropriate. Some commeniers
indicated that hey thought that
pollution prevention measures (without
a WET limitatior) were adequate, and
that an effluent liitatnir defeated the
purpose ofa plan to eliminate or reduce
sources of pollutants. Several
commenters suggested that dischargers
be given the opportunity to select either
a performance standard or design
standards, and that this approach
providedflexibility while at the same
time rerngnmiing the advantages of both
approaches. One eommenter favored
voluntary measures as providing the
utmestflexibility and representing the
lowest cost approach.
Afer consideration. of these
comments, the Agency has. decided to
adopt an.appoach. that is a hybrid of
Options A. PdB. Today's permits
provide targeted pollution prevention
plan eqpiements that havebeen
designed to address, stonr water
dischargesassesiated wit industrial
activities that ane subjc to EPCRA
section 33 reporting reqauiremets for
wa.ten priority chemicals These
additionalplan requirements have been
designed provide a seasonable


S0,


I _


_ __


41279







4f1edalf t2Gl / A.' 57, N.175 Wednesday, September9,T99 /i Notices


amount of flexibility to address
,/ concerns that specific design criteria,
such as containment for specified design
storms, were inappropriate.
In addition, as discussed in more
detail elsewhere in today's notice,
today's permits establish targeted
monitoring requirements for EPCRA
section 313 facilities where storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity come into contact with any
equipment, tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a truck or rail car loading or
unloading area where a section 313
water priority chemical is handled. In -
this manner, additional data will be
used to identify the need for more -
stringent controls and further pollution
prevention efforts will be targeted to
facilities where sampling data
demonstrates the need for further
scrutiny and controls.
The Agency feels that this approach
has several advantages and can lead to
the achievement of the goals articulated
in the August 16, 1991 draft permits.
First, this approach establishes a
framework for facilities to develop and
implement site-specific pollution
prevention measures in a manner that
ensures appropriate flexibility. Second,
S the approach ensures that the facilities
develop methods and protocols,
including discharge sampling, that allow
for continued evaluation of the
discharge and potential pollutant
sources at the facility. Third, this
approach is similar to a performance
standard in that it establishes a
benchmark that triggers additional.
evaluation of pollutant sources at the
facility and of pollution prevention
measures.
WETLimitation
Comments received on the proposed
WET limitation in the August 16, 1991
draft general permits were mixed.
Several commenters recommended the
use of chronic WET limitations instead
of acute limitations. These commenters
indicated that acute WET tests
underestimated the toxic impacts of
intermittent discharges such as storm
water. One commenter indicated that
recent research indicates that organisms
subject to periodic exposure of toxics
typically found in storm water suffer
greatly at concentrations much lower
than acute toxicity levels based on
continuous exposure. One commenter
indicated that it was meaningless to
require secondary containment without
requirements for testing water
discharged from the structure or effluent
limitations. This commenter implied that
even with a requirement to provide


containment, facilitiescould still -
discharge contaminated storm water.
The commenter indicated that if a
facility properly implements an
appropriate storm water pollution-
prevention plan, it will be virtually
impossible for pollutants from the
facility to contaminate storm water from
the facility.
Several commenters thought it was
premature and inappropriate that
technology-based effluent limits be
established for storm water discharges.
These commenters raised a number of
concerns about the WET limitation.
Several of these commenters contended
that EPA did not have adequate data at
this time to demonstrate the proposed
WET limitation could be met in a cost
effective manner after application of the
model technologies. Several commenters
suggested that EPA had only considered
several technologies for reducing
toxicity, but had made an inadequate
showing that all dischargers could
comply with the limitation without
resorting to expensive treatment
schemes or alternative forms of
disposal. Some of these commenters
thought that reducing toxicity would be
a complex undertaking at some
facilities, and that some dischargers
would have to develop extensive
treatment strategies rather than solely
rely on pollution prevention measures.
These commenters contended that the
cost of compliance with the WET
limitation could be significantly higher
than was estimated by EPA.
Other commenters suggested that
whole effluent toxicity should be
addressed through best management
practices and pollution prevention
measures rather than through numeric
toxicity limitations.
Based on additional consideration,
today's permit does not contain an acute
WET effluent limitation. The Agency
believes that acute toxicity is an
appropriate parameter for evaluating
priority storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
However, based on a consideration of
comments indicating that source
controls by themselves may not always
be adequate to control toxicity in storm
water discharges, and that reducing the
toxicity of storm water discharges from
some facilities may be a more difficult
task than was originally anticipated, the
Agency is not including the WET
limitation in today's permits
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits provided that facilities that are
subject to the Wet effluent limitation
that detected acute WET in their storm
water discharge and that where notified


by the Director were required to cond.c
a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE.
Several commenters objected to the
requirement to conduct an expensive
toxicity reduction evaluations (TRE)
without more research into the methods
to identify sources of toxicity to storm
water, methods to reduce toxicity in
storm water and applicability of current
TRE procedures to storm water
discharges. Consistent with these
concerns, another commenter indicated
that industry has little experience with
conducting TREs for storm water
discharges. One commenter indicated
that if a discharge is found to fail the
WET test, it should be allowed the
opportunity to implement a storm water
pollution plan and/or conduct additional
WET tests before undergoing a formal
toxicity reduction evaluation.
In response to concerns raised about
conducting formal TREs, the Agency has
modified today's permits to provide that
a formal TRE is not required at this time
where acute WET is detected. Rather,
the Agency recommends that if acute
whole effluent toxicity (statistically
significant difference between the 100%
dilution and the control) is detected in
storm water discharges after October 1,
1995, the permitted should review the
storm water pollution prevention plan
and make appropriate modifications to
assist in identifying the sources) of
toxicity and to. reduce the toxicity of
their storm water discharges. While
today's permit does not specifically
require dischargers that detect acute
WET to conduct a formal TRE, the
Agency may request a formal toxicity
identification evaluation (TIE) or a TRE
pursuant to the authority of section 308
of the CWA.
The Agency believes that this
approach provides additional flexibility
for facilities to evaluate their storm
water discharges for toxicity and to take
appropriate steps to reduce toxicity. The
Agency believes that this additional
flexibility is appropriate in light of
concerns raised in the comments that
the sources) of toxicity may be difficult
to initially determine and that facilities
need an opportunity to evaluate whether
specific pollutant prevention measures
will successfully reduce toxicity, or
whether the facility will need to pursue
a treatment strategy. In addition, the
approach taken in today's permits
provides facilities with an opportunity
to develop and implement pollution
prevention strategies prior to the
October 1, 1995. This provides
discharges with an opportunity to
implement site-specific and innovative
measures to reduce toxicity. In addition.
this approach recognizes the difficulties


11





a
t
ti
ti

a
V
I
t


___~ j___~ll__


~


4128&







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


in ascertaining whether a specific
measure or approach will successfully
reduce toxicity at a given facility. The
Agency believes that this approach will
provide additional opportunities to
evaluate pollution prevention measures
suitable for reducing toxicity and for
evaluating the role of treatment
technologies in such toxicity reduction
strategies.
The Agency also recognizes that
sources or activities other than handling
toxic chemicals to be used in the
industrial process may cause toxicity in
some cases. However, the Agency
believes that it is important to ensure
that these sources of toxicity have been
identified, and that the plan be reviewed
to identify any appropriate steps be
taken to reduce the toxicity of the storm
water discharges. Appropriate steps
may include diverting storm water flows
which originate from offsite, or
providing other appropriate storm water
management measures. However,
today's permits do not require that such
offiste sources of pollutants be
eliminated. The Agency believes that
the approach taken in today's permits
provide sufficient flexibility to address
these toxicity sources.
Containment Requirements
The August 16,1991 draft general
permits requested comments on
requiring secondary containment fortwo
types of areas where liquid section 313
water priority chemicals are managed.
The first type of areas was where liquid
section 313 water priority chemicals are
stored and storm water comes into
contact with equipment, tanks,
containers or other vessels used for such
storage. The second type of areas was
truck and rail care loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals. The provisions
of the August 16,1991 draft general
permits required secondary containment
structures to be sufficiently impervious
to contain spilled section 313 water
priority chemicals until they can be
removed or treated. The August 16,1991
draft general permits requested
comment on specifying that secondary
containment structures for such areas
provide sufficient excess holding
capacity for the contents of the largest
container in the drainage area plus an
allowance for drainage from a 25 year,
U hour storm.
A number of commenters supported
the concepts of secondary containment
1 targeted areas of facilities which
msage toxic chemicals. One
nmmenter urged EPA to require
icondary containment for water
riority chemicals at all sites, indicated
lt earthen dikes are easily made,


relatively inexpensive, easily
maintained and can usually be created,
altered or removed within a day.
Another commenter indicated that
secondary containment for toxic
chemicals is clearly a simple, easily
verifiable method for preventing spills,
and that too much flexibility would
result in industrial facilities avoiding
implementing appropriate requirements.
Another commenter indicated that if the
containment of toxic materials is not
economically possible, the process
should not be in existence. One
commenter noted that an added benefit
of increased containment is the
reduction in fire hazards.
While most industry commenters
addressing the containment issue
recognized that secondary containment
was a commonly used practice, a
number of commenters noted that many
industrial facilities have already
installed secondary containment, but
that many existing secondary
containment units did not provide
sufficient volume to accommodate
runoff from a 25 year, 24-hour storm
event 3s. The concern raised by these
commenters was that they believed that
many existing containment systems
would not satisfy the 25-year, 24-hour
standard and would have to be replaced
or retrofitted. A number of these
commenters raised concerns about
facilities that, in good faith, had already
constructed containment requirements
would have to face the difficulties and
expense of expanding existing
secondary containment units. One
commenter recommended that facilities
with existing containment be allowed to
grandfather in their existing facility.
, Several other commenters indicated
that a requirement to provide secondary
containment could result in significant
economic burdens for facilities without

Commenters gave numerous examples of
alternative design volumes for containment units.
One commenter indicated that industry often
develops its own design standard, for example, the
petroleum industry has developed a number of
standards, including a standard that bermed areas
must contain liquid contents but not be greater than
6 feet high. A large chemical industry trade
association indicated that most company guidelines
require containment systems that are capable of
holding the contents of the largest tank within the
containment area. A number of other industrial
commenters indicated that they had similar
guidelines. Commenters indicated that containment
systems for flammable liquids were expressly
designed to conform to the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 30 code which states that dike
walls should contain the potential liquid contents
and be less than 8 feet tall. Some commenters
anticipated that expanding existing containment
structures would create conflicts with the 6 foot
maximum wall height specified by the NFPA 30
code. Several commenters indicated that many
existing containment systems do not comply with
any specific volumetric requirements.


containment systems but with
alternative control strategies. These
commenters suggested alternatives such
as requirements to develop and
implement spill response strategies to
reduce the size of the spill, provide
drainage systems to isolate spills or
other BMP requirements. Some
commenters raised specific concerns
regarding containment requirements for
truck and rail car loading and unloading
areas for liquid section 313 water
priority chemicals. Some commenters
indicated that drip and/or spill sump
systems with high level alarms are in
common use and provide ample
protection against all but rare
catastrophic releases. Another
commenter, while supporting secondary
containment requirements for liquid
storage tanks indicated that the risk of
spills at a truck or rail unloading area is
not great where chemical transfers are
not frequent and trucks are only at the
loading station for a short time.
In response to a number of concerns
raised on the requirements in the draft
permits, today's permits contain a
considerable amount of additional
flexibility with respect to the use of
secondary containment or other
equivalent management practices for
areas of the facility where liquid Section
313 chemicals are stored or loading and/
or unloaded. Today's permit provides
that liquid storage areas and truck and
rail car loading and unloading areas for
liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals. For
liquid storage areas, appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
section 313 chemicals may include
secondary containment provided for at
least the entire contents of the largest
single tank plus sufficient freeboard to
allow for precipitation, a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan,
and/or other equivalent measures. For
truck and rail car loading and unloading
areas, appropriate measures to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals may
include: the placement and maintenance
of drip pans (including the proper
disposal of materials collected in the
drip pans) where spillage may occur
(such as hose connections, hose reels
and filler nozzles) for use when making
and breaking hose connections; a strong
spill contingency and integrity testing
plan;.and/or other equivalent measures.
This approach will allow permittees to
select the most cost effective technology
for controlling releases of section 313
chemicals at their site consistent with
the requirement that the discharge of
section 313 water priority chemicals is
minimized. As discussed earlier in


jl


41281







Federal Register g / Vo 57, No.175-/ Wednesday, Sepember 9; iBe / Notice


today's notice, today's permits also
require that a registered PE certify that
the storm water pollution prevention
plan, including controls to minimize the
discharge of section 313 water priority
chemicals from'areas of the facility
where liquid section 313 chemicals are
stored or loading and/or unloaded, has
been prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices. The PE
certification will assist in ensuring that
good engineering practices are used in
selecting an approach to minimize the
discharge of section 313 water priority
chemicals.
In providing this additional flexibility
with respect to containment
requirements, EPA is particularly
concerned that many existing secondary
containment units would have to be
retrofitted in order to comply with the
requirement to provide sufficient storage
for the 25-year, 24-hour storm. The
additional flexibility provided by
today's permits will ensure that this
provision is attainable for facilities with
existing controls, such as secondary
containment, to minimize the discharge
of section 313 water priority chemicals,
and that such facilities will not have to
provide for retrofitting of existing
systems which currently meet the
standard. At the same time, this
S approach addresses concerns regarding
facilities where secondary containment
measures are not economically
achievable. Under today's permits, these
facilities may implement alternative
approaches to controlling pollutants in-
their storm water discharges in lieu of
secondary containment
EPCRA Section 313 Facilities: Other
Concerns
One commenter indicated that the
requirement in the August 16,1991 draft
permits that permittees either take
immediate corrective action or shut
down a unit or process if a leak is
discovered which may result in a
significant release of a section 313 water
priority chemical to the drainage system
was an unreasonable requirement
because a release to the drainage
system may not result in a release to
waters of the United States.'
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that the requirements in today's
permits do not apply to facilities that do
not discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity to waters of the
United States. The Agency has modified
the language in today's permit to limit
this requirement to leaks or other
conditions which may result in
significant releases of section 313 water
priority chemicals to waters of the
United States. The Agency has also
replaced the term "corrective action"


with the phrase "action to stop the leak
or otherwise prevent the significant
release of section 313 water priority
chemicals to waters of the United States"
to avoid confusion. The Agency also
wants to clarify that the temporary use
of drip pans, diversions to sumps, or
other measures that prevent toxic
chemicals from being discharged to
waters of the United States until
permanent repairs can be made may,
where appropriate, constitute
appropriate action within the meaning
of today's permits. The Agency believes
that such requirements are reasonable.
are common industrial practices, and
are necessary to prevent discharges of
toxic chemicals to waters of the United
States.
One commenter indicated that
integrity testing of storage tanks is not
economically achievable and did not.
reflect current industry practice, but
rather visual inspection of above ground
tanks and pipes is general industry
practice. One commenter indicated that
visual inspection was less expensive
than integrity testing. One commenter
indicated that integrity testing should
not be required for straight runs of pipe
without connections or joints or to
welded joints. However, other
commenters indicated that integrity
testing was a viable alternative to
containment One commenter indicated
that integrity testing should be required
at reasonable intervals, and indicated
that such testing is not an alternative to
containment as most spills are the result
of human error, not mechanical failure.
One commenter indicated that many
local and State standards exist for
integrity testing for tanks and piping.
In response to comments, the Agency
recognizes that integrity testing can be
an important part of a sound spill
prevention program. However, to
minimize confusion and address
concerns raised about specific integrity
testing procedures, the Agency has
added flexibility to today's permits by
listing spill contingency plans and
integrity testing as one type of
management measure that is
appropriate for liquid storage areas or
areas of the facility that .are used for
truck and rail car loading and unloading
of liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals.
A number of Commenters supported
the requirement that plans for EPCRA
section 313 facilities be certified by a
registered PE. Some of these
commenters indicated that this
approach would allow the Agency to
incorporate additional flexibility into
some provisions of the permit, while still
ensuring that the objectives of the


permit are met. Several commented
suggested that additional flexibility
given to EPCRA section 313 facilities .
- and that the Agency continue to reqi*4
PE certifications as a means to ens=u
that adequate measures are being
implemented. One commenter requestr
clarification on whether the PE
certification applied to the entire plan
for the facility or for only those portiam
of the plan that addressed areas where
section 313 water priority chemicals an
managed.
However, some commenters raised
concerns about PE certifications. One
commenter indicated that PEs hired by a
facility will not provide the appropriate
level of assurance unless penalties for
misrepresentation are possible. Other
commenters stated their belief that
industries and Federal facilities have
historically been unable to monitor
themselves. One commenter indicated
that only a few registered PEs work for
the chemical industry or many
manufacturing industries, and suggested
that the permits provide that employees
other than registered PEs be allowed to
provide a certification in addition to
registered PEs. The commenter
indicated that given their knowledge
and experience, employees that were
not a registered PE could result in
equivalent or better certifications than
those provided by.a registered PE who
was not an employee. One commenter
suggested that the plant manager should
be able to certify compliance based on
information provided by his or her staff
in lieu of a registered PE certification.
One commenter recognized that a PE
would be qualified to certify that
secondary containment is designed and
constructed in accordance with good
engineering practices. However, most
PEs have no special qualifications to
certify certain other major elements of
the plan, such as training, and the
pollution prevention committee. Another
commenter indicated that a PE
certification could be expensive for
small businesses.
In response, the Agency believes that
PE certifications are appropriate for
EPCRA section 313 facilities with storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity for two reasons. First
the nature of the storm water concerns
at these facilities dictates that storm
water pollution prevention plans should
be as reliable as possible. EPCRA
section 313 facilities manage large
amounts of toxic chemicals, and the
material handling equipment and
practices are a potential source of
pollutants to storm water. EPA believes
that certification by a PE will add a
measure of independent reliability to


-4128a







Federal Register / Vol. 57,-No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 /' Notices


L ensure adequate implementation of the
plan requirements.
Second, the Agency's experience with
the SPCC program indicates that PE
certifications can be a usefulcomponent
of a spill prevention program for
facilities that manage large amounts of
liquids and that PEs are particularly
well qualified to evaluate controls at
such facilities. Studies have indicated
that a principal leak prevention measure
for chemical handling systems and
ancillary equipment is proper design
and installation and that a quality audit
of storage and handling equipment will
prevent many leaks, particularly from
loose fittings, poor welding, and
maligned gaskets.34
The Agency believes that PE
certifications will assist in ensuring that
chemical handling systems are properly
designed, installed and operated and
that permittees comply with the terms of
the permit and adequately implement
measures identified in their pollution
prevention plan. The Agency believes
that the costs of a PE certification are
achievable. For facilities that do not
have an appropriate PE on staff to
conduct the certification, the Agency
encourages permittees to have
employees with appropriate knowledge
and experience assist a PE that is not
regularly employed by the facility in
making the certification.
The Agency further believes that a PE
certification is appropriate for all plan
components at EPCRA section 313
facilities can involve various aspects of
the industrial process. For example, the
training requirements of today's permits
apply to all facility employees and
contractor personnel that work in areas
where SARA title IIl, section 313 water
priority chemicals are used or stored.
These training measures must ensure
that such personnel are trained in and
informed of preventive measures at the
facility. The Agency believes that it is
cost effective to have a PE that has
begun to review parts of the plan to
review the entire plan.
One commenter objected to the
requirement to maintain records of the
frequency and estimated volume of
discharges from secondary containment
areas. The commenter raised concerns
that this provision triggered testing
requirements. In response, the Agency
wants to clarify that this provision does
St trigger sampling requirements.
One commenter indicated that
providing curbing and roofing for many
forms of metals storage is not practical
ad provides no environmental benefit,
ad that roofs made of galvanized steel

For example, see "Hazardous Waste Tank Risk
StmlY'. EPA. 9ls&


or copper present a greater potential
source than industrial laydown areas for
insoluble metals. In response, the
Agency wants to clarify that today's
permit (and the August 16, 1991 draft
permits) provide dischargers with the
option of either providing drainage
controls to prevent or minimize the
potential for storm water runon to come
into contact with Section 313 water
priority chemicals or to provide roofs,
covers or other forms of appropriate
protection to prevent storage piles from
exposure to wind and storm water. The
Agency recognizes that in some
situations where metal storage areas
pose little potential as a pollutant
source, roofs may not be necessary. In
such case, facilities should pursue
appropriate runon or drainage controls.
The Agency notes that such drainage is
typically provided for exposed portions
of industrial.activities to prevent
ponding or flooding.
Special Requirements for Salt Storage
The August 16,1991 draft general
permits contained a provision requiring
storage piles of salt to be enclosed or
covered to prevent exposure to
precipitation.
Several commenters identified several
situations where storm water runoff
from salt piles did not lead to a
discharge of storm-water to waters of
the United States. Examples cited by the
commenters included lined salt
impoundments (such as those used for
salt dome petroleum storage activities);
situations where runoff from salt piles is
used as a brine source in a
manufacturing process; and certain
storage piles associated with solar
ponds. These commenters requested
clarification as to whether salt piles
where storm water runoff is not
discharged to water of the United States
needed to be covered or enclosed.
In response, the Agency did not intend
to address these situations. The Agency
has clarified today's permit to provide
that salt piles do not need to be
enclosed or covered where storm water
from the pile is not discharged to waters
of the United States.
One commenter noted that economics
dictates that every effort is made to limit
the working face of salt piles to
exposure to precipitation, but that a
requirement that salt piles be covered at
all times was not feasible because
portions of the pile must be uncovered
during the time salt is being placed on or
removed from the pile. In response, the
Agency recognizes that it will not
always be feasible to ensure that
working faces of the pile are covered
when materials are being added or
removed from the pile. Accordingly,


today's permits provide that salt piles
shall be enclosed or covered to prevent
exposure to precipitation, except for
exposure resulting from adding or
removing materials from the pile.
One commenter indicated that salt
piles should not be singled out, and that
numerous other bulk commodities (e.g.
potash, trona, sodium sulfate) are stored
outside and are readily dissolved by
precipitation. In response, at the time
that the draft general permits were
published, the Agency had appropriate
information on the practices of the salt
industry and information on the nature -
of pollutants in salt pile runoff that was
used in the support of the proposed
requirement. The Agency will continue
to evaluate industry practices for other
types of bulk commodities, and
pollutants associated with runoff from
storage practices.
One commenter argued that covers for
very large stockpiles, (such as piles of
400,000 tons) were not feasible. As
discussed below, the Agency has
expanded its cost model to evaluate
these discharges, and believes that such
controls are in fact reasonable for such
piles. The Agency also wants to clarify
the dischargers who want to seek
alternative permit conditions may
submit an individual permit application
with a description of why alternative
requirements would be appropriate.
Several commenters indicated that
additional time would be needed to
comply with this requirement,
particularly where a facility had a
significant number of piles. In response,
the Agency has extended the
compliance date for this requirement
until three years after issuance of the
permit, consistent with section 402(p)(4)
of the CWA.
Effluent Limitation for Coal Pile Runoff
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits requested comment on an
effluent limitation for coal pile runoff of
50 mg/1 total suspended solids and pH
within a range of 6.0 to 9.0. The draft
permit provided that any untreated
overflow from facilities designed,
constructed and operated to treat the
volume of coal pile runoff which is
associated with a 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event shall not be subject to the
limitation.
A number of commenters indicated
-their belief that the 10 year, 24-hour
storm was adequately protective for
coal pile runoff, as is evidenced by the
Agency use of the standard in the Coal
Mining Effluent Limitation Guidelines.
One commenter complained that EPA
failed to consider the costs of
implementing a storm design system to


_~_~__
- I


41283







Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


accommodate a 25-year, 24-hour storm
event The commenter indicated that the
cost differential to construct a system to
accommodate a 25-year. 24-hour storm
event versus a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event would be significant, and the
incremental pollutant reduction
associated with the larger design system
would be small. The commenter
indicated that the highertests would be
associatek&with the number or capacity
of catch basins or inlestriuctures. the
capacity of the conveyance system (e.g.
the size of pipes or ditches), and
pumping station capacity.
In.response to comments, EPA has
modified the effluent limitation in
today's permits to be consistent with the
effluent limitation guideline for coal pile
runoff in the steam electric category (40
CFR 434). Therefore, the numeric
limitation for coal pile runoff in today's
permits uses the 10-year, 24-hour storm
instead of the 25-year. 24-hour storm.
EPA recognizes that the initial analysis
used to develop the proposed limitations
in the August 16,1991 notice relied
heavily on coast data from the steam
electric guideline background document
The Agency believes that it is
appropriate to tie the limitation in
today's permit more closely to the
limitation that was evaluated in the
" study until it can better evaluate the
incremental costs associated with
alternative approaches.
One commenter expressed concern
that the proposed limitations may apply
to coal pile runoff from steam electric
facilities which is already subject to an
effluent limitation guideline. In
response, the Agency wants to clarify
that the effluent limitation in today's
permit for coal pile runoff is not
intended to apply to coal pile runoff
from steam electric facilities. As noted
in the August 16, 1991 draft permit, coal
pile runoff from steam electric facilities
are already subject to an effluent
limitation guideline (see 40 CFR 423). In
addition, today's permits (and the
August 16, 1991 draft permits),
specifically exclude from coverage
storm water discharges that are subject
to an effluent limitation guideline..
One commenter expressed their belief
that coal piles at mining sites and
preparation plants should not be subject
to the effluent limitation because such
piles are already subject to SMCRA
monitoring and performance standards
at 30 CFR 730.21(j). 30 CFR 816.42 and
816.45), and the proposed limitations go
beyond these requirements. The
^ commenter indicated that they thought
that all activities presently permitted
under SMCRA at coal mining, ore
mining and dressing, and mineral mining


and processing facilities are not subject
to the conditions of the general permit.
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that today's permits do not cover
storm water discharges which are
subject to an effluent limitation
guideline. Most coal pile runoff from
active mining sites and preparation
plants are subject to the coal mining
effluent limitation guideline at 40 CFR
434, and therefore can not obtain
coverage under today's permit. The
Agency notes that the imposition of
SMCRA requirements does not preclude
CWA requirements," and that
generally such requirements are
intended to work together. For example,
30 CFR 816.42 requires that discharges of
waters from areas disturbed by surface
mining activities must be in compliance
with all application Federal and State
water laws and regulations. 30 CFR
816.45 establishes sediment control
measures that do not specifically
address toxic discharges from coal pile
runoff.
One commenter requested
clarification as to whether pre-SMCRA
disturbed coal mining sites were subject
to this requirement. The commenter
argued that Congress intended that pre-
SMCRA coal mining sites are tobe
handled under Title IV of SMCRA which
established the Abandoned Mine Lands
Program. In response, the effluent
limitation for coal pile runoff in today's
permits is intended to apply to all coal
pile runoff covered by the permit.
Today's permit can cover storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from pre-SMCRA disturbed
lands where the discharger has
submitted an NOI to be covered by the
permit. While Congress intended that
Title IV of SMCRA addressed pre-
SMCRA coal mining sites, nothing in the
legislative history of the provision
suggests that it was intended as the
exclusive means of addressing these
sites."s Discharges that do not believe
that this requirement is appropriate for a
given dischargemay submit an
individual permit application or
participate in an applicable group
application. The Agency expects that
inactive mining sites will generally have
fewer coal piles than active coal mining
sites, as it is expected that materials
with a commercial value will often be
removed from the site. In addition, the
Agency recognizes that additional
options are available to inactive sites,
such as removing the coal piles, or
reclaiming/stabilizing the site to ensure

"* See American Mining Congress v. EPA 965
F.zd 759 (9th Cr. 1994S
3" See American Minin Congress v. EPA. Supm.


that storm water is not contaminated h
contact with a coal pile.
Several commeaters indicated tha
they believed that storm water permit
should not impose numeric effluent
limitations. EPA disagrees with this
comment in connection with coal pil
runoff. The Agency remains concerned
about imposing broad national numerk
effluent limitations which would apply
to all storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. However, the
Agency believes that numeric effluent
limitations may be appropriate when
applied to storm water discharges from
specific, priority unit operations or type
of industrial facilities. For example, as
discussed above, the Agency has
developed a number of effluent
limitation guidelines for runoff from
various industrial categories. The
Agency intends to continue to evaluate
the use of numeric effluent limitations
for priority storm water discharges.
Several commenters thought the pH
limitation of between 6.0 and 9.0 was
unreasonable because the levels in
rainfall and receiving waters often
exceed the 6.0 to 9.0 range. Some of
these commenters suggested that the
Agency should consider allowing a
wider range of values when it can be
demonstrated that "natural" storm
water is outside this range. Another
commenter indicated that the pH limit
was impossible to reach without
treatment in areas of acid rain.
In response, the Agency recognizes
that rainfall may have a pH of lower
than 6.0 (or higher than 9.0). In such
cases, dischargers will typically have to
provide treatment for coal pile runoff
prior to discharge, even where they are
using low sulfur coal Such treatment is
anticipated and consistent with today's
effluent limitation. The Agency also
notes that the pH and TSS parameters in
the coal pile limitation are indicator
parameters for other toxic constituents,
including a number of heavy metals. The
pH of the storm water affects the
availability and solubility of these
parameters. Storm water with a low pH
will leach metals from coaL Thus it is
appropriate to control pollutants in coal
pile runoff events where a low pH is
caused by low pH rain instead of sulfur
in the coal. In addition, metals in a low
pH solution will tend to be in a form that
is more available to organisms. Thus,
the pH typically needs to be controlled
to provide for appropriate control of
these constituents.
One commenter indicated that EPA
should only impose coal pile limitations
where site-specific impacts to receiving
streams are identified. The commenter
also noted that the pollutant


IUIIYI)IIII~----~-PLIIY(YlbCU~~ hC1I:


41284


ch
di
th
fo
th
It
be

IN
tc
*
a
4
d
it

1(
i


a
a

I







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


characteristics of coal pile runoff can
,. depend on a number of factors, such as
the size of the pile, the type of
foundation under the pile, and the pH of
the precipitation, and that the Agency
should consider such factors at each site
before imposing a limitation on that site.
In response, the Agency notes that the
effluent limitations for cbal pile runoff in
today's permits are technology-based
requirements based on BAT
considerations, and do not consider site-
specific water quality impacts. EPA
does not agree with the commenter that
it should be precluded from issuing
technology-based requirements unless it
specifically identifies water quality
impacts associated with a discharge.
This approach is not authorized by the
CWA, which requires that NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
establish, at a minimum, technology-
based BAT/BCT requirements. The
Agency notes that it has considered a
number of factors, including size of
piles, type of coal, and other appropriate
factors in developing the limitation for
coal pile runoff in today's permits.
One commenter suggested that any
modifications to numeric discharge
limits on coal piles be done through
changes in the effluent limitation
guidelines, and that the establishment of
new effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in a storm water permit was
confusing.
In response, the Agency has authority
to establish effluent limitations in
NPDES permits on a case-by-case basis
outside of the effluent limitation
guidelines process. Section 402{a)(1) of
the CWA authorizes EPA to issue
permits imposing effluent limitations
based on best professional judgement
for activities for which EPA-
promulgated effluent limitation
guidelines have not been developed.
Again, the Agency wants to clarify that
today's permits do not modify
requirements for coal pile runoff which
are already subject to an effluent
limitation guideline.
Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits provided that plans should be
completed within 180 days of the
effective date of the permit (and
updated as appropriate) and provide for
Pompliance within 385 days of the
effective date of the permit. The August
16 1991 draft general permits also
required that NOIs be submitted within
SOdays of the effective date of the
Permit.
One commenter indicated that with
I meal permits, the effective date of the


general permit is not the date that the
discharger is subject to the permit.
Rather, with a general permit, a
discharger will need time to review the -
permit and understand the alternatives
prior to selecting this option and
submitting the Notice of Intent Other
commenters expressed confusion over
plan deadlines and requested
clarification.
In response, the Agency has modified
the permit to provide specific dates for
plan preparation and compliance. While
the Agency does not agree that it cannot
establish compliance dates based on the
effective date of the permit, the Agency
believes that specifying specific dates
will minimize confusion regarding these
dates, particularly where EPA issues
permits for different States on different
dates.
A number of commenters indicated
that they thought that it was
inappropriate to require that plans be
developed at the same time that an NOI
was required. In response, as discussed
above, the Agency has modified the
deadline for submitting most NOIs to be
covered by today's permits to October 1,
1992 to provide consistency with the
deadlines for individual permit
applications and for part 2 of group
applications. In addition, to reflect this
date for submitting NOls and to address
the concerns of the commenters,
pollution prevention plans for
dischargers with facilities in operation
on or before October 1, 1992 shall be
prepared by April 1,1993, and provide
for implementation and compliance with
the terms of the plan on or before
October 1, 1993.
However, the Agency believes that
operators of new industrial activity that
commence after October 1,1992 will
have opportunities to prepare storm
water pollution prevention plans prior to
commencement of the industrial activity.
Thus, today's permits require that such
new dischargers be prepared to comply
with their pollution prevention plan
upon commencement of their discharge.
The Agency believes that this approach
will ensure that new facilities
adequately incorporate pollution
prevention concepts into their plans for
new industrial activities.
Some commenters suggested different
times for complying with plans. One
commenter recommended that facilities
be given 270 days after the effective
date of thepermit to prepare the plan.
Some of these recommended that
facilities be given a full year to develop
Sthe plan and an additional 180 days to
implement baseline requirements. Other
commenters suggested that permittees
be given one year from he effective
. date of the permit to complete its plan


and one and one half years from the
effective date of the permit to comply
with the conditions of the permit. One
commenter thought permittees should be
given one year from the effective date of
the permit to prepare plans, and an
additional year to comply with the plan
to allow facilities to incorporate storm
water management planning into the
normal budgeting and operation of the
facility. Another commenter indicated
that the storm water control measures of
the draft permit may require significant
technical and management input for
testing and evaluation prior to final
implementation. One commenter urged
EPA to stretch out compliance deadlines
based on their belief that such action
would provide industries with
additional opportunities to plan and
implement more comprehensive
solutions to storm water management,
thereby increasing the effectiveness of
integrated pollution prevention methods.
In response, EPA notes that today's
permits provide that plans can be
modified after the initial compliance
date to address information that comes
from testing and the evaluation that
occurs during the term of the permit.
Given this flexibility, and based on a
consideration of the requirements of the
permit, the Agency believes that the
time frames established, in today's
permits are reasonable. To ensure
adequate flexibility and in response to
comments, today's permits allow the
Director to establish a later date for
preparing and complying with plans
based on a showing of good cause.
However, it should be noted that section
402(p)(4)A) of the CWA requires that
any permit for a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity shall
provide for compliance as expeditiously
as practicable, but in no event later than
three years after the date of issuance of
such permit.
One commenter suggested that
permittees be given one year to comply
with the requirement to test for (or
evaluate) illicit connections. In
response, today's permit has been
modified to provide that permittees have
one year to certify that they have tested
for or otherwise evaluated their storm
water conveyance system for the
presence of noi-storm water discharges
This has been done to provide
consistency between the deadline for
certifying that storm water discharges
have been tested for the presence of
non-storm water and the deadline for
implementing the pollution prevention
plan.
One commenter suggested that small
business be given 3 to 5 years to comply
with permit requirements. In response,


_ ~,~-~,~P~nrcara~olB6h3la --- I


41285







Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9,1992 / Notices


the Agency believes that the complexity
Sof the flexible, site-specific storm water
pollution prevention plans required by
today's permits will to some degree be
related to the size of the facility. Thus,
EPA believes that the time frames
established in today's permits are
appropriate for small businesses.
However, in response to comments.
today's permits provide additional
flexibility for the Director to establish a
later date for preparing and complying
with plans based on a showing of good
cause.
One commenter indicated that Federal
facilities would have unique problems
with the compliance dates in the August
16,1991 draft permits because of the
complexities of the Federal budgetary
process. In response, the Agency notes
that the draft permits were first publicly
noticed on August16, 1991. Federal
facilities have had since that time to
make planning decisions necessary to
support plan preparation. In addition,
today's permits require that plans for
existing storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity be
developed by April 1, 1993, six months
after the beginning of the 1993 fiscal
year for the Federal government. Again,
the Agency wants to clarify that today's
permits provide additional flexibility for
the Director to establish a later date for
preparing and complying with plans
based on a showing of good cause.
Some commenters indicated that it
generally would take additional time to
comply with the more complex
requirements of the permit Many of
these commenters focused on the
special requirements for EPCRA section
313 facilities. For example, several
commenters indicated the proposed plan
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities can require substantial
planning and design efforts. One
commenter indicated that it would
generally not be possible for many
facilities to provide measures requiring
significant construction, such as
secondary containment, within one year
because of the demand on
environmental engineering firms, the
time needed to prepare plans, the lead
time required for planning and designing
activities to construct secondary
containment structures, and the delays
that industrial facilities through the
North will experience due to winter
weather. Several commenters, including
a large water pollution trade
organization indicated that three years
from the effective date of the permit be
provided for any measure, such as
installing secondary containment, that
requires construction. Other
commenters indicated that they thought


four years would be needed by most -
facilities to complete installation of any
required containment structures.
In response, the Agency believes that
it is appropriate to provide permittees
with more complex requirements which
may require significant construction
activities, such as those for EPCRA
section 313 facilities, salt storage, and
coal pile runoff, additional time to
comply with today's permit
requirements, and has established a
three year compliance date for
complying with these special
requirements. In addition, facilities
which trigger EPCRA section 313
thresholds for the first time during the
permit term will have three years from
the time they first have to report to
comply with the additional requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities. This
deadline is consistent with section
402(p)(4)(A) of the CWA which requires
that any permit for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity shall provide for compliance as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no
event later than 13 years after the date
of issuance of such permit However, the
Agency wants to clarify that such
facilities must prepare a storm water
pollution prevention plan address the
baseline requirements (e.g. requirements
other than the special requirements) by
April 1, 1993, and provide for
compliance with this portion of the plan
by October 1, 1993.
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify requirements for oil and gas
operations that prior to October 1,1992,
did not require an NPDES permit for
their storm water discharge, but that
have a discharge of storm water
resulting in the discharge of a reportable
quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
after October 1, 1992. In response.
today's permits establish special
deadlines for certain oil and gas
operations. Oil and gas operations
having a discharge of a reportable
quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
after October 1,1992 are required to
submit an NOI within 14 days after
knowledge of the reportable quantity
release and prepare and comply with
the terms of a storm waterpollution
prevention plan within 60 days of the
reportable quantity release. EPA
believes this shorter time frame is
appropriate because the potential for
spills associated with such facilities and
the additional expertise expected in the
oil industry that has developed to
comply with SPCC requirements.
Subsequent to the publication of the
August 16, 1991 draft general permits,-
Congress established special permit
apphcation deadlines in the


Transportation Act of 1991 for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities that an
owned or operated by a municipality
that has participated in a timely part I
group application and where either the
group application is rejected or the
facility is denied participation in the
group application by EPA. As discussed
above, the deadline for such facilities to
submit NOIs to be covered by today's
permits is consistent with the
Transportation Act Today's permits
provide that the plan for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from a facility that is owned or
operated by a municipality that has
participated in a timely group
application and where either the group
application is rejected or the facility is
denied participation in the group
application by EPA must be prepared on
or before the 365th day following the
date on which the group is rejected or
the denial is made, (and updated as
appropriate). In addition, such
permittees must provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan on or before
the 545th day following the date on
which the group is rejected or the denial
is made. These deadlines will give
facilities that are part of a rejected
group application sufficient time to
comply with the pollution prevention
plan requirements of today's permits.
Procedures for Reviewing Plans
The August 16,1991 draft general
permits provided that permittees were
not required to submit a storm water
pollution prevention plan to EPA unless
EPA requested the plan on a case-by-
case basis. The permit also provided
that EPA may notify the permitted that
the plan does not meet one or more of
the requirements of the permit Unless
otherwise provided by EPA, permittees
would have 30 days after such
notification to make necessary changes
and submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
had been made.
Several commenters indicated that
they thought, depending on the extent to
which the Director required changes, 30
days could be an insufficient period of
time to make the required changes.
Some of these commenters suggested 90
days as a time period to make required
revisions.
In response, the Agency notes that the
permit provides flexibility for EPA to
establish a longer or shorter time period
for permittees to make and implement
modifications to their plans. In general.
EPA will consider factors such as
whether the change is procedural in
nature or will require structural


r


b
d
a

n
h



e
I o
0
S

ii


41286







Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


modifications, the extent of the
modifications, and the environmental
risk of the discharge when establishing
alternative time periods for modifying
plans.
One commenter indicated that they
believed that plans should be dynamic
documents which are revised as
appropriate to reflect changes in the
facility's operations. The Agency agrees
with this comment. The Agency has
modified today's permits to clarify and
highlight this principle. Today's permits
require that the permitted shall amend
the plan whenever there is a change in
design, construction, operation, or
maintenance which has a significant
effect on the potential for the discharge
of pollutants to waters of the United
States or if the storm water pollution
prevention plan proves to be ineffective
in eliminating or significantly
minimizing pollutants. In addition, the
requirements in today's permits for
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations have been developed based
on the concept that permittees need to
inspect their sites and evaluate the
accuracy and effectiveness of their
plans and make plan modifications as
necessary.
Some commenters indicated that
requiring permittees to submit plans to
EPA upon request for review and
approval would decrease plan
effectiveness by discouraging facilities
from revising their-plans as necessary in
light of new information and to meet
changing circumstances. They indicated
that this approach would also impose a
heavy burden on EPA's limited
reviewing resources.
The Agency does not agree that
submitting plans to EPA upon request
for review and approval would decrease
plan effectiveness by discouraging
facilities from revising their plans as
necessary in light of new information
and to meet changing circumstances. As
discussed above, today a permit requires
permittees to evaluate the accuracy and
effectiveness of their plan, and to make
modifications as necessary. The Agency
believes that most discharges will
realize that modifying their plan to make
it more effective and will decrease the
chances that EPA will require
modifications. Nonetheless, as
discussed below; plans must be
submitted to EPA onlyon request.
Some commenters suggested
submitting the storm water polluti on
Prevention plans to EPA for their
approval, thus avoiding compliance
Problems later. One commenter
ldicated that they thought some
businesses will want their plans
approved by EPA prior to implementing


them, to avoid wasting money on a plan
which is later deemed inadequate.
The Agency wants to clarify that it
does not intend to conduct detailed
reviews of all storm water pollution
prevention plans prior to authorizing
storm water discharges under the
general permit because of limited
resources. However, EPA retains
authority to request and review storm
water pollution prevention plans and to
require changes to the plans-and/or
submittal of an individual permit
application where appropriate. The
Agency wants to clarify that if plans are
voluntarily submitted to EPA for Agency
review, the Agency is not precluded
from requesting additional modifications
at a later date based on additional
information, changing conditions,
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
plan, or other relevant factors. Neither is
the Agency precluded from requiring
plan modifications where a plan had
been voluntarily submitted earlier, and
the Agency did not respond.
One commenter recommended that
the permit should provide that no
enforcement action could be brought
against a permitted for violation of
several provisions of the permit that
provided dischargers with flexibility in
selection of practices.
In response, the Agency will exercise
enforcement discretion where
appropriate when evaluating permit
compliance. The Agency recognizes that
several provisions of the permit provide
flexibility for selecting controls to be
implemented, and will consider good
faith attempts at compliance when
exercising its enforcement discretion.
However, the Agency is concerned that
specific language in the permit as
requested by the commenter would
create unnecessary confusion, and that
some permittees would inappropriately
argue that such language precluded EPA
from enforcing permit conditions in all
cases.
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that when requesting
modifications to a storm water pollution
prevention plan, the Agency identify
with reasonable specificity which
provisions of the plan require change
and which of the minimum requirements
the existing plan violates. In response,
the Agency has made this clarification.
One commenter raised concerns that
EPA has not provided administrative
procedures for reviewing plans and
requiring modifications, and it is unclear
whether the permitted has the right to
meet with the Agency, submit comments
on the required changes, or file any sort
of appeaL The oommenter indicated that
a discharger and EPA may legitimately


differ on whether a plan meets
appropriate requirements, and that
facilities should have the opportunity to
request review of the agency's initial
determination that a plan does not meet
requirements, and explain exactly why a
particular element of a plan is
appropriate for a specific facility.
In response, the ultimate resolution of
disagreements concerning the adequacy
of pollution prevention plans is a
compliance issue. However, permittees
always have the opportunity to make
their disagreements known to the
Agency and to resolve compliance
concerns on an informal or formal basis.
It can also be noted that EPA's
regulations, and today's permits provide
dischargers with the opportunity to
submit an individual permit application.
In cases where the Agency decides to
issue an individual permit, dischargers
will have additional opportunities for
input.
Monitoring andReportmg Requirements
I. Overall Approach to Monitoring
Requirements
On August 16,1991, EPA requested
comment on modifying the regulatory
provision at 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2),
addressing the establishment of
discharge monitoring reporting
requirements in NPDES permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. The regulation
existing at the time of the proposal
provided that NPDES permits, including
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges, require discharge monitoring
reports at a minimum of once a year. As
part of the August 1, 1991 notice, EPA
specifically identified six options for
modifying requirements to report
monitoring results for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.
In addition, the draft general permits
in the same August 16, 1991 notice
requested comment on annual discharge
sampling of storm water discharges from
most classes of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity as
this approach was consistent with the
option EPA favored in the August 16.
1991 notice for the regulatory change.
However, in the August 16,1991 notice,
the Agency also indicated that the
monitoring requirements in the final
permits could be less stringent if the
regulatory change provided additional
flexibility with respect to minimum
monitoring requirements.
The draft baseline general permit
proposed on August 1, 1991. required a
minimum of annual monitoring for all
discharges of storm water associated


41287









4128Fr


with industrial activity except those
b from certain oil and gas operations.
Most facilities were subject to a
baseline monitoring requirement of eight
parameters plus any pollutant limited by
an effluent guideline to which the
facility was subject. Six classes of
industries were selected for more
extensive semi-annual monitoring with
additional industry-specific parameters.
Oil and gas exploration or production
operations were given the option of
obtaining a PE certification that a
pollution prevention plan was being
implemented in accordance with the
permit in lieu of monitoring.
On April 2, 1992, (57 FR 11394), EPA
published final revisions to the Agency's
baseline NPDES monitoring
requirements for storm water
discharges. Under the modified
regulatory framework, monitoring
requirements for NPDES permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity are to be established
on a case-by-case basis, with minimum
requirements relating to site inspections
rather than discharge monitoring.
II. Comments on Proposed General
Permit Monitoring Requirements
Several commenters thought that the"
monitoring requirements in the August
16, 1991 draft permits should be retained
or expanded. These commenters
indicated that monitoring was necessary
to adequately identify pollutant sources,
determine the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures, and build a data
base to support future permit issuing
activities. However, the majority of
commenters addressing this issue raised
concerns regarding proposed
requirements for all permittees to
sample their discharges. A number of
these commenters suggested that it was
important to sample storm water
discharges from priority classes of
activities or facilities, but that across-
the-board monitoring requirements for
all facilities covered by the permit may
not be an appropriate or cost-effective
use of resources. While most
commenters in the regulated community
supported the necessity for controlling
pollutants discharged via storm water
runoff, the expense and difficulties of
storm water monitoring were of major
concern. Some of these commenters -
indicated that overly broad discharge
monitoring requirements at this point in
time could be counterproductive toward
the goals of the program, as significant
resources would have to be expended
collecting and analyzing discharge
samples, thereby limiting available
resources at some facilities to develop
and implement measures that would
result in the removal of pollutants in


their storm water discharges. Other
concerns raised by the commenters
included the difficulties in
characterizing storm water discharges
with sampling data, the belief that in
some situations, site inspections would
be more appropriate than monitoring for
determining permit compliance, and
EPA's limited ability to effectively
review data. An underlying theme that
emerged from the comments was that a
number of factors, such as the potential
for discharges to contain significant
amounts of pollutants, the nature of
permit conditions, and the nature of the
operation of the facility should be
considered when establishing
monitoring conditions in NPDES permits
for storm water discharges.
In response, the Agency has modified
the monitoring requirements df the final
general permit to be consistent with the
flexibility afforded by the changes to
minimum monitoring requirements at 40
CFR 122.44(i)(2) made on April 2, 1992.
Monitoring requirements for discharges
from many classes of industrial facilities
have been reduced or eliminated..
Monitoring requirements have been
retained for selected industries or
industrial activities which, due to the
nature of industrial activities or
materials stored or used onsite, have
significant potential for contributing
pollutants to storm water. These
requirements are discussed in more
detail below.
As discussed in more detail earlier in
today's notice, the Agency has also
added requirements to conduct
comprehensive annual site compliance
evaluations which have been designed
to evaluate the effectiveness of permit
implementation and identify pollutant
sources consistent with the April 2, 1992,
regulatory modifications. The Agency
believes that these compliance
evaluations can provide an efficient and
cost-effective approach for evaluating
the effectiveness of permit program
implementation.
In adopting this approach, the Agency
recognizes that discharge monitoring
data can play several important
functions, including assisting in.
identifying pollutant sources, evaluating"
the effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures, evaluating the risk of
discharges by indicating the type and
concentration of pollutant parameters in
the discharge, and provide information
which can be used in efforts to identify
water quality impacts, and supporting
future permitting activities, such as Tier


II, III and IV activities described in
EPA's long-term permitting strategy.*v
However, the Agency also recognize
that other types of information can be
used to supplement or in some cases
replace monitoring information. For
example, the requirements in today's
permits for the narrative description of
potential pollutant sources, inspection,
testing for non-storm water discharges
and comprehensive site compliance
evaluations will assist in identifying
pollutant sources associated with
industrial activity. In addition, the
Agency notes that the effectiveness of
some types of pollution prevention
measures can be observed without
monitoring, such as removal or
elimination of pollutant sources,
eliminating exposure of materials to
precipitation, and eliminating non-stonn
water discharges to the storm sewer
system. Other measures, such as
maintaining vegetation to prevent
erosion, silt fences, and screens or other
devices to collect floatables can be
evaluated without sampling discharges.
The approach taken in today's permits
represents an approach which uses both
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations and monitoring
requirements for targeted industrial
activities and facilities to pursue the
goals of the program. In accordance with
40 CFR 122.44, today's permits require
permittees to conduct comprehensive
site compliance evaluations. In addition,
all permittees are required to develop
and implement pollution prevention
plans. These requirements establish a
baseline for ensuring facilities evaluate
pollutant sources and evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures for storm water discharges.
Today's permits also establish
monitoring requirements for facilities
where EPA has identified targeted
activities that are potential sources of
significant amounts of pollutants. These
requirements will provide additional
information that will assist and
supplement efforts to identify pollutant
sources and evaluate the effectiveness
of pollution prevention requirements.
The Agency believes that this approach
represents a balanced approach that
addresses the concerns raised in the
comments. Those facilities that are not
required to conduct monitoring will be
able to dedicate their efforts at this time
to developing and implementing
pollution prevention plans which
involve identifying pollutant sources

3" EPA's long term permit issuance strategy for
storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity is described in the April 2, 1992 Federal
Register (57 FR 11394).


Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 199Z / Notices


41288







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


and evaluating the effectiveness of
pollution prevention measures.
Additional monitoring requirements
have been limited to facilities which
EPA believes, based on a general
evaluation of industry practices, may
have sources of significant amounts of
pollution that warrant further
evaluation.
Today's permits provide an exemption
from monitoring requirements for
outfalls at targeted facilities that do not
have any materials, material handling
equipment, industrial machinery or
industrial operations exposed to storm
water located within the drainage area
of the outfall. In such cases, a discharger
must provide an annual certification
that material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials, intermediate
products, final products, waste
materials, by-products, industrial
machinery or operations, or, in the case
of airports, deicing activities, within the
drainage area of the outfall will not be
exposed to storm water. Where the
certification is provided, the permitted
will not be required to monitor storm
water discharges from the outfall.
(However, the permitted must still
comply with other applicable permit
requirements which do not address
sampling pollutants in discharges). This
approach is consistent with the general
monitoring scheme of today's permits
which focuses monitoring requirements
on specific targeted sources of pollution.
The Agency believes that this approach
will provide an incentive for permittees
to eliminate exposure of potential
pollutant sources to storm water.
Eliminating exposure of these materials
to storm water is one of the most
effective pollution prevention measures
available for these sources and is
consistent with the objectives of the
permit and the CWA. The Agency also
believes that this approach will lower
burdens on facilities that have taken
steps to eliminate exposure of materials
and equipment to storm water
discharges.
In developing the monitoring strategy
in today's permits, EPA recognizes that
it has other sources of information
available to assist in achieving the
broader national objectives supported
by monitoring data, such as developing
additional targeted controls for storm
water discharges from priority
industries. Examples of other sources of
monitoring data include, group
applications 38, individual applications,

UEPA has received over 1,200 Part I group
applications from a wide variety of industrial
peps Part 2 of the group applications, which
amtins representative monitoring data from the
trial group, are due on October 1.1992.


information in ttate Storm Water
Permitting Plans9, and storm water
monitoring *sf required under other
EPA or authorized NPDES State permits
that are entered into the permit
compliance system (PCS) data base. In
addition, EPA is authorized under
section 308 of the.CWA to require
dischargers to, on a case-by-case basis,
submit sampling monitoring data
necessary to carry out the objectives of
the CWA. This. authority can be used to
obtain storm water monitoring data that
is not otherwise required under the
permit. For example, EPA could request
facilities from targeted industries that
have certified that they do not have
materials or equipment exposed to
storm water to report storm water
monitoring data in order to characterize
other potential pollutant sources or to
identify background levels of pollutants
from facilities that have been able to
eliminate exposure of these activities to
storm water.
Other commenters raised issues
regarding the appropriateness of the
proposed monitoring parameters to
particular industries. In general, EPA
has modified some of the parameters
associated with the monitoring
requirements in today's permits in
response to comments and to provide a
better relationship between the
monitoring requirements and potential
pollutant sources associated with
classes of industrial activities. These
concerns and changes are addressed
below.
Several commenters also requested
clarification on, or objected to, potential
overlap between the industrial
categories. While the comments were
directed at the EPCRA section 313
facilities, the Agency's response applies
to all annual and semi-annual
monitoring categories in the final permit.
Generally, the industry-specific
monitoring requirements are additive
and not intended to be mutually
exclusive. Monitoring requirements must
be evaluated on a outfall by outfall
basis. If a particular discharge fits under
more than one set of monitoring
requirements, the facility must comply
with both sets of sampling requirements.
This will ensure adequate data to
evaluate all of the appropriate pollutant
sources. The Agency notes that this
approach often will not result in
requiring dischargers to collect extra
samples, but rather to analyze samples

s* State Storm Water Permitting Plans are to
contain a description of activities addressing
priority issuing permits for storm water discharges
from priority industrial facilities (see April 2.1992
(57 FR 11394)).


that are collected for additional
parameters.
On the other hand, sampling
parameters often overlap between the
categories. For example, an outfall
subject to the semi-annual EPCRA and
annual "Other Facility" sampling
requirements could sample semi-
annually for EPCRA parameters and
satisfy both sampling requirements by
analyzing for parameters in an
applicable effluent guideline to either of
the two semi-annual samples. However,
coal pile runoff should be addressed
somewhat differently because it is
subject to a numeric effluent limitation
under today's permit. Coal pile runoff
should be monitored before it is
commingled with flows from other
sources. Thus, coal pile runoff from a
primary metal facility, for example,
should only be monitored for the
parameters specified for coal pile runoff.
The Agency believes that this approach
will adequately support the effluent
limitation of today's permit.
The monitoring requirements of
today's permits can be broken into two
general classes, semi-annual monitoring,
and annual monitoring. Facilities that
are required to conduct semi-annual
monitoring are required to report data
annually. Facilities thai are required to
conduct annual monitoring are required
only to report data if the data is
requested by the permitting authority.
EPA believes that higher monitoring
frequency for facilities that are required
to report data will assist EPA in efforts
to establish program priorities and will
support future permitting efforts, as well
as gives these facilities more data to
consider. Not requiring facilities to
submit data unless it is specifically
requested will lower reporting burdens
on facilities where data is not
specifically requested, while still
providing facilities with a means to
evaluate pollution prevention plans.
m. Certification of Testing For Non-
storm Water Discharges
The draft permit prohibited the
discharge of all non-storm water and
required certification under the pollution
prevention plan that all storm water
outfalls had been tested for the presence
of illicit connections. If unable to
provide certification within the 180 day
pollution prevention plan development
period, the permitted was required to
notify the Director. One commenter felt
the certification date should be changed
to correspond to the deadline for
pollution prevention plan compliance.
The Agency concurs with this
comment and has modified the "Failure
to Certify" reporting requirement. Any


_


----------------~--~n`-~"I~~-~ --- 9


41289








Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


facility that is unable to provide the
certification regarding testing for non-
storm water discharges, must notify the
Director by October 1, 1993 or, for
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1, 1992 within 180 days
after submitting a NOI to be covered by
this permit The October 1, 1993 date is
appropriate for existing facilities
because it is consistent with the timing
provided for these facilities to prepare
(April 1, 1993) and implement (October
1, 1993) a plan. The 180 days provided to
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1. 1992 is consistent with
the requirement that these facilities
must have their plan developed before
beginning the industrial activity that will
generate the storm water discharge.
IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements for Classes of Targeted
Industrial Activities
Semi-Annual Monitoring Requirements
In today's permits, EPA has retained,
with some modifications, the semi-
annual (twice per year) monitoring
requirements proposed in the August 16,
1991 draft permits for certain storm
Water discharges associated with
industrial activity from: EPCRA section
313 facilities with water priority
chemicals; primary metal facilities; land
disposal units/incinerators/boiler and
industrial furnaces (BIFs); wood
treatment facilities (wood preservers);
and coal pile runoff. As discussed
below, semi-annual monitoring
requirements have been added for
battery reclaimers. These facilities have
a significant potential to contribute toxic
pollutants to storm water due to the
nature of activities occurring onsite and
the types of materials handled.
In response to comments, EPA has
clarified the requirements as they
pertain to each industrial category. For
the most part, monitoring requirements
are limited to discharges associated
with specific industrial activities, and do
not necessarily apply to all storm water
discharges from a site.
EPCRA Section 313 Facilities with
Water Priority Chemicals. Comments
were received both objecting to and-
supporting additional monitoring
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities. In both cases, commenters
indicated that any EPCRA monitoring
conditions should be applied only to
those areas where section 313 water
priority chemicals were stored or
handled. Other commenters suggested
that sampling parameters be limited to
those section 313 water priority
chemicals actually stored within the


drainage area. Several individual
companies and trade organizations
argued that typical pollution prevention
measures at their facilities are already
stringent enough to prevent uncontrolled
releases into the environment and that
monitoring should either be eliminated
or reduced. Comments regarding acute
whole effluent toxicity testing are
addressed separately below.
In response, as discussed above, EPA
believes that facilities that manufacture,
import or process, or other use of large
amounts of toxic chemicals can
potentially be a significant source of
toxic pollutants to storm water. Failures
of process, handling and storage
equipment used for EPCRA water
priority chemicals associated with
operator error, structural failures, and
corrosion can result in the release of
toxic chemicals. Such releases can
continue undetected until the release
becomes obvious.40 In such cases,
monitoring data can provide valuable
insight with respect to these pollutant
sources. For example, monitoring data
can show that leaks from seals, values
or piping are a source of pollution to
storm water. The Agency also believes
that EPCRA thresholds are appropriate
for identifying priorities for the purposes
of establishing storm water monitoring
requirements, as these thresholds
identify a well known set of facilities
which manage large amounts of toxic
chemicals. One of the major purposes of
monitoring storm water discharges from
EPCRA section 313 facilities is to
provide data that can assist in
identifying pollutant sources associated
with the storage, use or management of
EPCRA section 313 water priority
chemicals. Dischargers will also be able
to review monitoring data as a means of
evaluating the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures. Assessment of
data will also allow the Agency to
develop the controls and monitoring
requirements in the Tiers II, I, and IV
storm water permits.
In response to comments, the Agency
has limited special EPCRA monitoring
requirements to the areas where section
313 water priority chemicals are stored
or handled. The final permit clarifies
that these monitoring requirements
apply only to those facilities subject to
EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements for section 313 water
priority chemicals, and then only for
those storm water discharges associated
with industrial activities that allow
storm water to come into contact with
any equipment, tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a

SSee "Hazardous Waste Tank Risk Analysis,"
EPA. 1986.


section 313 water priority chemical, or
storm water discharges from a truck or
rail car loading or unloading area where
a section 313 water priority chemical is
handled.
Primary Metal Facilities
Primary metal facilities (SIC 33) are
engaged in the manufacturing of ferrous
metals and metal products and the
primary and secondary smelting and
refining of nonferrous metals. In
addition, facilities engaged in the
molding, casting, or forming of ferrous or
nonferrous metals are included in this
group. Due to the nature of processes
and activities commonly occurring at
these facilities, a number of sources can
potentially contribute significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water.
Sources of pollutants include outdoor
storage and material handling activities,
particulate and dust generating
processes, and slag quench processes.
Open air storage and handling of raw
materials, products, and wastes is a
common practice at many of these
facilities. In addition, dust and
particulate-generating processes,
particularly at smelting and refining
facilities, are considered potential
sources of pollutants in storm water
discharges. Many of these types of
facilities also use a high volume of
water for operations such as spray
quenching, heat treating, and die
cooling, which when coupled with the
old age of many primary metals industry
facilities, can create the potential for
non-storm water to be discharged to the
storm water collection systems.
One commenter suggested that
monitoring requirements should be
limited to those in effluent guidelines
applicable to specific facilities. In
response, the Agency does not agree
with the commenter because the effluent
guidelines for process discharges may
not address all of the pollutants that
potentially can be found in storm water
discharges. In some cases, the effluent
guidelines use indicator parameters such
as TSS to characterize the removal of
other pollutants, such as metals. While
such an indicator can be appropriate for
evaluating the effectiveness of treatment
technologies, TSS will not differentiate
between inert solids and other
pollutants, such as heavy metals. EPA
has modified today's permits by not
including total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate
plus nitrite nitrogen, and total
phosphorus as parameters required for
primary metal facilities. High levels of
these parameters are not typically
associated with the activities of primary
metal facilities, and not requiring these
parameters will reduce the costs of


I_ __________ ____ ______I _


41290






Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


sampling for these facilities. In addition,
the Agency has added the requirement
that these facilities monitor any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject. The
Agency believes that the addition of
these parameters is appropriate,
because they represent parameters
which have been identified as being
associated with the various
subcategories of primary metal
activities. In addition, the Agency notes
that it was an oversight in the August 16,
1991 draft permit to not require
monitoring of any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the facility is
subject, and that most other sampling
requirements for other categories of
industries addressed (including the
category of additional facilities
described below), required monitoring of
these parameters.
One company requested silicon
manufacturing and semiconductor grade
silicon manufacturing be exempted due
to lower heavy metal content of ores. In
response, data indicates that raw silicon
metal for manufacture of silicones
begins with the reduction of quartz rock
which typically contains relatively
minor amounts of heavy metals relative
to other ores. In addition, the
manufacture of semiconductor grade
silicon begins with distilled
chlorosilanes which are free of heavy
metals and that heavy metals cannot be
in the starting material or they would
contaminate the product. Based on a
consideration of these factors, the
Agency has limited the monitoring
requirements for these facilities.
Two trade organizations questioned
EPA's legal authority to require
additional monitoring of the primary
metal industry and indicated that many
of their members already recover
particulate that can contaminate storm
water and that facilities that did not
perform primary smelting operations did
not generate dust. One of these
commenters suggested that EPA wait
until it collects and reviews information
from other sources, such as group
applications, before requiring
monitoring.
The Agency has broad authority
under sections 308(a) and 402(a)(2) of
the Clean Water Act to establish any
monitoring conditions deemed
necessary to develop or insure
compliance with effluent standards or
insure protection of water quality. The
monitoring conditions in today's permits
have a number of purposes, including
providing information to identify
pollutant sources, and evaluating the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures. In addition, as summarized


above, the Agency notes that industrial
activities which typically occur at SIC 33
facilities can contribute pollutants other
than by dust generation.
LandDisposal Units/Incinerators/BIFs
Land disposal units and incinerators
and boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFa),that burn hazardous waste may
receive a diverse range of industrial
wastes. Waste receiving, handling,
storage and processing, in addition to
actual waste disposal can be a
significant.source of pollutants at waste
disposal facilities. The surface water
impacts associated with land disposal
units are well characterized. EPA has
summarized case studies documenting
surface water impacts and ground water
contamination of land disposal units
(see August 30,1988). Evaluation of 163
case studies revealed surface water
impacts at 73 facilities. Elevated.levels
of organic, including pesticides, and
metals have been found in ground water
and/or surface water at many sites.
The August 16,1991 draft permits
proposed special sampling requirements
for land disposal units. Today's permits
contains modified monitoring
requirements for land disposal units and
incinerators and boilers and industrial
furnaces (BIFs) that burn hazardous
waste and are at facilities with storm
water associated with industrial
activity. BIFs are those boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste for fuel that are subject to
regulations promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and published February 21,
1991 (56 FR 7134), are similar to
hazardous waste incinerators in that
they burn hazardous materials such as
spent solvents, contaminated fuels, etc.,
but the primary purpose of the facility is
not waste disposal and the hazardous
material is typically burned to provide
heat, steam or generate electricity for
use in manufacturing processes.
Incinerators and BIFs that burn
hazardous wastes have been added to
this category because these facilities
will typically manage the same types of
wastes as landfills, and therefore
present similar risks with respect to
waste transportation, handling, and
storage. In addition, a wide range of
toxic pollutants potentially present in
fuel stocks, material accepted for
disposal, air emission particulate, and
ash at these facilities have the potential
to contaminate storm water runoff.
SA number of commenters objected to
the number of parameters associated
with the monitoring requirements
proposed for land disposal units. In
response, monitoring parameters for this
class were selected due to the wide


range of potential pollutants at land
disposal facilities. The parameters listed
in the August 16, 1991 draft permits are
similar to the parameters addressed by
proposed ground water monitoring
requirements for municipal solid waste
landfills established under subtitle D of
RCRA (see August 30, 1988 (53 FR
33372)). In developing the list of
parameters for the sampling
requirements for land disposal units and
incinerators in today's permits, the
Agency has deleted several parameters
which are monitored in a ground water
context primarily to detect plume
migration, and are not necessarily of
concern in and of themselves. These
parameters include carbonate, calcium,
chloride, iron, potassium, sodium, and
sulfate. Not requiring these parameters
to be analyzed will reduce monitoring
costs. Comments regarding acute whole
effluent toxicity testing are addressed
separately below.
Several commenters felt landfill runoff
was already adequately addressed by
State regulatory programs. In response,
the Agency notes that the criteria the
Agency has published for solid waste
disposal facilities under subtitle D of
RCRA does not include sampling or
treatment requirements for storm water
discharged from landfills (see October 9,
1991 (56 FR 51054)). In the October 9,
1991, notice establishing criteria for
solid waste disposal facilities, the
Agency noted that the NPDES permit
under the CWA would be the
appropriate mechanism for ensuring that
point source discharges of runoff from
landfills are protective of human health
and the environment.
Several commenters requested
clarification on whether inactive or
closed land disposal sites were also
subject to these monitoring
requirements. In response, the Agency is
clarifying that today's permits establish
monitoring requirements for storm water
discharge from an active or inactive
landfill, open dump or land application
site without a stabilized final cover that
has received any industrial wastes
(other than wastes from a construction
site).
In general, inactive land disposal sites
with a final cover that is consistent with
specifications for a final cover system
for municipal solid waste landfills
developed under subtitle D of RCRA
will satisfy the requirement of a
stabilized final cover for the purposes of
monitoring requirements under today's
permits. The subtitle D specifications for
a final cover system are provided at 40
CFR 258.00 and include an erosion layer
underlain by an infiltration layer as
follows:


I


41291







Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


*The infiltration layer must be
- comprised of a minimum of 18 inches of
earthen material that has a permeability
less than or equal to the permeability of
any bottom liner system or natural
subsoils present, or a permeability no
greater than I X 10**- cm/sec,
whichever is less, and
The erosion layer must consist of a
minimum of 6 inches of earthen material
that is capable of sustaining native plant
growth.
States may approve alternative final
cover designs that include an infiltration
layer that achieves an equivalent
reduction in infiltration, and an erosion
layer that provides equivalent protection
from wind and water erosion.
The Agency believes that inactive
facilities meeting these requirements
will generally not be a significant source
of pollutants to storm water discharges.
Wood Treatment Facilities (Wood
Preservers)
Pollutants in storm water runoff from
treated material storage yards at wood-
preserving facilities were studied by
EPA in 1981 in support of effluent
guidelines development and in support
of a proposed hazardous waste listing in
1988 (December 30 1988 (53 FR 53287)).
Several organic pollutants were found at
Significant concentrations, including
pentachlorophenol, fluoranthene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene.
One commenter suggested combining
the two categories of wood treating
facilities identified in the August 16,
1991 draft permits into one category,
with monitoring requirements based on
the type of wood preservative used. In
response, the Agency has modified these
monitoring requirements so that there is
only one wood preserving monitoring
category in today's permits. Under the
combined category, all wood treatment
facilities will be required to monitor for
oil and grease, pH, COD, and TSS.
Requirements for monitoring
phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite, Kjeldahl
nitrogen, and BOD5 have been
eliminated. Nutrients are not expected
to be present in significant amounts at
these facilities. Metals or other toxic
materials in samples can limit the
accuracy of BOD5 analysis. Facilities
that use chlorophenolic formulations
must measure pentachlorophenol and
acute whole effluent toxicity; facilities '
which use creosote formulations must
measure acute whole effluent toxicity;
and facilities that use chromium-arsenic
formulations must measure total arsenic,
total chromium, and total copper. In
addition, the final permit clarifies that
areas that are used for wood treatment,
wood surface application or storage of


treated or surface protected wood at
any wood preserving or wood surface
application facilities are subject to these
monitoring requirements.
Another commenter suggested
reducing the monitoring frequency due
to material management regulations
established under other environmental
programs such as RCRA. In response,
the Agency notes that no provision of
RCRA or the CWA limits EPA's
authority to regulate storm water
discharges from wood preserving
facilities under the CWA. EPA
published regulations addressing several
wastes from wood preserving facilities,
including storage yard drippage, on
December 6, 1990 (55 FR 50450). The
RCRA requirements do not require
monitoring of storm water discharges to
assist in characterizing pollutants in
such discharges. Rather, the RCRA
requirements establish a set of controls,
including certain management practices,
to control wastes addressed by the rule.
While several of these requirements,
where properly implemented, should
decrease pollutants in storm water
discharges, the Agency continues to
believe that a minimum of twice per
year sampling is appropriate for these
facilities to adequately characterize
pollutant sources and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the pollution control
measures required under RCRA and
today's permits.
Comments regarding acute whole
effluent toxicity testing are addressed
separately below.
Coal Pile Runoff
Pollutants in storm water runoff from
coal piles are discussed in detail earlier
in today's notice. Monitoring
requirements are necessary to support
the numeric effluent limitation in today's
permits. Commenters did not emphasize
concerns regarding monitoring
requirements for coal pile runoff.
However, the final permit does modify
the coal pile runoff limitations to
correspond to those at 40 CFR part 423.
As a result, grab sampling of the
parameters will be required to be
consistent with the instantaneous
maximum limitations.
Battery Reclaimers
Today's permit establishes special
semi-annual monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges from areas used
for storage of lead acid batteries,
reclamation products, or waste
products, and areas used for lead acid
battery reclamation (including material
handling activities) at facilities that
reclaim lead acid batteries. Based on an
evaluation of the battery reclamation
industry, the Agency has identified


handling, storage and processing of lead
acid batteries, as well as byproduct and
waste handling at reclamation facilities
as having a significant potential for
pollutants in storm water discharges.
Only those areas used for storage of
lead acid batteries, reclamation
products, or waste products, and areas
used for lead acid battery reclamation
(including material handling activities)
are subject to this monitoring
requirement
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity
Monitoring Requirements
The August 16, 1991. draft permit
proposed acute whole effluent toxicity
(WET) monitoring for EPCRA section
313 facilities; primary metal (SIC 33)
facilities; land disposal facilities; and
wood treatment facilities using creosote
or chlorophenolic compounds. WET
testing was included as both an efficient
method of assessing the toxicity
potential of complex mixtures of
pollutants in storm water and as a
measure of the effectiveness of a
facilities pollution prevention plan.
A number of concerns regarding acute
WET testing were raised in the
comments. The usefulness of testing
storm water for toxicity without
allowing for instream dilution was
questioned. These commenters indicated
concerns that storm water discharges
that exhibited toxicity may not create
toxic conditions in receiving waters due
to the dilution provided by the receiving
stream.
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify a primary purpose of the WET
monitoring requirements in today's
permits is to assist in the identification
of pollutant sources, particularly where
complex mixtures of pollutants in storm
water may result, and assist in the
evaluation of the effectiveness of
pollution prevention practices, not to
consider the ability of receiving streams
to dilute toxicity. The Agency believes
that testing 100 percent storm water
effluent (no dilution) is appropriate for
this purpose because testing 100 percent
storm water effluent is preferable to
testing diluted effluent where the object
of conducting the test is to detect the
presence of toxicity in the effluent. The
Agency also notes that tests conducted
on 100 percent effluent can serve as an
initial screen for evaluating whether a
discharge potentially contributes to
water quality impairment.
Several commenters questioned the
particular acute toxicity test proposed
(48-hr invertebrate and 96-hour
vertebrate) with regard to its use on
short, intermittent, and variable storm
water discharges. In response, today's


41292








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9, 1992 / Notices


permits have been modified to provide
for a 24-hour test period for the acute
WET parameter. EPA believes that in
certain situations, such as where several
storm events occur over a period of
several days, storm water discharges
can result in exposures to toxic
chemicals of longer than 24 hours, and
that in some situations, monitoring the
acute WET parameter using longer time
periods (such as 48-hr for invertebrate
species and 96-hour for vertebrate
species) will be appropriate. However,
the primary reasons for establishing
monitoring requirements fqr the acute
WET parameter in today's permit is to
assist in identifying pollutant sources
and to evaluate the effectiveness of
pollution measures. Since the WET
monitoring requirements in today's
permits are generally not intended to
directly evaluate toxic effects on
organisms in receiving waters, the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
allow for 24 hour testing of the WET
parameter to reduce monitoring costs."*
This approach is consistent with the
EPA policy of allowing for shorter
toxicity testing time intervals when
conducting toxicity screening tests.*4
Several commenters suggested the use
of indigenous species. In response, the
WET monitoring requirements in many
of today's permits allow flexibility for
the selection of appropriate invertebrate
and fish species, consistent with EPA
recommendations in "Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms",
EPA, 1991, (EPA-600/4--0/027).
However, the permits for Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas,
Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah specify
specific species to be tested. EPA
believes that specifying the species in
standardized test methods will allow
direct comparison to similar discharges
at different facilities, and is consistent
with WET procedures generally used in
other NPDES permits issued for
discharges in these States In addition,
the use of sensitive standardized test
species helps avoid problems that arise
when indigenous organisms may be
diseased or impaired. Many laboratories
across the country maintain healthy

4* Today's pemnnts for discharges in CO. WY. Mw
ND, nd UT require 4 hbow etuing for invrtebrae
species. and 9g Bur teing for fish ecie These
Procedures ae consistent wtb the pr cedure
generally used in NPDES permits for WET testing
other discharges within these States. Use t the
same procedures will assist EPA in emntainag thi
data.
I Methos for Measuiing the Ae e Tamicity of
E*MnmIts and Receiving Waters to Fteswatr and
Marine Organisms" EPA. tl1. (PAd-BO/i4/027


cultures of standardized toxicity test
organisms. A similar problem may arise
in using indigenous organisms when the
I organisms may have built up a tolerance
to certain toxicants that they are
exposed to. Again, the Agency wants to
emphasize that the-primary purposes of
requiring WET monitoring is to assist in
identifying pollutant sources and to
evaluate the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures, and is generally
not intended to directly evaluate toxic
effects on organisms in receiving waters.
Additional comments were received
questioning the usefulness of toxicity
testing prior to implementation of a
facility's pollution prevention plan. In
response, the Agency believes that acute
WET monitoring data can be used to
assist in the development of storm water
pollution prevention plans by assisting
in identifying potential pollutant sources
which can be targeted for control, and
therefore monitoring for this parameter
before implementing plans is
appropriate. In addition, sampling data
obtained before storm water pollution
prevention plans have been
implemented can assist in developing a
baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of
Pollution prevention measures.
Several commenters raised concerns
regarding the costs of analyzing samples
for the WET parameter. In response, an
informal survey of commercial
laboratories indicated 24-hour acute
toxicity tests conducted on 100 percent
effluent would be in the neighborhood of
$250 per species, or $500 total. Based on
a consideration of these costs and other
factors, the Agency maintains that
monitoring for the WET parameter is
Appropriate. The Agency has made
several modifications to WET
monitoring procedures to reduce the
costs of monitoring for the WET
parameter, including reducing the test
period to 24 hours and only requiring
testing on 100 percent effluent Since the
monitoring requirement is not designed
to directly measure water quality
impacts on the receiving water, use of
freshwater test species and
reconstituted dilution water wil be
allowed for all discharges.
Some commenters indicated that
monitoring the acute WET parameter
would not necessarily indicate the
source of pollutants causing the toxicity.
. In response, the Agency agrees that
monitoring for the WET parameter, by
itself, will not necessarily indicate
sources of pollutants or the chemical
constituents affecting the WET
parameter. Rather, the WET parameter
serves as a screen that gives a general
indication of the toxicity of the
). discharge. One of the biggest


advantages to the WET parameter is its
ability to characterize complex mixes of
chemicals with a single, easily
understood, parameter. When using the
WET parameter, it is not necessary to
specifically identify and consider all of
the potential pollutants that could be
present in a discharge. Once toxicity is
detected, the discharger can use a
variety of methods to identify sources of
pollutants causing the toxicity, including
evaluating information in the description
of potential pollutant sources required in
the storm water pollution prevention
plan, evaluating other information
regarding the nature of industrial
activities at the facility, and conducting
additional monitoring and analyzing for
specific pollutants.
However, in response to concerns
raised on this issue, the sampling
requirements of today's permits for
wood preserving facilities, land disposal
units, hazardous waste incinerators or
BIFs, primary metals facilities, and
facilities subject to Section 313 of the
EPCRA for water priority chemicals (e.g.
those classes of facilities where the
acute WET parameter was identified in
the draft general permits) provide that
these dischargers, in addition to
monitoring for parameters specified for
the industrial class, can either analyze
samples for the WET parameter or for
the pollutants identified in Tables II and
III of appendix D of 40 CFR 122 that the
discharger knows or has reason to
believe are present at the facility site.
Permittees that monitor for selected
pollutants identified in Tables II and HI
of appendix D of 40 CFR 122 should base
their determination of whether a
particular chemical is known or believed
to be present at the facility site on a
consideration of the activities at the
facility.
The determination of whether a
chemical is known or reasonably
expected to be present at a facility site
wil involve the reasonable best effort of
the permitted to identify that significant
quantities of materials or chemicals are
present at the facility. The Agency's
intention is to focus monitoring on
constituents (pollutants) that are present
in quantities large enough so that it is
likely that they may potentially be
present in storm water. The Agency
generally believes that, unless there is
other evidence to suggest the likelihood
of discharge in storm water, where
quantities are less than 100 kilograms or
one barrel within the monitoring period
the likelihood of detection in storm
water is relatively low. This
determination can be based on an
evaluation of information such as
material inventories, the industrial


-I


41293







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


activities, raw materials, products,
waste materials, and other site specific
considerations. EPA does not intend
that dischargers know with an exact
measurement or absolute certainty
whether a chemical is present in
amounts that exceed this threshold. For
example, where the chemical is a minor
constituent of various materials and
products used at the facility, where the
chemical is present in various products,
such as cleaning supplies, or other
incidental materials not used in-an
industrial process, or where it is held as
a small laboratory stock, there would be
no requirement for monitoring.
This change provides permittees with
two approaches for attempting to
identify sources of pollution to storm
water discharges. The first approach.
use of the WET parameter, focuses on
the use of a single parameter with the
ability to identify the potentially toxic
character of mixtures of chemicals in
water. This approach might be used, for
example, at industrial facilities where
the storm water may contain a wide
range of chemicals, or where the
chemicals used at the facility are not
well characterized. The WET parameter
can be used to provide an initial
indication of whether the level of toxic
constituents in a discharge reaches toxic
levels.
The second approach focuses on
analyzing storm water samples for
specific chemicals that the discharger
knows or has reason to believe are
present at the facility site. This
approach might be used, for example,
where the discharger can characterize
the chemicals at the facility site. This
monitoring approach provides chemical
specific information that may provide a
more direct indication than the WET
parameter of specific pollutant sources.
EPA suggests that permittees consider
the following factors when evaluating
which approach to monitoring to pursue:
the types of chemicals present at the
site; the feasibility of collecting sample
volumes necessary to conduct WET
monitoring; and analytical laboratory
costs.
Toxicity Reductions
A number of commenters requested
clarification as to whether facilities that
detected acute WET in their storm water
discharge would be required to conduct
a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE).
Several commenters objected to the
requirement to conduct a toxicity
reduction evaluations (TRE) without
more research into the applicability of
current TRE procedures to storm water
discharges. One commenter indicated
that if a discharge is found to fail the
WET test, it should be allowed the


opportunity to conduct additional WET
tests before undergoing a formal toxicity
reduction evaluation.
In response, today's permits provide
that if acute whole effluent toxicity
(statistically significant difference
between the 100 percent dilution and
control) is detected after October 1, 1995
in storm water discharges required to
conduct toxicity testing under this
permit, the permitted must review the
storm water pollution prevention plan
and make appropriate modifications to
assist in identifying the sources) of
toxicity and to reduce the toxicity of
their storm water discharges. The
Agency believes it is appropriate that
the permit require the permitted to
review the pollution prevention plan and
study ways to reduce demonstrated
toxicity. The Agency believes that the
approach taken in today's permits
provide considerably more flexibility
than requirements to conduct formal-
TREs.
The Agency believes that this
approach addresses the need to reduce
demonstrated toxicity while providing
flexibility for facilities to evaluate their
storm water discharges for toxicity and
to take appropriate steps to reduce
toxicity prior to October 1,1995. This
provides dischargers with an
opportunity to implement site-specific
and innovative measures to reduce
toxicity. In addition, this approach
recognizes the difficulties in.
ascertaining whether a specific measure
or approach will successfully reduce
toxicity at a given facility. The Agency
believes that this approach will provide
additional opportunities to evaluate
pollution prevention measures suitable
for reducing toxicity and for evaluating
the role of treatment technologies in
such toxicity reduction strategies.
While today's permit does not
specifically require dischargers that
detect acute WET to conduct a formal
TRE, the Agency may request a TIE or a
TRE pursuant to the authority of Section
308 of the CWA where toxicity is
reported. Similarly, where facilities
detect significant levels of other
pollutant parameters, the Agency may,
where appropriate, request additional
information, such as an additional
pollutant source evaluation or a
pollution prevention evaluation.
Annual Monitoring Requirements
The August 16, 1991 draft general
permits required, at a minimum, annual
monitoring of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
except for certain storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations.
As discussed above, the Agency is
limiting monitoring requirements to


selected industrial activities with
significant pollutant sources. Annual
monitoring requirements have been
retained for certain discharges of storm
water associated with industrial activity
at: Larger airports, coal fired steam
electric facilities; animal handling/meat
packing; facilities classified as SIC 30
(Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics
Products); facilities classified as SIC 28
(Chemicals and Allied Products)
facilities; larger automobile junkyards;
lime manufacturing facilities; oil fired
steam electric power generating
facilities; cement manufacturing
facilities and kilns; ready-mixed
concrete facilities; and ship building and
repairing facilities.
Permittees subject to annual
monitoring requirements are not
required to submit the results of their
monitoring unless EPA specifically
requests the information. However,
monitoring results must be retained for a
minimum of six years. Monitoring
results must be made available to the
Director upon request, or upon permit
renewal. The specific monitoring
parameters were chosen to provide
information on the overall quality of the
discharge, concentrate on industry-
specific pollutants of concern. aid in
determining the effectiveness of
pollution prevention plan controls, and
assist in development of Tier II, III. and
IV permitting efforts.
Airports
Deicing activities at airports can be a
significant source of pollutants to storm
water discharges. The amount of deicing
fluids used depend on temperature and
the amount and type of precipitation
(freezing rain may require more deicing
fluids than many snowfalls) as well.
Ethylene glycol, urea and ammonium
nitrate are the primary ingredients of
other deicing compounds used at
airports. These chemicals can have a
significant oxygen demand in water.
When deicing operations are performed.
large volumes of ethylene glycol are
sprayed on aircraft and runways. Data
from Stepleton International Airport
show that 62,986 gallons of concentrated
ethylene glycol were used during the
month of February 1988 (Denver Public
Works 1988). Data from Stepleton
International Airport indicate that storm
water discharges contained levels of up
to 5,050 mg/L ethylene glycol during a
monitoring period from December 1986
to January 1987. Deicing fluids have
been implicated in several fish kills
across the nation.
One State Agency specifically
identified airport deicing operations as
the area of most concern at airports. In


41294







Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


response, the Agency agrees that deicing
operations can be a significant potential
source of pollutants in storm water
discharges. Given these concerns, the
Agency is retaining monitoring
requirements for deicing activities at
large airports. Facilities with storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas where
aircraft or airport deicing operations
occur (including runways, taxiways,
ramps, and dedicated aircraft deicing
stations) are required to monitor for
parameters indicative of the overall
quality of the discharge and to identify
deicing materials used at the site that
are entering the storm water discharge.
Several commenters requested
reduced or eliminated sampling for
smaller airports. In response, today's
monitoring requirements for airports are
limited to have been limited to airports
with over 50,000 flight operations per
year and apply only to those areas
where deicing activities occur. A flight
operation consists of a single takeoff or
landing by an aircraft The Agency
believes that the number of operations is
one of the key factors for determining
the amount of deicing activity and other
industrial activities occurring at an
airport, and that in general airports
with a higher number of operations are
expected to discharge more pollutants in
their storm water. In addition, some
smaller airports may not conduct
deicing activities, and a requirement
targeting monitoring of deicing activities
at such smaller airports may cause
confusion.
According to information obtained
from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA) and based on 1990
Federal Aviation Administration data,
there are approximately 5078 public use
airports in the United States. Of these,
approximately 378 airports (7.4%) have
50,000 or more flight operations per year.
Coal-fired Steam Electric Facilities
Coal-fired steam electric facilities use
large amounts of coal. Coal handling
activities at these facilities can be a
significant source of pollutants in storm
water discharges. Runoff from coal
handling areas can have pollutant
characteristics that are similar to coal
P a runoff, and can have high levels of
tol suspended solids, sulfate, iron,
hIilnumi. mercury, copper, arsenic,
kSium and manganese, as well as an
aidic paLS The Agency believes that it

al... T DedIopadent Docutmet for Effluent
LANKA Guidelines and Standards and
1c"01% Standards for the Steam Electric Point
C""MtO .19, (EPA-4al-/1z/-29).


is appropriate to retain monitoring
requirements in these coal handling
areas to adequately quantify the effect
of these pollutant sources on storm
water discharges. Monitoring
parameters will be the same as those
required semi-annually under this
permit for coal piles, with the same
justification on their selection. Because
this monitoring requirement does not
support a numeric effluent limitation,
and due to the more diffuse nature of
coal in the coal handling areas, the
monitoring frequency of once per year
was deemed adequate. Compared to the
basic monitoring required under the
August 16, 1991, draft permits, this
monitoring requirement focuses more on
the pollutants of particular concern and
should be less costly for the facility.
Animal Handling/Meat Packing
The nature of potential pollutant
sources to runoff from animal handling,
manure management areas, and
production waste management areas at
meat packing plants, poultry packing
plants, and facilities that manufacture
animal and marine fats with animal
waste and/or production wastes is
similar to runoff from confined animal
feeding operations feedlotss) Animal
waste products can be a significant
source of pollutants to storm water
runoff which can contribute high levels
of oxygen demanding pollutants,
nutrients and fecal bacteria.44
Monitoring data can be used to detect if
these materials are entering the storm
water. The monitoring requirements for
animal handling facilities in today's
permit are more tailored than the August
16, 1991 draft permits. Tailoring these
requirements is expected to reduce the
costs of these requirements relative to
the August 16, 1991 draft permits.
Additional Facilities
Today's permits retain monitoring.
requirements for storm water discharges
from seven additional classes of
industrial activities. These storm water
discharges will have to be monitored
-annually for a basic set of parameters
(oil and grease, COD, TSS, pH, and any
pollutant limited in an effluent limitation
guideline for which the facility is
subject). The Agency has identified
these industrial classes based on a
consideration of specific activities at
these facilities that have a significant
potential for contributing pollutants to

"4 See "Proposed Guidance Specifying
Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Watmr". May T191. EPA and
"Development Document for Effuent Lhuitations
Guidelines and New Soae Performance
Standards-beedlot Point Source Caegory", EPA.
1974, EPA-4fo1/74-006-a.


storm water. If the listed activity does
not occur at a particular site, or the
runoff from that area is treated as a
process wastewater, is discharged to a
municipal sanitary sewer (with the
municipality's permission), or is retained
onsite, no sampling will be required. The
sampling required for these facilities is
generally less restrictive than would
have been required under the draft
permit.
Chemical storage piles can have a
significant potential for contributing
pollutants to storm water discharges.
Today's permits include monitoring
requirements for storm water that comes
into contact with solid chemicals used
as raw materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified as
SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products). In addition,
today's permits require monitoring of
storm water that comes into contact
with lime storage piles that are exposed
to storm water at lime manufacturing
facilities. Lime can significantly raise
the pH of such discharges.
Automotive fluids and greases from
automobile drivelines are a significant
potential source of pollutants to storm
water discharges from automobile
junkyards. Drivelines include the engine,
transmission, differential/transaxle,
fuel, brake, and coolant (radiator)
systems. Automotive fluids/greases
from these areas would typically include
engine oil, fuel, transmission fluid or oil,
rear end oil, suspension joint and
bearing greases, antifreeze, brake fluid,
power steering fluid, and the oil and
grease leaking from and covering
-various components (for example, oil
and grease on exterior of an engine).
The procedures used for fluids capture
during the dismantling process will
affect the potential to contribute
pollutants to storm water.45
The Agency has attempted to reduce
the burden on the auto salvage industry
by retaining monitoring requirements
only from priority facilities with
dismantling or storage practices that are
generally thought to have a higher
potential for contributing significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water
discharges than other yards. Two
factors, the number of units stored, and
exposure of automotive fluid drainage
and storage areas, are used to determine
the applicability of monitoring
requirement Facilities were (A) over 250
auto/truck bodies with drivelines, 250
drivelines, or any combination thereof
(in whole or in parts) are exposed to

SSummary of site hIspections by CA State
Department of Health Services March 1, 1992.


41295








41296


Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, Septeml


storm water; (B) over 500 auto/truck
Units (bodies with or without drivelines
in whole or in parts) are stored exposed
to storm water; or (C) over 100 units per
year are dismantled and drainage or
storage of automotive fluids occurs in
areas exposed to storm water; will be
required to monitor storm water
discharges from these areas.
Spills and leaks from fuel handling
sites, including loading/unloading areas
and storage tanks, at oil fired steam
electric power generating facilities are
potential significant sources of
pollutants to storm water runoff.'4
Monitoring data from these sites can be
used to identify pollutant sources and
allow the Agency to assess the
effectiveness of the facility's material
management and spill prevention/
response practices.
Loading and unloading activities, raw
material storage, processing operations,
at cement manufacturing facilities,
cement kilns, and ready-mix concrete
facilities, can be a significant potential
source of pollutant to storm water.47
Dust generating processes and air
deposition of pollutants from
smokestacks at cement kilns could also
be significant sources of pollutants to
storm water. Discharges from cement
manufacturing facilities and cement
kilns and discharges from ready-mixed
concrete facilities could contain the
same constituents limited in the storm
water effluent limitations guidelines for
cement kilns material storage piles.
A number of industrial activities at
ship building and repairing facilities can
be significant sources of pollutants to
storm water discharges, including
improper controls on activities such as
ship bottom cleaning, bilge water
disposal, loading/unloading of fuels,
metal fabrication and cleaning
operations, and surface preparation and
painting.48

4* Given the large amounts of oil managed at
these facilities, many of the pollutant sources
associated with oil handling and storage are
expected to be similar to those at petroleum
refineries. A more complete description of the
pollution potential of these types of operations is
provided in the "Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum Refineries
Point Source Category", EPA. 1979 440/1/-79/014b.
r4 See "Development Document for Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Cement Manufacturing Point
Source Category". EPA. 1974. EPA/440/1-79-005-a.
The effluent limitation guidelines for the cement
manufacturing category address runoff derived from
the storage of materials used in or derived from the
manufacture of cement (see 40CFR 411.30).
Discharges that are covered by the guideline cannot
be authorized under today's permits.
4* See "Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Shipbuilding and Repair Point Source Category".
EPA. December 1979, EPA 440/1/-79/07-b and


I. Sample Collection
One State agency requested a
requirement for more accurate flow
measurement to provide more accurate
flow proportioning for composite
sampling and pollutant loading
calculations. In response, EPA agrees
there are more accurate flow measuring
methods than the flow estimation
methods required by the permit. Where
a State requires, or a particular facility
wishes, more accurate flow
measurement is certainly desirable.
However, the Agency also recognizes
that there is a variety of methods for
providing more accurate flow
proportioning for composite sampling,"
with different methods having very
different costs. The Agency is concerned
about possible confusion in the
regulated community leading to the use
of overly expensive techniques and
methods for measuring flow. In addition,
the Agency notes that the monitoring
data collected pursuant to today's
permits will serve a number of purposes,
such as identification of pollutant
sources and possible contaminants,
which do not require flow estimates.
Therefore, today's permits do not,
require more precise flow measurement
techniques, such as primary flow
measurement devices, for all discharges
required to sample at this time.
Several commenters questioned the
necessity for both first flush grab
sampling and composite event sampling.
Other commenters supported the
proposed sampling requirements. In
response, EPA believes that it is
necessary to require sampling that will
provide information on the typically
more polluted "first flush" as well as a
measure of the average concentration of
pollutants discharged during an event.
First flush sampling (a grab sample
during the first 30 minutes of the
discharge) is also necessary to evaluate
the effectiveness of detention and
retention devices which may only
provide controls for the first portion of
the discharge.
Commenters also quesuoned whether
the first flush must be collected during
the first 30 minutes of the.storm event or
the first thirty minutes of discharge. The
Agency would like to clarify that first
flush sampling applies to the first thirty
minutes of discharge, rather than
rainfall. In some instances, particularly
where detention or retention systems
are used, there will be a delay between

"Proposed Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters", May 1991. EPA.
4* See "NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance
Document." EPA 833-B-92-001, July 1992, EPA.


ber 9, 1992 / Notices

the start of a storm event and the first
measurable discharge.
With regard to the provision allowing
a single grab sample from detention
devices with a 24 hour holding time, one
commenter suggested establishing a
design storm to calculate holding times.
In response, the Agency believes that
defining the residence time of the
detention device (e.g. 24 hours) is
adequate to achieve the objective of the
requirement. Devices with a 24 hour
residence time for a given storm should
provide adequate mixing to allow a
single grab sample to provide a
reasonably accurate characterization of
the average concentration of the
discharge and will mitigate first flush
effects. The Agency believes that by not
establishing a design storm to calculate
holding times, more flexibility will be
provided for applying this provision on a
storm-by-storm basis.
One commenter suggested that
composite sampling be eliminated and
only grab sampling of the first flush be
required in the baseline general permit,,
with the results used to target industries
for more extensive monitoring at a later
date. In response, the Agency believes
that composite sampling will provide
more information for estimating
pollutant loads, evaluating certain
concentration-based water quality
impacts, and generally characterizing
storm water discharges. The permit
authorizes either time-weighted or flow-
weighted composite samples which may
be manually or automatically collected.
The use of pH paper rather than a pH
meter was recommended by many
commenters based on the cost
differential. In response, EPA approved
test methods at 40 CFR 136.3 require an
accuracy for pH measurements of plus
or minus 0.1 pH unit. The test method
only describes the electrometric method
using a glass electrode. pH paper
generally ranges in accuracy from plus
or minus 0.5 pH unit to 1.0 pH unit.
Other potential problems with pH paper
are that it is judged subjectively by
comparison to a color chart, is affected
by humidity, age and method of storage,
and may be affected by turbidity or
suspended solids. The Agency notes that
some pH measuring devices which use
the electrometric method, such as pH,
can provide the required accuracy at a
reasonable price ($50.00 to $200.00).
Commenters from arid regions and
those with unattended remote sites
pointed out the difficulties in conducting
sampling of representative storm events
in areas characterized by infrequent
storm events and/or when no personnel
were stationed onsite. In response,
under the sampling requirements


d,
ii
a

a
I
0





Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


developed for the final permit, many
industries, including inactive remote
mining sites, will not be required to
collect monitoring data. In addition,
monitoring from any event greater than
0.1 inch is acceptable.
IV. Sampling Waiver
All comments on the proposed waiver
for sampling based on adverse climatic
conditions supported this provision.
Several commenters did request
clarification on the applicability. In
response, EPA would like to clarify that
the sampling waiver is only intended to
apply to unsurmountable weather
conditions such as drought or dangerous
conditions such as lightning, flash
flooding, or hurricanes. These events
tend to be isolated incidents, and should
not be used as an excuse for not
conducting sampling under more
favorable conditions associated with
other storm events. The sampling waiver
is not intended to apply to difficult
logistical conditions.
V. Use of Representative Outfalls for
Sampling
The permit allows the use of
substantially identical outfalls to reduce
the monitoring burden on a facility. All
comments received on this issue
supported this provision. EPA has
maintained this provision. However, the
permitted must develop justification on
S why one outfall is representative of
others and keep this information onsite,
available to the Director upon request.
VI. Submittal and Availability of
Reports and Monitoring Results
The issue of whether monitoring
results should be retained onsite or
submitted to EPA (and how often)
received comments supporting both
positions. Several commenters
suggested that all monitoring data be
kept onsite, available to the Director
upon request. Other commenters
suggested all monitoring results be
submitted, with frequencies ranging
from twice per year to once per permit
term. In the final permit, EPA has
adopted a monitoring approach that
targets selected industrial activity.
Facilities required to monitor semi-
annually are required to report results
annually. Facilities required to monitor
annually are not required to report
information unless the information is
requested by the Director.
This approach maintains closer
oversight of targeted facilities, while
reducing the overall burden on the
regulated community and EPA.
Several commenters supported the
requirement to submit copies of
, discharge monitoring reports to the


operator of municipal separate storm
sewer systems when at least one outfall
discharges to that system. Several State
agencies also requested copies of all
discharge monitoring results. The final
permit requires those dischargers
required to submit monitoring
information annually to provide copies
to receiving large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems and
States that have requested this
information.
The location for submittal of all
reports is contained in the permit.
Facilities located on certain Indian
Lands in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico,
Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada and Oregon
and Colorado should note that
permitting authority has been
consolidated in one EPA Region or
another where a reservation crosses the
boundaries of the Regions. For example,
all NPDES permitting for Navajo lands is
handled by EPA Region 9.
VII. Retention of Records
The draft permit required retention of
all records for a minimum of three years.
Several commenters suggested that
records be kept for the entire permit
term. In response, the final permit
requires retention of monitoring records
for six years since not all facilities who
monitor will be required to submit the
results annually. In addition, pollution
prevention plans must be kept for the
life of the permit.
Costs
The August 16, 1991 draft notice
summarized EPA's estimates of the
costs for compliance with the draft
permits. The Agency has revised these
estimates to reflect changes made when
issuing the final permits, and additional
evaluation made in response to
comment.
One commenter indicated that they
thought that to meet the conditions of
the permit most small companies will
have to hire a full-time engineer which
many small businesses cannot afford
and that other companies will use staff
with general technical backgrounds. In
response, the Agency has reordered and
simplified the requirements in today's
permit and believes that small facilities
will generally not have to hire a full-time
engineer to implement storm water
pollution prevention plans. In addition,
the Agency has developed guidance
entitled "Storm Water Management for
Construction Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices", U.S. EPA, 1992
to assist facilities with limited storm
water technical expertise in preparing
and implementing their storm water
pollution prevention plan.


Appendix B-NPDES General Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Industrial Activity
Permit No. MEROOOOOIF
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, for
Indian Tribes located in the State of
Maine, are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,

Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia,
Acting Director, Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
with storm water discharges, for Indian
Tribes located in the State of Maine.
Permit No. NHR000OOIF
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, for
Indian Tribes located in the State of
New Hampshire, are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges


41297


41297







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
Accordance with part H of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,

Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia,
Acting Director, Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
with storm water discharges, for Indian
Tribes located in the State of New
Hampshire.
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Permit No. MAR0000OIF
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part IB.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, for
Indian Tribes located in the State of
Massachusetts, are authorized to
Discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part UI of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,

Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia,
Acting Director.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
and storm water discharges, for Indian Tribes
located in the State of Massachusetts.
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Permit No. MER000(XO
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33


U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of Maine, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,

Signed and issued this 28th day of August
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia,
ActingDirector.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Maine.
Authorization to Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Permit No. NHROO0O
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq: the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of New Hampshire,
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,


Signed and issued this 2Mh day of August
1992.
Ronald Manfredonia,
Acting Director.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of New Hampshire.
General Permit No. FLRO00000
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of Florida are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in .
accordance with part I of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.

Dated: August 28, 1992.
Robert F. McGhee,
Acting Director, WaterManagement Division:
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Florida.
General Permit No. NCROOOOOF
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act'" except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located on Indian land in North Carolina
belonging to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians in the State of North
Caroline are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.


41298


41298







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,

Dated: August 28,1992.
Robert F. McGhee,
Acting Director, WaterManagement Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area.
General Permit No. FLR00000F
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
SU.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located on Indian land in Florida
belonging to the Seminole Tribe of
Florida are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,

Dated: August 28 1992.
Robert F. McGhee,
Acting Director. WaterManagement Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
Starts 1 through X and for any additional
Editions in part XI which apply to facilities
-cated within the general permit area.


General Permit No. MSROOOOOF
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located on Indian land in Mississippi
belonging to the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions and requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part I of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,

Dated: August 28,1992.
Robert F. McGhee,
.Acting Director, WaterManagement Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area.
General Permit No. FLROO001
Region IV
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as
provided in part LB.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located on Indian land in Florida
belonging to the Miccosukee Indian
Tribe of Florida are authorized to
discharge in accordance with the
conditions aid requirements set forth
herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
Within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who


fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,

Dated: August 28, 1992.
Robert F. McGhee,
Acting Director, Water Management Division.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located within the general permit area.
Permit No. LAR000000
Cover Page
Authorization to Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as
provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of Louisiana, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part I of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9,1997.
Signed and issued this 27th day of August,
1992.
Myron 0. Knudson, P.E.,
Water Monagement Director, Region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana.
Permit No. N M R000000
Cover Page
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as


Ill I 412I9


41299









41F.


provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of New Mexico, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 27th day of August,
1992.
Myron O. Knudson. P.E,
Water Management Director, Region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
Conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana.
Permit No. O K ROOOOO
Cover Page
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, [33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of Oklahoma, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.


Signed and issued this 27th day of Augurst
1992.
Myron 0. Knudson, P.E.,
Water Management Director, region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana.
Permit No. T X RAooo
Cover Page
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the State of Texas, are
authorized to discharge in accordance
with the conditions and requirements
set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9,1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 27th day of August,
1992.
Myron O. Knudson, P.E.,
Water Management Director, Region VI.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Louisiana.
Permit No. COROOOO0F
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq; the Act), except
as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity in
applicable federal facilities located in
the State of Colorado, and in the
following Indian Reservations.
Southern Ute Reservation; and,
Ute Mountain Reservation-Includes the
entire Reservation, which is located in
Colorado and New Mexico.


Are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part I of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Kerrigan Clough.
Acting Regional Administrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Colorado and the
portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation
located in the State of New Mexico.
Permit No. MTROOOOF
Authorization To Discharger Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except
as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, in all
Indian Reservations in Montana
including the following Reservations:
Blackfeet Reservation:,
Crow Reservation;
Flathead Reservation;
Fort Belknap Reservation;
Fort Peck Reservation;
Northern Cheyenne Reservation; and,
Rocky Boys Reservation.
Are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9,1992.


Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notice=


0 0314







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Kerrigan Clough.
Acting Regional Administrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Montana.
Permit No. NDROOOOOF
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. .. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except
as provided in Part IB.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity in all
the Indian Reservations located in the
State of North Dakota including the
following (with the exception of the
portion of the Lake Traverse
Reservation, also known as the Sisseton
Reservation, located in North Dakota)
Fort Totten Reservation-Also known
as Devils Lake Reservation;
Fort Berthold Reservation;
Standing Rock Reservation-Includes
the entire Reservation, which is
located in both North Dakota and
South Dakota: and,
Turtle Mountain Reservation.
Are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 192.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Kerigan Clough,
Acting RegionalAdministrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
lohted in the State of North Dakota and the
Portion of the Standing Rock Reservation
located in the State of South Dakota.


Permit No. SDR000000
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the entire State of South
Dakota including the Indian reservations
noted below (with the exception of the
portion of the Standing Rock
Reservation located in South Dakota),
and the portion of the Lake Traverse
Reservation located in North Dakota
Cheyenne River Reservation;
Crow Creek Reservation;
Flandreau Reservation;
Lake Traverse Reservation-Also
known as the Sisseton Reservation.
includes the entire Reservation, which
is located in North Dakota and South
Dakota;
Lower Brule Reservation;
Pine Ridge Reservation-Includes only
the portion of the Reservation located
in South Dakota;
Rosebud Reservation; and.
Yankton Reservation.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Kerrigan Clough,
Acting RegionalAdministrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through I and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of South Dakota and the
portion o the Lake Traverse Reservation
located in the State of North Dakota.
Permit No. UTR(Ioo00
Authodalion To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33


U.S.C. 1251 et seq. the Act), except as
provided in Part LB.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the following Indian
Reservations in Utah [except for the
portions of the Navajo Reservation and
Goshute Reservation located in Utah)
Northern Shoshoni Reservation;
Paiute Reservations-several very small
reservations located in the southwest
quarter of Utah;
Skull Valley Reservation; and.
Uintah & Ouray Reservation.
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9,1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Kerrigan Clough.
Acting Regional Administrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Utah.
Permit No. WYROOOOOF
Authorization To Discharge) Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as
provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
located in the Wind River Indian
Reservation in the State of Wyoming,
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by these permits
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with part U of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in


I


41301







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


accordance with part H of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Kerrigan Clough,
Acting RegionalAdministrator.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Wyoming.

Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. CAROOOOIF
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended
(U.S.C.. 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except
as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located on
Indian Lands in the State of California
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
- in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on Indian lands in California.


Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. AZROOOOOO
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended,
(U.S.C.. 1251 et. seq;. the Act), except
as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located in the
State of Arizona (Excluding Indian
Lands)
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part H of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located in the State of Arizona (excluding
Indian lands).
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. JAR000000
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended
(U.S.C.. 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except
as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located on
Johnston Atoll


are authorized to discharge in -
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
RegionalAdministrator, Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on Johnston Atoll.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. MWR000000
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended,
(U.S.C.. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except
as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located on
Midway Island or Wake Island
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.


41302







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


Signed and issued this 28th day of August.
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern.
RegionalAdministrator, Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on Midway Island or Wake Island.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. AZROOOOIF
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended,
(U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except
as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit.
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located on
Indian Lands in the State of Arizona,
Including Navajo Territory in the
States of New Mexico and Utah
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit.
This permit shall become effective on
September 9, 1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August
1992.
Daniel W. McGovern,
Regional Administrator Regions.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on the Indian lands specified above.
Storm Water General Permit for
Industrial Activity (Excluding
Construction Activities)
Permit No. NVRooOOIF
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the Act), except


as provided in Part IB3 of this permit,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(excluding construction activity),
located on
Indian Lands in the State of Nevada,
Including Goshute Territory the State
of Utah
are authorized to discharge in
accordance with the conditions and
requirements set forth herein.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
within the general permit area who
intend to be authorized by this permit
must submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity who
fail to submit a Notice of Intent in
accordance with Part II of this permit
are not authorized under this general
permit
This permit shall become effective on
September 9,1992.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight,
September 9, 1997.
Signed and issued this 28th day of August,
1992.
Daniel W. McGovem,
RegionalAdministrator, Region 9.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through IX and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on the Indian lands specified above.
General Permit No.: AK-R-40M000
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. P.L 100-4. the "Act".
Owners and operators of facilities
engaged in discharging storm water
associated with industrial activities,
except facilities identified in Part I
hereof and except facilities located on
Indian lands within the State of Alaska,
are authorized to discharge to waters of
the State of Alaska and waters of the
United States adjacent to State waters,
in accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on


Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E. Geren,
Acting Director, Water Division. Region 10,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
in the State of Alaska.
General Permit No.: ID-R-OLO-OOF
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L. 100-4, the "Act".
Owners and operators of facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Idaho that are engaged in discharging
storm water associated with industrial
activities, except facilities identified in
Part I hereof, are authorized to discharge
to waters of the United States, in
accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E. Geren.
Acting Director, Water Division, Region 10,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
in the State of Idaho.
General Permit No.: AK-R-00-000F
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L. 100-4, the "Act".
Owners and operators of facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Alaska that are engaged in discharging
storm water associated with industrial
activities, except facilities identified in
Part I hereof, are authorized to discharge
to waters of the United States, in
accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.


__ ___l~_j_~~_~


41303








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E. Geren,
Acting Director, Water Division, Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Alaska.
General Permit No.: WA-R-00-O1F
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L. 100-4, the "Act".
Owners and operators of facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Washington that are engaged in
discharging storm water associated with
industrial activities, except facilities
identified in Part I hereof, are authorized
to discharge to waters of the United
States, in accordance with effluent
S limitations, monitoring requirements,
and other conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E. Geren,
Acting Director, Water Division, Region 10,
US. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
located on Indian lands in the State of
Washington.
General Permit No.: WA-R--00-OOF
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L 100-4, the "Act".
Owners and operators of federal
facilities in the State of Washington,
that are engaged in discharging storm
water associated with industrial
activities, except facilities identified in
Part I hereof and except facilities
located on Indian lands within the State
of Washington, are authorized to


discharge to waters of the State of
Washington and waters of the United
States adjacent to State waters, in
accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E. Geren,
Acting Director, Water Division, Region 10,
U.. Environmental Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to federal
facilities in the State of Washington.
General Permit No.: ID-R-00-0000
Region 10
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System for Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. I 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, P.L 100-4, the "Act".
Owners and operators of facilities
engaged in discharging storm water
associated with industrial activities,
except facilities identified in Part I
hereof and except facilities located on
Indian lands within the State of Idaho,
are authorized to discharge to waters of
the State of Idaho and waters of the
United States adjacent to State waters,
in accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the facility where the discharges
occur.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, on
Signed this 27th day of August 1992.
Harold E. Geren.
Acting Director, Water Division, Region 10,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This signature is for the permit conditions
in Parts I through X and for any additional
conditions in Part XI which apply to facilities
in the State of Idaho.
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity
Table of Contents
Preface
Part L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area.
B. Eligibility.
C. Authorization.


Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for Notification.
B. Contents of Notice of Intent
C. Where to Submit.
D. Additional Notification.
E. Renotification.
Part II. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on non-storm water
discharges.
B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities.
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plans
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance.
B. Signature and Plan Review.
C. Keeping Plans Current
D. Contents of Plans.
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Coal Pile Runoff.
Part VI Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Failure to Certify.
B. Monitoring Requirements.
C. Toxicity Testing.
D. Reporting: Where to Submit
E. Retention of Records.
Part VII. Standard Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply.
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit
C. Need to halt or reduce activity not a
defense.
D. Duty to Mitigate.
E. Duty to Provide Information.
F. Other Information.
G. Signatory Requirements.
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports.
I. Penalties for Falsification of Monitoring
Systems.
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability.
K. Property Rights.
L Severability.
M. Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
N. State/Environmental Laws.
O. Proper Operation and Maintenance.
P. Monitoring and Records.
Q. Inspection and Entry.
R. Permit Actions.
S. Bypass of Treatment Facility.
T. Upset Conditions.
Part VIII.Reopener Clause
Part IX. Notice of Termination
A. Notice of Termination.
B. Addresses.
Part X. Definitions
Part XI. State Specific Conditions
A. Maine.
B. Louisiana.
C. New Mexico.
D. Oklahoma.
E. Texas.
F. Colorado (Federal Facilities and Indian
Lands).
G. Arizona.
H. Alaska.
I. Idaho.


__~~ 1_


41304





I
413fl5


Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


I. Washington (Federal Facilities and Indian
Lands).
ADDENDUM A-Pollutants Listed in Tables
II and III of Appendix D of 40 CFR 122
ADDENDUM B-Section 313 Water Priority
Chemicals
ADDENDUM C-Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
PREFACE
The CWA provides that storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from a point source (including
discharges through a municipal separate
storm sewer system) to waters of the
United States are unlawful, unless
authorized by a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. The terms "storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity", "point source" and "waters of
the United States" are critical to
determining whether a facility is subject
to this requirement. Complete
definitions of these terms are found in
the definition section (Part X) of this
permit. In order to determine the
applicability of the requirement to a
particular facility, the facility operator
must examine its activities in
relationship to the eleven categories of
industrial facilities described in the
definition of "storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity".
S Category (xi) of the definition, which
address facilities with activities
classified under Standard Industrial
Classifications (SIC) codes 20, 21, 22, 23,
2434, 25, 265, 267, 27, 283, 31 (except 311),
34 (except 3441), 35, 36, 37 (except 373),
38, 39, 4221-25, (and which are not
otherwise included within categories (i)-
(x)), differs from other categories listed
in that it only addresses storm water
discharges where material handling
equipment or activities, raw materials,
intermediate products, final products,
waste materials, by-products, or
industrial machinery ore exposed to
storm water.1
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
established the Storm Water Hotline at
(703) 821-4823 to assist the Regional
Offices in distributing notice of intent
forms and storm water pollution
prevention plan guidance, and to
provide information pertaining to the
NPDES storm water regulations.

SOn June 4, 192,. the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
exclusion for manufacturing facilities in category
lxi) which do not have materials or activities
exposed to storm water to the EPA for further
rulemaking. (Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA, Nos. 90-70671 and 91-70200).


Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area
The permit covers all areas of:
Region I-for the States of Maine and
New Hampshire; for Indian lands
located in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Maine.
Region IV-for the State of Florida;
and for Indian lands located in Florida,
Mississippi, and North Carolina.
Region VI-for the States of
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas; and for Indian lands located in
Louisiana, New Mexico (except Navajo
lands and Ute Mountain Reservation
lands), Oklahoma, and Texas.
Region VIII-for the State of South
Dakota; for Indian lands located in
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah (except Goshute
Reservation and Navajo Reservation
lands), and Wyoming; for Federal
facilities in Colorado; and for the Ute
Mountain Reservation ilColorado, and
New Mexico.
Region IX-for the State of Arizona;
for the Territories of Johnston Atoll, and
Midway and Wake Island; and for
Indian lands located in California, and
Nevada; and for the Goshute
Reservation in Utah and Nevada, the
Navajo Reservation in Utah, New
Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley
Reservation in Nevada and Idaho.
Region X-for the State of Alaska,
and Idaho; for Indian lands located in
Alaska, Idaho (except Duck Valley
Reservation lands), and Washington;
and for Federal facilities in Washington.
B. Eligibility
1. This permit may cover all new and
existing point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity to waters of the United States,
except for storm water discharges
identified under paragraph I.B.3.
2. This permit may authorize storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are mixed with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities provided that the storm water
discharge from the construction activity
is in compliance with the terms,
including applicable notice of intent
(NOI) or application requirements, of a
different NPDES general permit or
individual permit authorizing such
discharges.
3. Limitations on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
not authorized by this permit:
a. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are mixed
with sources of non-storm water other


than non-storm water discharges that
are:
(i) in compliance with a different
NPDES permit; or
(ii) identified by and in compliance
with Part III.A.2 (authorized non-storm
water discharges) of this permit.
b. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity which are
subject to an existing effluent limitation
guideline addressing storm water (or a
combination of storm water and process
water) 2;
c. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are subject
to an existing NPDES individual or
general permit; are located at a facility
that where an NPDES permit has been
terminated or denied; or which are
issued in a permit in accordance with
paragraph VII.M (requirements for
individual or alternative general
permits) of this permit. Such discharges
may be authorized under this permit
after an existing permit expires provided
the existing permit did not establish
numeric limitations for such discharges;
d. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from
construction sites, except storm water
discharges from portions of a
construction site that can be classified
as an industrial activity under 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14) (i) through (ix) or (xi)
(including storm water discharges from
mobile asphalt plant, and mobile
concrete plants);
e. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that the Director
(EPA) has determined to be or may
reasonably be expected to be
contributing to a violation of a water
quality standard;
f. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that may
adversely affect a listed or proposed to
be listed endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat; and
g. storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from inactive
mining, inactive landfills, or inactive oil
and gas operations occurring on Federal
lands where an operator cannot be
identified.

For the purpose of this permit, the following
effluent limitation guidelines address storm water
(or a combination of storm water and process
water): cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411); feedlots
(40 CFR 412); fertilizer manufacturing (40 CFR 418);
petroleum refining (40 CFR 419); phosphate
manufacturing (40 CFR 422); steam electric (40 CFR
423); coal mining (40 CFR 434); mineral mining and
processing (40 CFR 436); ore mining and dressing (40
CFR 440); and asphalt emulsion (40 CFR 443 Subpart
A). This permit may authorize storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity which
are not subject to an effluent limitation guideline
even where a different storm water discharge at the
facility is subject to an effluent limitation guideline.


II 1 1 14.. 0.







Federal Reter / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 19M / Notices


4. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity which are
~ authorized by this permit may be
combined with other sources of storm
water which are not classified as
associated with industrial activity
pursuant to 40 CFR 122.2(b)tl4), so long
as the discharger is in compliance with
this permit
c. A tterizoion
1. Discharges of storm water
associated with industrial activity must
submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) in
accordance with the requirements of
Part I of this permit using a NOI form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereof) to be authorized to discharge
under this general permit .
2. Unless notified by the Director to
the contrary, owners or operators who
submit such notification are authorized
to discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity under the terms
and conditions of this permit 2 days
after the date that theNOI is
postmarked.
3 The Director may deny coverage
under this permit and require submittal
of an application for an individual
NPDES permit based on a review of the
NOI or other information.
Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements
A. Deadlines foreatification
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
II.A.4 (rejected or denied municipal
group applicants), n.A.5 (new operator)
and IIA. (late NOts), individuals who
intend to obtain coverage for an existing
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity under this general
permit shall submit a Notice of Intent
(NOI) in accordance with the
requirements of this part on or before
October 1. 1992;,
2. Except as provided in paragraphs
II.A.3 (oil and gas operations). II.A.4
(rejected or denied municipal group
applicants). I.A.5 (new operator}, and
II.A.6 (late NOI) operators of facilities
which begin industrial activity after
October 1, 1992 shall submit a NO in
accordance with the requirements of
this part at least 2 days prior to the
commencement of the industrial activity
at the facility;
3. Operators of oil and gas
exploration, production, processing, or
treatment operations or transmission
facilities, that are not required to submit
a permit application as of October Lt
1992 in accordance with 40 CFR
122.26(cI)(1iii) bat that after October 1,
1992 have a discharge of a reportable

A copy oftte approved N(O form is provided in
Appendix C rtof ds node.


quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
for which notification is required
pursuant to either 40 CFR flM,40 CFR
117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6 must submit a
NOI in accordance with the
requirements of Part ILC of this permit
within 14 calendar days of the first
knowledge of such release.
4. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from a facility
that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated in a
timely Part I group application and
where either the group application is
rejected or the facility is denied
participation in the group application by
EPA, and that are seeking coverage
under this general permit shall submit a
NOI in accordance with the
requirements of this part on or before
the 180th day following the date on,
which the group is rejected or the denial
is made, or October 1, 1992, whichever is
later.
5. Where the operator of a facility
with a storm water discharge associated
with industrial activity which is covered
by this permit changes, the new operator
of the facility must submit an NOr in
accordance with the requirements of
this part at least Z days prior to the
change.
6. An operator of a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity is not precluded from submitting
an NOI in accordance with the
requirements of this part after the dates
provided in Parts ILA.1, Z 3, or 4 abovel
of this permit. In such instances, EPA
may bring appropriate enforcement
actions.
B. Contents of Notice of IntenL The
Notice of Intent shall be signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements] of this permit and shall
include the following information:
1. The street address of the facility for
which the notification is submitted.
Where a street address for the site is not
available, the location of the
approximate center of the facility must
be described in terms of the latitude and
longitude to the nearest 15 seconds, or
the section, township and range to the
nearest quarter section;
2. Up to four 4-digit Standard
Industrial Classification (SICI codes that
best represent the principal products or
for hazardous waste treatment, storage
or disposal facilities, land disposal
facilities that receive or have received
any industrial waste, steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage, a
narrative identification of those
activities;
3. The operator's name, address,
telephone number, and status as


Federal State, private, pubhi or ote
entity;
4. The permit numbers) of addition
NPDES permits) for any discarg
(including non-storm water discharged
from he site that are currently
authorized by an NPDES permit;
5. The name of the receiving water
or if the discharge is through a muaidci
separate storm sewer, the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer
and the ultimate receiving waters) for
the discharge through the municipal
separate storm sewer,
6. An indication of whether the owne
or operator has existing quantitative
data describing the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges
(existing data should not be included as
part of the NOItl
7. Where a facility has participated in
Part I of an approved storm water group
application, the number EPA assigned to
the group application shall be supplied;
and
8. For any facility that begins to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity after October 1, 1992,
a certification that a storm water
pollution prevention plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
with Part IV of this permit (A copy of
the plan should not be included with the
NOI submission).
C. Where to Submit. Facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity must use a NOI form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereof). The form in the Federal
Register notice in which this permit was
published may be photocopied and used.
Forms are also available by calling (703)
821-4823 NObs must be signed in
accordance with Part VILG (signatory
requirements) of this permit NOls are to
be submitted to the Director of the
NPDES program in care of the following
address: Storm Water Notice of Intent.
P.O. Box 1215, Newingtoo. VA 22122
D. Additional Notification. Facilities
which discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity through large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems (systems located in an
incorporated city with a population of
100,000 or more, or in a county identified
as having a large or medium system (see
definition in Part X of this permit and
Appendix E of this notice)} shall in
addition to filing copies of the Notice of
Intent in accordance with paragraph
II.D, also submit signed copies of the
Notice of Intent to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer through
which they discharge in accordance
with the deadlines in Part ILA
(deadlines for notification) of this
permit.


41306


OWN

re(
iril
PC
pe

A.

a

b



C
C







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


E. Renotification. Upon issuance of a
new general permit, the permitted is
required to notify the Director of their
intent to be covered by the new general
permit.
Part m. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
1. Except as provided in paragraph
II.A.2 (below), all discharges covered
by this permit shall be composed
entirely of storm water.
2. a. Except as provided in paragraph
II.A.2.b (below), discharges of material
other than storm water must be in
compliance with a NPDES permit (other
than this permit) issued for the
discharge.
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit provided the non-storm water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.3.g.(2)
(measures and controls for non-storm
water discharges): discharges from fire
fighting activities; fire hydrant flushings;
potable water sources including
waterline flushings; irrigation drainage;
lawn watering; routine external building
washdown which does not use
detergents or other compounds;
S pavement washwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
have not occurred (unless all spilled
material has been removed) and where
detergents are not used; air conditioning
condensate; springs; uncontaminated
ground water; and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents.
B. Releases in Excess of Reportable
Quantities
1. The discharge of hazardous
substances or oil in the storm water
discharges) from a facility shall be
prevented or minimized in accordance
with the applicable storm water
pollution prevention plan for the facility.
This permit does not relieve the
permitted of the reporting requirements
of 40 CFR part 117 and 40 CFR part 302.
Except as provided in paragraph III.B.2
(multiple anticipated discharges) of this
permit, where a release containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reporting
quantity established under either 40 CFR
117 or 40 CFR 302, occurs during a 24
hour period.
a. The discharger is required to notify
the National Response Center (NRC)
1(0-424-8802; in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area 202-42-2675) in
accordance with the requirements of 40


CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 as soon as he
or she has knowledge of the discharge;
b. The storm water pollution
prevention plan required under Part IV
(storm water pollution prevention plans)
of this permit must be modified within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release to: provide a description of the
release, the circumstances leading to the
release, and the date of the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed by
the permitted to identify measures to
prevent the reoccurence of such releases
and to respond to such releases, and the
plan must be modified where
appropriate; and
c. The permitted shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph I.B.l.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
VI.D.1.d (reporting: where to submit) of
this permit.
2. Multiple Anticipated Discharges-
Facilities which have more than one
anticipated discharge per year
containing the same hazardous
substance in an amount equal to or in
excess of a reportable quantity
established under either 40 CFR 117 or
40 CFR 302, which occurs during a 24
hour period, where the discharge is
caused by events occurring within the
scope of the relevant operating system
shall:
a. submit notifications in accordance
with Part II.B.1.b (above) of this permit
for the first such release that occurs
during a calendar year (or for the first
year of this permit, after submittal of an
NOI); and
b. shall provide in the storm water
pollution prevention plan required under
Part IV (storm water pollution
prevention plan) a written description of
the dates on which all such releases,
occurred, the type and estimate of the
amount of material released, and the
circumstances leading to the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
identify measures to prevent or
minimize such releases and the plan
must be modified where appropriate.
3. Spills. This permit does not
authorize the discharge of hazardous
substances or oil resulting from an on-
site spill.
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
A storm water pollution prevention
plan shall be developed for each facility
covered by this permit Storm water


pollution prevention plans shall be
prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices and in accordance
with the factors outlined in 40 CFR
125.3(d) (2) or (3) as appropriate. The
plan shall identify potential sources of
pollution which may reasonably be
expected to affect the quality of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the facility. In
addition, the plan shall describe and
ensure the implementation of practices
which are to be used to reduce the
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity at the
facility and to assure compliance with
the terms and conditions of this permit.
Facilities must implement the provisions
of the storm water pollution prevention
plan required under this part as a
condition of this permit.
A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
1. Except as provided in paragraphs
IV.A.3 (oil and gas operations) 4
(facilities denied or rejected from
participation in a group application) 5
(special requirements) and 6 (later
dates) the plan for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity that is existing on or before
October 1, 1992:
a. shall be prepared on or before April
1, 1993 (and updated as appropriate);
b. shall provide for implementation
and compliance with the terms of the
plan on or before October 1, 1993;
2. a. The plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences after
October 1, 1992, but on or before
December 31, 1992 shall be prepared,
and except as provided elsewhere in
this permit, shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit on or before the date 60 calendar
days after the commencement of
industrial activity (and updated as
appropriate);
b. The plan for any facility where
industrial activity commences on or
after January 1, 1993 shall be prepared,
and except as provided elsewhere in
this permit, shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit, on or before the date of
submission of a NOI to be covered
under this permit (and updated as
appropriate);
3. The plan for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
an oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operation or
transmission facility that is not required
to submit a permit application on or
before October 1, 1992 in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(l)(iii), but after
October 1, 1992 has a discharge of a


g I
--


41307







Federal Register / Vol 7. Nao 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


reportable quantity of oi or a hazardous
substance for which notification is
required pursuant to either 40 CFR 110..
40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302., shall be
prepared and except as provided
elsewhere in this permit, sha provide
for compliance with the terms of the
plan and this permit on or before the
date 60 calendar days after the first
knowledge of such release (and updated
as appropriate);
4. The plan for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
a facility that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated in a
timely group application where either
the group application is rejected or the
facility is denied participation in the
group application by EPA.
a. shall be prepared on or before the
365th day following the date on which
the group is rejected or the denial is
made, (and updated as appropriate),
b. except as provided elsewhere in
this permit, shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and this
permit on or before the 545th day
following the date on which the group is
rejected or the denial is made and
5. Portions of the plan addressing
additional requirements for storm water
discharges from facilities subject to,
Parts IV.D.7 (EPCRA Section 313 and
IV.D.8 (salt storage) shall provide for
compliance with the terms of the
requirements identified in Parts IV.D.7
and IV.D.8 as expeditiously as
practicable, but except as provided
below, not later than either October 1,
1995. Facilities which are not required to
report under EPCRA Section 313 prior to
July 1 1992, shall provide for compliance
with the terms of the requirements
identified in Parts IV.D.7 and IV.D.8 as
expeditiously as practicable, but not
later than three years after the date on
which the facility is first required to
report under EPCRA Section 313.
However, plans for facilities subject to
the additional requirements of Part
IV.D.7 and IV.D.8 shall provide for
compliance with the other terms and
conditions of this permit in accordance
with the appropriate dates provided in
Part IV., 2 3, or 5 of this permit
6. Upon a showing of good cause, the
Director may establish a later date in
writing for preparing and compliance
with a plan for a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity that
submits a NOf in accordance with Part
II.A.2 (deadlines for notification-new
dischargers) of this permit (and updated
as appropriate).
B. Signature and Plai Review
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements), and be retained on-site at


the facility which generates the storm *
water discharge in accordance with Part
VI.E (retention of records) of this permit.
2. The permitted shaB make plans
available upon request to the Director
or authorized representative, or in the
case of a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity which
discharges through a nmnicipel separate
storm sewer system, to the operator of
the municipal system.
3. The Director, or authorized
representative, may notify the permitted
at any time that the plan does not meet
one or more of the minimum
requirements of this Part. Such
notification shall identify those
provisions of the permit which are not
being met by the plan, and identify
which provisions of the plan requires
modifications in order to meet the
minimum requirements of this Part.
Within 30 days of such notification from
the Director, (or as otherwise provided
by the Director), or authorized
representative, the permitted shall make
the required changes to the plan and
shall submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made.
C. Keeping Plans Current
The permitted shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design,
construction, operation, or maintenance,
which has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States or if
the storm water pollution prevention
plan proves to be ineffective in
eliminating or significantly minimizing
pollutants from sources identified under
Part IV.D.2 (description of potential
pollutant sources) of this permit or in
otherwise achieving the general
objectives of controlling polktants in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Amendments to the
plan may be reviewed by EPA in the
same manner as Part IV.B (above).
D. Contents of Plan
The plan shall include, at a minimum,
the following items:
1. Pobution Prevention Team. Each
plan shall identify a specific. individual
or individuals within the facility
organization as members of a storm
water Pollution Prevention Team that
are responsible for developing the storm
water pollution prevention plan and
assisting the facility or plant managerin
its implementation, maintenance, and
revision. The plan shall clearly identify
the responsibilities of each team
member. The activities and
responsibilities of the team shall
address all aspects of the facility's
storm water pollution prevention pan.


Description ofPotentiaIPeOlutont
Sources. Each plan shall provide a
description of potential sources which
may reasonably be expected to add
significant amounts of pollutants to
storm water discharges or which may
result in the discharge of pollutants
during any dry weather from separate
storm sewers draining the faciBty. Each
plan shall identify all activities and
significant materials which may
potentially be significant pollutant
sources. Each plan shall include, at a
minimum:
a. Drainage.
(1) A site map indicating an outline of
the portions of the drainage area of each
storm water outfall that are within the
facility boundaries, each existing
structural control measure to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff, surface
water bodies, locations where
significant materials are exposed to
precipitation. locations where major
spills or leaks identified under Part
IV.D.2.c (spills and leaks) of this permit
have occurred, and the locations of the
following activities where such
activities are exposed to precipitation:
fueling stations, vehicle and equipment
maintenance andfor cleaning areas,
loading/unloading areas, locations used
for the treatment, storage or disposal of
wastes, liquid storage tanks, processing
areas and storage areas.
(2) For each area of the facility that
generates storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity with
a reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants, a
prediction of the direction of flow, and
an identification of the types of
pollutants which are likely to be present
in storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. Factors to
consider include the toxicity of
chemical; quantity of chemicals used,
produced or discharged; the likelihood
of contact with storm water; and history
of significant leaks or spills of toxic or
hazardous pollutants. Flows with a
significant potential for causing erosion
shall be identified.
b. Inventory of ExposedMaterials. An
inventory of the types of materials
handled at the site that potentially may
be exposed to precipitation. Such
inventory shall include a narrative
description of significant materials that
have been handled, treated, stored or
disposed in a manner to allow exposure
to storm water between the time of three
years prior to the date of the issuance of
this permit and the present; method and
location of on-site storage or disposal;
materials management practices
employed to minimize contact of
materials with storm water runoff


MMMMM


41306







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


between the time of three years prior to
the date of the issuance of this permit
and the present; the location and a
description of existing structural and
non-structural control measures to
reduce pollutants in storm water runoff;
and a description of any treatment the
storm water receives.
c. Spills and Leaks. A list of
significant spills and significant leaks of
toxic or hazardous pollutants that
occurred at areas that are exposed to
precipitation or that otherwise drain to a
storm water conveyance at the facility
after the date of three years prior to the
effective date of this permit. Such list
shall be updated as appropriate during
the term of the permit.
d. Sampling Data. A summary of
existing discharge sampling data
describing pollutants in storm water
discharges from the facility, including a
summary of sampling data collected
during the term of this permit.
e. Risk Identification and Summary of
Potential Pollutant Sources. A narrative
description of the potential pollutant
sources from the following activities:
loading and unloading operations;
outdoor storage activities; outdoor
manufacturing or processing activities;
significant dust or particulate generating
processes; and on-site waste disposal
practices. The description shall
specifically list any significant potential
source of pollutants at the site and for
each potential source, any pollutant or
pollutant parameter (e.g. biochemical
oxygen demand, etc.) of concern shall be
identified.
3. Measures and Controls. Each
facility covered by this permit shall
develop a description of storm water
management controls appropriate for
the facility, and implement such
controls. The appropriateness and
priorities of controls in a plan shall
reflect identified potential sources of
pollutants at the facility. The description
of storm water management controls
shall address the following minimum
components, including a schedule for
implementing such controls:
a. Good Housekeeping.-Good
housekeeping requires the maintenance
of areas which may contribute
pollutants to storm waters discharges in
a dean, orderly manner.
b. Preventive Maintenance. A
preventive maintenance program shall
involve timely inspection and
maintenance of storm water
management devices (e.g. cleaning oil/
water separators, catch basins) as well
as inspecting and testing facility
equipment and systems to uncover
conditions that could cause breakdowns
or failures resulting in discharges of
* pollutants to surface waters, and


ensuring appropriate maintenance of
such equipment and systems.
c. Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures. Areas where potential spills
which can contribute pollutants to storm
water discharges can occur, and their
accompanying drainage points shall be
identified clearly-in the storm water
pollution prevention plan. Where
appropriate, specifying material
handling procedures, storage
requirements, and use of equipment
such as diversion valves in the plan
should be considered. Procedures for
cleaning up spills shall be identified in
the plan and made available to the
appropriate personnel. The necessary
equipment to implement a clean up
should be available to personnel
d. Inspections. In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation required under Part IV.4 of
this permit, qualified facility personnel
shall be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan. A set of tracking or followup
procedures shall be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in
response to the inspections. Records of
inspection shall be maintained.
e. Employee Training. Employee
training programs shall inform personnel
responsible for implementing activities
identified in the storm water pollution
prevention plan or otherwise
responsible for storm water
management at all levels of
responsibility of the components and
goals of the storm water pollution
prevention plan. Training should
address topics such as spill response,
good housekeeping and material
management practices. A pollution
prevention plan shall identify periodic
dates for such training.
f. Recordkeeping and Internal
Reporting Procedures. A description of
incidents (such as spills, or other
discharges), along with other
information describing the quality and
quantity of storm water discharges shall
be included in the plan required under
this part. Inspections and maintenance
activities shall be documented and
records of such activities shall be
incorporated into the plan.
g. Non-Storm Water Discharges.
(1) The plan shall include a
certification that the discharge has been
tested or evaluated for the presence of
non-storm water discharges. The
certification shall include the
identification of potential significant
sources of non-storm water at the site, a
description of the results of any test
and/or evaluation for the presence of
non-storm water discharges, the
evaluation criteria or testing method


used, the date of any testing and/or
evaluation, and the on-site drainage
points that were directly observed
during the test. Certifications shall be
signed in accordance with Part VII.G of
this permit. Such certification may not
be feasible if the facility operating the
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity does not have access
to an outfall, manhole, or other point of
access to the ultimate conduit which
receives the discharge. In such cases,
the source identification section of the
storm water pollution plan shall indicate
why the certification required by this
part was not feasible, along with the
identification of potential significant
source of non-storm water at the site. A
discharger that is unable to provide the
certification required by this paragraph
must notify the Director in accordance
with Part VIA (failure to certify) of this
permit.
(2) Except for flows from fire fighting
activities, sources of non-storm water
listed in Part IILA.2 (authorized non-
storm water discharges) of this permit
that are combined with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must be identified in the plan.
The plan shall identify and ensure the
implementation of appropriate pollution
prevention measures for the non-storm
water components) of the discharge.
h. Sediment and Erosion Control. The
plan shall identify areas which, due to
topography, activities, or other factors,
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion, and identify structural,
vegetative, and/or stabilization
measures to be used to limit erosion.
i. Management ofRunoff. The plan
shall contain a narrative consideration
of the appropriateness of traditional
storm water management practices
(practices other than those which
control the generation or sources) of
pollutants) used to divert, infiltrate,
reuse, or otherwise manage storm water
runoff in a manner that reduces
pollutants in storm water discharges
from the site. The plan shall provide that
measures that the permitted determines
to be reasonable and appropriate shall
be implemented and maintained. The
potential of various sources at the
facility to contribute pollutants to storm
water discharges, associated with
industrial activity (see Parts IV.D.2.
(description of potential pollutant
sources) of this permit) shall be
considered when determining
reasonable and appropriate measures.
Appropriate measures may include:
vegetative sales and practices, reuse
of collected storm water (such as for a
process or as an irrigation source), inlet
controls (such as oil/water separators),


I41309


41309







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


snow management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices.
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation. Qualified personnel shall
conduct site compliance evaluations at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan, but, except as provided in
paragraph IV.D.4.d (below), in no case
less than once a year. Such evaluations
shall provide:
a. Areas contributing to a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity shall be visually inspected for
evidence of, or the potential for,
pollutants entering the drainage system.
Measures to reduce pollutant loadings
shall be evaluated to determine whether
they are adequate and properly
implemented in accordance with the
terms of the permit or whether
additional control measures are needed.
Structural storm water management
measures, sediment and erosion control
measures, and other structural pollution
prevention measures identified in the
plan shall be observed to ensure that
they are operating correctly. A visual
inspection of equipment needed to
implement the plan, such as spill
response equipment, shall be made.
b. Based on the results of the
inspection, the description of potential
pollutant sources identified in the plan
in accordance with Part IV.D.2
(description of potential pollutant
sources) of this permit and pollution
prevention measures and controls
identified in the plan in accordance with
paragraph IV.D.3 (measures and
controls) of this permit shall be revised
as appropriate within two weeks of such
inspection and shall provide for
implementation of any changes to the
plan in a timely manner, but in no case
more than twelve weeks after the
inspection.
c. A report summarizing the scope of
the inspection, personnel making the
inspection, the date(s) of the inspection,
major observations relating to the
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan, and actions
taken in accordance with paragraph
IV.D.4.b (above) of the permit shall be
made and retained as part of the storm
water pollution prevention plan for at
least one year after coverage under this
permit terminates. The report shall
identify any incidents of non-
compliance. Where a report does not
identify any incidents of non-
compliance, the report shall contain a
certification that the facility is in
compliance with the storm water
pollution prevention plan and this
permit. The report shall be signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit.


d. Where annual site inspections are
shown in the plan to be impractical for.
inactive mining sites due to the remote
location and inaccessibility of the site,
site inspections required under this part
shall be conducted at appropriate
intervals specified in the plan, but, in no
case less than once in three years.
5. Additional requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity through municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more.
a. In addition to the applicable
requirements of this permit, facilities
covered by this permit must comply with
applicable requirements in municipal
storm water management programs
developed under NPDES permits issued
for the discharge of the municipal
separate storm sewer system that
receives the facility's discharge,
provided the discharger has been
notified of such conditions.
b. Permittees which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
through a municipal separate storm
sewer system serving a population of
100,000 or more shall make plans
available to the municipal operator of
the system upon request.
6. Consistency with other plans. Storm
water pollution prevention plans may
reflect requirements for Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
plans developed for the facility under
section 311 of the CWA or Best
Management Practices (BMP) Programs
otherwise required by an NPDES permit
for the facility as long as such
requirement is incorporated into the
storm water pollution prevention plan.
7. Additional requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities subject
to EPCRA Section 313 requirements. In
addition to the requirements of Parts
IV.D.1 through 4 of this permit and other
applicable conditions of this permit,
storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA Section 313
for chemicals which are classified as
'Section 313 water priority chemicals' in
accordance with the definition in Part X
of this permit, shall describe and ensure
the implementation of practices which
are necessary to provide for
conformance with the following
guidelines:
a. In areas where Section 313 water
priority chemicals are stored, processed
or otherwise handled, appropriate
containment, drainage control and/or
diversionary structures shall be
provided. At a minimum, one of the
following preventive systems or its
equivalent shall be used:


(1) Curbing, culverting, gutters, sewers
or other forms of drainage control to
prevent or minimize the potential for
storm water run-on to come into contact
with significant sources of pollutants: or
(2) Roofs, covers or other forms of
appropriate protection to prevent
storage piles from exposure to storm
water, and wind.
b. In addition to the minimum
standards listed under Part IV.D.7.a
(above) of this permit, the storm water
pollution prevention plan shall include a
complete discussion of measures taken
to conform with the following applicable
guidelines, other effective storm water
pollution prevention procedures, and
applicable State rules, regulations and
guidelines:
(1) Liquid storage areas.where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals.
(a) No tank or container shall be used
for the storage of a Section 313 water
priority chemical unless its material and
construction are compatible with the
material stored and conditions of
storage such as pressure and
temperature, etc.
(b) Liquid storage areas for Section
313 water priority chemicals shall be
operated to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals. Appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals may include
secondary containment provided for at
least the entire contents of the largest
single tank plus sufficient freeboard to
allow for precipitation, a strong spill .
contingency and integrity testing plan,
and/or other equivalent measures.
(2) Material storage areas for Section
313 water priority chemicals other than
liquids. Material storage areas for
Section 313 water priority chemicals
other than liquids which are subject to
runoff, leaching, or wind shall
incorporate drainage or other control
features which will minimize the
discharge of Section 313 water priority
chemicals by reducing storm water
contact with Section 313 water priority
chemicals.
(3) Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid Section 313
water priority chemicals. Truck and rail
car loading and unloading areas for
liquid Section 313 water priority
chemicals shall be operated to minimize
discharges of Section 313 water priority
chemicals. Protection such as overhangs
or door skirts to enclose trailer ends at
truck loading/unloading docks shall be
provided as appropriate. Appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals may include: the


___ __ __


41310






Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


placement and maintenance of drip pamn
(including the proper disposal of
materials collected in the drip pans)
S where spillage may occur (such as hose
connections, hose reels and filler
nozzles) for use when making and
breaking hose connections; a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan;
and/or other equivalent measures.
(4) Areas where Section 313 water
priority chemicals are transferred,
processed or otherwise handled.
Processing equipment and materials
handling equipment shall be operated so
as to minimize discharges of Section 313
water priority chemicals. Materials used
in piping and equipment shall be
compatible with the substances
handled. Drainage from process and
materials handling areas shall minimize
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals. Additional
protection such as covers or guards to
prevent exposure to wind, spraying or
releases from pressure relief vents from
causing a discharge of Section 313 water
priority chemicals to the drainage
system shall be provided as appropriate.
Visual inspections or leak tests shall be
provided for overhead piping conveying
Section 313 water priority chemicals
without secondary containment.
(5) Discharges from areas covered by
paragraphs (1), (2), (3) or [4.
(a) Drainage from areas covered by
paragraphs (1), (2), (3) or (4) of this part
should be restrained by values or other
positive means to prevent the discharge
of a spill or other excessive leakage of
Section 313 water priority chemicals.
Where containment units are employed,
such units may be emptied by pumps or
ejectors; however, these shall be
manually activated.
(b) Flapper-type drain valves shall not
be used to drain containment areas.
Valves used for the drainage of
containment areas should, as far as is
practical, be of manual, open-and-closed
design.
(c) If facility drainage is not
engineered as above, the final discharge
of all in-facility storm sewers shall be
equipped to be equivalent with a
diversion system that could, in the event
of an uncontrolled spill of Section 313
water priority chemicals, return the
spilled material to the facility.
(d) Records shall be kept of the
frequency and estimated volume (in
gallons) of discharges from containment
areas.
(6) Facility site rnmoff other than from
areas covered by (1), (2), (3) or (4). Other
areas of the facility (those not addressed
in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) or (4)), from
which runoff which may contain Section
313 water priority chemicals or spills of
Section 313 water priority chemicals


Could cause a discharge shall
incorporate the necessary drainage or
other control features to prevent
discharge of spilled or improperly
disposed material and ensure the
mitigation of pollutants in runoff or
leachate.
(7) Preventive maintenance and
housekeeping. All areas-of the facility
shall be inspected at specific intervals
identified in the plan for leaks or
conditions that could lead to discharges
of Section 313 water priority chemicals
or direct contact of storm water with
raw materials, intermediate materials,
waste materials or products. In
particular, facility piping, pumps,
storage tanks and bins, pressure vessels,
process and material handling
equipment, and material bulk storage
areas shall be examined for any
conditions or failures which could cause
a discharge. Inspection shall include
examination for leaks, wind blowing,
corrosion, support or foundation failure,
or other forms of deterioration or
noncontainment. Inspection intervals
shall be specified in the plan and shall
be based on design and operational
experience. Different areas may require
different inspection intervals. Where a
leak or other condition is discovered
which may result in significant releases
of Section 313 water priority chemicals
to waters of the United States, action to
stop the leak or otherwise prevent the
significant release of section 313 water
priority chemicals to waters of the
United States shall be immediately
taken or the unit or process shut down
until such action can be taken. When a
leak or noncontainment of a Section 313
water priority chemical has occurred,
contaminated soil, debris, or other
material must be promptly removed and
disposed in accordance with Federal,
State, and local requirements and as
-described in the plan.
(8) Facility security. Facilities shall
have the necessary security systems to
prevent accidental or intentional entry
which could cause a discharge. Security
systems described in the plan shall
address fencing, lighting, vehicular
traffic control, and securing of
equipment and buildings.
(9) Training. Facility employees and
contractor personnel that work in areas
where Section 313 water priority
chemicals are used or stored shall be
trained in and informed of preventive
measures at the facility. Employee
training shall be conducted at intervals
specified in the plan, but not less than
once per year, in matters of pollution
control laws and regulations, and in the
storm water pollution prevention plan
and the particular features of the facility
and its operation which are designed to


minimize discharges of Section 313
water priority chemicals. The plan shall
designate a person who is accountable
for spill prevention at the facility and
who will set up the necessary spill
emergency procedures and reporting
requirements so that spills and
emergency releases of Section 313 water
priority chemicals can be isolated and
contained before a discharge of a
Section 313 water priority chemical can
occur. Contractor or temporary
personnel shall be informed of facility
operation and design features in order to
prevent discharges or spills from
occurring.
(10) Engineering certification. The
storm water pollution prevention plan
for a facility subject to EPRCA Section
313 requirements for chemicals which
are classified as 'section 313 water
priority chemicals' shall be reviewed by
a Registered Professional Engineer and
certified to by such Professional
Engineer. A Registered Professional
Engineer shall recertify the plan every
three years thereafter or as soon as
practicable after significant modification
are made to the facility. By means of
these certifications the engineer, having
examined the facility and being familiar
with the provisions of this part, shall
attest that the storm water pollution
prevention plan has been prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practices. Such certifications shall in no
way relieve the owner or operator of a
facility covered by the plan of their duty
to prepare and fully implement such
plan.
8. Additional Requirements for Salt
Storage
Storage piles of salt used for deicing
or other commercial or industrial
purposes and which generate a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity which is discharged to
a waters of the United States shall be
enclosed or covered to prevent exposure
to precipitation, except for exposure
resulting from adding or removing
materials from the pile. Dischargers
shall demonstrate compliance with this
provision as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than
October 1, 1995. Piles do not need to be
enclosed or covered where storm water
from the pile is not discharged to waters
of the United States.
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A-. Coal Pile Runoff
Any discharge composed of coal pile
runoff shall not exceed a maximum
concentration for any time of 50 mg/1
total suspended solids. Coal pile runoff


- --- A-q11


~eL


a1.11







Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


shall not be diluted with storm water or
other flows in order to meet this
limitation. The pH of such discharges
shall be within the range of 60-.0. Any
untreated overflow from facilities
designed, constructed and operated to
treat the volume of coal pile runoff
which is associated with a 10 year, 24
hour rainfall event shall not be subject
to the 50 mg/1 limitation for total
suspended solids. Failure to
demonstrate compliance with these
limitations as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no case later than
October 1, 1995, will constitute a
violation of this permit
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Failure to Certify
Any facility that is unable to provide
the certification required under
paragraph IV.D.3.g.(1) (testing for non-
storm water discharges), must notify the
Director by October 1, 1993 or, for
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1, 1992, 180 days after
submitting a NOI to be covered by this
permit. If the failure to certify is caused
by the inability to perform adequate
tests or evaluations, such notification
shall describe: the procedure of any test
conducted for the presence of non-storm
water discharges; the results of such test
or other relevant observations; potential
sources of non-storm water discharges
to the storm sewer, and why adequate
tests for such storm sewers were not
feasible. Non-storm water discharges to
waters of the United States which are
not authorized by an NPDES permit are
unlawful, and must be terminated or
dischargers must submit appropriate
NPDES permit application forms.
B. Monitoring Requirements
1. Limitations on Monitoring
Requirements.
a. Except as required by paragraph b.,
only those facilities with activities
specifically identified in Parts VIB.2
(semi-annual monitoring requirements)
and VI.B.3 (annual monitoring
requirements) of this permit are required
to conduct sampling of their storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.
b. The Director can provide written
notice to any facility otherwise exempt
from the sampling requirements of Parts
VI.B.2 (semi-annual monitoring
requirements) or VI.B.3 (annual
monitoring requirements), that it shall
conduct the annual discharge sampling
required by Part VLB.3.d (additional
facilities), or specify an alternative


monitoring frequency or specify
additional parameters to be analyzed.
2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements. During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit, permittees with facilities
identified in Parts VI.B.2.a through f
must monitor those storm water
discharges identified below at least
semi-annually (2 times per year) except
as provided in VI.B.5 (sampling waiver),
VI.B.6 (representative discharge), and
VI.C.1 (toxicity testing). Permittees with
facilities identified in Parts VI.B.2.a
through f (below) must report in
accordance with Part VI.D (reporting:
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permitted
shall provide the date and duration (in
hours) of the storm events) sampled;
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampled runoff; the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled;
a. Section 313 of EPCRA Facilities. In
addition to any monitoring required by
Parts VI.B.2.b through f. or Parts VI.B.3.a
through d, facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are subject to Section 313 of
EPCRA for chemicals which are
classified as 'Section 313 water priority
chemicals' are required to monitor storm
water that is discharged from the facility
that comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
Section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a truck or rail car loading or
unloading area where a Section 313
water priority chemical is handled for:
Oil and Grease (mg/L); Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/L); Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended Solids
(mg/L); Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
(mg/L); Total Phosphorus (mg/L): pH;
acute whole effluent toxicity; and any
Section 313 water priority chemical for
which the facility is subject to reporting
requirements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1986.
b. Primary Metal Industries. Facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity classified as
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
33 (Primary Metal Industry) are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for oil and
grease (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/L); total suspended solids


(mg/L); pH; acute whole effluent
toxicity; total recoverable lead (mg/L)
total recoverable cadmium (mg/L); total
recoverable copper (mg/L); total
recoverable arsenic (mg/L); total
recoverable chromium (mg/L); and any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject Facilities
that are classified as SIC 33 only
because they manufacture pure silicon
and/or semiconductor grade silicon are
not required to monitor for total
recoverable cadmium, total recoverable
copper, total recoverable arsenic, total
recoverable chromium or acute whole
effluent toxicity, but must monitor for
other parameters listed above.
c. Land Disposal Units/Incinerators/
BIFs. Facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from any active or inactive
landfill, land application sites or open
dump without a stabilized final cover
that has received any industrial wastes
(other than wastes from a construction
site); and incinerators (including Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs)) that bum
hazardous waste and operate under
interim status or a permit under Subtitle
C of RCRA, are required to monitor such
storm water that is discharged from the
facility for: Magnesium (total
recoverable) (mg/L), Magnesium
(dissolved) (mg/L), Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L), Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/L), Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/L), Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/L), oil and
grease (mg/L), pH, Total recoverable
arsenic (mg/L), Total recoverable
Barium (mg/L), Total recoverable
Cadmium (mg/L), Total Chromium (mg/
L), Total recoverable Cyanide (mg/L),
Total recoverable Lead (mg/L), Total
Mercury (mg/L), Total recoverable
Selenium (mg/L), Total recoverable
Silver (mg/L), and acute whole effluent
toxicity.
d. Wood Treatment Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas that are
used for wood treatment, wood surface
application or storage of treated or
surface protected wood at any wood
preserving or wood surface facilities are
required to monitor such storm water
that is discharged from the facility for
oil and grease (mg/L), pH, COD (mg/L),
and TSS (mg/L). In addition, facilities
that use chlorophenolic formulations
shall measure pentachlorophenol (mg/L)
and acute whole effluent toxicity;
facilities which use creosote
formulations shall measure acute whole
effluent toxicity; and facilities that use
chromium-arsenic formulations shall
measure total recoverable arsenic (mg/


I


41312







FAderal Ranister / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


L), total recoverable chromium (mg/L),
and total recoverable copper (mg/L).
e. Coal Pile Runoff. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from coal pile runoff
are required to monitor such storm
water that is discharged from the facility
for: oil and grease (mg/L), pH, TSS (mg/
L), total recoverable copper (mg/1), total
recoverable nickel (mg/1) and total
recoverable zinc (mg/1).
f. Battery Reclaimers. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas used for
storage of lead acid batteries,
reclamation products, or waste
products, and areas used for lead acid
battery reclamation (including material
handling activities) at facilities that
reclaim lead acid batteries are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for: Oil and
Grease (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH; total
recoverable copper (mg/1); and total
recoverable lead (mg/1).
3. Annual Monitoring Requirements.
During the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through the
expiration date of this permit,
permittees with facilities identified in
Parts VI.B.3.a through d. (below) must
monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least annually (1
time per year) except as provided in
VI.B.5 (sampling waiver), and VI.B.6
(representative discharge). Permittees
with facilities identified in parts VI.B.3.a
through d. (below) are not required to
submit monitoring results, unless
required in writing by the Director.
However, such permittees must retain
monitoring results in accordance with
Part VI.E (retention of records). In
addition to the parameters listed below,
the permitted shall provide the date and
duration (in hours) of the storm events)
sampled; rainfall measurements or
estimates (in inches) of the storm event
which generated the sampled runoff; the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled;
a. Airports. At airports with over
0000 flight operations per year,
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
areas where aircraft or airport deicing
operations occur (including runways,
taxiways, ramps, and dedicated aircraft
deicing stations) are required to monitor
nch storm water that is discharged
from the facility when deicing activities
are occurring for: Oil and Grease (mg/L);
rive Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand


(BOD5) (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH; and the
primary ingredient used in the deicing
materials used at the site (e.g. ethylene
glycol, urea, etc.).
b. Coal-fired Steam Electric Facilities.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
coal handling sites at coal fired steam
electric power generating facilities
(other than discharges in whole or in
part from coal piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
423-which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit) are required to
monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for: Oil and
grease (mg/L), pH, TSS (mg/L), total
recoverable copper (mg/L), total
recoverable nickel (mg/L) and total
recoverable zinc (mg/L).
c. Animal Handling / Meat Packing.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
animal handling areas, manure
management (or storage) areas, and
production waste management (or
storage) areas that are exposed to
precipitation at meat packing plants,
poultry packing plants, and facilities
that manufacture animal and marine
fats and oils, are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility for: Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/L); oil and grease (mg/L); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L); Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L); Total
Phosphorus (mg/L); ph; and fecal
coliform (counts per 100 mL).
d. Additional Facilities. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that:
(i) come in contact with storage piles
for solid chemicals used as raw
materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified as
SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) -or SIC 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products);
(ii) are from those areas at automobile
junkyards with anty of the following: (A)
over 250 auto/truck bodies with
drivelines (engine, transmission, axles,
and wheels), 250 drivelines, or any
combination thereof (in whole or in
parts) are exposed to storm water; (B)
over 500 auto/truck units (bodies with or
without drivelines in whole or in parts)
are stored exposed to storm water; or
(C) over 100 units per year are
dismantled and drainage or storage of
automotive fluids-occurs in areas
exposed to storm water;
(iii) come into contact with lime
storage piles that are exposed to storm
water at lime manufacturing facilities;


(iv) are from oil handling sites at oil
fired steam electric power generating
facilities;
(v) are from cement manufacturing
facilities and cement kilns (other than
discharges in whole or in part from
material storage piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
411-which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit);
(vi) are from ready-mixed concrete
facilities; or
(vii) are from ship building and
repairing facilities;
are required to monitor such storm
water discharged from the facility for:
Oil and Grease (mg/L); Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH; and
any pollutant limited in an effluent
guideline to which the facility is subject.
4. Sample Type. For discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours, (estimated by dividing the volume
of the detention pond by the estimated
volume of water discharged during the
24 hours previous to the time that the
sample is collected) a minimum of one
grab sample may be taken. For all other
discharges, data shall be reported for
both a grab sample and a composite
sample. All such samples shall be
collected from the discharge resulting
from a storm event that is greater than
0.1 inches in magnitude and that occurs
at least 72 hours from the previously
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event. The grab sample
shall be taken during the first thirty
minutes of the discharge. If the
collection of a grab sample during the
first thirty minutes is impracticable, a
grab sample can be taken during the
first hours of the discharge, and the
discharger shall submit with the
monitoring report a description of why a
grab sample during the first thirty
minutes was impracticable. The
composite sample shall either be flow-
weighted or time-weighted. Composite
samples may be taken with a continuous
sampler or as a combination of a
minimum of three sample aliquots taken
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
the discharge, with each aliquot being
separated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes. Grab samples only must
be collected and analyzed for the
determination of pH, cyanide, whole
effluent toxicity, fecal coliform, and oil
and grease.
5. Sampling Waiver. When a
discharger is unable to collect samples
due to adverse climatic conditions, the
discharger must submit in lieu of
sampling data a description of why


FedralRouste /Vol 57 No 17 /Wedesdy, eptmbr 9 192 /Notce


--


41313







Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


samples could not be collected,
including available documentation of
the event. Adverse weather conditions
which may prohibit the collection of
samples includes weather conditions
that create dangerous conditions for
personnel (such as local flooding, high
winds, hurricane, tornadoes, electrical
storms, etc.) or otherwise make the
collection of a sample impracticable
(drought, extended frozen conditions,
etc.). Dischargers are precluded from
exercising this waiver more than once
during a two year period.
6. Representative Discharge. When a
facility has two or more outfalls that,
based on a consideration of industrial
activity, significant materials, and
management practices and activities
within the area drained by the outfall,
the permitted reasonably believes
discharge substantially identical
effluents, the permitted may test the
effluent of one of such outfalls and
report that the quantitative data also
applies to the substantially identical
outfalls provided that the permitted
includes in the storm water pollution
prevention plan a description of the
location of the outfalls and explaining in
detail why the outfalls are expected to
discharge substantially identical
, effluents. In addition, for each outfall
that the permitted believes is
representative, an estimate of the size of
the drainage area (in square feet) and an
estimate of the runoff coefficient of the
drainage area (e.g. low (under 40
percent), medium (40 to 65 percent) or
high (above 65 percent)) shall be
provided in the plan. Permittees
required to submit monitoring
information under Parts VI.D.1.a, b or c
of this permit shall include the
description of the location of the
outfalls, explanation of why outfalls are
expected to discharge substantially
identical effluents, and estimate of the
size of the drainage area and runoff
coefficient with the Discharge
Monitoring Report.
7. Alternative Certification. A
discharger is not subject to the
monitoring requirements of Parts VI.B.2
or 3 of this permit provided the
discharger makes a certification for a
given outfall, on an annual basis, under
penalty of law, signed in accordance
with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements), that material handling
equipment or activities, raw materials.
intermediate products, final products,
waste materials, by-products, industrial
machinery or operations, significant
materials from past industrial activity.
or, in the case of airports, deicing
activities, that are located in areas of
the facility that are within the drainage


area of the outfall are not presently
exposed to storm water and will not be
exposed to storm water for the
certification period. Such certification
must be retained in the storm water
pollution prevention plan, and submitted
to EPA in accordance with Part VLD of
this permit.
8. Alternative to WETParameter. A
discharger that is subject to the
monitoring requirements of Parts
VI.B.2.a through d may, in lieu of
monitoring for acate whole effluent
toxicity, monitor for pollutants identified
in Tables U and II of Appendix D of 40
CFR 122 (see Addendum A of this
permit) that the discharger knows or has
reason to believe are present at the
facility site. Such determinations are to
be based on reasonable best efforts to
identify significant quantities of
materials or chemicals present at the
facility. Dischargers must also monitor
for any additional parameter identified
in Parts VLB.2.a through d.
C. Toxicity Testing. Permittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series
of tests described below within 180 days
after the issuance of this permit or
within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
1. Test Procedures.
a. The permitted shall conduct acute
24 hour static toxicity tests on both an
appropriate invertebrate and an
appropriate fish (vertebrate) test species
(EPA/600/4-90-027 Rev. 9/91, Section
6.1).2 Freshwater species must be used
for discharges to freshwater water
bodies. Due to the non-saline nature of
rainwater, freshwater test species
should also be used for discharges to
estuarine, marine or other naturally
saline waterbodies.
b, All test organisms, procedures and
quality assurance criteria used shall be
in accordance with Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms,
EPA/600/4-90-027 (Rev. September
1991). EPA has proposed to establish
regulations regarding these test methods
(December 4, 1989, 53 FR 50216).
c. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge. Tests shall be
conducted using 100 effluent (no
dilution) and a control consisting of
synthetic dilution water. Results of all
tests conducted with any species shall
be reported according to EPA/600/4-90-
027 (Rev. September 1991), Section 12,
Report Preparation, and the report
submitted to EPA with the Discharge


_~____~~~_ _
I ---L -


Monitoring Reports (DMR's). On the
DMR. the permitted shall report "O" i
there is no statistical difference between
the control mortality and the effluhe
mortality for each dilution. If there is
statistical difference (exhibits toxicty)
the permitted shall report "1" on the
DMR.
2. If acute whole effluent toxidcity
(statistically significant difference
between the 100% dilution and the
control) is detected on or after October
1,1995, in storm water discharges, the
permitted shall review the storm water
pollution prevention plan and make
appropriate modifications to assist in
identifying the sources) of toxicity and
to reduce the toxicity of their storm
water discharges. A summary of the
review and the resulting modifications
shall be provided in the plan.
D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
1. a. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VI.B.2.(a) (EPCRA Section 313), and (d)
(Wood Treatment facilities), shall
monitor samples collected during the
sampling periods running from January
to June and during the sampling period
from July to December. Such permittees
shall submit monitoring results obtained
during the reporting period running from
January to December on Discharge
Monitoring Report Form(s) postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the
following January. A separate Discharge
Monitoring Report Form is required for
each sampling period. The first report
may include less than twelve months of
information.
b. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VIB.2.(b) (Primary Metal facilities), (e)
(Coal Pile Runoff), and (f) (Battery
Reclaimers) shall monitor samples
collected during the sampling period
running from March to August and
during the sampling period running from
September to February. Such permittees
shall submit monitoring results obtained
during the reporting period running from
April to March on Discharge Monitoring
Report Form(s) postmarked no later than
the 28th day of the following April. A
separate Discharge Monitoring Report
Form is required for each event
sampling period. The first report may
include less than twelve months of
information.
c. Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to Parts
VLB.2.(c) (Land disposal facilities), shall
monitor samples collected during the
sampling period running from October to
March and during the sampling period
running from April to September. Such
permittees shall submit monitoring


41314





Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


results obtained during the reporting
period running from October to
September on Discharge Monitoring
,. Report Form(s) postmarked no later than
the 28th day of October. A separate '
Discharge Monitoring Report Form is
required for each sampling period. The
first report may include less than twelve
months of information.
d. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a, VI.D.1.b, and VI.D.1.c,
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the Director of the NPDES
program at the address of the
appropriate Regional Office:
1. CT. MA, ME, NH, RI, VT
United States EPA, Region I. Water
Management Division. (WCP-2109).
Storm Water Staff, John F. Kennedy
Federal Building, Room 2209, Boston.
MA 02203.
2. NJ NY, PR, VI
United States EPA, Region II, Water
Management Division, (2WM-WPC),
Storm Water Staff, 26 Federal Plaza.
New York, NY 10278.
3. DE, DC, MD, PA, VA. WV
United States EPA. Region II Water
Management Division, (3WM55),
Storm Water Staff, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
4. AL FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
United States EPA, Region IV, Water
Management Division, (FPB-3), Storm
Water Staff, 345 Courtland Street. NE,
Atlanta, GA 30365.
5. IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
United States EPA, Region V, Water
Quality Branch, (5 WQP), Storm Water
Staff, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 06004.
6. AR, LA, NM (except see Region IX for
Navajo lands, and see Region VIII for
Ute Mountain Reservation lands), OK.
TX
United States EPA, Region VI, Water
Management Division, (6W-EA),
Storm Water Staff, First Interstate
Bank Tower at Fountain Place, 1445
Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200.
Dallas, TX 75202.
7. IA, KS, MO, NE
United States EPA, Region VII, Water
Management Division, Compliance
Branch, Storm Water Staff. 726
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City. KS
66101.


8. CO, MT, ND, SD, WY, UT (except see
Region IX for Goshute Reservation and
Navajo Reservation lands)
United States EPA, Region VIII Water
Management Division, NPDES Branch
(8WM-C), Storm Water Staff, 99918th
Street, Denver, CO 80202-2466.
Note.-For Montana Indian Lands, please
use the following address:
United Stales EPA, Region VIII Montana
Operations Office, Federal Office Building.
Drawer 10096, 301 South Park. Helena. MT
59620-0026.
9. AZ, CA, HI, NV, Guam, American
Samoa, the Goshute Reservation in UT
and NV, the Navajo Reservation in UTI
NM, and AZ, the Duck Valley
Reservation in NV and ID
United States EPA, Region IX, Water
Management Division, (W-5-1), Storm
Water Staff, 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105.
10. AK, ID (except see Region IX for
Duck Valley Reservation lands), OR.
WA
United States EPA, Region X. Water
Management Division, (WD-134),
Storm Water Staff, 1200 Sixth Street.
Seattle, WA 98101(i).
e. Permittees with facilities identified
in Parts VI.B.3 (annual monitoring) are
not required to submit monitoring
results, unless required in writing by the
Director.
2. Additional Notification.
In addition to filing copies of
discharge monitoring reports in
accordance with Part VID.1 (reporting:
where to submit), facilities with at least
one storm water discharge associated
with industrial activity through a large
or medium municipal separate storm
sewer system (systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more) must
submit signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer system
in accordance with the dates provided
in paragraph VLD.1 (reporting: where to
submit). Facilities not required to report
monitoring data under Part VI.B.3
(annual monitoring requirements), and
facilities that are not otherwise required
to monitor their discharges, need not
comply with this provision.
E. Retention of Records.
1. The permitted shall retain the
pollution prevention plan developed in
accordance with Part IV (storm water
pollution prevention plans) of this
permit until at least one year after
coverage under this permit terminates.
The permitted shall retain all records of
all monitoring information, copies of all
reports required by this permit, and


records of all data used to complete the
Notice of Intent to be covered by this.
permit, until at least one year after
coverage under this permit terminates.
This periodmay be explicitly modified
by alternative provisions of this permit
(see paragraph VI.E.2 (below) of this
permit) or extended by request of the
Director at any time.
2. For discharges subject to sampling
requirements pursuant to Part VI.B
(monitoring requirements), in addition to
the requirements of paragraph VI.E.1
(above), permittees are required to
retain for a six year period from the data
of sample collection or for the term of
this permit, which ever is greater.
records of all monitoring information
collected during the term of this permit.
Permittees must submit such monitoring
results to the Director upon the requests
of the Director, and submit a summary
of such result as part of renotification
requirements in accordance with Part
II.F (renotification).
Part VII. Standard Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply.
1. The permitted must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of
CWA and is grounds for enforcement
action; for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance, or
modification; or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions.
a. Criminal.
(1). Negligent violations.-The CWA
provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302.306,307.
308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to a
fine of not less than $2,500 nor more
than $25,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year.
or both.
(2). Knowing violations.-The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307.
308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to a
fine of not less than $5,000 nor more
than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 3 years.
or both.
(3). Knowing endangerment-The
CWA provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307.
308, 318, or 405 of the Act and who
knows at that time that he is placing
another person in imminent danger of
death or serious bodily injury is subject
to a fine of not more than $250,000. or by


I _
---


41315


___________________1___4







Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9 1992 / Notices


imprisonment for not more than 15
years, or both.
(4). False statement.-The CWA
provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false material
statement, representation, or
certification in any application, record,
report, plan, or other document filed or
required to be maintained under the Act
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to
be maintained under the Act shall upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000 or by imprisonment
for not more than 2 years, or by both. If
a conviction is for a violation committed
after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment shall
be by a fine of not more than $20,000 per
day of violation, or by imprisonment of
not more than 4 years, or by both. (See
section 309(c)(4) of the Clean Water
Act).
b. Civilpenalties.-The CWA
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing Sections
301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the
Act is subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation.
c. Administrative penalties.-The
CWA provides that any person who
- violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307,
308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to
an administrative penalty, as follows:
(1). Class Ipenalty.-Not to exceed
$10,000 per violation nor shall the
maximum amount exceed $25,000.
(2). Class IIpenalty.-Not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues nor shall
the maximum amount exceed $125,000.
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit
This permit expires on October 1,
1997. However, an expired general
permit continues in force and effect until
a new general permit is issued.
Permittees must submit a new NOI in
accordance with the requirements of
Part II of this permit, using a NOI form
provided by the Director (or photocopy
thereof) between August 1, 1997 and
September 29,1997 to remain covered
under the continued permit after
October 1, 1997. Facilities that had not
obtained coverage under the permit by
October 1, 1997 cannot become
authorized to discharge under the
continued permit
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not
.-- a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permitted in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or


reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate
The permitted shall take all
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge'in violation of this permit
which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
E. Duty to Provide Informotion
The permitted shall furnish to the
Director, within a time specified by the
Director, any information which the
Director may request to determine
compliance with this permit. The
permitted shall also furnish to the
Director upon request copies of records
required to be kept by this permit.
F. Other Information
When the permitted becomes aware
that he or she failed to submit any
relevant facts or submitted incorrect
information in the Notice of Intent or in
any other report to the Director, he or
she shall promptly submit such facts or
information.
G. Signatory Requirements
All Notices of Intent, Notices of
Termination, storm water pollution
prevention plans, reports, certifications
or information either submitted to the
Director (and/or the operator of a large
or medium municipal separate storm
sewer system), or that this permit
requires be maintained by the permitted,
shall be signed.
1. All Notices of Intent shall be signed
as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible
corporate officer. For the purpose of this .
section, a responsible corporate officer
means: (1) A president, secretary.
treasurer, or vice-president of the
corporation in charge of a principal
business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy or decision-
making functions for the corporation: or
(2) the manager of one or more
manufacturing, production or operating
facilities employing more than 250
persons or having gross annual sales or
expenditures exceeding $25,00,000 (in
second-quarter 1980 dollars) if authority
to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures;
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively, or
c. For a municipality- State. Federal,
or other public agency by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. For purposes of this
section, a principal executive officer of a


19~"""1"7~""---~"-rr~*"~----- -


Federal agency includes (1) the chief
executive officer of the agency, or () a
senior executive officer having
responsibility for the overall operation
of a principal geographic unit of the
agency (eg. Regional Administrten d
EPA).
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director shall be signed by a person
described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A pesom
is a duly authorized representative only
if:
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above
and submitted to the Director.
b. The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of manager, operator,
superintendent, or position of equivalent
responsibility or an individual or
position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company.
(A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position).
c. Changes to authorization. If an
authorization under paragraph VII.G.2.
is no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility, a
new notice of intent satisfying the
requirements of paragraph I.C must be
submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information,
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative.
d. Certification. Any person signing
documents under this section shall make
the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that
this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gathered and
evaluated the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or
those persons directly responsible for
gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations."
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
Section 309(c)(4) of the Clean Water
Act provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false material
statement, representation, or
certification in any record or other


41316







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9,1992 / Notices


document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, including
reports of compliance or noncompliance
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than 2 years,
or by both.
I. Penalties for Falsification of
Monitoring Systems
The CWA provides that any person
who falsifies, tampers with, or
knowingly renders inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required to
be maintained under this permit shall,
upon conviction, be punished by fines
and imprisonment described in section
309 of the CWA.
j. Oil and Hazardous Substances
Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permitted
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permitted is or
may be subject under section 311 of the
CWA or section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
K. PropertyRights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort,
nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property
nor any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State or
'local laws or regulations.
L. Severability
The provisions of this permit are
severable, and if any provision of this
permit, or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this
permit shall not be affected thereby.
M. Requiring an Individual Permit or an
AlternativeCeneral Permit
1. The Director may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and/or obtain either an
individual NPDES permit or an
alternative NPDES general permit Any
interested person may petition the
Director to take action under this
paragraph. The Director may require
any owner or operator authorized to
discharge under this permit to apply for
an individual NPDES permit only if the
owner or operator has been notified in
writing that a permit application is
uired. This notice shall include a
rief statement of the reasons for this
dision, an application form, a


statement setting a deadline for the
owner or operator to file the application,
and a statement that on the effective
date of issuance or denial of the
individual NPDES permit or the
alternative general permit as it applies
to the individual permitted, coverage
under this general permit shall
automatically terminate. Individual
permit applications shall be submitted
to the address of the appropriate
Regional Office shown in Part VID.I.d
(reporting: where to submit) of this
permit. The Director may grant
additional time to submit the application
upon request of the applicant. If an
owner or operator fails to submit in a
timely manner an individual NPDES
permit application as required by the
Director, then the applicability of this
permit to the individual NPDES
permitted is automatically terminated at
the end of the day specified for
application submittal.
2. Any owner or operator authorized
by this permit may request to be
excluded from the coverage of this
permit by applying for an individual
permit. The owner or operator shall
submit an individual application (Form 1
and Form 2F) with reasons supporting
the request to the Director. Individual
permit applications shall be submitted
to the address of the appropriate
Regional Office shown in Part VI.D..c.
of this permit. The request may be
granted by the issuance of any
individual permit or an alternative
general permit if the reasons cited by
the owner or operator are adequate to
support the request
3. When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to an owner or operator
otherwise subject to this permit, or the
owner or operator is authorized for
coverage under an alternative NPDES
general permit, the applicability of this
permit to the individual NPDES
permitted is automatically terminated on
the effective date of the individual
permit or the date of authorization of
coverage under the alternative general
permit, whichever the case may be.
When an individual NPDES permit is
denied to an owner or operator
otherwise subject to this permit. or the
owner or operator is denied for coverage
under an alternative NPDES general
permit, the applicability of this permit to
the individual NPDES permitted is
automatically terminated on the date of
such denial, unless otherwise specified
by the Director.
N. State/Environmental Laws
1. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permitted
from any responsibilities. liabilities, or


penalties established pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of the
Act.
2. No condition of this permit shall
release the permitted from any
responsibility or requirements under
other environmental statutes or
regulations.
O. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permitted shall at all times
properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
permitted to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit and with
the requirements of storm water
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. Proper operation and
maintenance requires the operation of
backup or auxiliary facilities or similar
systems, installed by a permitted only
when necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of the permit.
P. Monitoring and Records
1. Samples and measurements taken
for the purpose of monitoring shall be
representative of the motored activity.
2. The permitted shall retain records
of all monitoring information including
all calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation,
copies of the reports required by this
permit, and records of all data used to
complete the application for this permit,
for a period of at least 6 years from the
date of the sample, measurement, report
or application. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at
any time.
3. Records conteRts.-Records of
monitoring information shall include:
a. The date, exact place, and time of
sampling or measurements;
b. The initials or names) of the
individuals) who performed the
sampling or measurements;
c. The dates) analyses were
performed;
d. The times) analyses were initiated;
e. The initials or names) of the
individuals) who performed the
analyses;
f. References and written procedures,
when available, for the analytical
techniques or methods used; and
g. The results of such analyses,
including the bench sheets, instrument
readouts, computer disks or tapes, etc.,
used to determine these results.


41317


41317


~-----------







Fedeta Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9; 1992 / Notices


4. Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
Q. Inspection and Entry
The permitted shall allow the Director
or an authorized representative of EPA.
the State, or, in the case of a facility
which discharges through a municipal
separate storm sewer, art authorized
representative of the municipal operator
or the separate storm sewer receiving
the discharge, upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may
be required by law, to:
1. Enter upon the permitted's premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this
permit;
2. Have access to and copy at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit; and
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities or equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment).
R. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by the permitted
for a permit modification, revocation
and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition.
S. Bypass of Treatment Facility
1. Notice:
a. Anticipated bypass. If a permitted
subject to the numeric effluent limitation
of Part V.A of this permit knows in
advance of the need for a bypass, he or
she shall submit prior notice, if possible,
at least ten days before the date of the
bypass; including an evaluation of the
anticipated quality and effect of the
pass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
permitted subject to the numeric effluent
limitation of Part V.A of this permit shall
submit notice of an unanticipated
bypass. Any information regarding the
unanticipated bypass shall be provided
orally within 24 hoursfrom the time the
permitted became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission
shall also be provided within 5 days of
the time the permitted became aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description
of the bypass and its cause; the period
-" of the bypass; including exact dates and
times, and if the bypass has not been
corrected, the anticipated time it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or


planned to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent reoccurance of the bypass.
2. Prohibition of bypass:
a. Bypass is prohibited and the
Director may take enforcement action
against a permitted for a bypass. Unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives
to the bypass, such as the use of
auxiliary facilities, retention of
untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not satisfied
if the permitted should, in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment, have
installed adequate backup equipment to
prevent a bypass which occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance; and
(3) The permitted submitted notices of
the bypass.
b. The Director may approve an
anticipated bypass after considering its
adverse effects, if the Director
determines that it will meet the three
conditions listed in Part VII.S.2.a.
T. Upset Conditions
1. An upset constitutes an affirmative
defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with technology-based
numeric effluent limitations in Part V.A
of this permit if the requirements of
paragraph 2 below are met. No
determination made during
administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset,
and before an action for noncompliance,
if final administrative action subject to
judicial review.
2. A permitted who wishes to
establish the affirmative defense of an
upset shall demonstrate, through
properly signed, contemporaneous
operating logs, or other relevant
evidence, that:
a. An upset occurred and that the
permitted can identify the specific
causes) of the upset:
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated; and
c. The permitted provided oral notice
of the upset to EPA within 24 hours from
the time the permitted became aware of
the circumstances. A written submission
shall also be provided within 5 days of
the time the permitted became aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description
of the upset and its cause; the period of
the upset; including exact dates and
times, and if the upset has not been
corrected, the anticipated time it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or
planned to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent reoccurrence of the upset.


3. In any enforcement proceeding the
permitted seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.


Part VIII. Reopener Clause
A. If there is evidence indicating
potential or realized impacts on water
quality due to any storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity covered by this permit, the
owner or operator of such discharge
may be required to obtain individual
permit or an alternative general permit
in accordance with Part VII.M (requiring
an individual permit or alternative
general permit) of this permit or the
permit may be modified to include
different limitations and/or
requirements.
B. Permit modification or revocation
will be conducted according to 40 CFR
122.62, 122.63, 122.64 and 124.5.
Part IX. Termination of Coverage
A. Notice of Termination
Where all storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
are authorized by this permit are
eliminated, or where the operator of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity at a facility changes,
the operator of the facility may submit a
Notice of Termination that is signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit. The Notice
of Termination shall include the
following information:
1. Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. Where a street
address for the site is not available, the
location of the approximate center of the
site must be described in terms of the
latitude and longitude to the nearest 15
seconds, or the section, township and
range to the nearest quarter section;
2. The name, address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Termination;
3. The NPDES permit number for the
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity identified by the
Notice of Termination;
4. An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
or the operator of the discharges has
changed; and
5. The following certification signed in
accordance with Part VII.G (signatory
requirements) of this permit:
"I certify under penalty of law that all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the identified
facility that are authorized by a NPDES
general permit have been eliminated or


41318


I


i







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


that I am no longer the operator of the
industrial activity. I understand that by
submitting this notice of termination,
that I am no longer authorized to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity under this general
permit, and that discharging pollutants
in storm water associated with
industrial activity to waters of the
United States is unlawful under the
Clean Water Act where the discharge is
not authorized by a NPDES permit I
also understand that the submittal of
this notice of termination does not
release an operator from liability for any
violations of this permit or the Clean
Water Act."
B. Addresses
All Notices of Termination are to be
sent, using the form provided by the
Director (or a photocopy thereof),4 to
the Director of the NPDES program in
care of the following address: Storm
Water Notice of Termination, PO Box
1185, Newington, VA 22122.
Part X. Definitions
Best Management Practices ("BMPs"]
means schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance
procedures, and other management
practices to prevent or reduce the
pollution of waters of the United States.
BMPs also include treatment
requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control facility site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, or drainage from raw material
storage.
Bypass means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
Coalpile runoffmeans the rainfall
runoff from or through any coal storage
pile.
CWA means Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972).
Director means the Regional
Administrator or an authorized
representative.
Flow-weighted composite sample
means a composite sample consisting of
a mixture of aliquots collected at a
constant time interval, where the
vohune of each aliquot is proportional to
the flow rate of the discharge.
Landfill means an area of land or an
excavation in which wastes are placed
fr permanent disposal, and which is not
land application unit. surface
impoundment, injection well, or waste
pile.

S of the approved NOT fasm pidsd in
B ApSdixD of hi notce.


Land application unit means an area
where wastes are applied onto or
incorporated into the soil surface
(excluding manure spreading
operations) for treatment or disposal.
Large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer system means all municipal
separate storm sewers that are either (i)
located in an incorporated place (city)
with a population of 100,000 or more as
determined by the latest Decennial
Census by the Bureau of Census (these
cities are listed in Appendices F and G
of 40 CFR Part 122); or (ii) located in the
counties with unincorporated urbanized
populations of 100,000 or more, except
municipal separate storm sewers that
are located in the incorporated places,
townships or towns within such counties
(these counties are listed in Appendices
H and I of 40 CFR Part 122), or (iii)
owned or operated by a municipality
other than those described in paragraph
(i) or (ii) and that are designated by the
Director as part of the large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer system.
NOI means notice of intent to be
covered by this permit (see Part 11 of this
permit.)
NOT means notice of termination (see
Part II of this permit.)
Point source means any discernible,
confined, and discrete conveyance,
including but not limited to, any pipe,
ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation,
landfill leachate collection system,
vessel or other floating craft from which
pollutants are or may be discharges.
This term does not include return flows
from irrigated agriculture or agricultural
storm water runoff.
Section 313 water pnority chemical
means a chemical or chemical
categories which: 1) Are listed at 40 CFR
372.65 pursuant to Section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (also
known as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986); 2) are present at or
above threshold levels at a facility
subject to EPCRA Section 313 reporting
requirements; and 3) that meet at least
one of the following criteria: (i) Are
listed in Appendix D of 40 CFR 122 on
either Table II (organic priority
pollutants), Table HI (certain metals,
cyanides, and phenols) or Table V
(certain toxic pollutants and hazardous
substances) (ii) are listed as a
hazardous substance pursuant to section
311(b)(2)(A) of the CWA at 40 CFR 116.4;
or (iii) are pollutants for which EPA has
published acute or chronic water quality
criteria. See Addendum B of this permit.
Significant materials includes, but is
not limited to: raw materials; feels;


materials such as solvents, detergents,
and plastic pellets; finished materials
such as metallic products; raw materials
used in food processing or production;
hazardous substances designated under
section 101(14) of CERCLA; any
chemical the facility is required to report
pursuant to EPCRA Section 313;
fertilizers; pesticides; and waste
products such as ashes, slag and sludge
that have the potential to be released
with storm water discharges.
Significant spills includes, but is not
limited to: releases of oil or hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities under section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (see 40 CFR 110.10 and CFR
117.21) or section 102 of CERCLA (see 40
CFR 302.4).
Storm water means storm water
runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
Storm water associated with
industrial activity means the discharge
from any conveyance which is used for
collecting and conveying storm water
and which is directly related to
manufacturing, processing or raw
materials storage areas at an industrial
plant The term does not include
discharges from facilities or activities
excluded from the NPDES program. For
the categories of industnes identified in
paragraphs (i) through (x) of this
definition, the term includes, but is not
limited to, storm water discharges from
industrial plant yards; immediate access
roads and rail lines used or traveled by
carriers of raw materials, manufactured
products, waste material, or by-products
used or created by the facility; material
handling sites; refuse sites; sites used for
the application or disposal of process
waste waters (as defined at 40 CFR 401);
sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling
equipment; sites used for residual
treatment, storage, or disposal; shipping
and receiving areas; manufacturing
buildings; storage areas (including tank
farms) for raw materials, and
intermediate and finished products; and
areas where industrial activity has
taken place in the past and significant
materials remain and are exposed to
storm water. For the categories of
industries identified in paragraph (xi) of
this definition, the term includes only
storm water discharges from all areas
(except access roads and rail lines)
listed in the previous sentence where
material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials, intermediate
products, final products, waste
materials, by-products, or industrial
machinery are exposed to storm water.
For the purposes of this paragraph,
material handling activities include the:


41319








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


storage, loading and unloading,
transportation, or conveyance of any
raw material, intermediate product,
finished product, by-product or waste
product. The term excludes areas
located on plant lands separate from the
plant's industrial activities, such as
office buildings and accompanying
parking lots as long as the drainage from
the excluded areas is not mixed with
storm water drained from the above
described areas. Industrial facilities-
(including industrial facilities that are
Federally, State or municipally owned or
operated that meet the description of the
facilities listed in this paragraph (iHxi)
of this definition) include those facilities
designated under 122.26(a)(1)(v). The
following categories of facilities are
considered to be engaging in "industrial
activity" for purposes of this subsection:
(i) Facilities subject to storm water
effluent limitations guidelines, new
source performance standards, or toxic
pollutant effluent standards under 40
CFR subchapter N (except facilities with
toxic pollutant effluent standards which
are exempted under category (xi) of this
definition);
(ii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 24 (except
2434), 26 (except 265 and 267). 28 (except
283), 29, 311, 32 (except 323), 33, 3441,
373;
(iii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 10 through 14
(mineral industry) including active or
inactive mining operations (except for
areas of coal mining operations no
longer meeting the definition of a
reclamation area under 40 CFR 434.11(1)
because the performance bond issued to
the facility by the appropriate SMCRA
authority has been released, or except
for areas of non-coal mining operations
which have been released from
applicable State or Federal reclamation
requirements after December 17, 1990)
and oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operations, or
transmission facilities that discharge
storm water contaminated by contact
with or that has come into contact with,
any overburden, raw material,
intermediate products, finished
products, byproducts or waste products
located on the site of such operations;
inactive mining operations are mining
sites that are not being actively mined,
but which have an identifiable owner/
operator,
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment.
storage, or disposal facilities, including
those that are operating under interim
e- status or a permit under Subtitle C of
RCRA;
(v) Landfills, land application sites,
and open dumps that have received any
industrial waste (waste that is received


from any of the facilities described
under this subsection) including those
that are subject to regulation under
Subtitle D of RCRA;
(vi) Facilities involved in the recycling
of materials, including metal scrapyards,
battery reclaimers, salvage yards, and
automobile junkyards, including but
limited to those classified as Standard
Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093;
(vii) Steam electric power generating
facilities, including coal handling sites;
(viii) Transportation facilities
classified as Standard Industrial
Classifications 40, 41, 42 (except 4221-
25), 43,44,45 and 5171 which have
vehicle maintenance shops, equipment
cleaning operations, or airport deicing
operations. Only those portions of the
facility that are either involved in
vehicle maintenance (including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs,
painting, fueling, and lubrication),
equipment cleaning operations, airport
deicing operations, or which are
otherwise identified under paragraphs
(i)-(vii) or (ix)-(xi) of this subsection are
associated with industrial activity;
(ix) Treatment works treating
domestic sewage or any other sewage
sludge or wastewater treatment device
or system, used in the storage treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of municipal
or domestic sewage, including land
dedicated to the disposal of sewage
sludge that are located within the
confines of the facility, with a design
flow of 1.0 mgd or more, or required to
have an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CFR 403. Not included are farm
lands, domestic gardens or lands used
for sludge management where sludge is
beneficially reused and which are not
physically located in the confines of the
facility, or areas that are in compliance
with 40 CFR 503;
(x) Construction activity including
clearing, grading and excavation
activities except: operations that result
in the disturbance of less than five acres
of total land area which are not part of a
larger common plan of development or
sale;
(xi) Facilities under Standard
Industrial Classifications 20, 21, 22, 23,
2434, 25, 265, 267, 27, 283, 285, 30, 31
(except 311), 323, 34 (except 3441), 35, 36,
37 (except 373), 38, 39, 4221-25, (and
which are not otherwise included within
categories (i)-x)).'

On June 4, 1992. the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
exclusion for manufacturing facilities in category
(xl) which do not have materials or activities
exposed to storm water to the EPA for further
rulemaking. (Nos. 90-70671 and 91-70200).


Time-weighted composite means a
composite sample consisting of a
mixture of equal volume aliquots
collected at a constant time interval.
Upset means an exceptional incident
in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with the
numeric effluent limitations of part V of
this permit because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permitted.
An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
Waste pile means any
noncontainerized accumulation of solid,
nonflowing waste that is used for
treatment or storage.
Waters of the United States means:
(a) All waters which are currently
used, were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including
interstate "wetlands";
(c) All other waters such as interstate
lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats,
sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds the use, degradation, or
destruction of which would affect or
could affect interstate or foreign
commerce including any such waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by
interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or
could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce; or
(3) Which are used or could be used
for industrial purposes by industries in
interstate commerce;
(d) All impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and
(g) Wetlands adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)
through (f) of this definition.
Waste treatment systems, including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to
meet the requirements of CWA are not
waters of the United States.
Part XI. State Specific Conditions
The provisions of this part provide
modifications or additions to the
applicable conditions of parts I through


s


41320







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


IX of this permit. Part X of this permit
does not establish special provisions for
the States of Maine, New Hampshire,
South Dakota, Johnson Atoll, Midway,
Wake Island, New Mexico (Indian
lands), Montana (Indian lands), North
Dakota (Indian lands), Utah {Indian
lands), Wyoming (Indian lands).
Region 1
A. Maine. Maine 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part IA of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. This permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region I in
the State of Maine.
*
2. The following section is added to
Part VI of the permit:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
*
c. Toxicity Testing.
*
3. The discharge described will not
lower the quality of the receiving waters
below the minimum requirements of
their classification and will satisfy the
appropriate requirements of Maine Law
provided that the test organisms include
ceriodaphnia dubia and brook trout,
salvelinus fontinalis, to meet the whole
effluent toxicity requirements for certain
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
Region 8
B. Louisiana. Louisiana 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part IA of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of Louisiana.
*
2. Part IV of the permit is revised to
read:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
A storm water pollution prevention
plan shall be developed for each facility
covered by this permit. The pollution
prevention plan shall provide for
compliance with numeric effluent
limitations as part V.B. Storm water
pollution prevention plans shall be
prepared in accordance with good
engineeringg practices. The plan shall
identifyy potential sources of pollution
which may reasonably be expected to


affect the quality of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from the facility. In addition, the
plan shall describe and ensure the
implementation of practices which are
to be used to reduce the pollutants in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity at the facility and to
assure compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit. Facilities must
implement the provisions of the storm
water pollution prevention plan required
under this part as a condition of this
permit.
*
3. The following section is added to
part V of the Permit:
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. Coal Pile Runoff.
*
B. Limitations For All Discharges of
Storm Water Associated With
Industrial Activity.
1) General Limitations: Effective 10/1/
95.

Parameter Daily mamum

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)....... 50 mg/1
Oil & Grease.............................. 15 mr /1

2) Oil & Gas Exploration and
Production Facilities: Effective 10/1/92.

Parameter Daily maximum

Chemical oxygen Demand 100 mg/1
(COD).
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)..... 50 mg1i
Oil & Grease...................... ... 15 mg/1
Chlorides......... ...................

a) Maximum chloride concentration of
the discharge shall not exceed two times
the ambient concentration of the
receiving water in brackish marsh areas.
b) Maximum chloride concentration of
the discharge shall not exceed 500 mg/1
in freshwater or intermediate marsh
areas and upland areas.
Facilities without monitoring
requirements must insure the pollution
prevention plan developed in
accordance with part IV will insure
compliance with these effluent
limitations.
*
4. Part VI.B.2 of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
* *R
B. Monitoring Requirements.
* *


2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements.
*
a. Section 313 of SARA Title III
Facilities. In addition to any monitoring
required by parts VI.B.2.b through f or
parts VI.B.3.a through d, facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are subject to
requirements to report releases into the
environment under section 313 of
EPCRA for chemicals which are
classified as 'section 313 water priority
chemicals' are required to monitor storm
water that is discharged from the facility
that comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a truck or rail car loading or
unloading area where a section 313
water priority chemical is handled for.
Oil and Grease (mg/L); Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/1); Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
(mg/L); Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended Solids
(mg/L); Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
(mg/L); Total Phosphorus (mg/L); pH;
acute whole effluent toxicity; and any
section 313 water priority chemical for
which the facility is subject to reporting
requirements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1986.
b. PrimaryMetal Industries. Facilities
with storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity classified as
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
33 (Primary Metal Industry) are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for: Oil and
Grease (mg/L); Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) (mg/1); Five Day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD5) (mg/L);
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/
L); Total Suspended Solids (mg/L); pH;
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity; Total
Lead (mg/L); Total Cadmium (mg/L);
Total Copper (mg/L); Total Arsenic (mg/
L); Total Chromium (mg/L); and any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject.
c. Land Disposal Units/Incinerators/
BIFs. Facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from any active or inactive
landfill, land application sites or open
dump without a stabilized final cover
that has received any industrial wastes
(other than wastes from a construction
site); and incinerators (including Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs)) that burn
hazardous waste and operate under
interim status or a permit under Subtitle
C of RCRA, are required to monitor such
storm water that is discharged from the
facility for. Ammonia (mg/L),


Al 29.1


di 1







Federal Reister / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9,1992 [ Notices


Magnesium (total) (mg/L), Magnesium
* (dissolved) (mg/L), Nitrate plus Nitrite
Nitrogen (mg/L), Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L, Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) (mg/L., Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/L. Oil and Grease
(mg/L), pH, Total Arsenic (mg/L, Total
Barium (mg/L), Total Cadmium (mg/L),
Total Chromium (mg/L), Total Cyanide
(mg/L). Total Lead (mg/L, Total
Mercury (mg/L), Total Selenium (mg/L.)
Total Silver (mg/L), and Acute Whole
Effluent Toxicity.
d. Wood Treatment Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas that are
used for wood treatment, wood surface
application or storage of treated or
surface protected wood at any wood
preserving or wood surface facilities are
required to monitor such storm water
that is discharged from the facility for:
Oil and Grease (mg/L,) Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/); pH. Five Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS)
(mg/L), Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (mg/L) and Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L). In addition.
facilities that use chlorophenolic
formulations shall measure
Pentachlorophenol (mg/L) and Acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity; facilities which
use creosote formulations shall measure
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity; and
facilities that use chromium-arsenic
formulations shall measure Total
Arsenic (mg/L), Total Chromium (mg/L),
and Total Copper (mg/L).
e. Coal Pile Runoff. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from coal pile runoff
are required to monitor such storm
water that is discharged from the facility
for. Oil and Grease (mg/L); Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/1); pH; Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L); Total
Copper (mg/l); Total Nickel (mg/1) and
Total Zinc (mg/1).
f. Battery Reclaimers. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas used for
storage of lead acid batteries,
reclamation products, or waste
products, and areas used for lead acid
battery reclamation (including material
handling activities) at facilities that
reclaim lead acid batteries are required
to monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility for. Oil and
Grease (mg/L); Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) (mg/1); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L) Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH; Total Copper
(mg/I); and Total Lead (mg/l).
5. Part VI.B.3 of the permit is revised
to read:


Part VL Menltoring amd Reporting
Requirements

B. Monitoring Requirments.

3. Annual Monitorig Requirements.
* *
a. Airports. At airports with over
56,000 flight operations per year,
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
areas where aircraft or airport deicing
operations occur (including runways
taxiways, ramps, and dedicated aircraft
deicing stations) are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility when deicing activities
are occurring for: Oil and Grease (mg/L);
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (mg/1);
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) (mg/L) Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); p-H and the
primary ingredient used in the deicing
materials used at the site (e.g. ethylene
glycol urea. etc.).
b. Coal-fired Steam Electric Facilities.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
coal handling sites at coal fired steam
electric power generating facilities
(other than discharges in whole or in
part from coal piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
423-which are not eligible for coverage
under this permit) are required to
monitor such storm water that is
discharged from the facility fpr. Oil and
Grease (mg/L), Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) (mg/1); pH, Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L), Total Copper (mgf
1), Total Nickel (mg/1) and Total Zinc
(mg/1).
c. Animal Handling/Meat Pcking.
Facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
animal handling areas, manure.
management (or storage) areas, and-
production waste management (or
storage) areas that are exposed to
precipitation at meat packing plants,
poultry packing plants, and facilities
that manufacture animal and marine
fats and oils, are required to monitor
such storm water that is discharged
from the facility for Oil and Grease
(mg/1); Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
(mg/1); Five Day Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BODS) (mg/L); Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L); Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L) Total
Phosphorus (mg/L); pHi and Fecal
Coliform (counts per 100 ml).
d. Additional Facilities. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that:


(i) come in contact with storage pil
for solid chemicals used as raw
materials that are exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified u
SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicab
and Allied Products);
(ii) are from those areas at automobile
junkyards with any of the following: (A
over 250 auto/truck bodies with
drivelines (engine, transmission, axles,
and wheels), 250 drivelines, or any
combination thereof (in whole or in
parts) are exposed to storm water, (B)
over 500 auto/truck units (bodies with or
without drivelines in whole or in parts)
are stored exposed to storm water, or
(G) over 100 units per year are
dismantled and drainage or storage of
automotive fluids occurs in areas
exposed to storm water;
(iii) come into contact with lime
storage piles that are exposed to storm
water at lime manufacturing facilities;
(iv) are from oil handling sites at oil
fired steam electricpower generating
facilities;
(v) are from cement manufacturing
facilities and cement kilns (other than
discharges in whole or in part from
material storage piles subject to storm
water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
411-which are not eligible for coverage
under thispermit);
(vi) are from ready-mixed concrete
facilities; or
(vii) are from ship building and
repairing facilities;
Are required to monitor such storm
water discharged from the facility for
Oil and Grease (mg/lL Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (mg/L); Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L); pH; and any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject

6. Part VLC of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements

c. Toxicity Testing. Permittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series
of tests described below within 180 days
after the issuance of this permit or
within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
1. Test Procedures
*
c. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100 percent
strength (no dilution) and a control
consisting of synthetic dilution water.


----------------


4:1=







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


Results of all tests conducted with any
species shall be prepared according to
EPA/600/4-90-027 (Rev. September
1991), Section 12. Report Preparation,
and the report retained on-site. Results
of the testing shall be summarized on
Table VI-A and submitted to EPA with
the Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR's). On the DMR, the permitted
shall report results of the testing in
accordance with questions 1-4 of Table
VI-A.
Table VI-A (Sheet 1 of 2)
Permittee:
NPDES permit:
Outfall(s):
Daphniapulex Survival



Time Date

Composite sample
collected ...... .........
Test initiated.................................

Dilution water used: Receiving
stream synthetic water.



Percent effluent (%)
Time Replicate
0 100
A ...... ..... .................
24 1r. B ............... ........

D ....................... ............. ...
Mean......... ...... ... ... ....

Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?
Yes No___
If you report a NO, enter a I on the DMR
Form, Parameter No. TEE3D. Otherwise,
enter a 0.
2. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100% dilution as
compared to the control (0%)?
No- Yes __
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the DMR
Form, Parameter No. TGE3D. Otherwise,
enter a 0.
Table VI-A (Sheet 2 of 2)
Permittee:
NPDES permit:
Outfall(s):
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Survival



Time oae a
S ---...... Doe


Time Date

Test ini ted.... ...... .... .. .......



Dilution water used: Receiving
stream synthetic water.


Percent effluent (%)
Time Replicate (%)
0 100

A .. .......- .. ... .
24 r. B........ .... ........... .................
4Hr.B .......-. ......
D.


3. Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?
Yes _- No-_
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the DMR
Form, Parameter No. TGE6C. Otherwise,
enter a 0. -
4. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100% dilution as
compared to the control (0%)?
Yes_ No___
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the DMR
Form, Parameter No. TEE6C. Otherwise,
enter a 0.
*
7. The following definitions are added to
Part X of the permit:
Part X. Definitions
Brackish Marshes--those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface
water or groundwater of moderate
salinity at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support,
emergent vegetation characterized by a
prevalence of species typically adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions. Typical
vegetation includes wiregrass (Spartina
patens), three-cornered grass (Scirpus
olneyi), coco (Scirpus robustus), and
widgeongrass (Ruppia maritime).
Interstitial water salinity normally
ranges between 7 and 15 parts per
thousand. (LAC 33:IX.708)
Freshwater Swamps and Marshes-
those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface water or
groundwater of negligible to very low
salinity at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support,
emergent vegetation characterized by a
prevalence of species typically adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions. Typical
vegetation includes maiden cane
(Panicum hemitomon), Hydrocotyl sp.,
water hyacinth ([ichhornia crassipes),


pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata),
alligatorweed (Alternonthera
philoxeroides), and bulltongue
SSagittaria sp.). Interstitial water
salinity is normally less than 2 parts per
thousand. (LAC 33:IX.708)
Intermediate Marshes-those areas
that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater of salinity
at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, emergent
vegetation characterized by a
prevalence of species typically adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions. Typical
vegetation includes wiregrass (Spartina
patens), deer pea (Vigna repens),
bulltongue (Sagittaria sp.), wild millet
(Echinochloa walteri), bullwhip (Scirpus
californicus), and sawgrass (Cladium
jamaicense). Interstitial water salinity
normally ranges between 3 and 6 parts
per thousand. (LAC 33:IX.708)
Saline Marshes-those wetland areas
that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater of salinity
characteristic of near Gulf of Mexico
ambient water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support,
emergent vegetation characterized by a
prevalence of species typically adapted
for life in these soil and contiguous
surface water conditions. Typical
vegetation includes oystergrass
(Spartina alterniflora), glasswort
(Salicornia sp.), black rush U(uncus
roemericanus), Batis maritime, black
mangrove (Avicennia nitida), and
saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Interstitial
water salinity normally exceeds 16 parts
per thousand. (LAC 33:IX.708)
Upland-any land area that is not
normally inundated with water and that
would not, under normal circumstances,
be characterized as swamp or fresh,
intermediate, brackish, or saline marsh.
The term shall have both a regional and
site-specific cbnotation; for example,
naturally occurring and man-made
topographic highs that are partially or
totally surrounded by swamp, marsh, or
open water will be considered upland
on a local basis, but will not necessitate
characterization of the surrounding area
as upland. The land and water bottoms
of all parishes north of the nine parishes
contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico shall
be determined on a case-by-case basis
with reference to the presence of a
regional expanse of emergent aquatic
vegetation or open water. (LAC
33:IX.708)
C. New Mexico. New Mexico 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:


41323


am_


a1323







,Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


1. Part I.A. of the permit is revised to
/-- read:
Part I. Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of New Mexico.
*
2. Part VI.B of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
*
B. Monitoring Requirements.
*
2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements. During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit, permittees with facilities
identified in parts VLB..a through f.
must monitor those storm water
discharges identified below at least
semi-annually (2 times per year) except
as provided in VI.B.6 (sampling waiver),
VI.B.7 (representative discharge), and
VLC.1 (toxicity testing). Permittees with
facilities identified in parts VI.B.2.a
through f (below) must report in
accordance with part VI.D (reporting:
where to submit). In addition to the
S parameters listed below, thapermittee
shall provide the date and duration (in
hours) of the storm events) sampled;
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampled runoff; the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall] storm event; and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled;
*
3. Annual Monitoring Requirementa
During the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through the
expiration date of this permit,
permittees with facilities identified in
parts VLB.3.a through d. (below) must
monitor those storm water discharges
identified below at least annually (1
time per year) except as provided in
VLB.6 (sampling waiver), and VLB.7
(representative discharge). Permittees
with facilities identified in parts VLB3.a
through d. (below) are not required to
submit monitoring results. However,
such permittees must retain monitoring
results in accordance with part VLI
(retention of records). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permitted
shall provide the date and duration (in
hours) of the storm events) sampled;
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampled runoff; the


duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled.
* *
4. Discharges to Domestic Water
Supplies.
a. During the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through the
expiration date of this permit,
permittees with facilities discharging
into waters of the State of New Mexico
designated by the latest design of Water
Quality Standards for Interstate and
Intrastate Streams in New Mexico for
use as a domestic water supply (See
Appendix *) must monitor those
storm water discharges into the
domestic water supply waterbody at
least annually (once per year) except as
provided in VI.B.6 (sampling waiver),
and VLB.7 (representative discharge).
These monitoring requirements for the
parameters listed below are in addition
to any monitoring required under parts
VIB.2 (semi-annual monitoring) or part
VI.B.3 (annual monitoring requirements).
Monitoring results must be reported in
accordance with part VID. (reporting:
where to submit). In addition to the
parameters listed below, the permitted
shall provide the date and duration (in
hours) of the storm events) sampled;
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampled runoff, the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled;
ReportabtO
Parametr qasy action

Dissolved arsenic........... 0.05 mg/1.
Dissolved barkn i 1. 0mg/1.
Dissolved cadmium 0.010 mrgI.
Dissolved chroenium --- 0.05 mg/1.
Dissolved letad 0.05 mg/1.
Total mercury....... ....... 0.002 mgll.
Dissolved niter (a N) 10.0 mg/1.
Dissolved selenium.. 0.06 mgl.
Dissolved dber -- 0.06 mg/I.
Dissolved cyanide 0.2 mg/1.
Dissolved uranknium-...- ... 5.0 mg/1.
Radlum-226+radhMm-22..-- 30.0 pCI1.

b. If the concentration of any sample
exceeds a Reportable Quantity Action
Level listed above, the permitted shall.
within 24 hours of receipt of the
sampling data. submit the results of the
sample analysis to the State at the
address specified in part VLD..b
(additional notification: where to
submit). Dischargers occurring on Indian


Nations shall submit the required repm
directly to EPA Region 6 at the address
specified in part VID., with a copy
provided to the Governing Body of the
Indian Nation.
5. Sample Type. For discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours, (estimated by dividing the volume
of the detention pond by the estimated
volume of water discharged during the
24 hours previous to the time that the
sample is collected) a minimum of one
grab sample may be taken. For all other
discharges, data shall be reported for
both a grab sample and a composite
sample. All such samples shall be
collected from the discharge resulting
from a storm event that is greater than
0.1 inches in magnitude and that occurs
at least 150 hours from the previously
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event. There shall be a
minimum of 60 days between sampled
events for facilities required to monitor
semi-annually (twice per year). The grab
sample shall be taken during the first
thirty minutes of the discharge. If the
collection of a grab sample during the
first thirty minutes is impracticable, a
grab sample can be taken during the
first hour of the discharge, and the
discharger shall submit with the
monitoring report a description of why a
grab sample during the first thirty
minutes was impracticable. The
composite sample shall either be flow.
weighted or time-weighted. Composite
samples may be taken with a continuous
sampler or as a combination of a
minimum of three sample aliquots taken
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
the discharge, with each aliquot being
separated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes. Only grab samples must
be collected and analyzed for the
determination of pH, cyanide, whole
effluent toxicity, and oil and grease.

6. Sampling Waiver
*
7. Representative Discharge
*
8. Alternative Certification
*
Alternative to WETParameter
*
3. Part VI.C of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VI Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
*
C. Toxicity Testing. Permittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series


-I~M*E(L-~Yt~grrulu~-r.i~C~i-l*:.. I--\r.


41324








Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


of tests described below within 180 days
After the issuance of this permit or
within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
1. Test Procedures
*
C. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100 percent
strength (no dilution) and a control
consisting of synthetic dilution water.
Results of all tests conducted with any
species shall be prepared according to
EPA/600/4-90-027 (Rev. September
1991), Section 12, Report Preparation,
and the report retained on-site. Results
of the testing shall be summarized on
Table VI-A and submitted to EPA with
the Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR's). On the DMR. the permitted
shall report results of the testing in
accordance with questions 1-4 of Table
VI-A.
Permittee:
NPDES Permit:
Outfall(s):
Dophnia pulex Survival


Time Date


fsar
Tm nteted.-

Dilution water used: Receiving
team Synthetic water.

Percent effluent (%)
Time Replicate
0 100


C .. ......... ....
0
Mean

1. Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?


Yes No___
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the DMR
Form, Parameter No. TGE3D. Otherwise,
enter a 0.
2. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100% dilution as
compared to the control (0%)?
Yes No
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the DMR
Form, Parameter No. TEE3D. Otherwise,
enter a 0.
Permittee:
NPDES Permit: -
Outfall(s):
Fathead Minnow (Pimepholes promelas)
Survival

Time Date

Composite sample
collected......... ................... .... ..............
Test iiaed.......................-- ------

Dilution water used: Receiving
stream Synthetic water.

Replicate Percent
Time e luent (%)
0 100


24 hr B....
eC ..... ........ ....
Mean-.--


3. Is the mean survival at 24 hours >50% in
the 100% dilution?
Yes__ No-
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the DMR
Form, Parameter No. TGE6C. Otherwise,
enter a 0.
4. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100% dilution as
compared to the control (0%)?
Yes__. No-
If you report a YES, enter a I on the DMR
Form, Parameter No. TEE6C. Otherwise,
enter a 0.


4. Part VI.D.1.e of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
* *

D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
1.
* *
e. Permittees with facilities identified
only in Part VI.B.3 (annual monitoring)
or VI.B.4 (discharges to domestic water
supplies), are not required to submit
monitoring results, unless required in
writing by the Director or by the
provisions of Part VI.B.4.b. (discharges
to domestic water supplies: 24 hour
reporting).

5. Part VI.D.2.b of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements


D. Reporting: Where to Submit.
*

2. Additional Notification.

b. Facilities located in the following
States shall provide copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a, VI.D.1.b, and VID.1.c,
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, to the
Director of the appropriate State Agency
at the address listed below:
New Mexico
Program Manager, New Mexico
Environment Department, Surface
Water Quality Bureau, Surface Water
Section, 1190 St. Francis Drive, P.O.
Box 26110, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
87502


APPENDIX *.--NEW MEXICO RIVER SEGMENTS DESIGNATED FOR USE AS A DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY


Description


1-107






I~t
Iwil-~--


The Jerez River and all its trbutares above State Highway 4 near the town of Jemas Springs and the Guadlupe River and all t
tribuaries.
Perennial reaches of Bluewater Creek, Rio Moquino, Seboyeta Creek, Rio Paguate, the Rio Puerco within the Santa Fe National Forest,
and ll otheerrennial reaches of tributaries to the Rio Puerco including the Rio San Jose n CIbola County from the USGS gagng
station at Correo upstream to Horace Springs.
The perennial reaches of Rio Vallectos and its tributaries and Rio del Oso, and El Ro Creek above the town of El Rito.
Al perennial reaches of tributaries to the Rio Chena above Abiquu Reservoir except the Rio Gallin and Rio Pueroo se Chama north of
Stae Hghway 96 and the main stem of the Rio Chama fom the headwaters of El Vado Reservoir upstream to the New Mexico-
colorado lin.
Perennal tributries to he Rio Grande In Bandeaer National Monument and their headwaters in Sandoval County, a perennial reaches of
tributaries to the Rio Grande in Santa Fe County utess included In other segments.
The Red River upstream of the mouth of Pte Creek a tributaries to the Red River, and a other perennial reaches of tributaries to the
Rio Grande in Taos and Rio Arribe counties unless included In other segments.
Eagle Creek above the Alto Reservor, Bonito Creek upstream of Angus, and the Rio Ruldose and its trbutaries above Seeping Springs
Lakes.
The Galins River and all it tributaries above the drion for the Las Vega mncipal reservoir and perennial rseches of Tecolote Creek
and ts perennial ributaries.


No.


------ -~-~-~~


Description


41325







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


APPENDIX *.-NEW MEXICO RIVER SEGMENTS DESIGNATED FOR USE AS A DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY-COxtinud


No. Description


2-214.......................
2-306 .............................


2-503 ..............................
2-603 ........................... .
2-802 ...... ..............
2-804............... .........
2-805 ............................


Cow Creek and all its tributaries and the main stem of the Pecos Rover from one river mile below the bridge on St ate i
upstream to its headwaters, including all tributaries thereto.
The Mora River and its tributaries above Mora, all tnbutaries to the Mora River upstream from State Highway 518, Coyote C a
Cimarron River above State Highway 21 in Cimarron, all tributaries to the Cimarron River, Rayado Creek above Miami Lake O
Ocate Creek and its tributaries upstream of Ocate, and all other tributaries to the Canadian River northwest and north of U.&S. t
64 in Colfax County unless induoed in other segments.
The main stem of Gila River from Gila Hot Springs upstream to the headwaters and all perennial tributaries to the Gila River at r Ib
the town of Cliff.
All perennial reaches of tributaries to the San Francisco River at or above the town of Glenwood.
Perennial reaches of Three Rivers.
The Mimbres River upstream of the USGS gaging station at Mimbres and all perennial tributaries thereto.
Perennial reaches of the Sacramento River (Sacramento-Salt Flat Closed Basin) and all perennial tributaries thereto.


D. Oklahoma. Oklahoma 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part I.A of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage under this Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of Oklahoma.
2. The following section is added to
Part I.B.3 of the permit:
B. Eligibility.
*
3. Limitations on Coverage. The
following storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
S not authorized by this permit:

h. "new" point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity (those commencing after the
June 25, 1992, effective date of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards-
Oklahoma Annotated Code Title 785,
Chapter 45) to the following waters:
(i) waterbodies designated as
"Outstanding Resource Waters" and/or
"Scenic Rivers" in Appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards;
(ii) Oklahoma waterbodies located
within the watersheds of waterbodies
designated as "Scenic Rivers" in
Appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards; and
(iii) waterbodies located within the
boundaries of Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards Appendix B areas which are
specifically designated as "Outstanding
Resource Waters" in Appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
*
3. Part VI.C.1.c of the permit is revised
to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
*
c. Toxicity Testing.
1. Test Procedures* *
1. Test Procedures
*


c. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100 percent
strength (no dilution) and a control
consisting of synthetic dilution water.
Results of all tests conducted with any
species shall be prepared according to
EPA/600/4-90-027 (Rev. September
1991), Section 12, Report Preparation,
and the report retained on-site. Results
of the testing shall be summarized on
Table VI-A and submitted to EPA with
the Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR's). On the DMR, the permitted
shall report results of the testing in
accordance with questions 1-4 of Table
VI-A.
Table VI-A (Sheet 1 of 2)
Permittee:
NPDES Permit:
Outfall(s):
Daphniapulex Survival

Time Date

Composite Sample
Collected.... ... .. ............. ......... ....... ...
Test Initiated ............ ... .... ........ ....

Dilution Water Used: Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water.

Percent Effluent (%)
Time Replicate
0 1oo

A ......... ............. .
24Hr. B.. ........ .......... ........ .................
D ................. ............ ......... .....
Mean.. ...- .. ... .... ... .... ..........

1. Is the mean survival at 24.hours
>50% in the 100% dilution?
Yes No
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TGE3D.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
2. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100%
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?


Yes No
Yes- No__
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TEE3D.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
Table VI-A (Sheet 2 of 2)
Permittee:
NPDES Permit:
Outfall(s):
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Survival

Time Date

Composite Sample
Collected .............. .........................................
Test Initiated......... .. ..... ....................

Dilution Water Used: Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water

Percent Effluent (%)
Tmne Replicate
0 100

A ..... ................ ... .........
24 Hr. B................... .... ..................... .
C ..... ... ............................................
D ......... ...................
Mean......... .. ......................... .


3. Is the mean survival at 24 hours
>50% in the 100% dilution?
Yes -No
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TGE6C.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
4. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100%
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?
Yes No *#
If you report a YES, enter a I on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TEE6C.
Otherwise, enter a o.
4. The following section is added to
Part VIII of the permit:
Part VIII. Reopener Clause
*
C. This permit may be reopened and
modified if the State of Oklahoma


41326


i-


I


i







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices


adopts new or revises existing water
quality requirements regarding the
discharge of storm water.
E. Texas. Texas 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part LA of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit

A. Permit Area. This permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 6 in
the State of Texas.
* *
2. The following sections are added to
Part V of the permit:
Part V. Numeric Effluent Limitations
* *

B. All Discharges to Inland Waters
The maximum allowable'
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/1), for discharges to inland
waters are as follows:
"rotr met Mothly Daily Sinle
Total metal compos- Sing
average Ze grab

Arsenic.............. 0.1 0.2 0.3
Barium............ 1.0 2.0 4.0
Cadmium. 0.05 0.1 0.2
Chromium...... 0.5 1.0 5.0
Copper .0.5 1.0 2.0
Lead................ 0.5 1.0 1.5
Manganese 1.0 2.0 3.0
Mercury............. .005 0.00 0.01
Nickel ...- 1.0 2.0 3.0
Selenium. 0.05 0.1 0.2
Silver........ 0.05 0.1 02
Zinc................... 1.0 2.0 e.0


C. All Discharges to Tidal Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/1), for discharges to tidal
waters are as follows:


Tom metal Moy Desy

a --.. 0.1 0.2 0.3
m...-.. 1.0 2.0 4.0
.......... .1 02 0.3
Crom.- o0. 1A 5o0
: Pr.-- a0.5 1.0 2.0
I --- .0.5 1.0 1.5
Mnoanese ...... 1.0 2.0 3.0
a y-- 0.005 0s005 0.01
S 1.0 2.0 3.0
um-- 0.1 0.2 0.3
Sivr--- 005 01 02
zinc--- 111---) 2o

3 Part VB.2.d of the permit is revised
toreed:


Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
*

B. Monitoring Requirements
*

2. Semi-Annual Monitoring
Requirements
*
d. Wood Treatment. Facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas that are
used for wood treatment, wood surface
application or storage of treated or
surface protected wood at any wood
preserving or wood surface facilities are
required to monitor such storm water
that is discharged from the facility for:
oil and grease (mg/L), pH, BOD5 (mg/L),
COD (mg/L), and TSS (mg/L). In
addition, facilities that use
chlorophenolic formulations shall
measure pentachlorophenol (mg/L) and
acute whole effluent toxicity; facilities
which use creosote formulations shall
measure acute whole effluent toxicity;
and facilities that use chromium-arsenic
formulations shall measure acute whole
effluent toxicity, total arsenic (mg/L),
total chromium (mg/L), and total copper
(mg/L).
4. Parts VLC and VI.C.1 of the permit
are revised to read:
Part VI. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
*
C. Toxicity Testing. Permittees that
are required to monitor for acute whole
effluent toxicity shall initiate the series
of tests described below within 180 days
after the issuance of this permit or
- within 90 days after the commencement
of a new discharge.
The permitted shall test the effluent
for lethality in accordance with the
provisions of this section. Such testing
will determine if an effluent sample
meets the Texas Surface Water Quality
Standard listed at 31 TAC
I 307.6(e)(2)(B) of greater than 50%
survival of the appropriate test
organisms in 100% effluent for a 24-hour
period.
1. Test Procedures
a. The permitted shall conduct acute
24 hour static toxicity tests on both an
appropriate invertebrate and an
appropriate fish (vertebrate) test species
(EPA/600/4-0(-027 Rev. 9/91, Section
6.1.). Freshwater species must be used
for discharges to freshwater water
bodies. Due to the non-saline nature of
rainwater, freshwater test specie
should also be used for discharges to
estuarine, marine or other naturally
saline waterbodies.


The following tests shall be used:
1. Acute static 24-hour definitive
toxicity test using Daphnia pulex. A
minimum of four (4) replicates with a
minimum of five (5) organisms per
replicate shall be used for this test.
2. Acute static 24-hour definitive
toxicity test using fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas). A minimum of
four (4) replicates with a minimum of ten
(10) organisms per replicate shall be
used for this test.
b. Five dilutions in addition to an
appropriate control (0% effluent), shall
be used in the toxicity tests. These
effluent concentrations shall be 6%, 13%,
25%, 50% and 100%. The control and/or
dilution water shall consist of a
standard, synthetic, moderately hard,
reconstituted water. If more than 10% of
the test organisms in any control die,
that test, including the control and all
effluent dilution(s), shall be repeated,
with all results from both tests reported
as per paragraph d. of this section.
c. All test organisms, procedures and
quality assurance criteria used shall be
in accordance with Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms,
EPA/600/4-90-027 (Rev. September
1991). EPA has proposed to establish
regulations regarding these test methods
(December 4, 1989, 53 FR 50216).
d. Tests shall be conducted
semiannually (twice per year) on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100% strength
(no dilution), the dilutions specified in
paragraph b. above, and a control
consisting of either receiving water or
synthetic dilution water. Results of all
tests conducted with any species shall
be reported according to EPA/600/4-90-
027 (Rev. September 1991), Section 12.
Report Preparation, and the report
retained onsite. The test results shall be
summarized in the format used on Table
VI-A and submitted to EPA with the
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's).
On the DMR, the permitted shall report
test results in accordance with the
instructions on Table VI-A.

Table VI-A (Sheet 1 of 2)
Permittee:
NPDES Permit:
Outfall(s):
Daphnia pulex Survival

Time Date

omposite Sample
Collected............... .................. ...
Teat e _

Dilution Water Used: Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water.


41197


I


41.197








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


Percent Effluent (%)
Tnme Replcate
0 100 50 25 13 6


24 Hr. 11
0.... ...........


1. Is the mean survival at 24 hours
>50% in the 100% dilution?
Ye...... No
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TGE3D.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
2. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100%
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?


'C 3. Is the mean survival at 24 hours
>50% in the 100% dilution?
Yes____ No
If you report a NO, enter a I on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TGE6C.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
4. Is there a statistically significant
difference in survival at the 100%
dilution as compared to the control (0%)?
Yes_ No
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the
DRM Form, Parameter No. TEE6C.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
5. The following definitions are added
to Part X of the permit:
Part X. Definitions
"Inland Waters"-all surface waters
in the State other than "tidal waters" as
defined below.
"Tidal Waters"-those waters of the
Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of
the State of Texas, bays and estuaries
thereto, and those portions of the river
systems which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tides, and to the
intrusion of marine waters.
Region 8
F. Colorado (Federal facilities and
Indian lands). There are no special
_-. conditions pursuant to Colorado 401
certification in this permit for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity located on Indian
lands in Colorado. Colorado 401


Ye........ No...
If you report a YES, enter a 1 on the
DMR Form, Parameter No. TEE3D.
Otherwise, enter a 0.
Table VI-A (Sheet 2 of 2)
Permittee:
NPDES Permit:
Outfallfsl:


certification special permit conditions
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from Federal
facilities is revised as follows:
1. Part I.A of the permit is revised to
read:
Part L Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
Federal Facilities administered by EPA
Region 8 in the State of Colorado.
2. Part IILA.2.b of the permit is revised
to read:
Part II. Special Conditions
A. Prohibition on non-storm water
discharges
* .* *
2.
*
b. The following non-storm water
discharges may be authorized by this
permit provided the non-storm water
component of the discharge is in
compliance with paragraph IV.D.3.g. (2)
(measures and controls for non-storm
water discharges): discharges from fire
fighting activities; fire hydrant flushings;
potable water sources including
waterline flushings; irrigation drainage;
lawn watering; routine external building
washdown which does not use
detergents or other compounds;
pavement washwaters where spills or
leaks of toxic or hazardous materials
have not occurred (unless all spilled


Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Survival

----
Time Date

Composite Sample
Collected............................ .
Test Initiated............ ....

Dilution Water Used:- Receiving
Stream Synthetic Water.


material has been removed) and where
detergents are not used; air conditioning
condensate that has not been
contaminated by industrial activity and
no chemicals have been added to it;
naturally occurring springs which have
not been altered by the industrial
activity; uncontaminated ground water:
and foundation or footing drains where
flows are not contaminated with process
materials such as solvents.
3. Part I.B.c of the permit is revised
to read:
Part I. Special Conditions
* *

B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities

c. The permitted shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph III.B.l.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
VI.D.1.d (reporting: where to submit) of
this permit and to the Colorado Water
Quality Control Division at the following
address: Colorado Department of
Health, Water Quality Control Division,


41328







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Part IL Notice of Intent Requirements
Colorado, 80222-1530. Attention: Permits *
A E f t4


4. Part IV.B.2 of the permit is revised
to read:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
* *

B. Signature and Plan Review
* *
2. The permitted shall make plans
available upon request to the Director,
or authorized representative, or in the
case of a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity which
discharges through a municipal separate
storm sewer system, to the operator of
the municipal system. Federal Facilities
located on non-Indian lands in Colorado
shall make plans available upon request
to the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division.
5. Part VIII of the permit is revised to
read:
Part VIII. Reopener Clause
A. If there is evidence indicating
potential or realized impacts on water
quality due to any storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity covered by this permit, the
owner or operator of such discharge
may be required to obtain individual
permit or an alternative general permit
in accordance with Part VII.M (requiring
an individual permit or alternative
general permit) of this permit or the
permit may be modified to include
different limitations and/or
requirements. If EPA develops new
regulations which specifically impact
storm water permit requirements or
there is a change in statute which
imposes additional requirements, this
permit may be reopened and modified
(following administrative procedures) to
include the appropriate requirements.

Region 9
G. Arizona. Arizona 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
Permit as follows:
1. Part LA of the permit is revised to
read:
Prt L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
eas administered by EPA Region 9 in
the State of Arizona, excluding all
Median lands.
*
2 The following section is added to
Pt H of the permit:


F. Special NOI Requirements for the
State of Arizona. NOIs shall also be
submitted to the State of Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality at
the following address: Storm Water
Coordinator, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 600,
Phoenix, Arizona, 85001-0600.
NOIs submitted to the State of
Arizona shall include the well
registration number if storm water
associated with industrial activity is
discharged to a dry well or an injection
well.
* *
3. The following section is added to
Part III of the permit:
Part m. Special Conditions

C. Compliance with Water Quality
Standards of the State of Arizona.
Discharges authorized by this permit
shall not cause or contribute to a
violation of any applicable water quality
standard of the State of Arizona (A.G.
Rule No. R92-006).

4. Part IV.D.7.b.(1).(b) of the permit is
revised to read as follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
* *

D. Contents of Plan
* *
7. Additional requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities subject
to EPCRA Section 313 requirements.
* *
b.
* *
(1) Liquid storage areas where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container, or other
vessel used for Section 313 water
priority chemicals.

(b) Liquid storage areas for Section
313 water priority chemicals shall be
operated to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals. Appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
Section 313 chemicals shall include
secondary containment provided for at
least the entire contents of the largest
single tank plus sufficient freeboard to
allow for the 25-year, 24-hour
precipitation event, a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan,
and/or other equivalent measures.
* *


5. The following section is added to
Part IX of the permit:
Part IX. Termination of Coverage
* *
C. Special NOT Requirement for the
State of Arizona. NOTs shall also be
submitted to the State of Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality at
the following address: Storm Water
Coordinator, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 600,
Phoenix, Arizona 85001-0600.

6. The following definition is added to
Part X of the permit:
Part X. Definitions
* *
"Significant sources of non-storm
water" includes, but is not limited to:
discharges which could cause or
contribute to violations or water quality
standards of the State of Arizona, and
discharges which could include releases
of oil or hazardous substances in excess
of reportable quantities under section
311 of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR
110.10 and CFR 117.21) or section 102 of
CERCLA (see 40 CFR 302.4).
* *

Region 10
H. Alaska. Alaska 401 certification
special permit conditions revise the
permit as follows:
1. Part IA of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas administered by EPA Region 10 in
the State of Alaska, except Federal
Indian reservations.
* *
2. Part II.C of the permit is revised to
read:
Part I. Notice of Intent Requirements
* *
C. Where to Submit.
1. Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
must use a NOI form provided by the
Director (or photocopy thereof). The
form in the Federal Register notice in
which this permit was published may be
photocopied and used. Forms are also
available by calling (703) 821-4823. NOIs
must be signed in accordance with Part
VII.G (signatory requirements) of this
permit. NOIs are to be submitted to the
Director of the NPDES program in care
of the following address: Storm Water
Notice of Intent, PO Box 1215,
Newington, VA, 22122.
2. A copy of initial Notice of Intent
(NOI), any NOI for the continuation of


41329


- -- ----- -- -~a I


41329








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices


the general permit, and any Notice of
Termination shall be submitted to the
appropriate State regional office,
attention Storm Water Coordinator, as.
follows:
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Northern Regional
Office, 1001 Noble Street. Suite 350,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, (907) 452-
1714. Fax: 451-2187.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Southeastern Regional
Office, 410 W. Willoughby, Suite 105,
Juneau, Alaska 99801, (907) 465-5350.
Fax: 465-5362.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Southcentral Regional
Office, 3601 "C" Street, Suite 1334,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (907) 563-
6529. Fax: 562-4026.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Pipeline Corridor
Regional Office, 411 W. 4th Ave., Suite
2C, Anchorage, Alaska, 99502, (907)
278-8594, Fax: 272-0690
3. With the NOI to the State, a brief
description of the activities to be
covered shall be submitted. This shall
be on a single sheet and shall describe
the area to be disturbed to the nearest
acre, the primary pollutants expected
from the activities and the type of
treatment to be provided.
*
3. Part IlI.B.1.c is revised to read as
follows:
Part IIL Special Conditions
*

B. Releases in excess of Reportable
Quantities
1.
*
c. The permitted shall submit within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the
release a written description of: the
release (including the type and estimate
of the amount of material released), the
date that such release occurred, the
circumstances leading to the release,
and steps to be taken in accordance
with paragraph IIIB.l.b (above) of this
permit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office at the address provided in Part
VI.D.1.d (reporting: where to submit) of
this permit and to the appropriate State
regional office at the address provided *
in Part H.C.
*
4. Part IV.D of the permit is revised as
- follows:
Part IV. Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans
*


D. Contents of Plan
Notec A copy of the Inventory of Exposed
Materials (IV.D..b) and Spills and Leaks
(IV.D.2.c) from the Pollution Prevention Plan
shall be submitted by the plan preparation
date stated in Part IV.A to the appropriate
State Regional office.
* *
5. The following section is added to
Part VI.D.2 of the permit:
Part VL Monitorig and Reporting
Requirements
* *
D. Reporting: Where to Submit
* *

2. Additional Notification
* *
b. Facilities located in Alaska shall
provide copies of the discharge
monitoring reports required under Parts
VI.D.1.a. VLD.Lb, and VLD.L.c.
individual permit applications and all
other reports required herein, to the
Director of the appropriate State Agency
at the addresses listed below
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Northern Regional
Office, 1001 Noble Street, suite 350,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, (907) 452-
1714. Fax: 451-2187.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southeastern Regional
Office, 410 W. Willoughby, suite 105,
Juneau, Alaska 99801, (907) 465-5350.
Fax: 465-5362.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Southcentral Regional
Office, 3601 "C" Street, suite 1334,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (907) 563-
6529. Fax: 562-4020.
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Pipeline Corridor
Regional Office, 411 W. 4th Ave., suite
2C, Anchorage, Alaska 99502, (907)
278-8594. Fax: 272-0690.
*
I Idaho.
Idaho 401 certification special permit
conditions revise the permit as follows:
1. Part I.A of the permit is revised as
follows:
Part L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area
The permit covers all areas
administered by EPA Region 10 in the
State of Idaho.
*
2. The following section is added to
Part In of the permit:
Part II Special Conditions

C. All storm water shall be treated
and disposed of in such a manner that


the round water standards of Idaho ar
not violated. Such standards are
specified in Section 1.02299 of the
"Idaho Water Quality Standards and
Wastewater Treatment Requirements"
* *
J. Washington (Federalfacilities and
Indian lands). Washington 401
certification special permit conditions
revise the permit as follows:
1. Part LA of the permit is revised to
read:
Part L Coverage Under This Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
Federal Facilities administered by EPA
Region 10 in the State of Washington.
2. The following section is added to
Part III of the permit:
Part I. Special Cdnditions

C. Washington State Standards
1. This permit does not authorize the
violation of ground water standards
(Chapter 173-200 WAC), surface water
standards (Chapter 173-201 WAC), or
sediment management standards
(Chapter 173-204 WAC) of the State of
SWashington. The point of compliance
with surface water standards shall be
determined after consideration of the
assignment of a dilution zone as allowed
under Chapter 173-201 WAC. The point
of compliance with ground water
standards shall be determined by
applying the provisions of Chapter 173-
200 WAC. The point of compliance with
sediment management standards shall
be determined in accordance with
Chapter 173-204 WAC.
2. Diversion of storm water discharges
to ground water from existing
discharges to surface water shall not be
authorized by this permit if this causes a
violation or the potential for violation of
ground water standards (Chapter 173-
200 WAC). Such discharges below the
surface of the ground are also regulated
by the Underground Injection Control
Program (Chapter 173-218 WAC).
3. Washington Department of Ecology
(WDOE) is currently developing a
"Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan" which will require facilities to
assess the potential of their storm water
discharges to violate the Washington
State surface water, ground water, or
sediment management standards. Those
discharges with a high potential to
violate standards will be required to
develop and implement a monitoring
program.
Upon issuance of the "Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan" by WDOE.
EPA may reopen this permit to require
facilities to assess their storm water


41330I


i


41330








Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9. 1992 / Notices


discharges and to require additional
monitoring.
Addendum A
Pollutants identified in Tables U and II of
Appendix D of 40 CFR 122.
Addendum A

Table II-Organic Toxic Pollutants in
Each of Four Fractions in Analysis by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectros-
copy.GS/MS)

Volatiles
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
bromoform
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chlorodibromomethane
chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
chloroform
dichlorobromomethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
ethylbenzene
methyl bromide
methyl chloride
methylene chloride
1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
11,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
Acid Compounds
2-chlorophenol
Z4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
pentachlorophenol
phenol


Table --Organic Toxic Pollutants in
Each of Four Fractions in Analysis by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectros-
copy (GS/MS)--Continued

24,6-trichlorophenol
Bose/Neutral
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
arithracene
benzidine
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene. "
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(ghi)perylene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
butylbenzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
chrysene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,-dinitrotoluene
di-n-octyl phthalate
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)
fluroranthene
fluorene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachloroethane
indeno(12,3-cd)pyrene
isophorone
napthalene
nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenanthrene
pyrene
12,4-trichlorobenzene


Table l--Organic Toxic Pollutants in
Each of Four Fractions in Analysis by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectros-
copy (GS/MS)-Continued

Pesticides
aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
chlordane
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
dieldrin
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
PCB-1242
PCS-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
toxaphene


Addendum A

Table Il-Other Toxic Pollutants
(Metals and Cyanide) and Total Phenols

Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Beryllium, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Thallium, Total
Zinc, Total
Cyanide, Total
Phenols, Total


ADDENDUM B-SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS.

CAS number Common name


75-M-0 ....... ...
107-0246


107-05-1i
7420-9"-
70"4-17.....
74*-35- .... ...__



7047ieg8.9
2fscl00745~~_~_


Acetaldehyde
Acetane cynohydrin
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin [1,45,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,410, 10hexachloro-l,4,4aA,8a-hexahydro-(1.alpha. 4.alpha,4a.beta.,
5.alpha.,8alpha.,8a.beta.)-]
Allyl Chloride
Aluminum (fume or dust)
Ammonia
Aniline
Anthracene
Antimony
Antimony pentachloride
Antimony potassium tartrate


___


41331


__._. --~-----~-





I I


Federal Regisater I Vol. 57, No. 176 / Whednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notiidei


41332


ADDENDUM B-SECTION 313 WATER PRIOKTY CHEWCALS.-COntinued

CAS number Common name

7789619........................... Antimony tribromide
10025919 ...................... Antimony trichloride
7783564 ........................... Antimony trifluoride
1309644 ......................... Antimony trioxide
7440-38-2..................... Arsenic
1303328 ........................ Arsenic disulfide
1303282......................... Arsenic pentoxide
7784341........................... Arsenic trichloride
1327533 ......................... Arsenic trioxide
1303339 ...................... Arsenic trisulfide
1332-21-4..................... Asbestos (friable)
542621 ............................. Barium cyanide
71-43-2........................ Benzene
92-87-5 ........................... Benzidine
100470 ............................ Benzonitrile
98-88-4 ........................... Benzoyl chloride
100-44-7 ........................ Benzyl chloride
7440-41-7 .................... Beryllium
7787475......................... Beryllium chloride
7787497 ......................... Beryllium fluoride
7787555......................... Beryllium nitrate
111-44-4 ....................... Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
75-25-2 ......................... Bromoform
74-83-9 ...................... Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
85-68-7 .... .............. Butyl benzyl phthalate
7440-43-9 ..................... Cadmium
543908.......................... Cadmium acetate
7789426........................ Cadmium bromide
10108642 ....................... Cadmium chloride
7778441........................ Calcium arsenate
52740166....................... Calcium arsenite
13765190 ................. Calcium chromate
592018...................... Calcium cyanide
133-0-2 _--. Captan ([H-Isoindole-1,32H)-dione,3a,47,7,a-tetrahydro-2-[(trichloromethyl)thio]-I
63-25-2........................... Carbaryl [1-Naphthalenol, methylcarbamate)
75-15-0 .................... Carbon dimlfide
56-23-5 .................... Carbon tetrachloride
57-74-9................... Chlordane [47-Methanoindan,,2,4,5,7,88- octachloro-2,3.3a.4.7,7a-hexahydro-
7782-50-5 .................... Chlorine
59-50-7 .................... Chloro-4-methyl-3-phenol p-Chloro-m-cresol
108-90-7 .................... Chlorobenzene
75-00-3 ........-................ Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride)
67-66-3......................... Chloroform
74-87-3....................... Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
95-57-8......................... 2-Chlorophenol
106-48-......................... 4-Chlorophenol
1066304......................... Chromic acetate
11115745....................... Chromic acid
10101538....................... Chromic sulfate
7440-47-3..................... Chromium
1308-14-1.................. Chromium (Tri)
10049055....................... Chromous chloride
7789437 .......................... Cobaltous bromide
544183..................... Cobaltous. format
14017415 ...................... Cobaltous sulfamate
7440-50-8 ............... Copper
108-39-4 ....................... m-Cresol
9548-7 .......................... o-Cresol
106-44-5 .................... p-Cresol
1319-77-3............... Cresol (mixed isomers)
142712 ....................... Cupric acetate
12002038 .i- Cupric acetoarsenite
7447394...................... Cupric chloride
3251238.................... Cupric nitrate
5893663 ............ Cupric oxalate
7758987..................... Cupric sulfate
10380297.................. Cupric sulfate, ammoniated
815827 ...................... Cupric tartrate
57-12-5 .................... Cyanide
506774 .................... Cyanogen chloride
110-82-7 ................. Cyclohexane







Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 1992 / Notices 41333


ADDENDUM B-SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS.-Continued

CAS number Common name

94-75-7......................... 2,4-D [Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-]
106-93-4....................... 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)
84-74-2......................... Dibutyl phthalate
25321-22-6 ................... Dichlorobenzene (mixed isomers)
95-50-1........................... 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1......................... 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7 ......................... 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
91-94-1......................... 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
75-274 .......................... Dichlorobromomethane
107-06-2......................... 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)
540-59-0 ......................... 12-Dichloroethylene
120-83-2....................... 2,4-Dichlorophenol
78-87-5 ........................... 1,2-Dichloropropane
542-75-6......................... 13-Dichloropropylene
62-73-7.................... Dichlorvos [Phosphoric acid, 2,2-dichloroethenyl dimethyl ester]
115-32-2......................... Dicofol [Benzenemethanol, 4-chloro-.alpha.-(4-chlorophenyl)-.alpha.-(trichloromethyl)-]
177-81-7....................... Di-(2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
84-66-2......................... Diethyl phthalate
105-67-9....................... 2,4-Dimethylphenol
131-11-3....................... Dimethyl phthalate
534-52-1 ....................... 4,-Dinitro-o-cresol
51-28-5 ......................... 2,4-Dinitrophenol
121-14-2....................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2 ...................... 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
117-84-0....................... n-Dioctyl phthalate
122-66-7....................... 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (Hydrazobenzene)
106-89-8 ....................... Epichlorohydrin
100-41-4................... Ethylbenzene
106934............................ Ethylene dibromide
50-00-0........:.................. Formaldehyde
76-44-8 ......................... Heptachlor [1.4,5,67,8,8-Heptachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-4,7-methano-lH-indene]
118-74-1....................... Hexachlorobenzene
87-68-3 ......................... Hexachlore-1,3-butadiene
77-47-4......................... Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
67-72-1......................... Hexachloroethane
7647-01-0.................... Hydrochloric acid
74-90-8......................... Hydrogen cyanide
7664-39-3 .................... Hydrogen fluoride
7439-92-1 .................... Lead-
301042.......................... Lead acetate
7784409 .................... Lead arsenate
7645252 ......................... Do.
10102484 ....................... Do.
7758954......................... Lead chloride
13814965........................ Lead fluoborate
7783462 .................... Lead fluoride
10101630.................. Lead iodide
10099748 ...................... Lead nitrate
7428480......................... Lead stearate
1072351.............. ...... Do.
52652592 ......................... Do.
7446142 ...................... Lead sulfate
1314870................... Lead sulfide
592870...... .......... Lead thiocyanate
58-89-9............... Lindane [Cyclohexane, 1,2,3.4,5,6-hexachloro-(1.alpha.,3.beta,4.alpha.,5.alpha.,6.beta.)-l
14307358 .....- ........ Lithium chromate
108-31-6 ................... Maleic anhydride
592041 ............ ... Mercuric cyanide
10045940 .......... .. Mercuric nitrate
7783359................. Mercuric sulfate
92858.................. Mercuric thiocyanate
7782867.............. Mercurous nitrate
7439-976... ........ Mercury
72.43-. ........ .... Methoxychlor [Benzene, 1.1'-(22,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-methoxy-)
8 64 ........ Methyl methacrylate
-2-3 ......... Naphthalene
44-2-0 ..--........ Nickel
15899180 ................ Nickel ammonium sulfate
37211055............... Nickel chloride
7718549................. Do.
12054487 .-.......-. Nickel hydroxide


j_








Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9 1992 / Notices


ADDENDUM B-SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS.-Continued .


CAS number

14216752............ ....
7786814 ..................
7697-37-2....................
98-95-3 ....................
88-75-5..........................
100-02-7 .........................
62-75-9 ...........................
86-30- ......................
621-64-7.......................
56-38-2.......................
87-86-5 ...................
108-95-2..............
75-44-5 ........................
7664-38-2 ......................
7723-14-0.......................
1336-36-3.......................
7784410.....................
10124502......................
7778509....................
7789006......................
151508 ........................
75-56-9.........................
91-22-5...........................
7782-49-2 ..................
7146084.......................
7440-22-4 .. ...............
7761888...... ...............
7631892............ ......
7784465 ...................
10588019.........................
7775113.......... .............
143339........................
10102188.......................
7782823........................
7789062.... ................
100-42-5 ....................
7664-93-9.......................
79-34-5......................
127-18-4... .............
935-95-5 .......... .......
78002..........................
7440-28-0 .................
10031591....................
108-88-3 ....................
8001-35-2.....................
52-68-6..........................
120-28-1 .......................
71-55-6...........................
79-00-5 ...........................
79-01-6..........................
95-95-4 .........................
88-06-2.........................
7440-62-2.....................
108-05-4 .........................
75-01-4 ..........................
75-35-4...........................
108-38-3 ........................
95-47--6........................
106-42-3.......................
1330-20-7....................
7440-66-6...................
557346 ............................
14639975 .......................
14639986 ..................
52628258 ........................
1332076 ........................
7699458........................
3486359 .......................
7646857 ......................
557211 ...........................
7783495......................


Common name-


Nickel nitrate
Nickel sulfate
Nitric acid
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Parathion [Phosphorothioic acid, O,O-diethyl-O-(4-nitrophenyl) ester]
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Phenol
Phosgene
Phosphoric acid
Phosphorus (yellow or white)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Potassium arsenate
Potassium arsenite
Potassium bichromate
Potassium chromate
Potassium cyanide
Propylene oxide
Quinoline
Selenium
Selenium oxide
Silver
Silver nitrate
Sodium arsenate
Sodium arsenite
Sodium bichromate
Sodium chromate
Sodium cyanide
Sodium selenite
SDo.
Strontium chromate
Styrene
Sulfuric acid
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetraethyl lead
Thallium
Thallium sulfate
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichlorfon [Phosphonic acid, (2,2,2-trichloro-l-hydroxyethyl)-dimethylester]
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vanadium (fume or dust)
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Zinc (fume or dust)
Zinc acetate
Zinc ammonium chloride
Do.
Do.
Zinc berate
Zinc bromide
Zinc carbonate
Zinc chloride
Zinc cyanide
Zinc fluoride


413R34




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs