ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-4202-5] 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 II.A of the general permits. Today's general permits also provide additional dates for compliance with the terms of the permit and for submitting monitoring data where required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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 Sources 3. Measures and Controls a. Good Housekeeping b. Preventive Maintenance c. Spill Prevention and Response Procedures d. Inspections e. Employee Training f. Recordkeeping and 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 storm sewer systems. As discussed below, these permits do not authorize storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from construction activities {1}and several additional classes of storm water discharges. |{1} 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. 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 permittee has transferred operation of the facility. On August 16, 1991 (56 FR 40948), EPA requested public comment on draft general permits forming the basis for today's final general permits. In addition to addressing those storm water discharges from industrial activity addressed in today's permits, the August 16, 1991, draft general permits addressed storm water discharges from construction activities. The permits in this notice only address storm water associated with industrial activity other than construction activities. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing NPDES permits for storm water discharges from construction industrial facilities. EPA received more than 330 comments on the August 16, 1991, draft general permits. In addition, public hearings to discuss the draft general permits were held in Dallas, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Baton Rouge, LA; Albuquerque, NM; Seattle, WA; Boise, ID; Juneau, AK; Pierre, SD; Phoenix, AZ; Orlando, FL; Tallahassee, FL; Augusta, ME; Boston, MA; and Mancheser, NH. EPA is incorporating, by reference, portions of the detailed fact sheet for the draft general permits published on August 16, 1991, as part of the final fact sheet and statement of basis for today's final permit. The sections of the prior fact sheet being incorporated are section 1, Background; section 4, Summary of Options for Controlling Pollutants; and section 5, The Federal/Municipal Partnership: The Role of Municipal Operators of Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewers. 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 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. |{2} Illicit 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. 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.-Quality Characteristics of Runoff From Residential and Commercial Areas ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Average residential or | Weighted mean residential | NURP recommendations for Constituent | commercial site | or commercial site | load estimates | concentration | concentration | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | TSS............................... | 239 mg/l | 180 mg/l | 180-548 mg/l BOD............................... | 12 mg/l | 12 mg/l | 12-19 mg/l COD............................... | 94 mg/l | 82 mg/l | 82-178 mg/l Total Phosphorus.................. | 0.5 mg/l | 0.42 mg/l | 0.42-0.88 mg/l Soluble Phosphorus................ | 0.15 mg/l | 0.15 mg/l | 0.15-0.28 mg/l Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen........... | 2.3 mg/l | 1.90 mg/l | 1.90-4.18 mg/l Nitrate-Nitrite................... | 1.37 mg/l | 0.86 mg/l | 0.86-2.21 mg/l Total Copper...................... | 53 µg/l | 43 µg/l | 43-118 µg/l Total Lead........................ | 238 µg/l | 182 µg/l | 182-443 µg/l Total Zinc........................ | 353 µg/l | 202 µg/l | 202-633 µg/l Fecal Coliform: | | | Warm Weather.................... | 50,240 counts/100 gml | 27,605 counts/100 ml | Cold Weather.................... | 22,918 counts/100 gml | 7,075 counts/100 ml | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Developed from Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Vol. 1-Final Report, EPA 1983. NURP also involved monitoring 120 priority pollutants. Seventy- seven priority pollutants, including 14 inorganic and 63 organic pollutants, were detected in samples of storm water discharges from residential, commercial, and light industrial lands taken during NURP. Table 2 shows the priority pollutants detected in at least 10 percent of the discharge samples that were tested for priority pollutants. The NURP data also showed that a significant number of these samples exceeded various freshwater water quality criteria. Although NURP did not evaluate oil and grease, other studies have demonstrated that urban runoff is an extremely important source of oil pollution to receiving waters,{3} with hydrocarbon levels in urban runoff typically being reported at a range of 2 mg/l to 10 mg/l. These hydrocarbons tend to accumulate in bottom sediments where they may persist for long periods of time and can adversely affect benthic organisms. |{3} For example, see "Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical |Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs", Metropolitan |Washington Council of Governments, July 1987. Table 2.-Priority Pollutants Detected In At Least 10 Percent of NURP Samples ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Frequency | of | Detection | (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Metals and Inorganics: | Antimony ................................................... | 13 Arsenic .................................................... | 52 Beryllium .................................................. | 12 Cadmium .................................................... | 48 Chromium ................................................... | 58 Copper ..................................................... | 91 Cyanides ................................................... | 23 Lead ....................................................... | 94 Nickel ..................................................... | 43 Selenium ................................................... | 11 Zinc ....................................................... | 94 Pesticides: | Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane ................................ | 20 Alpha-endosulfan ........................................... | 19 Chlordane .................................................. | 17 Lindane .................................................... | 15 Halogenated Aliphatics: | Methane, dichloro- ......................................... | 11 Phenols and Cresols: | Phenol ..................................................... | 14 Phenol, pentachloro- ....................................... | 19 Phenol, 4-nitro ............................................ | 10 Phthalate Esters: | Phthalate, bis (2-ethylhexyl) .............................. | 22 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: | Chrysene ................................................... | 10 Fluoranthene ............................................... | 16 Phenanthrene ............................................... | 12 Pyrene ..................................................... | 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Other studies have shown that many storm sewers contain illicit non-storm water discharges and that large amounts of wastes are disposed of improperly in storm sewers. Removal of these discharges presents opportunities for dramatic improvements in the quality of storm water discharges. Storm water discharges from industrial facilities may contain, in addition to illicit connections and improperly disposed wastes, toxics and conventional pollutants when material management practices allow exposure to storm water. In some municipalities, illicit connections of sanitary, commercial, and industrial discharges to storm sewer systems have had a significant impact on the water quality of receiving waters. Although NURP did not emphasize identification of illicit connections to storm sewers other than to ensure that monitoring sites used in the study were free from sanitary sewage contamination, the study concluded that illicit connections can result in high bacterial counts and dangers to public health. Studies have shown that illicit connections to storm sewers can create severe, widespread contamination problems. For example, the Huron River Pollution Abatement Program inspected 660 businesses, homes, and other buildings located in Washtenaw County, Michigan, and found that 14 percent of the buildings had improper storm drain connections. Illicit discharges were detected at a higher rate of 60 percent for automobile-related businesses, including service stations, automobile dealerships, car washes, body shops, and light industrial facilities. While some of the problems discovered in this study were due to improper plumbing or illegal connections, a majority were approved connections at the time they were built, but have since become unlawful discharges. NURP and other studies of urban runoff insight on what can be considered background levels of pollutants for urban runoff, as these studies have focused primarily on monitoring runoff from residential, commercial, and light industrial areas. However, NURP concluded that the quality of urban runoff can be impacted adversely by several sources of pollutants that were not evaluated directly in the study and that are generally not reflected in the NURP data, such as illicit connections, construction site runoff, industrial site runoff, and illegal dumping. For some industrial facilities, the types and concentrations of pollutants in storm water discharges are similar to the types and concentrations of pollutants generally found in storm water discharges from residential and commercial areas. However, storm water discharges from other industrial facilities have a significant potential for higher pollutant levels. In addition, pollutant loadings per unit area from some industrial facilities may be high because of a high degree of imperviousness. Six activities can be identified as major potential sources of pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity: (1) Loading or unloading of dry bulk materials or liquids; (2) outdoor storage of raw materials or products; (3) outdoor process activities; (4) dust or particulate generating processes; (5) illicit connections or inappropriate management practices; and (6) waste disposal practices.{4} The potential for pollution from many of these activities may be influenced by the presence and use of toxic chemicals. These activities are discussed in more detail below. |{4} 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", |1990, EPA/625/7-90/004; "Guides to Pollution Prevention: |The Paint Manufacturing Industry", 1990, EPA/625/7-90/005; |"Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Fabricated Metal |Products Industry", 1990, EPA/625/7-90/006; and "Analysis |of Implementing Permitting Activities for Storm Water |Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity", EPA, |1991. 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 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 use high volumes of process water or dispose of significant amounts of liquid wastes, including process waste waters, cooling waters, and rinse waters. Pollutants from non-storm water discharges to the storm sewer system of individual facilities are caused typically by a combination of improper connections, spills, improper dumping, and the belief that the absence of visible solids in a discharge is equivalent to the absence of pollution. Illicit connections are often associated with floor drains that are connected to separate storm sewers. Rinse waters used to clean or cool objects discharge to floor drains connected to separate storm sewers. Large amounts of rinse waters may originate from industries that use regular washdown procedures; for example, bottling plants use rinse waters for removing waste products, debris, and labels. Rinse waters can be used to cool materials by dipping, washing, or spraying objects with cool water, for example, rinse water is sometimes sprayed over the final products of a metal plating facility for cooling purposes. Condensate return lines of heat exchangers often discharge to floor drains. Heat exchangers, particularly those used under stressed conditions (such as exposure to corrosive fluids) such as in the metal finishing and electroplating industry, may develop pinhole leaks that result in contamination of condensate by process wastes. These and other non-storm water discharges to a storm sewer may be intentional, based on the belief that the discharge (condensate in the example previously discussed) does not contain pollutants, or they may be inadvertent, if the operator is unaware that a floor drain is connected to the storm sewer. 6. Waste management practices include temporary storage of waste materials, operating landfills, waste piles, and land application sites that involve land disposal. Outdoor waste treatment operations also include waste water and solid waste treatment and disposal processes, such as waste pumping, additions of treatment chemicals, mixing, aeration, clarification, and solids dewatering. Facilities often conduct some waste management on site. Coal Pile Runoff The following description of coal pile runoff is summarized from the "Final Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category" (EPA-440/1-82/029), EPA, November 1982. A more complete description of coal pile runoff can be found in the development document. The pollutants in coal pile runoff can be classified into specific types according to chemical characteristics. 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.{5} |{5} A more complete description of pollutants in coal |pile runoff is provided in the "Final Development Document |for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and |Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source |Category," (EPA-440/1-82/029), EPA, November 1982. III. 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 who submit such notification are authorized to discharge storm water associated with industrial activity under the terms and conditions of this permit. Upon review of the NOI, the Director may deny coverage under this permit and require submittal of an application for an individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dischargers that have previously submitted an individual permit application or participated in a group application are not precluded from submitting an NOI to obtain coverage under today's general permits. Seven types of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity are not authorized by and may not be covered by 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;{6} |{6} For the purpose 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); 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). This permit may authorize |storm water discharges associated with industrial activity |that 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. · 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} |{7} EPA is in the process of issuing separate general |permits for storm water discharges associated with industrial |activity from construction activities. In situations |where construction activities occur at an existing industrial |facility, or where industrial activities addressed by |40 CFR 122.26(b) (i) through (ix) or (xi), such as asphalt |plants and concrete plants, are employed at a construction |site, the storm water discharge associated with industrial |activity from the industrial activity addressed by 40 |CFR 122.26(b) (i) through (ix) or (xi) can be authorized |by the permit addressed by this fact sheet. · 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]). 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 available, the location can be described in terms of the latitude and longitude of the facility to the nearest 15 seconds that the facility is located in; · Up to four 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that best represent the principal products or activities provided by the facility or for hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities, land disposal facilities that receive or have received any industrial waste, steam electric power generating facilities, or treatment works treating domestic sewage, a narrative identification of those activities; · The operator's name, address, telephone number, and status as Federal, State, private, public, or other entity; · The permit number of any NPDES permit for any discharge (including non-storm water discharges) from the site that is currently authorized by an NPDES permit; · The name of the receiving water(s), or if the discharge is through a municipal separate storm sewer, the name of the municipal operator of the storm sewer and the receiving water(s) for the discharge through the municipal separate storm 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.{8} Where a facility has participated in a group application, the number EPA assigned to the group application shall be supplied; and |{8} As discussed above, dischargers that have previously |participated in a group application are not precluded |from submitting an NOI to be covered by today's permits. · 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 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 discharger authorized under the general permit to apply for an individual NPDES permit or an alternative general permit, EPA will notify the discharger in writing that a permit application is required. Coverage under this general permit will automatically terminate if the discharger fails to submit the required permit application in a timely manner. Where the discharger does submit a requested permit application, coverage under this general permit will automatically terminate on the effective date of the issuance or denial of the individual NPDES permit or the alternative general permit as it applies to the individual permittee. 3. Additional Notification Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity that discharge through a large or medium municipal separate storm sewer system{9} 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. |{9} The terms large and medium municipal separate storm |sewer systems (systems serving a population of 100,000 |or more) are defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b) (4) and (7). |Some of the cities and counties in which these systems |are found are listed in Appendices F, G, H, and I to |40 CFR part 122. Other large and medium systems have |been designated by EPA on a case-by-case basis. 4. Notice of Termination Where a discharger is able to eliminate the storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from a facility, the discharger may submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) form (or photocopy thereof) provided by the Director. This will assist EPA in tracking the status of the discharger. A copy of the NOT and instructions for completing the NOT are provided in appendix D of today's notice. The NOT form requires the following information: · Name, mailing address, and location of the facility for which the notification is submitted. Where a street address for the site is not available, the location of the approximate center of the site must be described in terms of the latitude and longitude to the nearest 15 seconds, or the section, township and range to the nearest quarter; · The name, address and telephone number of the operator addressed by the Notice of Termination; · The NPDES permit number for the storm water discharge associated with industrial activity identified by the NOT; · An indication of whether the storm water discharges associated with industrial activity have been eliminated or the operator of the discharges has changed; and · The following certification: "I certify under penalty of law that all storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from the identified facility that are authorized by a NPDES general permit have been eliminated or that I am no longer the operator of the facility or construction site. I understand that by submitting this Notice of Termination, I am no longer authorized to discharge storm water associated with industrial activity under this general permit, and that discharging pollutants in storm water associated with industrial activity to waters of the United States is unlawful under the Clean Water Act where the discharge is not authorized by a NPDES permit. I also understand that the submittal of this notice of termination does not release an operator from liability for any violations of this permit or the Clean Water Act." NOTs are to be sent to the Director of the NPDES program in care of the following address: Storm Water Notice of Termination, 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 component(s) of the discharge. For example, to reduce pollutants in irrigation drainage, a plan could identify low maintenance lawn areas that do not require the use of fertilizers or herbicides; for higher maintenance lawn areas, a plan could identify measures such as limiting fertilizer use based on seasonal and agronomic considerations, decreasing herbicide use with an integrated pest management program, introducing natural vegetation or more hardy species, and reducing water use (thereby reducing the volume of irrigation drainage). Today's permits do not require pollution prevention measures to be identified and implemented for non-storm water flows from fire-fighting activities because these flows will generally be unplanned emergency situations where it is necessary to take immediate action to protect the public. The prohibition on unpermitted non-storm water discharges in these permits ensures that non-storm water discharges (except for those classes of non-storm water discharges that are conditionally authorized) are not inadvertently authorized by these permits. Where a storm water discharge is mixed with non-storm water that is not authorized by today's general permits or another NPDES permit, the discharger should submit the appropriate application forms (Forms 1, 2C, and/or 2E) to gain coverage of the non-storm water portion of the discharge. 2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of Hazardous Substances and Oil These general permits provide that the discharge of hazardous substances or oil from a facility must be eliminated or minimized in accordance with the storm water pollution plan developed for the facility. Where a permitted storm water discharge contains a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reporting quantity established under 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, or 40 CFR 302 during a 24 hour period, the following actions must be taken: · Any person in charge of the facility is required to notify the National Response Center (NRC) (800-424-8802; in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, 202-426-2675) in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, and 40 CFR 302 as soon as they have knowledge of the discharge; · The storm water pollution prevention plan for the facility must be modified within 14 calendar days of knowledge of the release to provide a description of the release, an account of the circumstances leading to the release, and the date of the release. In addition, the plan must be reviewed to identify measures to prevent the reoccurrence of such releases and to respond to such releases, and it must be modified where appropriate. · The permittee must also submit to EPA within 14 calendar days of knowledge of the release a written description of the release (including the type and estimate of the amount of material released), the date that such release occurred, the circumstances leading to the release, and steps to be taken to modify the pollution prevention plan for the facility. Anticipated discharges containing a hazardous substance in an amount equal to or in excess of reporting quantities are those caused by events occurring within the scope of the relevant operating system. Facilities that have more than one anticipated discharge per year containing a hazardous substance in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity are required to: · Submit notifications for the first release that occurs 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 discharges associated with industrial activity through large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems; and special requirements for facilities with outdoor salt storage piles. These tailored requirements allow the implementation of site-specific measures that address features, activities, or priorities for control associated with the identified storm water discharges. This framework provides the necessary flexibility to address the variable risk for pollutants in storm water discharges associated with the different types of industrial activity addressed by these permits. This approach also assures that facilities have the opportunity to identify procedures to prevent storm water pollution at a particular site that are appropriate, given processes employed, engineering aspects, functions, costs of controls, location, and age of the facility (as contemplated by 40 CFR 125.3). The approach taken also allows the flexibility to establish controls that can appropriately address different sources of pollutants at different facilities. The pollution prevention approach adopted in today's general permits focuses on these two major objectives: (1) To identify sources of pollution potentially affecting the quality of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from the facility; and (2) to describe and ensure implementation of practices to minimize and control pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from the facility and to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The storm water pollution prevention plan requirements in the general permit are intended to facilitate a process whereby the operator of the industrial facility thoroughly evaluates potential pollution sources at the site and selects and implements appropriate measures designed to prevent or control the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. The process involves the following four steps: (1) Formation of a team of qualified plant personnel who will be responsible for preparing the plan and assisting the plant manager in its implementation, (2) assessment of potential storm water pollution sources, (3) selection and implementation of appropriate management practices and controls, and (4) periodic evaluation of the ability of the plan to prevent storm water pollution and comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. EPA believes the pollution prevention approach is the most environmentally sound and cost-effective way to control the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff from industrial facilities. This position is supported by the results of a comprehensive technical survey EPA completed in 1979.{10} The survey found that there are two classes of management practices industry uses to control the non-routine discharge of pollutants from sources such as storm water runoff, drainage from raw material storage and waste disposal areas, and discharges from places where spills or leaks have occurred. The first class of management practices includes those that are low in cost, applicable to a broad class of industries and substances, and generally are considered essential to a good pollution control program. Some examples of practices in this class are good housekeeping, employee training, and spill prevention procedures. The second class includes management practices that provide a second line of defense against the release of pollutants. This class addresses containment, mitigation, cleanup, and treatment. |{10} See "NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Document," |U.S. EPA, December 1979, EPA-600/9-79-045. Since publication of the 1979 survey, EPA has imposed management practices and controls in NPDES permits on a case-by-case basis. The Agency also has continued to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of such practices,{11} as well as the techniques used to prevent and contain oil spills.{12} 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 implementing pollution prevention measures. |{11} For example, see "Best Management Practices: Useful |Tools for Cleaning Up", Thron, H. Rogoshewski, P., 1982, |Proceedings of the 1982 Hazardous Material Spills Conference; |"The Chemical Industries' Approach to Spill Prevention", |Thompson, C., Goodier, J. 1980, Proceedings of the 1980 |National Conference of Control of Hazardous Materials |Spills; a series of EPA memorandum entitled "Best Management |Practices in NPDES Permits-Information Memorandum", 1983, |1985, 1986, 1987, 1988; Review of Emergency Systems: |Report to Congress", EPA, 1988; and "Analysis of Implementing |Permitting Activities for Storm Water Discharges Associated |with Industrial Activity", EPA, 1991. |{12} See for example, "The Oil Spill Prevention, Control |and Countermeasures Program Task Force Report", EPA, |1988; and "Guidance Manual for the Development of an |Accidental Spill Prevention Program", prepared by SAIC |for EPA, 1986. 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, clear delineation of responsibilities will ensure that every aspect of the plan is addressed by a specified individual or group of individuals. Pollution Prevention Teams may consist of one individual where appropriate (e.g., in certain small businesses with limited storm water pollution potential). 2. Description of Potential Pollution Sources Each storm water pollution prevention plan must describe activities, materials, and physical features of the facility that may contribute significant amounts of pollutants to storm water runoff or, during periods of dry weather, result in pollutant discharges through the separate storm sewers or storm water drainage systems that drain the facility. This assessment of storm water pollution risk will support subsequent efforts to identify and set priorities for necessary changes in materials, materials management practices, or site features, as well as aid in the selection of appropriate structural and nonstructural control techniques. Plans must describe the following elements: a. Drainage. The plan must contain a map of the site that shows the pattern of storm water drainage, structural features that control pollutants in runoff,{13} surface water bodies (including wetlands), places where significant materials{14} are exposed to rainfall and 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. |{13} Nonstructural features such as grass swales and |vegetative buffer strips also should be shown. |{14} Significant materials include, but are not limited |to the following: raw materials; fuels; 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 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation |and Liability Act (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. (See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(8)). 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 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 drainage points directly observed during the test or evaluation. Acceptable test or evaluation techniques include dye tests, television surveillance, observation of outfalls or other appropriate locations during dry weather, water balance calculations, and analysis of piping and drainage schematics{15}. |{15} 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 |through a trap that would limit the effectiveness of |the smoke test. 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. 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 permittee must evaluate, select, and describe the pollution prevention measures, best management practices (BMPs), and other controls that will be implemented at the facility. BMPs include processes, procedures, schedules of activities, prohibitions on practices, and other management practices that prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. EPA emphasizes the implementation of pollution prevention measures and BMPs that reduce possible pollutant discharges at the source. Source reduction measures include, among others, preventive maintenance, chemical substitution, spill prevention, good housekeeping, training, and proper materials management. Where such practices are not appropriate to a particular source or do not effectively reduce pollutant discharges, EPA supports the use of source control measures and BMPs such as material segregation or covering, water diversion, and dust control. Like source reduction measures, source control measures and BMPs are intended to keep pollutants out of storm water. The remaining classes of BMPs, which involve recycling or treatment of storm water, allow the reuse of storm water or attempt to lower pollutant concentrations prior to discharge. The pollution prevention plan must discuss the reasons each selected control or practice is appropriate for the facility and how each will address one or more of the potential pollution sources identified in part IV.D.2. of the plan. The plan also must include a schedule specifying the time or times during which each control or practice will be implemented. In addition, the plan should discuss ways in which the controls and practices relate to one another and, when taken as a whole, produce an integrated and consistent approach for preventing or controlling potential storm water contamination problems. The portion of the plan that describes the measures and controls must address the following minimum components. a. Good housekeeping. Good housekeeping involves using common sense to identify ways to maintain a clean and orderly facility and keep contaminants out of separate storm sewers. It includes establishing protocols to reduce the possibility of mishandling chemicals or equipment and training employees in good housekeeping techniques. These protocols must be described in the plan and communicated to appropriate plant personnel. b. Preventive maintenance. Permittees must develop a preventive maintenance program that involves regular inspection and maintenance of storm water management devices and other equipment and systems. The program description should identify the devices, equipment, and systems that will be inspected; provide a schedule for inspections and tests; and address appropriate adjustment, cleaning, repair, or replacement of devices, equipment, and systems. For storm water management devices such as catch basins and oil/water separators, the preventive maintenance program should provide for periodic removal of debris to ensure that the devices are operating efficiently. For other equipment and systems, the program should reveal and enable the correction of conditions that could cause breakdowns or failures that may result in the release of pollutants. c. Spill prevention and response procedures. Based on an assessment of possible spill scenarios, permittees must 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 erosion. The plan must identify measures that will be implemented to limit erosion in these areas. h. Management of runoff. The plan must contain a narrative evaluation of the appropriateness of traditional storm water management practices (i.e., practices other than those that control pollutant sources) that divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise manage storm 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 permittee determines are reasonable and appropriate for the facility. The plan also should describe the particular pollutant source area or activity to be controlled by each storm water management practice. Reasonable and appropriate practices must be implemented and maintained according to the provisions prescribed in the plan. In selecting storm water management measures, it is important to consider the potential effects of each method on other water resources, such as ground water. Although storm water pollution prevention plans primarily focus on storm water management, facilities must also consider potential ground water pollution problems and take appropriate steps to avoid adversely impacting ground water quality. For example, if the water table is unusually high in an area, an infiltration pond may contaminate a ground water source unless special preventive measures are taken. Under EPA's July 1991 Ground Water Protection Strategy, States are encouraged to develop Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP). Efforts to control storm water should be compatible with State ground water objectives as reflected in CSGWPPs. 4. Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation The storm water pollution prevention plan must describe the scope and content of comprehensive site inspections that qualified personnel will conduct to (1) confirm the accuracy of the description of potential pollution sources contained in the plan, (2) determine the effectiveness of the plan, and (3) assess compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The plan must indicate the frequency of such evaluation which in most cases must be at least once a year.{16} The individual or individuals who will conduct the inspections must be identified in the plan and should be members of the pollution prevention team. |{16} Where annual site inspections are shown in the plan |to be impractical for inactive mining sites, due to remote |location and inaccessibility, site inspections must be |conducted at least once every three years. However, at |least one inspection must take place before October 1, |1994. For mining sites that become inactive after October |1, 1994, the first site inspection must take place on |the date two years after such a site becomes inactive. Material handling and storage areas and other potential sources of pollution must be visually inspected for evidence of actual or potential pollutant discharges to the drainage system. Inspectors also must observe erosion controls and structural storm water management devices to ensure that each is operating correctly. Equipment needed to implement the pollution prevention plan, such as that used during spill response activities, must be inspected to confirm that it is in proper working order. The results of each site inspection must be documented in a report signed by an authorized company official. The report must describe the scope of the inspection, the personnel making the inspection, the date(s) of the inspection, and any major observations relating to implementation of the storm water pollution prevention plan. Inspection reports must be retained for at least three years after the date that the permit expires. Based on the results of each inspection, the description of potential pollution sources in part 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 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 II (organic priority pollutants), Table III (certain metals, cyanides, and phenols), or Table V (certain toxic pollutants and hazardous substances); (ii) are listed as a hazardous substance pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the CWA at 40 CFR 116.4; or (iii) are pollutants for which EPA has published acute or chronic toxicity criteria. A list of the water priority chemicals is provided in addendum B to the permit in appendix B. Summary of Special Requirements The special requirements in today's permits for facilities subject to reporting requirements under 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, drainage control, and/or diversionary structures must be provided for such areas. At a minimum, one of the following preventive systems or its equivalent must be used: · Curbing, culverting, gutters, sewers, or other forms of drainage control to prevent or minimize the potential for storm water run-on to come into contact with significant sources of pollutants; or · Roofs, covers, or other forms of appropriate protection to prevent storage piles from exposure to storm water and wind. In addition, the permit establishes requirements for priority areas of the facility. Priority areas of the facility including the following: · Liquid storage areas where storm water comes into contact with any equipment, tank, container, or other vessel used for section 313 water priority chemicals; · Material storage areas for section 313 water priority chemicals other than liquids; · Truck and rail car loading and unloading areas for liquid section 313 water priority chemicals; and · Areas where section 313 water priority chemicals are transferred, processed, or otherwise handled. The permit provides that site runoff from other industrial areas of the facility that may contain section 313 water priority chemicals or spills of section 313 water priority chemicals must incorporate the necessary drainage or other control features to prevent the discharge of spilled or improperly disposed material and to ensure the mitigation of pollutants in runoff or leachate. The permit also establishes special requirements for preventive maintenance and good housekeeping, facility security, and employee training. Storm water pollution prevention plans for facilities subject to these special requirements must be reviewed by a Registered Professional Engineer (PE). The PE must be able to certify that the storm water pollution prevention plan has been prepared in accordance with good engineering practices. The PE must personally examine the facility and be familiar with the requirements of today's permit before making a certification. The permit requires that a PE certification be made every three years. Where significant modifications are made to the facility, such as the addition of material handling areas or chemical storage units, permittees are required to obtain an additional PE certification as soon as practicable. The PE certifications do not relieve the discharger of the duty to prepare and implement fully a storm water pollution prevention plan that is in accordance with the permit. Sampling requirements for storm water discharges from EPCRA section 313 are discussed below. Facilities should review monitoring data and evaluate pollution prevention measures suitable for reducing pollutants in discharges. Requirements for Priority Areas The permit provides that drainage from priority areas should be restrained by valves or other positive means to prevent the discharge of a spill or other excessive leakage of section 313 water priority chemicals. Where containment units are employed, such units may be emptied by pumps or ejectors; however, these must be manually activated. Flapper-type drain valves must not be used to drain containment areas, as these will not effectively control spills. Valves used for the drainage of containment areas should, as far as is practical, be of manual, open-and- closed design. If facility drainage does not meet these requirements, the final discharge conveyance of all in-facility storm sewers must be equipped to be equivalent with a diversion system that could, in the event of an uncontrolled spill of section 313 water priority chemicals, return the spilled material or contaminated storm water to the facility. Records must be kept of the frequency and estimated volume (in gallons) of discharges from containment areas. Additional special requirements are related to the types of industrial activities that occur within the priority area. These requirements are summarized below: · Liquid storage areas. Where storm water comes into contact with any equipment, tank, container, or other vessel used for section 313 water priority chemicals, the material and construction of tanks or containers used for the storage of a section 313 water priority chemical must be compatible with the material stored and conditions of storage, such as pressure and temperature. Liquid storage areas for section 313 water priority chemicals must be operated to minimize discharges of section 313 chemicals. Appropriate measures to minimize discharges of section 313 chemicals may include secondary containment provided for at least the entire contents of the largest single tank plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation, a strong spill contingency and integrity testing plan, and/or other equivalent measures. A strong 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 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{17} are required to submit a signed copy of their NOI to the operator of the municipal separate storm sewer system. |{17} Large 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 large or medium system (see 40 CFR 122.26(b)(4) |and (7) and appendices F through I to part 122). Facilities covered by these permits 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. 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. >>>> See the accompanying hardcopy volume for non-machine-readable data that appears at this point. <<<< 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 grease. Only grab samples need to be analyzed for these parameters where these parameters are specified. Samples must be analyzed in accordance with the analytic methods approved under 40 CFR 136. The permit allows the use of substantially identical outfalls to reduce the monitoring burden on a facility. Permittees that intend to use this provision must justify and document in writing why one outfall is representative of others. All facilities must include the written 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 permittee must submit the justification of why an outfall(s) is representative of others with the discharge monitoring report. Other facilities required to conduct monitoring under the permit (e.g. those with annual monitoring requirements) are not required to submit the justification unless it is requested by the Director. These facilities must keep the justification in the storm water pollution prevention plan. The permit allows for temporary waivers from sampling based on adverse climatic conditions. This temporary sampling 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 (8WM-C), Storm Water Staff, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO 80202-2466. Contact: Vern Berry, (303) 293-1630. 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 302.6, the storm water pollution prevention plan must be prepared and must provide for compliance with the terms of the plan on or before the date 60 calendar days after the first knowledge of such release. For storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from a facility that is owned or operated by a municipality that has participated in a timely group application and where either the group application is rejected or the facility is denied participation in the group application by EPA, the pollution prevention plan must be prepared on or before the 365th day following the date on which the group is rejected or the denial is made, and must provide for compliance with the terms of the plan and this permit on or before the 545th day following the date on which the group is rejected or the denial is made. The permits provide additional time for complying with the additional requirements for EPCRA section 313 facilities and for salt storage facilities. The portions of a plan addressing these additional requirements must provide for 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 III section 313 reporting requirements for chemicals classified as "Section 313 water priority chemicals". EPA expects the majority of facilities to have existing containment systems that meet the majority of the requirements of these permits. High cost estimates correspond to facilities that are expected to be required to undertake some actions to upgrade existing containment systems to meet the requirements of these permits. Table 4.-Summary of Estimated Ranges of Costs for Compliance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans with Baseline Requirements ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Low Costs | High Costs |----------------------------------------------------- | First Year | Annual | First Year | Annual | Costs | Costs | Costs | Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Submittal of NOI ................. | $14 | | $14 | Notification of Municipality ..... | 14 | | 14 | Plan Preparation ................. | 1,518 | | 76,153 | Plan Implementation .............. | 90 | $294 | 35,400 | $9,371 Comprehensive Site Compliance | | 267 | | 8,875 Evaluation/Plan Revision. | | | | Reportable Quantities ............ | {1} | {1} | 8,501 | Total ......................... | 1,636 | 561 | 120,082 | 18,246 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {1}No costs. This table identifies estimated low and high costs to develop and implement storm water pollution prevention plans. Low costs of implementing program components are zero where existing programs or procedures is assumed adequate. Costs in 1992 dollars. The estimated costs for plan preparation and plan revisions includes costs of preparing/revising plan to address baseline requirements and any applicable special requirements, such as EPCRA Section 313 requirements. 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 Facilities Subject to Section 313 of EPCRA for Water Priority Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Low Costs | High Costs |----------------------------------------------------- | Costs | | Costs | | during | Annual | during | Annual | first 3 | Costs | first 3 | Costs | years | | years | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Plan Preparation.................. | $630 | | | Liquid Storage Areas.............. | | | $11,200 | Material Storage Areas............ | | | 560 | Loading Areas..................... | | | 21,000 | Process Areas..................... | | | 11,190 | Drainage/Runoff................... | | | 7,750 | Housekeeping/Maintenance.......... | | | | $5,957 Facility Security................. | | | 3,240 | Employee Training................. | | | | 1,403 PE Certification.................. | | 53 | | 1,000 Monitoring Costs.................. | | 2,424 | | 4,847 Toxicity Reduction................ | | | | 3,046 TOTALS......................... | 630 | 2,477 | 54,940 | 16,253 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 year period. Costs for toxicity reductions will only be incurred during the last two years of the permit. Thus, this cost has been averaged over a five year period. 2. Salt Storage Facilities Salt pile covers or tarpaulins are anticipated to have a fixed cost of $400 and an annual cost of $160 for medium-sized piles and a fixed cost of $4,000 and an annual cost of $2,000 for very large piles. Structures such as salt domes are generally expected to have a fixed cost of between $30,000 for small piles ($70 to $80 per cubic yard) and $100,000 for larger piles ($18 per cubic yard) with costs depending on size and other construction parameters. 3. Coal Pile Runoff The effluent limitations for coal pile runoff in the draft permits can be achieved by these two primary methods: limiting exposure to coal by use of covers or tarpaulins and collecting and treating the runoff. In some cases, coal pile runoff may be in compliance with the effluent limitations without covering of the pile or collection or treatment of the runoff. In these cases, the operator of the discharge would not have a control cost. The effluent limitations for coal pile runoff in the draft permits can be achieved by limiting exposure of storm water to coal by use of covers or tarpaulins and storm water runon berms. The use of tarpaulins and berms to prevent exposure is expected to be practical for coal piles smaller than 30,000 cubic meters. EPA expects the majority of industrial facilities subject to the requirement will have coal piles smaller than 30,000 meters. The cost of covering up to a 30,000 cubic meter coal pile with covers or tarpaulins is anticipated to cost approximately $0.70 per cubic yard, or $0.91 per cubic meter. For a 30,000 cubic meter pile the cost of tarpaulins alone would be $27,440. The cost of a berm to divert storm water runon that may flow under a covered pile and exit as polluted runoff is expected to be $7 per linear foot of berm. For a 30,000 cubic meter coal pile that is twenty feet in height, it is anticipated that a 450 foot berm at a cost of $3,150 would be needed. Therefore, the total cost of tarpaulins and a berm to avert exposure of storm water to a coal pile 30,000 cubic meters in size would be $30,590. For those facilities which manage coal piles greater than 30,000 cubic meters, EPA assumes that these facilities will use the technology specified in the steam/electric effluent guidance based upon costs indicated in the guidance. If facilities can not meet permit limits using this control technology and cannot afford another control technology, they have the opportunity of seeking an individual permit. Table 6 provides estimates of the costs of treating coal pile runoff.{18} 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. |{18} 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. 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, 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | cubic | cubic | meter coal | meter coal | pile | pile ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Impoundment: | | Installed Capital Cost ($) ..................... | 6,850 | 6,850 Operation and Maintenance ($/year) ............. | {1} | {1} Lime Feed System: | | Installed Capital Cost ($) ..................... | 138,800 | 255,700 Operation and Maintenance ($/year) ............. | 5,780 | 10,655 Energy Requirements (kwh/yr) ................... | 3.6*10**4 | 3.6*10**4 Land Requirements (ft**2) ...................... | 5,000 | 5,000 Mixing Equipment: | | Installed Capital Cost ($) ..................... | 65,750 | 91,320 Operation and Maintenance ($/year) ............. | 2,280 | 2,430 Energy Requirements (kwh/yr) ................... | 1.3*10**3 | 3.3*10**3 Land Requirements (ft**2) ...................... | 2,000 | 2,000 Clarification: | | Installed Capital Cost ($) ..................... | 182,650 | 237,450 Operation and Maintenance ($/year) ............. | 3,200 | 3,650 Energy Requirements (kwh/yr) ................... | 1.3*10**3 | 3.3*10**3 Land Requirements (acres) ...................... | 0.1 | 0.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ {1}Negligible. Source: "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). Costs estimates are in 1992 dollars. VI. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12291) EPA has submitted this notice to the Office of Management and Budget for review under Executive Order 12291. VII. Paperwork Reduction Act EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities in these final general permits under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA did not prepare an Information Collection Request (ICR) document for today's permits because the information collection requirements in these permits have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the provisions of the Clean Water Act. VIII. 401 Certification Section 401 of the CWA provides that no Federal license or permit, including NPDES permits, to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters shall be granted until the State in which the discharge originates certifies that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA. The section 401 certification process has been completed for all States, Indian lands and Federal facilities covered by 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 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 XI.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:IX.708 (LAC 33:IX.708). In accordance with a July 17, 1992, letter from the State clarifying certification requirements, the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production facility limitations will be effective on the effective date of the permit. Oil and gas exploration facilities in Louisiana have been subject to the LAC 33:IX.708 limitations since March 20, 1991. The general permit establishes a three year compliance date for facilities other than oil and gas exploration and production facilities; the General Limitations will become effective October 1, 1995. This compliance schedule is included to allow the facilities not currently regulated under NPDES or State discharge permits time to implement the pollution prevention plan components necessary to achieve the discharge limitations. (1) General Limitations: Effective 10/1/95. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parameter | Daily | Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ................................. | 50 mg/l Oil & Grease ............................................... | 15 mg/l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) Oil & Gas Exploration and Production Facilities: Effective 10/1/92. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parameter | Daily | Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)................................ | 100 mg/l Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ................................. | 50 mg/l Oil & Grease ............................................... | 15 mg/l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/l in freshwater or intermediate marsh areas and upland areas. Monitoring requirements for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Oil and Grease have been added to all facilities required to monitor annually or semi-annually. Facilities without monitoring requirements must insure the pollution prevention plan developed in accordance with part IV will insure compliance with these effluent limitations. The definitions of brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, intermediate marsh, upland area, and saline marsh at LAC 33:IX.708 have been included in part X. of the permit. New Mexico: See the following and part X.C for 401 conditions. New Mexico Indian lands (except Navajo lands and Ute Mountain Reservation lands): see the following and part X.C. for 401 conditions. As a condition for certification under Section 401 of the CWA, the State of New Mexico required inclusion of the following conditions necessary to insure compliance with State water quality standards. These conditions apply only to permittees with facilities discharging into waters of the State of New Mexico designated by the latest edition of Water Quality Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Streams in New Mexico for use as a domestic water supply. A list of these waters as of June 29, 1991, is included with the final permit. For all discharges to domestic water supply 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 permittee must submit the monitoring results to the State within 24 hours of receiving the test results from the laboratory. The parameters to be tested and the associated action levels are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Reportable Parameter | Quantity | Action Level ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dissolved arsenic ........................................ | 0.05 mg/l Dissolved barium ......................................... | 1.0 mg/l Dissolved cadmium ........................................ | 0.010 mg/l Dissolved chromium ....................................... | 0.05 mg/l Dissolved lead ........................................... | 0.05 mg/l Total mercury ............................................ | 0.002 mg/l Dissolved nitrate (as N) ................................. | 10.0 mg/l Dissolved selenium ....................................... | 0.05 mg/l Dissolved silver ......................................... | 0.05 mg/l Dissolved cyanide ........................................ | 0.2 mg/l Dissolved uranium ........................................ | 5.0 mg/l Radium-226 + radium-228 .................................. | 30.0 pCi/l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 XI.D for 401 conditions. Under section 301 of the CWA and 40 CFR 122.44, EPA is required to include 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 XI.E for 401 conditions. Texas Indian lands: See the following and part XI.E. for 401 conditions. As a condition for certification under section 401 of the CWA, the State of Texas required inclusion of the following conditions necessary to insure compliance with State water quality standards. The following effluent limitations are required under the Texas Water Quality Standards (31 TAC 319.22 and 319.23). All pollution prevention plans developed pursuant to this permit must enable the discharger to comply with the limitations listed below. All Discharges to Inland Waters The maximum allowable concentrations of each of the hazardous metals, stated in terms of milligrams per liter (mg/l), for discharges to inland waters are as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total metal | Monthly | Daily | Single | average | composite | 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 ................................ | 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 | 2.0 | 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 | Monthly | Daily | Single | average | composite | grab ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Arsenic ................................ | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 Barium ................................. | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 Cadmium ................................ | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 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 ............................... | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 Silver ................................. | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.2 Zinc ................................... | 1.0 | 2.0 | 6.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The definitions of "inland" and "tidal" waters has been included in part XI.E of the Texas permit. Inland waters are those not defined as tidal waters. Tidal waters include those waters of the Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the State of Texas, bays and estuaries thereto, and those portions of the river systems which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tides, and to the intrusion of marine waters. Since the majority of discharges covered by this permit have never before been regulated by NPDES permit, a three year compliance schedule for the limitations has been included to allow dischargers an opportunity to develop and implement the pollution prevention plan controls necessary to achieve compliance. Unless already required under semi-annual or annual monitoring requirements of the permit, sampling for the hazardous metals listed above will not be required. The permittee will, however, be responsible for compliance with the discharge limitations at all times following the October 1, 1995, effective date of the limitations. The Texas Surface Water Quality Standards also contain a whole effluent toxicity standard requiring all discharges to exhibit greater than 50% survival of the appropriate test organisms in 100% effluent for a 24-hour period (i.e. 24-hr 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 water quality standard and identify discharges that will require more stringent pollution prevention plans and/or individual or alternative general permit coverage. General Permits for EPA Region 6 With regard to reporting the results of any toxicity testing required under the permit, the permits for Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas have been modified to require the submittal of a summary of the results, with the full toxicity report retained by the permittee. The results are to include pass/fail information on 50% survival in the 100% dilution after 24 hours in addition to the pass/fail information on a statistically significant difference in toxicity between 100% effluent and the control. The format to be used is included as Tables in the final permit. The Texas permit also requires only submittal of the summary table, which are modified to include the five-dilution series test required as a condition for State certification. The net cost to the permittee is expected to be minimal, since the information necessary to determine 50% or greater survival in the 100% dilution is readily available from the results of the test used to determine a statistically significant difference between the control and the 100% dilution. No additional testing is required. The additional information gained will allow the permittee 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 permittee; while also reducing the administrative burden on the permitting authority, both for review and document storage. In addition to conditions required for State Section 401 certification, EPA Region 6 has made the following modifications to the Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas general permits. First, the area covered by each permit has been clarified to include all administered by EPA Region 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 Regional Administrator, Region I. Dated: August 28, 1992. Patrick M. Tobin, Acting Regional Administrator, 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, Regional Administrator, 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 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 discharge(s) that are not subject to an effluent limitation guideline may obtain coverage under today's permits. However, the discharges from the facility that are subject to an effluent limitation guideline may not be covered by today's permits because today's permits do not incorporate the limitations for these discharges. |{19} 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); 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 asphalt (40 CFR 443). 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 commenter requested that EPA clarify that a given industrial facility may be issued two separate NPDES permits, one for process wastewater and another for storm water. In response, EPA wants to clarify that facilities with an existing NPDES permit for process wastewaters and/or other non-storm water discharges are allowed to obtain coverage for their storm water discharges under today's general permits. Two commenters expressed confusion regarding the exclusion of inactive and abandoned mining and oil and gas operations on Federal lands from coverage under the draft general permit. These commenters thought that EPA was exempting such sites from regulation under the November 16, 1990 rule by excluding these sites from coverage under the general permit. In response, the Agency explained in the August 16, 1991 draft permits that it is developing 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 coverage for storm water discharges from these inactive sites because an alternate draft general permit is currently being developed. Such discharges do, however, remain subject to the requirement to submit a NPDES permit application. The Department of the Interior, which has extensive land management responsibilities, requested that storm water discharges from inactive landfills on Federal lands where an operator cannot be identified be addressed in a similar manner as inactive mining and inactive oil and gas operations on Federal lands. The 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 (NOIs) and coverage under a general permit. The submittal of an NOI to be covered by a general permit is only one of three application options for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity identified by the November 16, 1990, NPDES storm water application regulations. A number of commenters expressed confusion as to whether they must apply for coverage under today's general 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 permittee a formal appeal. Additionally, one commenter was concerned with the discretionary authority granted to EPA in requiring individual permit applications and felt that certain guidelines should be set forth. In response, 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 permittee with a permit condition and would constitute grounds for permit termination (see 40 CFR 122.64). EPA would follow the applicable procedures in 40 CFR 124 in terminating permit coverage. In addition, 40 CFR 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 terminating coverage under the general 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 water discharges associated with industrial activity that are not authorized by the general permit or another NPDES permit are not in compliance with the CWA. This commenter stated that the simple submission of an individual permit application or participation in an approved group application should satisfy the discharger's legal obligations under the CWA. While timely submittal of an individual permit application or participation in an approved group application constitutes compliance with 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 a 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 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 permittee's activities with a minimal burden placed on the discharger and EPA. This information will be particularly useful in identifying priorities for storm water permit issuance and in developing Tier II, III, and IV permits. One commenter suggested that EPA provide expanded instructions to assist facilities in accurately determining their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code(s), their locations by latitude and longitude, and the names of the receiving waters. In response, EPA notes that the NOI 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 dischargers 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 NOIs include the number of any NPDES permit for any discharge (including non-storm water discharges) from the site that is currently authorized by an NPDES permit. In addition, dischargers are required to indicate whether the facility has previously participated in the group application process. EPA believes that this information will greatly assist in its efforts to cross-check other information regarding the facility. Several commenters requested that EPA clarify whether a pollution prevention plan must be included in the 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 NOI. 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 NOIs is appropriate given the goals and functions of these permits. For example EPA must know where the industrial facility is located in order to conduct site visits. The street address of the facility, or, where it is not available the facility's latitude and longitude (or section, township, and range), can be used to identify the site location. The SIC codes that best represent the principal products made or activities conducted by the facility will give EPA an indication of the nature of the industrial activity at the facility. An alternative indicator of the industrial activity is required for classes of facilities that do not have SIC codes that accurately describe the principal products or services provided (e.g. hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities, land disposal facilities that receive or have received any industrial waste, steam electric power generating facilities, or treatment works treating domestic sewage). This information gives an indication of the pollution potential of the 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 permittee and to allow EPA to request information or provide guidance. The permit number(s) of additional NPDES permit(s) for any discharge(s) (including non-storm water discharges) from the site that are currently authorized by an NPDES permit will allow EPA to coordinate oversight and compliance monitoring activities taken under today's permits, such as inspections, with other actions taken pursuant to other NPDES permits. The name of the receiving water(s) will allow EPA to identify discharges to impaired, sensitive water bodies, or high-value water resources that require additional oversight and compliance evaluation. Permittees that discharge to a large or medium municipal separate storm water permits require the applicant to provide the name of the municipal operator of the storm 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 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 use 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 installation. 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 NOI. The commenter indicated that this information would simplify EPA's efforts to contact a permittee. In response, EPA is concerned that such a requirement may cause confusion among dischargers during the initial application process. The Agency notes that today's permits require permittees to develop storm water pollution prevention plans that provide for a description of a storm water pollution prevention team. This requirement is intended to provide a clear description of personnel that are responsible for implementing permit requirements. Therefore, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to require the person having overall responsibility for environmental matters to sign the NOI. 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 16, 1991 notice, EPA extended the regulatory deadlines for submitting individual permit applications (see November 5, 1991 (56 FR 56549)) and part 2 of group applications (see April 2, 1992 (57 FR 11394)) for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity to October 1, 1992. Today's final general permits provide that NOIs for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from industrial facilities existing on or before October 1, 1992, must be submitted on or before October 1, 1992. The Agency has selected the October 1, 1992 date to provide consistency with the deadlines for submitting individual permit applications and Part 2 of group applications. Using the October 1, 1992 deadline will minimize confusion regarding these deadlines, particularly where EPA issues permits for different States on different dates. In addition, the October 1, 1992 deadline provides an equitable framework for complying with permit application requirements. Today's permits provide that facilities with industrial activity addressed by the storm water program that begin to operate after October 1, 1992, must submit an 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 new sources which begin operation after October 1, 1992 because development of a storm water pollution prevention plan and submittal of an NOI can be anticipated and planned for prior to the initiation of operations. Several commenters 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 addition, 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) requires that dischargers seeking coverage under a general permit submit an NOI. The Agency considers an operator change at a facility to be analogous to a new discharger seeking coverage under the permit, and has clarified in today's permits that where an operator of a facility with a discharge covered by the permit changes, the new operator of the facility must submit an 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)(2) of the CWA provides that EPA shall not require a permit for discharges of storm water runoff from mining operations or oil and gas exploration, production, processing or treatment operations, or transmission facilities if the storm water discharge is not contaminated by contact with, or does not come into contact with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product located on the site of such operations. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2) codify this provision, and today's permit does not attempt to require coverage for discharges that are excluded under the CWA from the NPDES program. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii) state that the operator of an oil and gas operation is not required to submit a permit application for their storm water discharge associated with industrial activity unless the facility has a discharge of storm water resulting in the release of oil or a hazardous substance that exceeds the reporting quantities established under 40 CFR 110.6, 40 CFR 117.21, or 40 CFR 302.6 or contributes to a violation of a water quality standard. The Agency wants to clarify that oil and gas operations that discharge contaminated storm water at any time between November 16, 1987 and October 1, 1992, and that are currently not authorized by an NPDES permit, must submit an NOI, an individual permit application, or participate in an approved group application by no later than October 1, 1992. The Agency also wants to clarify that facilities that evaluate their storm water discharge after a release of a reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous substance that occurs after October 1, 1992, and determine that their storm water discharge is contaminated must either submit an NOI to be covered by today's permits within 14 days of their first knowledge of the release or submit an individual permit application. This provision does not require operators 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 substance in a storm water discharge who do not believe that their storm water discharge is contaminated may submit an individual permit application in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii). EPA believes the 14-day time frame is appropriate because of the 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 NOI has passed. The Agency recognizes that the NPDES storm water program is relatively new, at least in terms of implementation activities, and the application deadlines have changed on several occasions, which may have confused some dischargers. While ignorance of NPDES storm water requirements is not a shield from enforcement for discharging without a permit, the Agency recognizes the administrative advantages in allowing an existing discharger to obtain coverage under the general permit. In response to these concerns, today's permits clarify that a discharger that misses either the October 1, 1992 deadline or the 48-hour deadline for facilities that commence construction after October 1, 1992, is not precluded from submitting an 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} |{20} The exclusion contained in paragraph (xi) was, however, |vacated and remanded to EPA for further proceedings. |NRDC v. EPA, No. 90-70671 (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. 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 composed entirely of storm water and discharges of material other than storm water to be in compliance with a different NPDES permit issued for the non-storm water discharge. EPA indicated that it was taking this approach because these general permits were not intended to authorize process wastewater discharges. A number of commenters strongly supported the prohibition or noted that it appeared reasonable. However, a number of comments addressing this provision raised technical concerns that certain non-storm water discharges are commonly allowed to discharge via a separate storm sewer or are otherwise mixed with storm water discharges. These 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 detergents, pavement washwaters where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred (unless all spilled material has been removed) and detergents are not used, air conditioning condensate (but not including cooling water from cooling towers, heat exchangers or other sources), springs, uncontaminated ground water, and foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such as solvents provided that the non-storm water component of the discharge is identified in the pollution prevention plan. In addition, the plan must identify and ensure the implementation of appropriate pollution prevention measures for each of the non-storm water component(s) of the discharge. As a general matter, EPA believes that where these classes of non-storm water discharges are identified in a pollution prevention plan and where appropriate pollution prevention measures are evaluated, identified and implemented, they can be effectively controlled under today's permit. The Agency also notes that it can request individual permit applications for such discharges where appropriate and necessary. The Agency is not requiring that flows from firefighting activities be identified in plans because of the emergency nature of such discharges coupled with their low probability and the unpredictability of their occurrence. The Agency notes that the approach in today's permits taken for non-storm water discharges is parallel to the approach taken for non-storm water discharges to large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems in its November 16, 1990 rulemaking (55 FR 47990). The non-storm water discharges addressed in today's permits are similar to those addressed in the November 16, 1990 rulemaking, although several modifications to the list have been made that provide additional clarity and that recognize the industrial nature of facilities covered by today's permits. The modifications also reflect the generally higher degree of control that industrial facilities can exercise 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 of Reportable Quantities of Hazardous Substances The August 16, 1991 draft general permits provided that the permits would not relieve the permittee of reporting requirements for releases of hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities established under 40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302. The draft permits further provided that discharges of hazardous substances in storm water discharges are to be minimized in accordance with the applicable storm water pollution prevention plan and can in no case contain a hazardous substance equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity. A number of commenters strongly supported the prohibition, or noted that it appeared reasonable. However, several other commenters indicated that the prohibition on releases of hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities acted as a series of effluent limitations and that the Agency had not established such limitations consistent with the technology-based or water quality-based standards of the CWA. These commenters indicated that the reportable quantities established under 40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 were not developed as numeric effluent limitations under the NPDES program. One of these commenters indicated that some hazardous substances still had reportable quantities of 1 pound that had been originally established by Congress. However, a number of the commenters that objected to the prohibition as a perceived effluent limitation agreed that the reporting of such discharges was appropriate and that a facility with such a discharge should not be exempt from liability provisions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the CWA. Some of these commenters also noted that the use of best management practices aimed at preventing and/or cleaning up the release, instead of numeric end-of-pipe limitations, is the most effective way to address these discharges. In response, the Agency has modified this provision in today's permits to provide additional consistency with the reporting requirements for releases of hazardous substances and oil in excess of reporting quantities at 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, and 40 CFR 302, to provide clarification that the Agency does not intend for the prohibition on releases in excess of reporting quantities to act as numeric effluent limitations, and to address such releases in a manner consistent with the approach taken in today's permits with respect to pollution prevention plan implementation. Today's permits require that the discharge of hazardous substances or oil in the storm water discharge(s) from a facility must be 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 permittee must: · Notify the National Response Center (NRC) as soon as he or she has knowledge of the discharge; · Notify the appropriate EPA Regional Office within 14 calendar days of knowledge of the release. The notice must contain a written description of: the release (including the type and estimate of the amount of material released), the date that such release occurred, the circumstances leading to the release, and steps to be taken to identify measures to prevent the reoccurrence of such releases and to respond to such releases as needed; and · Modify the storm water pollution prevention plan for the facility within 14 days of knowledge of the release to describe the release, the circumstances leading to the release, and the date of the release. In addition, the plan must be reviewed and where appropriate modified by the permittee to identify measures to prevent the reoccurrence of such releases and to respond to such releases as needed. The Agency has clarified that today's permits do not authorize the discharge of hazards substances or oil resulting from an on-site spill of non-storm water materials. This is consistent with CWA and CERCLA requirements for hazardous substances and oil for anticipated intermittent point source discharges at 40 CFR 117.12(d)(i).{21} |{21} 40 CFR 117.12(d)(2)(i) excludes discharges that |are continuous or anticipated intermittent discharges |from a point source, identified in an NPDES permit from |reporting requirements if the discharge of the hazardous |substance results from the contamination of storm water, |provided that the storm water is not contaminated by |an on-site spill of a hazardous substance. 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 provides additional flexibility for implementing appropriate pollution prevention measures. The Agency also believes that ample enforcement authority under the CWA and CERCLA exists for addressing releases of hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities and that the approach taken in today's permits complements those authorities. One discharger raised concerns that the prohibition implied that discharges of a hazardous substance up to an applicable reportable quantity was acceptable and that a permittee was not required to do anything unless such a release occurred. In response, EPA does not intend to imply that discharges of hazardous substances up to an applicable reportable quantity are acceptable in the sense that a discharger should do nothing until discharging a hazardous substance or oil in excess of a reportable quantity. The Agency notes that any point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States without a permit is prohibited under section 301 of the CWA. In addition, today's permits do not establish numeric effluent limitations for such storm water discharges from industrial activities (except for coal pile runoff). Rather, the permits requires dischargers to develop and implement best management practices and pollution prevention measures to reduce and/or control pollutants in the discharge even in cases where the discharge does not contain hazardous substances or contains hazardous substances at levels significantly lower than reportable quantities. Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements At the heart of the August 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 permittee to develop and implement a pollution prevention plan. This commenter indicated that the plan requirements in the August 16, 1991 proposal appeared to be both effective and enforceable, as well as easily understood by the people responsible for complying with the general permit. Several commenters indicated that requirements to develop and implement storm water pollution prevention measures should be limited to a subset of all facilities with storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. One commenter, while noting that pollution prevention measures can be effective in some cases, indicated that industrial facilities should have the option of preparing a pollution prevention plan or meeting a numeric effluent limitation or other performance standard. This commenter alternatively suggested that only facilities that have been shown to contribute significantly to 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. |{22} In addition, today's permits establish a numeric |effluent limitation for coal pile runoff. 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 currently does not have sufficient data to develop appropriate numeric effluent limitations for all of the varied sources of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity covered by these permits. The Agency also notes that facilities covered by today's permits have varied potential for having many different pollutants in their storm water discharges. While today's permits do not provide permittees with the option of meeting a numeric effluent limitation in lieu of developing and implementing pollution prevention measures, the Agency notes that facilities that wish to pursue numeric effluent limitations for their storm water discharges may submit data sufficient to support the development of such limitations either through the individual or group permit application process. One commenter thought plans should not be required where facilities do not have a previous history of spills or any materials on site to create a spill. In response, EPA wants to clarify that spills are only one potential source of pollutants in storm water discharges. Other major potential sources of pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity include the following: loading and unloading of materials; outdoor storage of raw materials or products; outdoor process 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. |{23} A more complete discussion of these potential pollutant |sources can be found in the section 3 of the August 16, |1991 draft fact sheets (56 FR 40965). One commenter suggested that facilities should be allowed to have a Registered Professional Engineer (PE) conduct a site review to identify pollutant sources and establish a schedule for elimination of those sources as an alternative to implementing a pollution prevention plan. EPA has not adopted this approach in today's permit. Perhaps most importantly, EPA needs well documented plans to conduct its own review of the adequacy of pollution prevention measures and is concerned that a PE certification without an accompanying plan may be inadequate for this purpose. While PE certifications can play an important role in pollution 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 commenters urged EPA to ensure that requirements for developing and implementing storm water pollution prevention plans were feasible, particularly for small businesses. Some commenters suggested that a less resource-intensive approach should be developed for smaller facilities. Other 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. |{24} 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 100,000 or less, other than discharges |from airports, powerplants or uncontrolled sanitary landfills |(see April 2, 1992, (57 FR 11409)). 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 permittee 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, EPA has determined that all components of the storm water pollution prevention plan required under today's permits are necessary to reflect BAT/BCT. The pollution prevention plan requirements of today's permits can be described in terms of four components. In addition, some facilities are required to conduct discharge monitoring. The first component, formation of a pollution prevention team is critical to identifying individual responsibilities and ensuring accountability for implementing plans. The formation of the Team formalizes the identification of responsibilities and is not expected to incur significant costs in and of itself. The role of the Team will depend on the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques identified in the plan and the processes employed at the facility. Successful plan implementation must be based on adequate identification of pollutant sources. The second component of the plan, description of pollutant sources, is achievable because it is based on the information that should generally either be readily available from the normal business practices of the facility (e.g. materials inventories) or from standard evaluations or observations. The costs of these descriptions depend on such factors as the nature of the process employed, the age of the equipment and facilities, and the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques. The third component of the plan is identifying and implementing measures and controls. The costs of complying with other measures and controls of the plan depend on the nature of the process employed, the age of the equipment and facilities, and the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques. Good housekeeping, preventive maintenance, spill prevention and response, inspections, employee training, and recordkeeping and internal reporting have been identified as measures that are broadly applicable to all industry types and acitivities{25} 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 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. |{25} 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. 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 prescribing the means by which the objectives must be achieved (e.g., to establish guidelines for pollution prevention measures, but to not specify how they will be achieved). In response, the Agency has considered the issue of the appropriate balance between flexibility and specifying requirements, and believes that the approach taken in today's permits is appropriate, (e.g. to identify specific classes of measures that must be addressed in a pollution prevention plan, but to provide sufficient flexibility in meeting such requirements as good housekeeping, preventive maintenance, spill prevention 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 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 appropriateness of traditional storm water management practices used to divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise manage storm water runoff in a manner that reduces pollutants in storm water discharges from the site. The plan must provide that measures determined to be reasonable and appropriate shall be implemented and maintained. The permit specifies that appropriate measures may include vegetative swales and practices, reuse of collected storm water (such as for a process or as an irrigation source), inlet controls (such as oil/water separators), snow management activities, infiltration devices, and wet detention/retention devices. With respect to sediment and erosion controls, the permit has been modified to provide that the plan must identify structural, vegetative, and/or stabilization measures to be used to limit erosion in areas with a high potential for significant soil erosion. The Agency believes that the additional clarity added to these provisions ensures that the permit is not too open-ended and that permittees will implement reasonable and appropriate storm water management measures and measures to limit erosion in areas that have a high potential for significant soil erosion. In addition, the guidance manual "Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices," U.S. EPA, 1992 identifies a number of specific storm water management measures and sediment and erosion controls that can be used to satisfy these requirements and discusses their general applicability to industrial sites. Storm water management measures addressed in the document include flow diversion practices; water reuse; vegetative practices, such as flow attention by use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions; infiltration of runoff on site via filter strips, swales, level spreaders, infiltration trenches, concrete grids, and modular pavement; and sequential systems (which combine several practices). Sediment and erosion practices discussed in the manual include the use of mulching, matting, temporary seeding, permanent seeding, permanent planting, sodding, chemical stabilization, interceptor dikes and swales, pipe slope drains, subsurface drains, filter fences, gravel or stone filter berms, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, sediment basins, outlet protection, check dams, and gradient terraces. One commenter indicated that the permits should clarify the specific factors, including processes employed, engineering aspects, functions, costs of controls, location, 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 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 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 draft permits addressed requirements for a site map, a topographic map, a narrative description of significant materials used at the site, a lost of spills and leaks, an estimate of the types of pollutants likely to be present in the storm water, and a summary of sampling data. Several industry commenters agreed that successful pollution prevention strategies must be based on an accurate understanding of the pollution potential of the site being considered. Some commenters felt that the requirement for the plan to include a topographic map was too burdensome. They indicated that a topographic map would not be useful and suggested that a site map would be adequate. In response to these comments, the Agency is concerned about the confusion with respect to how facilities intend to use the topographic map. As a result, to simplify these requirements, today's permits do not specifically require the inclusion of a topographic map. The Agency believes that a site map indicating an outline of the drainage area of each storm water outfall, and other appropriate information,{26} 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. |{26} 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. 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 the drainage area within the facility's boundaries need to be identified. A number of commenters indicated that certain industrial activities, such as loading and unloading operations, may occur under covered areas such as in buildings or loading docks with sufficient cover to prevent exposure to precipitation and that spills are not normally exposed to storm water. One commenter requested that EPA clarify that the list of significant spills and leaks should be confined to those materials that cannot be fully cleaned and removed and could potentially come in contact with storm water. Another commenter suggested that EPA only require spill information for areas to be covered by the general permit. One commenter suggested that the listing of spills and leaks should not include releases to impervious surfaces that are automatically drained to waste treatment sumps and that do not go to storm drains, or to impervious surfaces that are cleaned up without any chemicals entering a storm drain. Another commenter suggested that spills and leaks into secondary containment structures should not be listed, as the presence of a secondary containment system gives adequate notice that care is exercised, and that this requirement was unnecessary and unduly burdensome. In response, EPA recognizes that some spills, such as those that occur inside buildings that drain to a sanitary sewer, are not potential sources of pollution to storm water discharges, and thus do not need to be identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan. However, the agency believes that spills to sumps or secondary containment areas that receive storm water discharges should generally be identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan because such devices can overflow during large or repeated storm events, or storm water may be drained and discharged from such devices. The Agency also believes that it is important to identify spills that occur on impervious surfaces that are exposed to precipitation or that otherwise drain to a storm drain even when the spill is cleaned up before any of it enters a storm drain. Listing such events provides an indication of potential pollutant sources that may occur in the future, and helps direct priorities for developing and implementing spill response measures. In response to the concerns raised in these comments, the Agency has limited this provision to significant spills and leaks at areas that are exposed to precipitation or that otherwise drain to a storm water conveyance at the facility. One commenter recommended that spill prevention and response procedures be deleted because EPCRA and the Resources Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) already address accidental releases. Another commenter suggested that the list of spills be deleted and that the need for such a list is adequately addressed by reportable quantities, as spills of such size must be reported and are already on file with the government. In response, the Agency wants to clarify that the central reason for requiring this information in the pollution prevention plan is to ensure that dischargers adequately consider potential sources of pollution when identifying and implementing storm water pollution prevention measures. The Agency believes that such site evaluation is critical for appropriate implementation of storm water pollution prevention measures. Similarly, such information provides EPA with a better basis for reviewing and evaluating the adequacy of specific plans. The Agency also notes that the spill reporting measures under the other statutes identified above have limited scope and objectives, and in general, do not specifically consider the potential of pollutant discharges in storm water or controls for such pollutant discharges in a comprehensive manner.{27 28} The Agency also notes that spill reporting requirements have been developed under section 311 of the CWA and under section 102 of CERCLA. However, the Agency notes that these requirements only apply to releases of hazardous substances or oil in excess of reportable quantities, and that this reporting requirement focuses primarily on emergency response to such incidents. These reporting requirements do not 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. |{27} 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), requires operators of certain facilities that |manufacture, import, process, or otherwise use listed |toxic chemicals to report annually their releases of |those chemicals to the environment. Only those facilities |that manufacture, import, process, or otherwise use a |listed toxic chemical in excess of applicable threshold |quantities of the chemical, have a primary SIC code of |20 through 39, and have 10 or more full-time employees |must report. Section 313 of EPCRA focuses on the annual |reporting of releases, and not on the control of such |releases. |{28} Subtitle C of the Resources Conservation and Recovery |Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to establish requirements for |facilities that generate, transport, or treat, store |or dispose of materials that meet the regulatory definition |of hazardous wastes. The RCRA Subtitle C regulations |include requirements for certain generators and treatment, |storage, and disposal facilities to develop and implement |contingency plans and emergency procedures to minimize |hazards to human health or the environment from fires, |explosions, or any unplanned release of hazardous waste |or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface |water. In general, RCRA does not address materials that |are not considered to be wastes, and does not address |wastes that are not regulated as hazardous wastes. 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 permittee to best determine the appropriate form of such information. One commenter requested clarification of whether the term "significant spills" included spills that were not in excess of reporting quantities established under section 311 of the CWA or section 102 of CERCLA. In response, EPA notes that the definition section of the permit contains a definition of "significant spills" that includes, but is not limited to, releases of oil or hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities under section 311 of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR 110.10 and CFR 117.21) or section 102 of CERCLA (see 40 CFR 302.4). The Agency believes that it is appropriate to include certain releases that are not releases of oil or hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities for several reasons. The materials that are considered hazardous substances do not identify all materials that can cause water quality impacts. In addition, discharges of hazardous substances in amounts less than reportable quantities can cause water quality impacts. Other significant spills include spills that could potentially add significant amounts of pollutants. Such listing should address other materials in addition to materials that are listed as hazardous substance or as oil. In addition, instances of chronically repeated smaller spills can constitute significant spills if such spills, taken together, add significant amounts of pollutants to storm water discharges. Another commenter requested that EPA clarify whether the list of spills needed to be updated to identify significant spills and leaks that occur after the effective date of the permit. In response, the Agency wants to clarify that plans are to be updated to address significant spills and leaks that occur during the term of the permit. This information is necessary to ensure that major potential sources of pollution to storm water discharges are identified. One commenter indicated that existing quantitative data describing the concentration of pollutants in storm water discharges may be unrepresentative of typical events and good sampling protocols may not have been used. The commenter indicated that the discharger may have conducted the sampling in order to evaluate potential problems without intending to submit the data. In response, the Agency believes that existing quantitative data can in many cases be a useful, readily available source of information to identify potential pollutant sources. The Agency recognizes that often the discharger did not intend to submit such data, but believes that such data can still be useful for evaluating potential pollutant sources. The Agency also recommends that, where possible, dischargers provide a description of procedures and protocols that were used when collecting and analyzing samples. This type of information can be useful in evaluating the validity and accuracy of the data. It should also be emphasized again that EPA is not requiring this data to be submitted with the NOI. 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 of significant materials and to the risk identification and assessment/material inventory portion of the permit. In response, the Agency wants to clarify that the inventory of exposed materials is intended to address materials that potentially may be exposed to precipitation, including chemicals used and byproducts formed at the site that may be exposed to precipitation. Among the items that should be included on the inventory area materials related to chemicals or compounds listed in effluent limitations guidelines to which the facility is subject or chemicals or compounds specifically controlled or limited in any other NPDES permit for the facility should be addressed to the extent that such materials may be exposed to precipitation. One commenter suggested that a current list and description of materials is adequate; a description of materials that may have been exposed to storm water and the management practices in the past three years is excessive. However, another 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. Activities such as loading and unloading of materials, outdoor storage of raw materials or products, outdoor process activities, outdoor equipment or vehicle maintenance activities, dust or particulate generating processes, illicit connections or management practices, and waste disposal will generally have a reasonable potential for containing significant amounts of pollutants in storm water discharges. Process or storage equipment which is exposed to precipitation or structures such as metal roofs can have a reasonable potential for containing significant amounts of pollutants. Significant amounts of pollutants would include pollutant concentrations or unit loadings 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 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 will provide permittees with additional assistance in complying with these requirements. EPA also notes that the source identification requirements in today's permits are comparable with the source identification requirements in individual permit applications. In addition, the individual permit applications requirements for storm water discharges require the submittal of sampling data, whereas today's general permits do not require dischargers to sample their storm water discharges as part of the NOI application. Measures and Controls The August 16, 1991 draft general permits requested comments on eleven baseline pollution prevention measures. The 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 be an effective means of reducing pollutants in storm water discharges. However, the Agency recognizes that in some situations, this may not be the most cost-effective approach to controlling pollutants. For example, the Agency has defined an effluent limitation guideline for coal pile runoff from steam electric facilities that is typically met by collecting and treating the runoff rather than covering the piles. Thus, the Agency is not prepared at this time to mandate that all pollutant generating material be completely sheltered from precipitation and wind. One commenter indicated that EPA has not shown that existing plant maintenance practices and recordkeeping are insufficient. In response, NPDES permits for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity must establish conditions in accordance with the CWA, and the Agency does not have the burden of showing that existing plant maintenance practices and recordkeeping are insufficient to establish today's permit requirements. In fact, the Agency has considered typical industry practices at well operated facilities when establishing the requirements in today's permits. The Agency believes that plant maintenance practices and recordkeeping are an important component to a storm water pollution prevention strategy. The Agency recognizes that some facilities will have adequate maintenance practices and recordkeeping that have been successful in preventing pollutant discharges in storm water. Under today's permits, these facilities are only required to document such practices in a pollution prevention plan and continue them. Several commenters indicated that requirements such as good housekeeping should be limited to areas with a tangible connection to the storm water discharge. In other words, the pollution prevention requirements should not apply to indoor locations with no potential to contribute pollutants to storm water discharges. In response, the Agency agrees with this commenter. The Agency notes that under the August 16, 1991 draft permits, priorities for controls in a plan were to reflect identified potential sources of pollutants at the facility. Where indoor activities are not a potential source of pollutants, good housekeeping measures do not have to be addressed for such areas. The Agency has clarified today's permits with regard to this point. One commenter suggested that the inventory of types of material handled should be limited to those materials that could impact storm water. In response, the Agency has clarified today's permits to provide that the inventory of materials handled at the site is limited to materials that potentially may be exposed to precipitation. One commenter suggested that oil and gas operations in arid areas should not be required to develop certain plan components, such as the certification for non-storm water discharges, risk identification, and assessment/material inventory, because such operations do not have conventional storm drains and facilities have little potential to discharge to navigable waters. In response, EPA notes that a facility that does not have a storm water discharge associated with industrial activity is not required to obtain permit coverage. However, storm water discharges associated with industrial activity that occur as the result of infrequent storms or as the result of overflowing detention ponds must be authorized by an NPDES permit. The Agency believes that pollution prevention measures identified in today's permits are appropriate because they will reduce the potential for sources to contribute pollutants to storm water under various climatic conditions, including arid conditions. Pollution prevention activities such as risk identification, and developing an assessment/material inventory are important in arid regions to identify potential sources of pollutants to storm water. Improper non-storm water discharges to storm water conveyances can occur in arid conditions since most sources of non-storm water are not related to precipitation events but rather are related to process waters from other sources such as wash waters or produced waters. The Agency also wants to clarify that dischargers may seek alternative permit requirements by submitting an individual permit application or participating in a group application. One commenter indicated that the requirement to perform a "risk assessment" was not realistic for small businesses. In response, the Agency noted that different commenters appeared to be interpreting the requirement for a risk assessment differently, with some facilities apparently assuming that extensive monitoring and evaluation would be required. In an effort to minimize confusion, the language in today's permits has been modified by removing the term "assessment" from the risk identification section. This provision does not require a formal risk assessment, but rather requires a narrative description of the potential pollutant sources at specified material handling areas (loading and unloading operations, outdoor storage activities, outdoor manufacturing or processing activities, significant dust or particulate generating processing, and on-site water disposal practices), an identification of significant potential sources of pollutants at the site, and, for each potential source, an identification of pollutants of concern. Several industry commenters requested that the requirements for storm water management be clarified. In response, today's permits have been modified to explain that storm water management measures are used to divert, contain, reuse, or otherwise manage storm water runoff in manner that reduces 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 the presence of non-storm water discharges. This provision is similar to a provision in the requirements for individual permit applications that requires a certification that all outfalls have been tested or evaluated for the presence of non-storm water discharges (see 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(i)(C)). One commenter recommended that the certification requirement for non-storm water discharges be consistent with the language used for individual permit applications for storm water discharges. Another commenter suggested that permits should allow certifications based on evaluations other than testing (as provided in the individual permit application requirements). One commenter indicated that requiring permittees to check for and remedy possible entrance of non-storm water discharges could be more efficient and less costly than other tests. In response, the November 16, 1990 permit application regulations require applicants to certify that storm water discharges be tested or evaluated for the presences of non-storm water discharges. In the August 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-storm water discharges in a manner that is not onerous or overly costly. For example, at many facilities, the discharger can observe for flow in downstream portions of storm drains during dry weather conditions when sources that generate non-storm water are operating or when water from a hose or other source is added to potential entry ways, such as floor drains, to the storm sewer system.{29} Today's permits also provides that where a certification is not feasible, a certification is not required, provided that the storm water pollution prevention plan indicates why the certification is not feasible and identifies potential significant sources of non-storm water at the site, and that the discharger notifies EPA. |{29} A more complete discussion of methods to identify |illicit connections can be found in the draft "Manual |of Practice: Identification of Illicit Connections," |U.S. EPA, September 1990. 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 not require discharge permits for "total retention" systems and requested that EPA define a design storm to determine whether a retention system could qualify. The commenter noted that the limitations in several effluent guidelines for storm water do not apply to discharges resulting from a storm event greater than the 25-year, 24-hour event. EPA would like to clarify that any point source discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity to waters of the United States (including those through a municipal separate storm sewer system to waters of the United States) legally requires a discharge permit. This includes any potential discharge from a retention or detention device, regardless of the size of the storm. Discharges as a result of a catastrophic event could be subject to enforcement discretion by the permitting authority, in consultation with the State water quality agency. The Agency recognizes that several effluent limitations guidelines for classes of storm water do not apply to discharges resulting from events of greater magnitude than a specified design storm. This is primarily because these guidelines are based on a consideration of treatment techniques which typically involve collection and storage of the storm water prior to treatment. The design storm threshold in the guidelines allows dischargers to design the storage 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 maanagement of runoff) measures. The Agency notes that the greater overlap between measures used at mining sites and those used at construction sites generally involves erosion and sediment measures and storm water management measures. The Agency believes that the requirements in today's permits are appropriate for storm water discharges from mining operations that are covered by today's permits, and recommends that where such operations are similar to construction activities plans emphasize sediment and erosion controls and storm water management measures. Again, the Agency wants to clarify that dischargers may seek alternative permit requirements by submitting an individual permit application or participating in a group application. A number of State and local agencies indicated that they generally opposed diverting storm water to sewage treatment plants as an option for preventing pollutants in storm water. These commenters indicated that efforts should be focussed on controlling 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 16, 1991 notice, such diversion must be coordinated with the operators of the sewage treatment plant and the collection system to avoid worsening any existing problems with either combined sewer overflows (CSOs), basement flooding, or wet weather operation of the treatment plant. The Agency agrees the operators of treatment plants (or operators of collection systems) typically have authority to approve or reject the introduction of storm water into the sanitary sewer system. 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 August 16, 1991 draft permits required an annual site inspection to verify that the description of potential pollutant sources in the plan is up to date and accurate and that the pollution prevention measures identified in the plan are being implemented and are adequate. On April 2, 1992, (57 FR 11394) EPA published final regulatory modifications at 40 CFR 122.44(i)(4) that require NPDES permits for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity to require, at a minimum, the discharger to conduct an annual inspection of the facility site to identify areas contributing to a storm water discharge associated with industrial activity and evaluate whether measures to reduce pollutant loadings identified in a storm water pollution prevention plan are adequate and properly implemented in accordance with the terms of the permit or whether additional control measures are needed. In addition, the April 2, 1992 regulations provide that NPDES permits for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity must require the discharger to maintain for a period of three years a record summarizing the results of the inspection and a certification stating that the facility is in compliance with the plan and the permit and identifying any incidents of noncompliance. Such reports and certification must be signed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22. The April 2, 1992 regulatory modifications were made in response to comments generally indicating that site inspections are an appropriate tool for assisting in evaluating compliance with pollution prevention measures for storm water discharges. A number of commenters on the August 16, 1991 notice supported the use of inspections to ensure compliance with storm water pollution prevention plan requirements. Some commenters indicated that routine inspections and maintenance by qualified persons, along with adequate records of such inspections, were critical to ensuring adequate and properly implemented pollution prevention measures. Several commenters encouraged EPA to require annual, in-depth inspections of facilities to identify the potential for pollutants to enter drainage systems. Some of these commenters suggested that more frequent but less comprehensive inspections could supplement the detailed annual inspection and would ensure that potential pollution sources of significant concern are detected. However, several commenters requested that EPA clarify the differences between the two inspection provisions of the August 16, 1991 draft permits. Several of these commenters indicated that the requirements appeared to be duplicative and suggested that EPA eliminate one of the inspection requirements. In response, the Agency has renamed the term "site inspection" as used in the context of annual inspections to be "Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation" to clarify the difference between comprehensive, in-depth evaluations of all areas of the facility that generate storm water associated with industrial activity and more frequent, less comprehensive inspections that may focus specifically on one or two potential pollutant sources, such as inspecting drip pans for accumulation of materials. The requirements in today's permits for comprehensive site compliance evaluations are consistent with the minimum requirements at 40 CFR 122.44(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 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 may, where annual inspections are impracticable, require certification once every three years by a Registered Professional Engineer (PE) that the facility is in compliance with the permit, or alternative requirements. Today's permits provide that where annual site inspections are shown in the plan to be impracticable for inactive mining sites due to remote location and inaccessibility of the site, comprehensive site compliance evaluations are to be conducted at least once every three years. EPA has selected this lesser frequency in response to comments that inactive mining operations are often in remote areas that are not necessarily supported by infrastructure that allows easy access. A number of commenters urged EPA to require that a PE be required to certify that plans "be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices". Some of these commenters urged the Agency to model PE certification requirements after similar requirements under Spill Prevention Countermeasure and Containment (SPCC) requirements at 40 CFR 112.3. In response, the Agency recognizes that a PE certification can be a useful tool, particularly when evaluating the pollutant removal abilities of structural controls or of spill control/response procedures. However, EPA is concerned about requiring PE certifications at this time for all facilities with storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. The Agency recognizes that today's permits cover a significant range of industrial facilities that will emphasize different components of pollution prevention strategies. PE certifications may not be useful for some types of facilities because they manage minimum amounts of toxic chemicals or other potential pollution generating materials, and have limited opportunities for structural controls, storm water management or erosion control. The Agency does recognize, as discussed below in the context of special requirements of EPCRA section 313 facilities, that 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 toxic chemicals in their storm water discharges. Some of these commenters suggested that EPA be required to demonstrate that these facilities have more pollutants in their storm water discharges than other classes of industries or that special requirements should be triggered where sampling of storm water indicates that releases are occurring. In response, the Agency believes that the additional pollution prevention plan requirements in today's permits are 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 40980)). Based on a number of studies, the Agency believes that storage systems, truck and rail transfer facilities, and other process areas where significant amounts of toxic chemicals are used and 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 (SPCC) data base and the Pollution Incident Reporting System (PIRS) data base indicates that operator error, structural failures, and corrosion were both significant causes of releases for aboveground tanks and failures of ancillary equipment is a significant cause of releases from above ground systems. These data bases indicate that 85 percent to 90 percent of more than 2,000 reported incidents of the spills of oil or hazardous substances from 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.{30} In addition, these requirements are consistent with practices identified under other regulatory programs for the management of other materials, such as the SPCC program for oil and tank requirements under subtitle C of RCRA for hazardous wastes.{31} Many industry commenters indicated that, typically, well run industrial facilities with large amounts of toxic materials already conduct the practices identified in the August 16, 1991 draft permits. Although many of these commenters argued that permit conditions addressing these controls were not necessary because facilities are already conducting these practices, the Agency believes that facilities with large amounts of toxic chemicals generally do take extra precautions in handling their chemicals, and that the special requirements for EPCRA section 313 represents the best available technology currently being used at these facilities. |{30} Examples of industry standards evaluated in this |rulemaking include ASME/ANSI B31.3 (Chemical Plant and |Petroleum Refinery Piping); ASME/ANSI B96.1 (Welded Aluminum- |Alloy Storage Tanks); ASME/ANSI B96.1 (Welded Aluminum- |Alloy Storage Tanks); NFPA 30 (Flammable and Combustible |Liquid Codes); NACE Recommended Practice (Standard Recommended |Practice-Control of External Corrosion on Metallic Buried, |Partially Buried or Submerged Liquid Storage Systems); |API Standard 620 (Recommended Rules for Design and Construction |of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks); API Standard |650 (Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage); API Recommended |Practice 651 (Cathodic Protection of Above-Ground Petroleum |Storage Tanks); API Recommended Practice 652 (Lining |of Above-Ground Petroleum Storage Tank Bottoms); API |Standard 653 (Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and |Reconstruction); and API 2008 (Safe Operation of Inland |Bulk Plants). |{31} Examples of requirements under other Federal programs |evaluated in this rulemaking include: underground storage |tank requirements (40 CFR 280); Occupational Safety and |Health Administration general safety and health regulations |for flammable and combustible surrounding tanks (49 CFR |1910) Department of Transportation requirements for oil |pipelines (49 CFR 195); the Department of Interior requirements |for the containment and collection of oil discharges |from offshore drilling (30 CFR 250). 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 EPCRA section 313 facilities because the Agency believed that they were not careful with the materials they handle. In response, as discussed in more detail above, the Agency agrees with the commenters to the extent that it believes that the management practices identified in the additional requirements for EPCRA section 313 facilities are typically employed at well operated facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise use large amounts of toxic chemicals. However, the Agency disagrees with the commenters to the extent that they are contending that the additional requirements in today's permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities (facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise use large amounts of toxic chemicals) are not appropriate. Rather, as discussed above, the Agency believes that the additional requirements for EPCRA section 313 facilities represents the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable for these facilities, and therefore are appropriate for technology-based permits for these facilities. Some commenters suggest that special requirements be limited to storm water discharges from facilities that are subject to EPCRA section 312. EPCRA section 312 applies to any facility that is required to prepare or have available a material safety data sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and regulations promulgated under that Act. EPCRA section 312 establishes reporting requirements for facilities with hazardous chemicals present at the facility in amounts equal to or greater than 10,000 pounds, or that are extremely hazardous substances present at the facility in an amount greater than or equal to 500 pounds (or 55 gallons) or the threshold planning quantity (TPQ) for an extremely hazardous substance as defined in 40 CFR part 355 (see 40 CFR 370.20). In addition, EPCRA reporting requirements apply to facilities where a local emergency planning committee has requested the submittal of a MSDS. EPCRA section 313 establishes threshold amounts for the purposes of reporting of 25,000 pounds of toxic chemical manufactured (including imported) or processed at a facility during a calendar year or 10,000 pounds of a toxic chemical otherwise used at a facility during a calendar year. These commenters noted that the applicability of EPCRA section 313 is based on the amount of toxic chemical manufactured, processed or otherwise used per year, and that it was possible for some facilities to meet this requirement with a relatively low average inventory level of perhaps less than 500 pounds. In response, the Agency believes that the threshold established by EPCRA section 313 represents a group of facilities that is better for targeting the special requirements of today's permit than EPCRA section 312. Although facilities that are subject to EPCRA section 313 may have less than 10,000 pounds on site at any one time, these facilities receive and handle significant amounts of toxic chemicals during the course of a year. In addition, EPCRA section 312 applies to any facility in any SIC code required to prepare MSDSs, whereas EPCRA section 313 applicability is limited to facilities with a primary SIC code of 20 through 39. EPCRA section 312 applies to a much broader class of facilities, including many not subject to storm water permit requirements. The Agency believes that establishing special requirements for EPCRA section 312 facilities would create additional confusion among facilities which are subject to EPCRA section 312 requirements, but do not have storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. Furthermore, the amount of hazardous chemicals present at a facility which triggers section 312 requirements may be quite low, as noted above. Thus, section 313 facilities may not be appreciably different from section 312 facilities in terms of the level of chemicals present at any one time. A number of commenters that objected to certain special requirements for all EPCRA section 313 facilities suggested that any facility (regardless if they are subject to EPCRA section 313) that has had a release of a hazardous substance or oil in excess of reportable quantities under 40 CFR parts 110, 117 or 302 should be subject to special requirements because of their proven history of releases. Other commenters indicated that only those facilities that have reported releases of EPCRA section 313 chemicals in their storm water should be subject to special conditions and that the Agency should shield or exempt from special requirements those facilities that report zero or de minimis releases. However, other commenters indicated that many of the facilities that are currently reporting zero or small releases of toxic chemicals via their storm water discharges have not monitored pollutants in their storm water discharge. EPA disagrees with these commenters. First, the Agency believes that large spills or releases that are generally associated with releases of a hazardous substance or oil in excess of reportable quantities under 40 CFR parts 110, 117 or 302 are only one potential source of pollutants at EPCRA section 313 facilities. Other potential sources of pollutants at these facilities include chronic leaks, smaller spills, management of containers and storage and/or use of chemicals in solid form. These potential sources can contribute significant amounts of pollutants that are nonetheless below reportable quantities under 40 CFR parts 110, 117 or 302. Second, as discussed above, some of the most significant sources of pollutants at facilities identified in the SPCC and PIRS data bases can be attributed to intermittent events, and will not necessarily be identified by periodic monitoring. Without monitoring data, releases of toxic chemicals could go unreported, and therefore a report of zero release may not reflect the true pollutant potential of the storm water discharge. Today's permits establish semi-annual monitoring requirements for certain facilities subject to EPCRA section 313. However, this low monitoring frequency, while appropriate for the limited purposes articulated in today's notice, are not intended to sufficiently identify relatively infrequent intermittent releases in a manner that would ensure that other controls are not necessary to minimize the discharge of toxic chemicals in storm water discharges. Rather, such low-frequency monitoring requirements are only a part of a more comprehensive approach to controlling toxic pollutants in storm water discharges from EPCRA section 313 facilities. Similarly, regulations developed under EPCRA section 313 allow facility operators to estimate the amount of toxic chemicals in storm water without the use of monitoring data. Such estimates, while appropriate for developing the TRI data, do not provide adequate safeguards that toxic chemicals are not being released in storm water discharges. Third, conditions at EPCRA section 313 facilities can change with time, and operator errors, structural failures, and corrosion can lead to failures of process, handling and storage equipment used for EPCRA water priority chemicals which result in the release of toxic chemicals to storm water discharges. Such releases can continue undetected until the release becomes obvious{32} and are not necessarily linked to past releases. The Agency believes that a preventive approach that does not wait for spills or other releases to occur is the most sensible approach and is consistent with the goals of the CWA as well as the pollution prevention emphasis of the 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. |{32} See "Hazardous Waste Tank Risk Analysis", EPA, 1986. 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 with the commenter that this is an indication that EPCRA section 313 facilities represent a low risk as a class. First, the Agency believes that the release of less than 1,000 pounds of toxic chemicals via storm water can be very significant, and that the 1,000 pound of toxic chemical threshold limit does not represent acceptable levels of pollutants in releases. Many of the EPCRA section 313 water priority chemicals can have significant toxic effects at low concentrations, even though the total amount of toxic chemical released annually is less than 1,000 pounds. In addition, facilities can have intermittent releases of toxic chemicals of less than 1,000 pounds such as spills or concentrated leaks that can have significant water quality impacts. Facilities that have released low levels of toxic chemicals one year can have significantly larger releases in subsequent years due to spills, leaks which have developed from older equipment, or changes in management practices. Thus, over a longer time period, such as five or ten years, more than six percent of the facilities may 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 developing today's permits, it believes that this approach will minimize confusion and address concerns that special requirements would no longer be required at such facilities. The agency also notes that it may consider the factors that lead to the decision to restrict reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313 in the same manner as it would with respect to the special requirements of today's permits. Other commenters requested that EPA clarify the applicability of the special requirements in the storm water general permits for facilities that met the threshold requirements of EPCRA section 313 during some years, but did not meet the requirements in other years (even though the EPCRA section 313 thresholds did not change). One commenter indicated that continuing special NPDES requirements for facilities that have reduced their use of EPCRA section 313 chemicals removed the incentive for the 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 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 pollution prevention strategies that are appropriate and are not overly burdensome for such situations. One commenter noted that some facilities may use one or more section 313 water priority chemicals in excess of the 10,000 pound threshold, but use other section 313 water priority chemicals in amounts of less than the threshold. The commenter requested that EPA clarify if the special requirements for managing EPCRA section 313 apply to all parts of the facility where any toxic chemical is managed, or only those parts of the facility where section 313 water priority chemicals that the facility must report for (e.g. those toxic chemicals managed in amounts in excess of 10,000 pounds) are used. In response, the Agency want to clarify that the special requirements for EPCRA section 313 facilities in today's permits only apply to those portions of a facility where toxic chemicals that a facility must report releases for under EPCRA section 313 are managed. The Agency notes however, that the other baseline requirements of today's permits apply to other parts of the facility that generate storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. Some commenters expressed concern that the special requirements placed unnecessary burdens on facilities that manage their toxic materials indoors. Other commenters suggested that EPA provide incentives for industries to eliminate exposure of raw materials and EPCRA section 313 toxic chemicals to precipitation. In response, the special requirements for storm water pollution prevention plans at facilities that are subject to EPCRA section 313 for section 313 water priority chemicals primarily focus on areas of the facility where equipment used for the management, storage and processing of section 313 water priority chemicals is exposed to precipitation or can otherwise contribute pollutants to a storm drainage system. The Agency believes that the burdens associated with the requirements of today's permit are significantly reduced for facilities that manage (including loading and unloading activities) their toxic chemicals in buildings or under cover such that there is no exposure to precipitation and where the floor drainage in the building is known to be segregated from the storm water collection system. The Agency believes that this approach provides incentives for facilities to manage toxic chemicals in a way that ensures there is no exposure to precipitation. EPCRA Section 313 Facilities: Types of Controls 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 of toxic materials. Some commenters stated that this approach would encourage facilities to develop additional measures to control potential releases of materials into storm water. Other commenters indicated that this approach would reward companies that have already installed such controls by reducing monitoring and reporting requirements. Other commenters indicated that this approach promoted pollution prevention measures and provided a check on runoff before it is discharged. Another commenter indicated that requirements for containing storm water and monitoring each discharge event were necessary to ensure water quality standards were met. One commenter indicated that design standards were necessary because the acute WET limitation, by itself, underestimated the true environmental risks of storm water discharges. A number of commenters favored the performance standards approach of Option B. These commenters indicated that performance standards provide flexibility to industry, and allowed industry to pursue the most cost-effective control approach. Some of these commenters felt that this approach would better allow for consideration of local or facility specific factors in developing controls. One commenter thought performance standards were the best way to encourage innovative approaches. Some of the commenters indicated that the compliance obligations under either of the two proposed options could be substantial. Some commenters indicated that this approach would allow some industrial facilities to avoid the costs of secondary containment. Several commenters indicated that they viewed design standards as inefficient, ineffective methods for reducing pollutants. In addition, some commenters urged the Agency to adopt an alternative approach. A number of commenters expressed their belief that both approaches were excessive or otherwise inappropriate. Some commenters indicated that they thought that pollution prevention measures (without a WET limitation) were adequate, and that an effluent limitation defeated the purpose of a plan to eliminate or reduce sources of pollutants. Several commenters suggested that dischargers be given the opportunity to select either a performance standard or design standards, and that this approach provided flexibility while at the same time recognizing the advantages of both approaches. One commenter favored voluntary measures as providing the utmost flexibility and representing the lowest cost approach. After consideration of these comments, the Agency has decided to adopt an approach that is a hybrid of Options A and B. Today's permits provide targeted pollution prevention plan requirements that have been designed to address storm water discharges associated with industrial activities that are subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements for water priority chemicals. These additional plan requirements have been designed to provide a reasonable 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, 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. WET Limitation Comments received on the proposed WET limitation in the August 16, 1991 draft general permits were mixed. Several commenters recommended the use of chronic WET limitations instead of acute limitations. These commenters indicated that acute WET tests underestimated the toxic impacts of intermittent discharges such as storm water. One commenter indicated that recent research indicates that organisms 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, facilities could still discharge contaminated storm water. The commenter indicated that if a facility properly implements an appropriate storm water pollution prevention plan, it will be virtually impossible for pollutants from the facility to contaminate storm water from the facility. Several commenters thought it was premature and inappropriate that technology-based effluent limits be established for storm water discharges. These commenters raised a number of concerns about the WET limitation. Several of these commenters contended that EPA did not have adequate data at this time to demonstrate the proposed WET limitation could be met in a cost effective manner after application of the model technologies. Several commenters suggested that EPA had only considered several technologies for reducing toxicity, but had made an inadequate showing that all 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 conduct a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE). Several commenters objected to the requirement to conduct an expensive toxicity reduction evaluations (TRE) without more research into the methods to identify sources of toxicity to storm water, methods to reduce toxicity in storm water and applicability of current TRE procedures to storm water discharges. Consistent with these concerns, another 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 permittee should review the storm water pollution prevention plan and make appropriate modifications to assist in identifying the source(s) of toxicity and to reduce the toxicity of their storm water discharges. While today's permit does not specifically require dischargers that detect acute WET to conduct a formal TRE, the Agency may request a formal toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) or a TRE pursuant to the authority of section 308 of the CWA. The Agency believes that this approach provides additional flexibility for facilities to evaluate their storm water discharges for toxicity and to take appropriate steps to reduce toxicity. The Agency believes that this additional flexibility is appropriate in light of concerns raised in the comments that the source(s) of toxicity may be difficult to initially determine and that facilities need an opportunity to evaluate whether specific pollutant prevention measures will successfully reduce toxicity, or whether the facility will need to pursue a treatment strategy. In addition, the approach taken in today's permits provides facilities with an opportunity to develop and implement pollution prevention strategies prior to the October 1, 1995. This provides discharges with an opportunity to implement site-specific and innovative measures to reduce toxicity. In addition, this approach recognizes the difficulties in ascertaining whether a specific measure or approach will successfully reduce toxicity at a given facility. The Agency believes that this approach will provide additional opportunities to evaluate pollution prevention measures suitable for reducing toxicity and for evaluating the role of treatment technologies in such toxicity reduction strategies. The Agency also recognizes that sources or activities other than handling toxic chemicals to be used in the industrial process may cause toxicity in some cases. However, the Agency believes that it is important to ensure that these sources of toxicity have been identified, and that the plan be reviewed to identify any appropriate steps be taken to reduce the toxicity of the storm water discharges. Appropriate steps may include diverting storm water flows which originate from offsite, or providing other appropriate storm water management measures. However, today's permits do not require that such offiste sources of pollutants be eliminated. The Agency believes that the approach taken in today's permits provide sufficient flexibility to address these toxicity sources. Containment Requirements The August 16, 1991 draft general permits requested comments on requiring secondary containment for two types of areas where liquid section 313 water priority chemicals are managed. The first type of areas was where liquid section 313 water priority chemicals are stored and storm water comes into contact with equipment, tanks, containers or other vessels used for such storage. The second type of areas was truck and rail care loading and unloading areas for liquid section 313 water priority chemicals. The provisions of the August 16, 1991 draft general permits required secondary containment structures to be sufficiently impervious to contain spilled section 313 water priority chemicals until they can be removed or treated. The August 16, 1991 draft general permits requested comment on specifying that secondary containment structures for such areas provide sufficient excess holding capacity for the contents of the largest container in the drainage area plus an allowance for drainage from a 25 year, 24 hour storm. A number of commenters supported the concepts of secondary containment for targeted areas of facilities which manage toxic chemicals. One commenter urged EPA to require secondary containment for water priority chemicals at all sites, indicated that earthen dikes are easily made, relatively inexpensive, easily maintained and can usually be created, altered or removed within a day. Another commenter indicated that secondary containment for toxic chemicals is clearly a simple, easily verifiable method for preventing spills, and that too much flexibility would result in industrial facilities avoiding implementing appropriate requirements. Another commenter indicated that if the containment of toxic materials is not economically possible, the process should not be in existence. One commenter noted that an added benefit of increased containment is the reduction in fire hazards. While most industry commenters addressing the containment issue recognized that secondary containment was a commonly used practice, a number of commenters noted that many industrial facilities have already installed secondary containment, but that many existing secondary containment units did not provide sufficient volume to accommodate runoff from a 25 year, 24-hour storm event{33}. 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. |{33} 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 6 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. Several other commenters indicated that a requirement to provide secondary containment could result in significant economic burdens for facilities without 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 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 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 commenters suggested that additional flexibility be given to EPCRA section 313 facilities, and that the Agency continue to require PE certifications as a means to ensure that adequate measures are being implemented. One commenter requested clarification on whether the PE certification applied to the entire plan for the facility or for only those portions of the plan that addressed areas where section 313 water priority chemicals are managed. However, some commenters raised concerns about PE certifications. One commenter indicated that PEs hired by a facility will not provide the appropriate level of assurance unless penalties for misrepresentation are possible. Other commenters stated their belief that industries and Federal facilities have historically been unable to monitor themselves. One 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 ensure adequate implementation of the plan requirements. Second, the Agency's experience with the SPCC program indicates that PE certifications can be a useful component of a spill prevention program for facilities that manage large amounts of liquids 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} |{34} For example, see "Hazardous Waste Tank Risk Analysis", |EPA, 1986. 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 III, section 313 water priority chemicals are used or stored. These training measures must ensure that such personnel are trained in and informed of preventive measures at the facility. The Agency believes that it is cost effective to have a PE that has begun to review parts of the plan to review the entire plan. One commenter objected to the requirement to maintain records of the frequency and estimated volume of discharges from secondary containment areas. The commenter raised concerns that this provision triggered testing requirements. In response, the Agency wants to clarify that this provision does not trigger sampling requirements. One commenter indicated that providing curbing and roofing for many forms of metals storage is not practical and provides no environmental benefit, and that roofs made of galvanized steel 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 accommodate a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The commenter indicated that the cost differential to construct a system to accommodate a 25-year, 24-hour storm event versus a 10-year, 24-hour storm event would be significant, and the incremental pollutant reduction associated with the larger design system would be small. The commenter indicated that the higher costs would be associated with the number or capacity of catch basins or inlet structures, the capacity of the conveyance system (e.g. the size of pipes or ditches), and pumping station capacity. In response to comments, EPA has modified the effluent limitation in today's permits to be consistent with the effluent limitation guideline for coal pile runoff in the steam electric category (40 CFR 434). Therefore, the numeric limitation for coal pile runoff in today's permits uses the 10-year, 24-hour storm instead of the 25-year, 24-hour storm. EPA recognizes that the initial analysis used to 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,{35} and that generally such requirements are intended to work together. For example, 30 CFR 816.42 requires that discharges of waters from areas disturbed by surface mining activities must be in compliance with all application Federal and State water laws and regulations. 30 CFR 816.45 establishes sediment control measures that do not specifically address toxic discharges from coal pile runoff. |{35} See American Mining Congress v. EPA, 965 F.2d 759 |(9th Cir. 1992). One commenter requested clarification as to whether pre-SMCRA disturbed coal mining sites were subject to this requirement. The commenter argued that Congress intended that pre-SMCRA coal mining sites are to be handled under Title IV of SMCRA which established the Abandoned Mine Lands Program. In response, the effluent limitation for coal pile runoff in today's permits is intended to apply to all coal pile runoff covered by the permit. 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.{36} Discharges that do not believe that this requirement is appropriate for a given discharge may submit an individual permit application or participate in an applicable group application. The Agency expects that inactive mining sites will generally have fewer coal piles than active coal mining sites, as it is expected that materials with a commercial value will often be removed from the site. In addition, the Agency recognizes that additional options are available to inactive sites, such as removing the coal piles, or reclaiming/stabilizing the site to ensure that storm water is not contaminated by contact with a coal pile. |{36} See American Mining Congress v. EPA, Supra. Several commenters indicated that they believed that storm water permits should not impose numeric effluent limitations. EPA disagrees with this comment in connection with coal pile runoff. The Agency remains concerned about imposing broad national numeric effluent limitations which would apply to all storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. However, the Agency believes that numeric effluent limitations may be appropriate when applied to storm water discharges from specific, priority unit operations or types of industrial facilities. For example, as discussed above, the Agency has developed a number of effluent limitation guidelines for runoff from various industrial categories. The Agency intends to continue to evaluate the use of numeric effluent limitations for priority storm water discharges. Several commenters thought the pH limitation of between 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 characteristics of coal pile runoff can depend on a number of factors, such as the size of the pile, the type of foundation under the pile, and the pH of the precipitation, and that the Agency should consider such factors at each site before imposing a limitation on that site. In response, the Agency notes that the effluent limitations for coal pile runoff in today's permits are technology-based requirements based on BAT considerations, and do not consider site-specific water quality impacts. EPA does not agree with the commenter that it should be precluded from issuing technology- based requirements unless it specifically identifies water quality impacts associated with a discharge. This approach is not authorized by the CWA, which requires that NPDES permits for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity 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 compliance within 365 days of the effective date of the permit. The August 16, 1991 draft general permits also required that NOIs be submitted within 180 days of the effective date of the permit. One commenter indicated that with general permits, the effective date of the general permit is not the date that the discharger is subject to the permit. Rather, with a general permit, a discharger will need time to review the permit and understand the alternatives prior to selecting this option and submitting the Notice of Intent. Other commenters expressed confusion over plan deadlines and requested clarification. In response, the Agency has modified the permit to provide specific dates for plan preparation and compliance. While the Agency does not agree that it cannot establish compliance dates based on the effective date of the permit, the Agency believes that specifying specific dates will minimize confusion regarding these dates, particularly where EPA issues permits for different States on different dates. A number of commenters indicated that they thought that it was inappropriate to require that plans be developed at the same time that an 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 NOIs 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 the permit to prepare the plan. Some of these recommended that facilities be given a full year to develop the plan and an additional 180 days to implement baseline requirements. Other commenters suggested that permittees be given one year from the effective date of the permit to complete its plan and one and one half years from the effective date of the permit to comply with the conditions of the permit. One commenter thought permittees should be given one year from the effective date of the permit to prepare plans, and an additional year to comply with the plan to allow facilities to incorporate storm water management planning into the normal budgeting and operation of the facility. Another commenter 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 non-storm water discharges. This has been done to provide consistency between the deadline for certifying that storm water discharges have been tested for the presence of non-storm water and the deadline for implementing the pollution prevention plan. One commenter suggested that small business be given 3 to 5 years to comply with permit requirements. In response, the Agency believes that the complexity of the flexible, site-specific storm water pollution prevention plans required by today's permits will to some degree be related to the size of the facility. Thus, EPA believes that the time frames established in today's permits are appropriate for small businesses. However, 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 August 16, 1991. Federal facilities have had since that time to make planning decisions necessary to support plan preparation. In addition, today's permits require that plans for existing storm water discharges associated with industrial activity be developed by April 1, 1993, six months after the beginning of the 1993 fiscal year for the Federal government. Again, the Agency wants to clarify that today's permits provide additional flexibility for the Director to establish a later date for preparing and complying with plans based on a showing of good cause. Some commenters indicated that it generally would take additional time to comply with the more complex requirements of the permit. Many of these commenters focussed on the special requirements for EPCRA section 313 facilities. For example, several 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 | 30,000 | 120,000 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 water pollution prevention plan within 60 days of the reportable quantity release. EPA believes this shorter time frame is appropriate because the potential for spills associated with such facilities and the additional expertise expected in the oil industry that has developed to comply with SPCC requirements. Subsequent to the publication of the August 16, 1991 draft general permits, Congress established special permit application deadlines in the Transportation Act of 1991 for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from facilities that are owned or operated by a municipality that has participated in a timely part 1 group application and where either the group application is rejected or the facility is denied participation in the group application by EPA. As discussed above, the deadline for such facilities to submit 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 permittee that the plan does not meet one or more of the requirements of the permit. Unless otherwise provided by EPA, permittees would have 30 days after such notification to make necessary changes and submit to the Director a written certification that the requested changes had been made. Several commenters indicated that they thought, depending on the extent to which the Director required changes, 30 days could be an insufficient period of time to make the required changes. Some of these commenters suggested 90 days as a time period to make required revisions. In response, the Agency notes that the permit provides flexibility for EPA to establish a longer or shorter time period for permittees to make 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 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 permittee shall amend the plan whenever there is a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance which has a significant effect on the potential for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States or if the storm water pollution prevention plan proves to be ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants. In addition, the requirements in today's permits for comprehensive site compliance 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's permit requires permittees to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of their plan, and to make modifications as necessary. The Agency believes that most discharges will realize that modifying their plan to make it more effective and will decrease the chances that EPA will require modifications. Nonetheless, as discussed below; plans must be submitted to EPA only on request. Some commenters suggested submitting the storm water pollution prevention plans to EPA for their approval, thus avoiding compliance problems later. One commenter indicated that they thought some businesses will want their plans approved by EPA prior to implementing them, to avoid wasting money on a plan which is 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 permittee for violation of several provisions of the permit that provided dischargers with flexibility in selection of practices. In response, the Agency will exercise enforcement discretion where appropriate when evaluating permit compliance. The Agency recognizes that several provisions of the permit provide flexibility for selecting controls to be implemented, and will consider good faith attempts at compliance when exercising its enforcement discretion. However, the Agency is concerned that specific language in the permit as requested by the commenter would create unnecessary confusion, and that some permittees would inappropriately argue that such language precluded EPA from enforcing permit conditions in all cases. One commenter requested that EPA clarify that when requesting modifications to a storm water pollution prevention plan, the Agency identify with reasonable specificity which provisions of the plan require change and which of the minimum requirements the existing plan violates. In response, the Agency has made this clarification. One commenter raised concerns that EPA has not provided administrative procedures for reviewing plans and requiring modifications, and it is unclear whether the permittee has the right to meet with the Agency, submit comments on the required changes, or file any sort of appeal. The commenter indicated that a discharger and EPA may legitimately differ on whether a plan meets appropriate requirements, and 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 and Reporting 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 16, 1991 notice, EPA specifically identified six options for modifying requirements to report monitoring results for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. In addition, the draft general permits in the same August 16, 1991 notice requested comment on annual discharge sampling of storm water discharges from most classes of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity as this approach was consistent with the option EPA favored in the August 16, 1991 notice for the regulatory change. However, in the August 16, 1991 notice, the Agency also indicated that the monitoring requirements in the final permits could be less stringent if the regulatory change provided additional flexibility with respect to minimum monitoring requirements. The draft baseline general permit proposed on August 16, 1991, required a minimum of annual monitoring for all discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity except those from certain oil and gas operations. Most facilities were subject to a baseline monitoring requirement of eight parameters plus any pollutant limited by an effluent guideline to which the facility was subject. Six classes of industries were selected for more extensive semi-annual monitoring with additional industry- specific parameters. Oil and gas exploration or production operations were given the option of obtaining a PE certification that a pollution prevention plan was being implemented in accordance with the permit in lieu of monitoring. On April 2, 1992, (57 FR 11394), EPA published final revisions to the 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 of the final general permit to be consistent with the flexibility afforded by the changes to minimum monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2) made on April 2, 1992. Monitoring requirements for discharges from many classes of industrial facilities have been reduced or eliminated. Monitoring requirements have been retained for selected industries or industrial activities which, due to the nature of industrial activities or materials stored or used onsite, have significant potential for contributing pollutants to storm water. These requirements are discussed in more detail below. As discussed in more detail earlier in today's notice, the Agency has also added requirements to conduct comprehensive annual site compliance evaluations which have been designed to evaluate the effectiveness of permit implementation and identify pollutant sources consistent with the April 2, 1992, regulatory modifications. The Agency believes that these compliance evaluations can provide an efficient and cost-effective approach for evaluating the effectiveness of permit program implementation. In adopting this approach, the Agency recognizes that discharge monitoring data can play several important functions, including assisting in identifying pollutant sources, evaluating the effectiveness of pollution prevention measures, evaluating the risk of discharges by indicating the type and concentration of pollutant parameters in the discharge, and provide information which can be used in efforts to identify water quality impacts, and supporting future permitting activities, such as Tier II, III and IV activities described in EPA's long-term permitting strategy.{37} |{37} 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). However, the Agency also recognizes that other types of information can be used to supplement or in some cases replace monitoring information. For example, the requirements in today's permits for the narrative description of potential pollutant sources, inspections, testing for non-storm water discharges, and comprehensive site compliance evaluations will assist in identifying pollutant sources associated with industrial activity. In addition, the Agency notes that the effectiveness of some types of pollution prevention measures can be observed without monitoring, such as removal or elimination of pollutant sources, eliminating exposure of materials to precipitation, and eliminating non- storm water discharges to the storm sewer system. Other measures, such as maintaining vegetation to prevent erosion, silt fences, and screens or other devices to collect floatables can be evaluated without sampling discharges. The approach taken in today's permits represents an approach which uses both comprehensive site compliance evaluations and monitoring requirements 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 and evaluating the effectiveness of pollution prevention measures. Additional monitoring requirements have been limited to facilities which EPA believes, based on a general evaluation of industry practices, may have sources of significant amounts of pollution that warrant further evaluation. Today's permits provide an exemption from monitoring requirements for outfalls at targeted facilities that do not have any materials, material handling equipment, industrial machinery or industrial operations exposed to storm water located within the drainage area of the outfall. In such cases, a discharger must provide an annual certification that material handling equipment or activities, raw materials, intermediate products, final products, waste materials, by-products, industrial machinery or operations, or, in the case of airports, deicing activities, within the drainage area of the outfall will not be exposed to storm water. Where the certification is provided, the permittee will not be required to monitor storm water discharges from the outfall. (However, the permittee must still comply with other applicable permit requirements which do not address sampling pollutants in discharges). This approach is consistent with the general monitoring scheme of today's permits which focuses monitoring requirements on specific targeted sources of pollution. The Agency believes that this approach will provide an incentive for permittees to eliminate exposure of potential pollutant sources to storm water. Eliminating exposure of these materials to storm water is one of the most effective pollution prevention measures available for these sources and is consistent with the objectives of the permit and the CWA. The Agency also believes that this approach will lower burdens on facilities that have taken steps to eliminate exposure of materials and equipment to storm water discharges. In developing the monitoring strategy in today's permits, EPA recognizes that it has other sources of information available to assist in achieving the broader national objectives supported by monitoring data, such as developing additional targetted controls for storm water discharges from priority industries. Examples of other sources of monitoring data include, group applications {38}, individual applications, information in State Storm Water Permitting Plans{39}, and storm water monitoring data required under other EPA or authorized NPDES State permits that are entered into the permit compliance system (PCS) data base. In addition, EPA is authorized under section 308 of the CWA to require dischargers to, on a case-by-case basis, submit sampling monitoring data necessary to carry out the objectives of the CWA. This authority can be used to obtain storm water monitoring data that is not otherwise required under the permit. For example, EPA could request facilities from targetted industries that have certified that they do not have materials or equipment exposed to storm water to report storm water monitoring data in order to characterize other potential pollutant sources or to identify background levels of pollutants from facilities that have been able to eliminate exposure of these activities to storm water. |{38} EPA has received over 1,200 Part 1 group applications |from a wide variety of industrial groups. Part 2 of the |group applications, which contains representative monitoring |data from the industrial group, are due on October 1, |1992. |{39} 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)). 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 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 that are required to conduct annual monitoring are required only to report data if the data is requested by the permitting authority. EPA believes that higher monitoring frequency for facilities that are required to report data will assist EPA in efforts to establish program priorities and will support future permitting efforts, 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. III. Certification of Testing For Non-storm Water Discharges The draft permit prohibited the discharge of all non-storm water and required certification under the pollution prevention plan that all storm water outfalls had been tested for the presence of illicit connections. If unable to provide certification within the 180 day pollution prevention plan development period, the permittee was required to notify the Director. One commenter felt the certification date should be changed to correspond to the deadline for pollution prevention plan compliance. The Agency concurs with this comment and has modified the "Failure to Certify" reporting requirement. Any 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, III, and IV storm water permits. |{40} See "Hazardous Waste Tank Risk Analysis," EPA, 1986. 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 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 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. Land Disposal Units/Incinerators/BIFs Land disposal units and incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that burn hazardous waste may receive a diverse range of industrial wastes. Waste receiving, handling, storage and processing, in addition to actual waste disposal can be a significant source of pollutants at waste disposal facilities. The surface water impacts associated with land disposal units are well characterized. EPA has summarized case studies documenting surface water impacts and ground water contamination of land disposal units (see August 30, 1988). Evaluation of 163 case studies revealed surface water impacts at 73 facilities. Elevated levels of organics, including pesticides, and metals have been found in ground water and/or surface water at many sites. The August 16, 1991 draft permits proposed special sampling requirements for land disposal units. Today's permits contains modified monitoring requirements for land disposal units and incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that burn hazardous waste and are at facilities with storm water associated with industrial activity. BIFs are those boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste for fuel that are 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. A number of commenters objected to the number of parameters associated with the monitoring requirements proposed for land disposal units. In response, monitoring parameters for this class were selected due to the wide range of potential pollutants at land disposal facilities. The parameters listed in the August 16, 1991 draft permits are similar to the parameters addressed by proposed ground water monitoring requirements for municipal solid waste landfills established under subtitle D of RCRA (see August 30, 1988 (53 FR 33372)). In developing the list of parameters 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 258.60 and include an erosion layer underlain by an infiltration layer as follows: · The infiltration layer must be comprised of a minimum of 18 inches of earthen material that has a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner system or natural subsoils present, or a permeability no greater than 1 * 10^**-5 cm/sec, whichever is less, and · The erosion layer must consist of a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth. States may approve alternative final cover designs that include an infiltration layer that achieves an equivalent reduction in infiltration, and an erosion layer that provides equivalent protection from wind and water erosion. The Agency believes that inactive facilities meeting these requirements will generally not be a significant source of 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 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 for 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.{41} This approach is consistent with the EPA policy of allowing for shorter toxicity testing time intervals when conducting toxicity screening tests.{42} |{41} Today's permits for discharges in CO, WY, MT, ND, |and UT require 48 hour testing for invertebrate species, |and 96 hour testing for fish species. These procedures |are consistent with the procedures generally used in |NPDES permits for WET testing other discharges within |these States. Use of the same procedures will assist |EPA in evaluating this data. |{42} "Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents |and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms", |EPA, 1991, (EPA-600/4-90/027). 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- 600/4-90/027). However, the permits for Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah specify specific species to be tested. EPA believes that specifying the species in standardized test methods will allow direct comparison to similar discharges at different facilities, and is consistent with WET procedures generally used in other NPDES permits issued for discharges in these States. In addition, the use of sensitive standardized test species helps avoid problems that arise when indigenous organisms may be diseased or impaired. Many laboratories across the country maintain healthy cultures of standardized toxicity test organisms. A similar problem may arise in using indigenous organisms when the organisms may have built up a tolerance to certain toxicants that they are exposed to. Again, the Agency wants to emphasize that the primary purposes of requiring WET monitoring is to 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 will be allowed for all discharges. Some commenters indicated that monitoring the acute WET parameter would not necessarily indicate the source of pollutants causing the toxicity. In response, the Agency agrees that monitoring for the WET parameter, by itself, will not necessarily indicate sources of pollutants or the chemical constituents affecting the WET parameter. Rather, the WET parameter serves as a screen that gives a general indication of the toxicity of the discharge. One of the biggest 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 III 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 will involve the reasonable best effort of the permittee to identify that significant quantities of materials or chemicals are present at the facility. The Agency's intention is to focus monitoring on constituents (pollutants) that are 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 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 permittee must review the storm water pollution prevention plan and make appropriate modifications to assist in identifying the source(s) of toxicity and to reduce the toxicity of their storm water discharges. The Agency believes it is appropriate that the permit require the permittee to review the pollution prevention plan and study ways to reduce demonstrated toxicity. The Agency believes that the approach taken in today's permits provide considerably more flexibility than requirements to conduct formal TREs. The Agency believes that this approach addresses the need to reduce demonstrated toxicity while providing flexibility for facilities to evaluate their storm water discharges for toxicity and to take appropriate steps to reduce toxicity prior to October 1, 1995. This provides dischargers with an opportunity to implement site-specific and innovative measures to reduce toxicity. In addition, this approach recognizes the difficulties in ascertaining whether a specific measure or approach will successfully reduce toxicity at a given facility. The Agency believes that this approach will provide additional opportunities to evaluate pollution prevention measures suitable for reducing toxicity and for evaluating the role of treatment technologies in such toxicity reduction strategies. While 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 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 376 airports (7.4%) have 50,000 or more flight operations per year. Coal-fired Steam Electric Facilities Coal-fired steam electric facilities use large amounts of coal. Coal handling activities at these facilities can be a significant source of pollutants in storm water discharges. Runoff from coal handling areas can have pollutant characteristics that are similar to coal pile runoff, and can have high levels of total suspended solids, sulfate, iron, aluminum, mercury, copper, arsenic, selenium and manganese, as well as an acidic pH.{43} The Agency believes that it 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. |{43} See "Final Development Document for Effluent Limitations |Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment Standards for |the Steam Electric Point Source category", 1982, (EPA- |440/1-82/-29). Animal Handling/Meat Packing The nature of potential pollutant sources to runoff from animal handling, manure management areas, and production waste management areas at meat packing plants, poultry packing plants, and facilities that manufacture animal and marine fats with animal waste and/or production wastes is similar to runoff from confined animal feeding operations (feedlots). Animal waste products can be a significant source of pollutants to storm water runoff which can contribute high levels of oxygen demanding pollutants, nutrients and fecal bacteria.{44} Monitoring data can be used to detect if these materials are entering the storm water. The monitoring requirements for animal handling facilities in today's permit are more tailored than the August 16, 1991 draft permits. Tailoring these requirements is expected to reduce the costs of these requirements relative to the August 16, 1991 draft permits. |{44} See "Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures |for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters", |May 1991, EPA and "Development Document for Effluent |Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards- |Feedlots Point Source Category", EPA, 1974, EPA-440/1/74- |004-a. 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 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} |{45} Summary of site inspections by CA State Department |of Health Services, March 19, 1992. 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 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.{46} Monitoring data from these sites can be used to identify pollutant sources and allow the Agency to assess the effectiveness of the facility's material management and spill prevention/response practices. |{46} 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. 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. |{47} 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 40 CFR 411.30). Discharges |that are covered by the guideline cannot be authorized |under today's permits. 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} |{48} See "Development Document for Proposed Effluent |Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Shipbuilding |and Repair Point Source Category", EPA, December 1979, |EPA 440/1/-79/076-b and "Proposed Guidance Specifying |Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution |in Coastal Waters", May 1991, EPA. III. Sample Collection One State agency requested a requirement for more accurate flow measurement to provide more accurate flow proportioning for composite sampling and pollutant loading calculations. In response, EPA agrees there are more accurate flow measuring methods than the flow estimation methods required by the permit. Where a State requires, or a particular facility wishes, more accurate flow measurement is certainly desirable. However, the Agency also recognizes that there is a variety of methods for providing more accurate flow proportioning for composite sampling,{49} 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. |{49} See "NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document," |EPA 833-B-92-001, July 1992, EPA. 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 questioned whether the first flush must be collected during the first 30 minutes of the storm event or the first thirty minutes of discharge. The Agency would like to clarify that first flush sampling applies to the first thirty minutes of discharge, rather than rainfall. In some instances, particularly where detention or retention systems are used, there will be a delay between 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 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 permittee must develop justification on why one outfall is representative of others and keep this information onsite, available to the Director upon request. VI. Submittal and Availability of Reports and Monitoring Results The issue of whether monitoring results should be retained onsite or submitted to EPA (and how often) received comments supporting both positions. Several commenters suggested that all monitoring data be kept onsite, available to the Director upon request. Other commenters suggested all monitoring results be submitted, with frequencies ranging from twice per year to once per permit term. In the final permit, EPA has adopted a monitoring approach that targets selected industrial activity. Facilities required to monitor semi-annually are required to report results annually. Facilities required to monitor annually are not required to report information unless the information is requested by the Director. This approach maintains closer 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. MER00000IF 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, 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. NHR00000IF 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, 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 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 New Hampshire. Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. MAR00000IF In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, for Indian Tribes located in the State of Massachusetts, are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on -------. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, -------. Signed and issued this 28th day of August, 1992. Ronald Manfredonia, Acting Director. This signature is for the permit conditions in parts I through IX and for any additional conditions in part XI which apply to facilities and storm water discharges, for Indian Tribes located in the State of Massachusetts. Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. MER000000 In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, located in the State of Maine, are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on -------. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, -------. Signed and issued this 28th day of August, 1992. Ronald Manfredonia, Acting Director. This signature is for the permit 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 Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. NHR000000 In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, located in the State of New Hampshire, are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on -------. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, -------. Signed and issued this 28th day of August, 1992. Ronald Manfredonia, Acting Director. This signature is for the permit conditions in parts I through IX and for any additional conditions in part XI which apply to facilities located in the State of New Hampshire. General Permit No. FLR000000 Region IV Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, located in the State of Florida are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by this permit must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on -------. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, -------. Dated: August 28, 1992. Robert F. McGhee, Acting Director, Water Management Division. This signature is for the permit conditions in parts I through X and for any additional conditions in part XI which apply to facilities located in the State of Florida. General Permit No. NCR00000F Region IV Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, located on Indian land in North Carolina belonging to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in the State of North Carolina are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. 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. General Permit No. FLR00000F Region IV Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as provided in part 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, 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. General Permit No. MSR00000F Region IV Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, located on Indian land in Mississippi belonging to the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by this permit must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on -------. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, -------. Dated: August 28, 1992. Robert F. McGhee, Acting Director, Water Management Division. This signature is for the permit conditions in parts I through X and for any additional conditions in part XI which apply to facilities located within the general permit area. General Permit No. FLR00001F Region IV Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act") except as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, located on Indian land in Florida belonging to the Miccosukee Indian Tribe of Florida are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by this permit must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on -------. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, -------. Dated: August 28, 1992. 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 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. NMR000000 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 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 R000000 Cover Page Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, located in the State of Oklahoma, are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on September 9, 1992. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, September 9, 1997. Signed and issued this 27th day of August, 1992. Myron 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. T X R000000 Cover Page Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, located in the State of Texas, are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on September 9, 1992. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, September 9, 1997. Signed and issued this 27th day of August, 1992. Myron 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. COR00000F Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity in applicable federal facilities located in the State of Colorado, and in the following Indian Reservations: Southern Ute Reservation; and, Ute Mountain Reservation-Includes the entire Reservation, which is located in Colorado and New Mexico. Are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part 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. MTR00000F Authorization To Discharger Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, in all Indian Reservations in Montana including the following Reservations: Blackfeet Reservation; Crow Reservation; Flathead Reservation; Fort 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. 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. NDR00000F 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 the Indian Reservations located in the State of North Dakota including the following (with the exception of the portion of the Lake Traverse Reservation, also known as the Sisseton Reservation, located in North Dakota) Fort Totten Reservation-Also known as Devils Lake Reservation; Fort Berthold Reservation; Standing Rock Reservation-Includes the entire Reservation, which is located in both North Dakota and South Dakota; and, Turtle Mountain Reservation. Are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on September 9, 1992. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, September 9, 1997. Signed and issued this 28th day of August, 1992. 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 North Dakota and the portion of the Standing Rock Reservation located in the State of South Dakota. Permit No. SDR000000 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, located in the entire State of South Dakota including the Indian reservations noted below (with the exception of the portion of the Standing Rock Reservation located in South Dakota), and the portion of the Lake Traverse Reservation located in North Dakota Cheyenne River Reservation; Crow Creek Reservation; Flandreau Reservation; Lake Traverse Reservation-Also known as the Sisseton Reservation. Includes the entire Reservation, which is located in North Dakota and South Dakota; Lower Brule Reservation; Pine Ridge Reservation-Includes only the portion of the Reservation located in South Dakota; Rosebud Reservation; and, Yankton Reservation. are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on September 9, 1992. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, September 9, 1997. Signed and issued this 28th day of August, 1992. Kerrigan Clough, Acting Regional Administrator. This signature is for the permit conditions in parts I through IX and for any additional conditions in part XI which apply to facilities located in the State of South Dakota and the portion of the Lake Traverse Reservation located in the State of North Dakota. Permit No. UTR00000F 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, 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. WYR00000F 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, located in the Wind River Indian Reservation in the State of Wyoming, are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by these permits must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in 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 Wyoming. Storm Water General Permit for Industrial Activity (Excluding Construction Activities) Permit No. CAR0000IF Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except as provided in part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity (excluding construction activity), located on Indian Lands in the State of California are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm 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. AZR000000 Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (U.S.C. . . 1251 et. seq.; the Act), except as provided in part 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 Midway Island or Wake Island. Storm Water General Permit for Industrial Activity (Excluding Construction Activities) Permit No. AZR0000IF Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (U.S.C. . . 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity (excluding construction activity), located on Indian Lands in the State of Arizona, Including Navajo Territory in the States of New Mexico and Utah are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by this permit must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on September 9, 1992. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, September 9, 1997. Signed and issued this 28th day of 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 the Indian lands specified above. Storm Water General Permit for Industrial Activity (Excluding Construction Activities) Permit No. NVR0000IF Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (U.S.C. . . 1251 et seq.; the Act), except as provided in Part I.B.3 of this permit, operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity (excluding construction activity), located on Indian Lands in the State of Nevada, Including Goshute Territory the State of Utah are authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth herein. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity within the general permit area who intend to be authorized by this permit must submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit. Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity who fail to submit a Notice of Intent in accordance with Part II of this permit are not authorized under this general permit. This permit shall become effective on September 9, 1992. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, September 9, 1997. Signed and issued this 28th day of August, 1992. Daniel W. McGovern, 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 the Indian lands specified above. General Permit No.: AK-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. §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-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 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. 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-00-001F 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 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 located on Indian lands in the State of Washington. General Permit No.: WA-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 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.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 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. §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 I. Coverage Under This Permit A. Permit Area. B. Eligibility. C. Authorization. Part II. Notice of Intent Requirements A. Deadlines for Notification. B. Contents of Notice of Intent. C. Where to Submit. D. Additional Notification. E. Renotification. Part III. Special Conditions A. Prohibition on non-storm water discharges. B. Releases in excess of Reportable Quantities. Part IV. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and Compliance. B. Signature and Plan Review. C. Keeping Plans Current. D. Contents of 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. J. 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". 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 are exposed to storm water.{1} |{1} On June 4, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals |for the Ninth Circuit remanded the exclusion for manufacturing |facilities in category (xi) 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). 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. Part I. Coverage Under This Permit A. Permit Area The permit covers all areas of: Region I-for the States of Maine and New Hampshire; for Indian lands located in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. Region IV-for the State of Florida; and for Indian lands located in Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Region VI-for the States of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; and for Indian lands located in Louisiana, New Mexico (except Navajo lands and Ute Mountain Reservation lands), Oklahoma, and Texas. Region VIII-for the State of South Dakota; for Indian lands located in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah (except Goshute Reservation and Navajo Reservation lands), and Wyoming; for Federal facilities in Colorado; and for the Ute Mountain Reservation in Colorado, and New Mexico. Region IX-for the State of Arizona; for the Territories of Johnston Atoll, and Midway and Wake Island; and for Indian lands located in California, and Nevada; and for the Goshute Reservation in Utah and Nevada, the Navajo Reservation in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley Reservation 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}; |{2} 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. 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. 4. Storm water discharges associated with industrial activity which are authorized by this permit may be combined with other sources of storm water which are not classified as associated with industrial activity pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14), so long as the discharger is in compliance with this permit. c. Authorization 1. Dischargers of storm water associated with industrial activity must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) in accordance with the requirements of Part II of this permit, using a NOI form provided by the Director (or photocopy thereof), to be authorized to discharge under this general permit{3}. |{3} A copy of the approved NOI form is provided in Appendix |C of this notice. 2. Unless notified by the Director to the contrary, owners or operators who submit such notification are authorized to discharge storm water associated with industrial activity under the terms and conditions of this permit 2 days after the date that the NOI 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 for Notification 1. Except as provided in paragraphs II.A.4 (rejected or denied municipal group applicants), II.A.5 (new operator) and II.A.6 (late NOIs), individuals who intend to obtain coverage for an existing storm water discharge associated with industrial activity under this general permit shall submit a Notice of Intent (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), II.A.5 (new operator), and II.A.6 (late NOI) operators of facilities which begin industrial activity after October 1, 1992 shall submit a NOI in accordance with the requirements of this part at least 2 days prior to the commencement of the industrial activity at the facility; 3. Operators of oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities, that are not required to submit a permit application as of October 1, 1992 in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii), but that after October 1, 1992 have a discharge of a reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous substance for which notification is required pursuant to either 40 CFR 110.6, 40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6, must submit a NOI in accordance with the requirements of Part II.C of this permit within 14 calendar days of the first knowledge of such release. 4. Storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from a facility that is owned or operated by a municipality that has participated in a timely Part 1 group application and where either the group application is rejected or the facility is denied participation in the group application by EPA, and that are seeking coverage under this general permit shall submit a 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 NOI in accordance with the requirements of this part at least 2 days prior to the change. 6. An operator of a storm water discharge associated with industrial activity is not precluded from submitting an NOI in accordance with the requirements of this part after the dates provided in Parts II.A.1, 2, 3, or 4 (above) of this permit. In such instances, EPA may bring appropriate enforcement actions. B. Contents of Notice of Intent. The Notice of Intent shall be signed in accordance with Part VII.G (signatory requirements) of this permit and shall include the following information: 1. The street address of the facility for which the notification is submitted. Where a street address for the site is not available, the location of the approximate center of the facility must be described in terms of the latitude and longitude to the nearest 15 seconds, or the section, township and range to the nearest quarter section; 2. Up to four 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that best represent the principal products or for hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities, land disposal facilities that receive or have received any industrial waste, steam electric power generating facilities, or treatment works treating domestic sewage, a narrative identification of those activities; 3. The operator's name, address, telephone number, and status as Federal, State, private, public or other entity; 4. The permit number(s) of additional NPDES permit(s) for any discharge(s) (including non-storm water discharges) from the site that are currently authorized by an NPDES permit; 5. The name of the receiving water(s), or if the discharge is through a municipal separate storm sewer, the name of the municipal operator of the storm sewer and the ultimate receiving water(s) for the discharge through the municipal separate storm sewer; 6. An indication of whether the owner or operator has existing quantitative data describing the concentration of pollutants in storm water discharges (existing data should not be included as part of the NOI); 7. Where a facility has participated in Part 1 of an approved storm water group application, the number EPA assigned to the group application shall be supplied; and 8. For any facility that begins to discharge storm water associated with industrial activity after October 1, 1992, a certification that a storm water pollution prevention plan has been prepared for the facility in accordance 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. NOIs must be signed in accordance with Part VII.G (signatory requirements) of this permit. NOIs are to be submitted to the Director of the NPDES program in care of the following address: Storm Water Notice of Intent, P.O. Box 1215, Newington, VA 22122. D. Additional Notification. Facilities which discharge storm water associated with industrial activity through large or medium municipal separate storm sewer systems (systems located in an incorporated city with a population of 100,000 or more, or in a county identified as having a large or medium system (see definition in Part X of this permit and Appendix E of this notice)) shall, in addition to filing copies of the Notice of Intent in accordance with paragraph 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 II.A (deadlines for notification) of this permit. E. Renotification. Upon issuance of a new general permit, the permittee is required to notify the Director of their intent to be covered by the new general permit. Part III. Special Conditions A. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water Discharges 1. Except as provided in paragraph III.A.2 (below), all discharges covered by this permit shall be composed entirely of storm water. 2. a. Except as provided in paragraph III.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; pavement washwaters where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred (unless all spilled material has been removed) and where detergents are not used; air conditioning condensate; springs; uncontaminated ground water; and foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such as solvents. B. Releases in Excess of Reportable Quantities 1. The discharge of hazardous substances or oil in the storm water discharge(s) from a facility shall be prevented or minimized in accordance with the applicable storm water pollution prevention plan for the facility. This permit does not relieve the permittee of the reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 117 and 40 CFR part 302. Except as provided in paragraph 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) (800-424-8802; in the Washington, DC metropolitan area 202-426-2675) in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 as soon as he or she has knowledge of the discharge; b. The storm water pollution prevention plan required under Part IV (storm water pollution prevention plans) of this permit must be modified within 14 calendar days of knowledge of the release to: provide a description of the release, the circumstances leading to the release, and the date of the release. In addition, the plan must be reviewed by the permittee to identify measures to prevent the reoccurence of such releases and to respond to such releases, and the plan must be modified where appropriate; and c. The permittee shall submit within 14 calendar days of knowledge of the release a written description of: the release (including the type and estimate of the amount of material released), the date that such release occurred, the circumstances leading to the release, and steps to be taken in accordance with paragraph III.B.1.b (above) of this permit to the appropriate EPA Regional Office at the address provided in Part VI.D.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 III.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)(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 302.6, shall be prepared and except as provided elsewhere in this permit, shall provide for compliance with the terms of the plan and this permit on or before the date 60 calendar days after the first knowledge of such release (and updated as appropriate); 4. The plan for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from a facility that is owned or operated by a municipality that has participated in a timely group application where either the group application is rejected or the facility is denied participation in the group application by EPA, a. shall be prepared on or before the 365th day following the date on which the group is rejected or the denial is made, (and updated as appropriate); b. except as provided elsewhere in this permit, shall provide for compliance with the terms of the plan and this permit on or before the 545th day following the date on which the group is rejected or the denial is made; and 5. Portions of the plan addressing additional requirements for storm water discharges from facilities subject to Parts IV.D.7 (EPCRA Section 313 and 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 an